User talk:Lar/Archive 69

Help with harassing editor
Per suggestion here I am contacting you as an Admin about this problem. Going on vacation in two days and probably will be largely offline for 7-10 days, so don’t want to initiate a WP:ANI or WP:ARBPIA on this.

User:RTLamp - a single purpose account who works on Gilad Atzmon article - has been harassing me about personal info he found online, first by quoting something stupid I wrote without attribution here and a series of edits here. Then, despite requests from another admin to stop it here, he made a direct accusation here. I finally felt forced to defend myself at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon and was advised by the Admin (who edits the article and recused self) and another editor to make a complaint to another Admin about it. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Lar. RTLamp has made a number of personal attacks against Carol, insinuating that she's antisemitic because of her edits concerning Gilad Atzmon, a very polarizing figure. I've warned him against personal attacks, but he doesn't seem to get the point (see, for example, User talk:RTLamp). Most recently, he's been taunting her about something she wrote (evidently off-Wiki) about the media being mostly controlled by Jews. In my opinion, he's been given adequate warning about personal attacks (and he's redacted a few of them at Talk:Gilad Atzmon) that I would have blocked him had I not been involved at that page. I hope this helps. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there new incidents post this request to me? I'm not seeing a lot of activity on the account. Perhaps for now things can be left? If further issues arise, please advise. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is ongoing with this editor making excuses for it when in fact it is clear he has mocked and harassed me, not politely pointed out on my talk page something he happened upon, as might have been appropriate. See this diff. And Malik Shabazz is threatening to sanction me (and him) for responding, so I won't further. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem, Carol, is that every time you feel a need to defend your honor, RTLamp feels a need to respond to you. The two of you need to drop it already. That doesn't excuse his personal attacks. It just means that further messages will only inflame the situation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is very difficult to resit being baited, but that's what you need to do, Carol. Make your own behavior above reproach, don't respond to provocation, and wherever possible, go on about your business. Then, if the harassment continues, it will be dealt with. But if Malik suggests you need to back away, you probably do. His counsel is often quite wise. ++Lar: t/c 00:01, 29 July 2010


 * Civility clearly lists baiting as a problem. It's really a pattern of two Single Purpose Accounts (User:Drsmoo and User:RTLamp) continuing to attack and insult the subject of the BLP as an antisemite (even though he's a Jew) in a way to load guilt by association upon and thereby discourage neutral editors from getting involved. (After it was made clear to them they could be blocked for directly accusing an editor of it.) The latest attack seems to have chased away three of them. This tactic also has been used to discourage people from commenting on noticeboards on specific issues.


 * I can't even remember all the ways I've tried to deal with this problem over last couple years, including wikietiquette and admin assistance. Even Atzmon's own OTRS Complaint that led to an Admin cleaning up the article was edit warred by these people. Now RTLamp dredges up a scary situation where I was harassed like this in increasing ferocity for two years on various libertarian and peace lists by a rapid Israel supporter who has boasted about all the guns he owns and written repeatedly about how he'd like me dead. Finally I made a stupid public comment in reply to him which he distributed around the internet. With RTLamp's newest attacks about this stupid email - and the fact he still has quotes from that email on his user page and a series of edits on his talk page - I have to wonder where it escalates to next. But looking at WP:Civility I can see I never have tried Request for Comment on user conduct. Maybe that's best thing to do, short of a WP:ANI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, I don't want to waste any more time on these people trying to get the system to work, so since I just have a couple more noncontroversial entries, and then it's just a matter of reverting obvious policy violations, maybe I'll just stay away from the talk page altogether, except for short necessary messages. There is no possibility for real consensus with these kind of editors and I can't believe I've tried as long as I have.  CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I warned him. If the problematic behavior continues, further steps will be taken. It would be helpful if you were on your best behavior meanwhile (well, it's always helpful but especially so in this case). ++Lar: t/c 23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Today's message from RTLamp shows he doesn't know how to—or just won't—make comments about the article without unnecessarily needling Carol. I left him a final warning about personal attacks. Any thoughts? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will take a look shortly. If it wasn't for your own involvement would you have issued a block already? ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Given today's message and the repeated warnings he's been given, I absolutely would have blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've commented further there. If there is a next time, please let me (or another uninvolved admin) know before you issue another warning, because warning time is over. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears the user retired? Watch for socks but maybe sorted? ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I give up.
They can do whatever they want with CC/GW, it's not worth the effort. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   00:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You may know karate, but they know Kureishi. Welcome to the club dude. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopefully things will change with ArbCom decision. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't hold your breath. ATren (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What? For things to change or for an ArbCom decision? ;) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it is worth the effort... but what exactly is it that you wanted? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not when they start vandalizing the other articles I write, and making bogus AIV/SPI reports. Wikipedia is supposed to be the place where everyone can edit, with civility and common decency. I haven't seen too much of that from the activists.  I also haven't seen them held to account for misusing and violating the rules.  So I'll go edit in the rest of Wiki, where RS are just that and not evaluated on whether they support the activist's position or not, and where I don't have to deal with the snide edit summaries like the one you left. Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Greg there are in fact worse places than CC articles :) i stumbled across one recently, it`s great fun mark nutley (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What's worse? This I gotta see.  Minor4th  00:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that with an ArbCom decision right around the corner, it's too early to give up now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you referring to by "bogus AIV/SPI reports"? Do you mean this report and this report concerning a Scibaby sockpuppet? How is that "bogus" and how does it affect you in any way whatsoever? The only way it could affect you is if you were the sockpuppeteer. Is that what you're saying? -- ChrisO (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, that kind of maligning can fly on YOUR talk page (where I note you recently deleted a thread instead of answering a legitimate question about what you were driving at) but it won't fly here. You know better than to accuse Greg of being Scibaby. Theoretically. The report filed against Greg and Minor looks like it was rather out of order. Don't backpedal now. Filing bogus reports is a tactic of your faction, after all. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What report "filed against Greg and Minor4th"? I've not filed anything against either of them. Seriously, if you think I've filed reports against either of them, please point out where. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I see the twists now. Let's work through them all:
 * Two posts up you are backhandedly saying either the report you filed recently alleging Scibaby socking either wasn't bogus, or that Greg is Scibaby. That's a false dichotomy. That's what I referred to when I said "that kind of maligning", it's abuse of language and logic to use rhetoric like that. I stand by "you know better than to accuse Greg of being Scibaby". You do know better, or should. In fact, the report wasn't very well founded, in my considered judgment as a CU. (although I of course haven't run it since I am not running any CU queries this year).
 * Next: "The report filed against Greg and Minor looks like it was rather out of order". It was. You didn't file it but it IS symptomatic of factional behavior to file reports as a means of exerting control or intimidation. That report fits.
 * So while you didn't file against Greg, I don't see where you're saying you have any problem with it either. Your request for clarification asks a question about a statement not made by me. That too is a typical factional behavior, to twist things around till you can ask a question that's not easily answerable, one designed to make the recipent look bad, but which isn't actually a valid question. For shame. ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, those are not the ones. But the only problems I have ever had on Wiki is due to zealot activists in the CC/GW arena, that pretend to be neutral.  I was blocked for putting information in an article about Connolley, using Nature as one of the 5 or 6 sources. I was told that it was not a RS - but it was from the same article that was used in the Wikipedia article to show the accuracy of the project.  The other sources were all main-stream media.  But since it involved a CC activist, normal BLP rules don't apply.  At the same time, I was sent to an SPI where a checkuser cleared me.  A favored tactic of your buddies, I've since learned.


 * The ones I was talking about were merely for harassment purposes and were quickly ended by admins outside of the CC activists group. You play innocent, but in one article you made approx. 30 edits in a short period of time, including about 7 reversions, all to support the activist POV - but no admin will touch you.  One admin told me privately that he always checks to see if an incident involves the CC zealots, and if it does he runs away because he's not going to deal with the harassment in other areas.


 * I'm not going to do anything with the articles that your groups holds hostage, so I would appreciate you finding someone else to be incivil to, or to make your snide remaks to, like the above. Tell your buddies too. I have better things to do than deal with you and your friends.  GregJackP   Boomer!   02:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, could you give me a pointer to where you were told that Nature was not a reliable source? That seems well over the line, so I'd like to look into it. MastCell Talk 03:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (@GregJackP) Just a nudge that I'd be interested in looking into the Nature issue if you can give me an idea of where this took place. I'll follow up on your talk page. MastCell Talk 17:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to answer earler. I don't have any way to get the diffs - the article and its talkpage were deleted.  Sorry.   GregJackP   Boomer!   21:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW -- Greg, I understand why you wouldnt want to place your other articles etc in jeopardy and it was a little heavy handed of Lar to warn you for edit warring when there was really only one edit warrior against multiple others who were not edit warring Hi Lar :) BUT it's your high principles and idealistic vision that is so sorely needed in contentious areas like CC.  Plus, I know you have a thick skin and staying power.   Don't write it off completely -- not just yet.  Minor4th  01:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When I see an edit war, I tend to warn all the people actively editing at the time. Even the blameless ones. Perhaps in this case I should have only warned ChrisO, but I decided to err on the side of cautioning everyone. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew why you did it, but that can be a little disheartening to be painted with the same brush as the culprit. No worries.  <b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 04:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was just a warning. I am sorry if it gave offense, I would not want to discourage you from editing. You have a lot of potential, and you've made significant contributions already. (compare MY article space editing lately... pathetic) ++Lar: t/c 04:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'd rather get a warning before I started edit warring, than to get blocked, when I do. Trust me, I know.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider
Lar, I am afraid you are out of line here. The situation on Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley had been caused by Minor4th rather blatantly tendentious edits elsewhere ; when taken to task for these, he had reacted with a long string of wikilawyering and badmouthing his opponents, , , , , , culminating in the fabricated accusation of wikistalking. Hipocrite quite rightly criticized him for the latter. In this context, the expression, "I'm deadly serious", in response to a rhetorical "Do you guys think you're clever or funny?" is not objectionable in the least. Not impolite, not incivil, not aggressive, not "strident". Not even mildly so. If anything, the incivility was on Minor4th's side.

If in this situation you are seen to have nothing better to do than to go and "warn" Hipocrite, and follow that up with blustering about block threats and "I'll be back" rhetoric, I cannot help the feeling that these editors' perception that you are not as neutral as you think you are is not quite baseless. Think about it. You need to reconsider your approach here. Indeed, this exchange on Hipocrite's page can very well be seen as wikihounding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just curious why you would label this as blatant tendentious editing when it is neutral, well sourced, relevant to the context and was discussed among three editors in detail on the talk page.  The warning to Hipocrite was appropriate, as nothing is "deadly serious" on Wikipedia.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 08:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there were two problems, one not so serious and one quite serious. The not so serious one was that your "because" clause left the following subclause grammatically outside the scope of the attribution; as a result, the claim that "the investigations failed to adequately address..." ended up unhedged as a claim of fact in Wikipedia's own voice. But that's just an inadvertent good-faith mistake through poor choice of wording. The more serious thing was your choice of material: you knew perfectly well that the reviews had found both positive and negative responses (both sourceable to the same level of reliable sources), as these positive and negative responses had been discussed and quoted at great length on the other article, on which you had participated. You deliberately chose to present only the negative ones. There is simply no way I can reconcile this with the concept of a wikipedian striving for neutral coverage in good faith. This was not just failure to attain NPOV (which is not problematic, it happens all the time); it was implicit refusal to strive for NPOV. As such, that edit alone was in fact block-worthy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "that edit alone was in fact block-worthy" ... Oh my. So can we expect a string of block recommendations from you over all the other edits that "refuse to strive for NPOV"? I've got a list of names you can look at, although it's far from complete. As for the rest, thanks for your view, Futperf, I'll take it under advisement. However, Hipocrite needed a warning. That he reacted with bluster is symptomatic of the issues with his behavior. As I have said. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you know of any recent edits by any of those opponents of yours that are of comparable abysmal quality as the one I just analysed, let me know. As for Hypocrite's reaction, to me it indicates first and foremost that he felt harassed and severely provoked by you, and he had some reason to. It's not good to first provoke somebody with spurious and groundless "warnings", and then point to their angry reaction to prove that the warning was necessary ex post facto. Your conduct in this issue does seem to fan the flames more than it pacifies things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to look at a problem of incivility or good faith as noted above to Minor4th, or recent edits as you noted to Lar, why don't we look at one of the GW activists? (BTW, the term GW activist or alarmist has been widely used in media sources, in the same manner as GW skeptic has been used)  Why not look at these comments by ChrisO here: having to deal with someone whose knowledge appears to be well below high school level.; Frankly I would prefer you not to, given your previous editing in this topic area. - warned by Lar to be more civil; Minor4th has been making false claims that I've been "edit warring". (note that the page was then protected for edit warring); See salami tactics for what's going on here., salami tactics being a derogatory reference to divide and conquer; *Bollocks. He said nothing of the sort. Don't invent things, Mark. - warned by Jimbo Wales to be more civil; etc.  You may also want to look at the edit history of ChrisO - a steady stream of edits in the article in question, including a number of reversions (well over 3RR), but you don't even look at that.  It is only when it gores the ox of a GW activist that you step in, and that it is funny that you run to the defense of someone that was Desysoped at the same time that you had your temporary Desysoped at ArbCom.  Lar at least warns everyone (like myself and Minor4th, both of whom made one reversion, compared to ChrisO's multitude of reversions). Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   14:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What I was discussing with Lar was, in fact, of a completely different kind: article edits that are glaringly indefensible in terms of overt tendentiousness. Don't change the topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with any of that characterization, (specifically that Minor4th or Greg were in any way being "tendentious", or that this is a "competely different topic", since those edits are highly problematic, taken as a whole, and I think GregJackP raises a germane issue. If you wish to retain credible standing with me, you're going to need to address it rather than be dismissive. Would you care to try? ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. If you don't see how Minor's edit was openly tendentious, I am not sure whether I care very much what standing I have with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Future Perfect at Sunrise: It is unfortunate that it's now become obvious that your standing with me is so low, but that's what is to be expected from certain factional admins, I guess. I'll give your future input appropriate consideration. Your behavior is tending back toward the sort that got your bit pulled the last time, you know. You might want to keep that in mind. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is regrettable, since I have always respected you, but I have to come to the conclusion that your perception of both yourself and others in this topic domain is severely clouded. Regrettable, but I guess the stress involved in trying to manage such an ugly disputed area can ultimately lead to this. I'd sincerely hope you might take a break from it and I'm sure we'll soon have a good basis of understanding again, once you get some distance. Until then, fortunately, my standing as an uninvolved admin in this matter, unlike yours, is unsullied. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oddly, I think you've got that last bit exactly the wrong way around. You are tipping your hand as part of the faction with your recent actions. The only faction I belong to is the one that deplores factional behavior. I think you need to tend to your own behavior first. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand by my comments. ChrisO made 28 edits to one article in a 24 hour period, including 7 or 8 reverts, and of course, added another SPI (and his evidence consisted entirely of "the usual") - prior to a checkuser with no real evidence of sockpuppetry, other than the fact that the editor removed unsourced conclusions from the article (and asked for references).  ChrisO also inaccurately stated that the editor was a "confirmed" puppet - and there still hasn't been a CU done.  Of course, the suspected puppet is blocked, without a CU or evidence (other than "the usual").  During that same period, Minor4th and I made exactly one edit each to the article.  Hardly a tendentiousness series of edits on Minor4th's part.  It is a double standard and you should be ashamed to state otherwise.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   15:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this is the same tactic FPAS used on me before, to silence me - a block, followed by an SPI. BTW, I was cleared of being a sock or puppetmaster. GregJackP  Boomer!   15:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear to separate the specific from the general. Specifically there seems to be some confusion about the more recent SPI reports and who raised what, which it would be good to resolve so that there are not misstatements. But generally speaking, raising SPI reports is one of the tactics that we see employed by factional editors from time to time. Especially if they have a CU, or CU clerk ally, but even without one, it happens (as some participants in the case point out, SciBaby has been a bit of a useful bogeyman to some folk for quite a while (he's real, and he's problematic but the high rate of false positives suggests bogeyman). Now, raising SPI reports is also an extremely legitimate and important function of any editor of good faith who sees things that need investigation, so this charge of using SPI for political advantage needs not to be bandied about lightly. What I have said, above, is that I've seen this faction raise reports I felt were questionable. I made no specific allegation about recent reports. But I do have to wonder about FPAS's report and much of the rest of his actions relating to you and Minor4th around that time. As it turns out I've been contacted about FPAS in a completely unrelated matter and I now feel like my hands are tied on that, since he's come here and raised a (rather spurious) ruckus. ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What matter would that be? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not going to discuss it further until I have a clear understanding of how best to proceed. ++Lar: t/c 15:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to drop me a line per e-mail if you prefer. Obviously, the least I have a right to know is what this is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered via email. ++Lar: t/c 15:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, you stated that there is a "high rate of false positives". What exactly is the rate of false positives? And what do you consider a "high" rate of false positives? These are not trick questions - there have been a lot of charges and counter-charges around sockpuppet investigations, so I'd like to know what basis you're using for these statements. MastCell Talk 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think anything over 5% or so is a high rate. I think we're well over that but I don't have exact numbers. Now, theoretically, it's just a wiki, no harm done, the user wrongly tagged can work to clear their name, etc. But how many do? In this area I'd rather have a much lower rate of false positives. I find it troublesome that there seems to be this claim that "any new user showing up and espousing a skeptic view" is == "Scibaby". That has a chilling effect. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that the two users turned up IP commonalities, as they know each other in real life, and also edit the same topics, I would say that an SPI was perfectly reasonable to file for anyone who did not know of the real life connection. Or do you disagree? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment below. An SPI would not have necessarily been unreasonable -- it was the timing, in connection with two bad blocks related to William M. Connolley, that shows FPAS as trigger happy and partisan. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. As a CU, I feel the grounds for a check were clearly there, it's the circumstances around the matter I find problematic. CUs are normally just supposed to evaluate requests on the merits of what is presented to them, so I would have, not knowing anything, run it too. But now that the bigger picture is visible, I'm concerned. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Scibaby was before my time. Aside from possible sockpuppetry, what did Scibaby do that was so bad?  I took a glance at his contribs and don't see what he did that was so bad.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean besides not bowing down to the prophets of Global Warming?  GregJackP   Boomer!   21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I see what appears to be a WP:BLP violation here but if we permanently blocked every editor who made a sourcing mistake, there wouldn't be very many editors left. Scibaby was apparently blocked here by an admin who was later stripped of his adminship due to abuse of admin tools.  Of course, if Scibaby's violations were severe enough, they could have been expunged from the record.  Or perhaps they're under another account.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Lar, you said above, "The report filed against Greg and Minor looks like it was rather out of order. Don't backpedal now. Filing bogus reports is a tactic of your faction, after all." I've never filed a report against Greg and Minor4th in my life. Please clarify where and when you think I filed such a report. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it and retract or clarify as necessary, thank you for bringing it to my attention. While you're here, why did you remove without answer the question that Cla68 asked you? He was seeking clarification on something. I found it interesting and germane as well. Would you like to answer it here instead? If you are seeking clarification from others, it's only a reasonable expectation that you provide it when asked, don't you think? ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the thing about the Greg/Minor SPI report is easy to clarify: I filed it. That was right after Greg and Minor had campaigned together on Sarah's (IIRC) user RFC, and after that didn't go their way created the unspeakable Administrator abuse on Wikipedia, when I had to block them both for edit-warring over BLP violations directed against WMC. That was, incidentally, the first admin action I took in anything tangentially related to climate disputes in ages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The more I look into that the less I like what I see, it reflects rather badly on you, Fut... ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the mention of WMC was supported by sources such as The New Yorker, Canada Free Press, Nature (the article noted above used in the Wikipedia article). Additional refs that I wasn't able to get listed in time were CBS News, ABC News (Australia), and the Telegraph.  It was completely within BLP policy, in that negative information was supported by multiple, independent, verifiable and reliable sources.  I grant the the article it was in was crap and should have been deleted, but the information on WMC was not a BLP violation.   GregJackP   Boomer!   15:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, FPAS: Why was Administrator abuse on Wikipedia "unspeakable"? That seems an odd turn of phrase. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you find it an odd turn of phrase, chalk it up to me being a non-native speaker. However, wiktionary:unspeakable does seem to fit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "unspeakable," but the article was bad and should have been deleted. It was ill-advised on my part, and I have no problems with saying that the article was crap, and not to my normal standards. GregJackP   Boomer!  15:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Monkeys and the ownership thereof

 * As I said on my talk page, I'm not Cla68's monkey. I'm not yours either. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you decline to answer, then? On what basis do you decline to address a reasonable request for clarification? "I'm not X's monkey" isn't actually a reason.... Unless you're willing to accept "I'm not your monkey" in declining to clarify your reasonable requests for clarification to me, that is. You can't reasonably have higher expectations of others than they do of you. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of "not your business"? Whereas if you make false accusations against me, that is very much my business? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved admin, I find that your actions are very much my business. For the record I've not made any false accusations against you. You'll want to retract that, I think. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't you just accuse me of filing reports against GregJackP and Minor4th, which Fut. Perf. has told you he filed? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Chris, no, he didn't, not literally. This was all a sequence of double or triple (good-faith or intentional) misunderstandings on several sides. Greg complained about "bogus" SPI reports that had been filed against him (presumably meaning mine). You misunderstood as if he must be referring to something you did, so you explained that you only filed reports about Scibaby, and sarcastically asked him why he would be bothered about those. Lar, in another (rather non-AGF-y) misunderstanding, chose to parse your irony literally as if you were actually suggesting Greg might be Scibaby. Then he began to rant about bad SPIs being generally something "your faction" did. But he didn't accuse you personally of one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, that clarifies things. Thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, that's not entirely correct, though I can understand the misunderstanding with everything else that has been posted. The bogus SPI and AIV were filed by an IP who at the same time was vandalizing an article I had written and which was going through a GAR. Other admins CSD'd both reports, as they were blatent and obvious vandalism. It did not mean the one filed by FPAS, although it is the only one now left visible. Presumably that is what caused Lar to look at that one, and as I have commented here, it appears that the SPI that FPAS filed was in relation to the block of well-sourced material that he didn't like in regards to WMC. That also appears to be the same standard that is being used in the current issue, where you made 28 edits and 7-8 reverts in a 24 hour period, Minor4th made one, yet FPAS is claiming that Minor4th is the problem. Also not addressed was the incivility issues, presumably due to a factionalist approach to the matter. FPAS has still not commented on either of those issues, nor on the apparent double standard. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   18:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it appears to me that Law was commenting on your not answering this:

"While you're here, why did you remove without answer the question that Cla68 asked you? He was seeking clarification on something. I found it interesting and germane as well."
 * At least that is what it looks like to me.  GregJackP   Boomer!   18:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, I had quite forgotten about that IP vandal the other day. (Even though it was me who reverted him ). Didn't occur to me you meant that one. Sorry I didn't block him immediately back then, but when I came across him it looked as if he had stopped for a few minutes after being warned. Seems somebody else got him ten minutes later. I'm sorry you felt so stressed about that incident. (It seems though that this was somebody unrelated to the climate situation, right?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that it was you that had reverted him, I saw the original posts and later that they had been removed, but didn't check to see which admins did it. Thank you for that.  I'm not as sure that it is not related to CC/GW.   GregJackP   Boomer!   19:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Especially since it happened again today. It only happens when I comment on something that touches CC/GW, so it seems like too much of a coincidence.   GregJackP   Boomer!   19:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you toss a few diffs in here for reference? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ,, , and . GregJackP   Boomer!   03:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Investigation request

 * Lar I wish you would look into FPAS' SPI and blocks of both me and Greg over Connolley related material.  Incidentally, I wouldnt even be aware of the global warming topic if it wasnt for these actions by FP.   Her statement that i was BLP edit warring is flat out wrong.    She removed sourced informatiom about Connolley from an article -- I improved the references and took out information that was in dispute and toned town the language, and I was blocked by FPAS for "persistent BLP violations".  Turns out the problem was the fact that anything negative was said about Connolley at all.  Thats apparently a BLP violation in FPAS' book, even if the negative information is accurate and well sourced. Let me recap:  I made ONE edit which improved refs and toned down language and which was well sourced, and for that I was blocked by FPAS for persistent BLP violations. Greg was then blocked for defended me!  I had no idea who Connolley even was at that time.  FPAS then started the SPI while Greg and I were both blocked -- the appearance certainly was that it was a factionalist attempt to silence critics of William M. Connolley.  It was the timing of the SPI with questionable evidence that is cause for concern.  In general, I dont disagree with NW that an SPI at some point may have been reasonable because Greg and I do edit many of the same topic areas and we are friends in real life -- again, it was the bad blocks by FPAS and immediate SPI, all what appears to be a zealous attempt to protect WMC, that calls this admin's partisan actions into question. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned with that whole sequence of events. But I'm not clear what good my looking into it will do. I've found Fut surprisingly resistant to input. ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's simple. The article, written jointly by Greg and Minor, contained the absurdly false claim that WMC had committed mass abuse of his administrator status by deleting "over 500 articles" and blocking "over 2,000 individuals who [...] took positions that he disagreed with". Do you deny that was a BLP violation? (Before anybody objects: yes, there was an attribution of "according to..." in there, but it was not worded in a way that put into doubt the factuality of the claim.) So, this BLP problem was brought up on the article talk page and on ANI, I think first by Dougweller. I then removed the claim from the article, clearly marking my removal as an act of BLP enforcement. I also warned Minor on his talk page, again clearly pointing him to the BLP policy. He chose to ignore my warning and reistated it, so I blocked him. Then Greg reinstated it again, so I blocked him too. Both blocks were reviewed both individually and on ANI, and upheld. Actually, Minor's block was extended to indef by another administrator, because he had threatened he would continue re-inserting the claim. While dealing with these blocks, I noticed the striking pattern of two accounts that apparently weren't doing anything but supporting each other across a wide range of different articles, so I filed the SPI. I later unblocked both users on assurances they wouldn't reinsert the BLP violation. I stand by every step of this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You conveniently omit some facts. When the info was pulled, the talk page discussion focused on one factor, that Solomon was not a reliable source.  That reference was removed from the material, as were the numbers he cited.  When the material was reinserted, it had only reliable third party sources such as the New Yorker, Nature, etc, and was clearly within BLP policy at that point.  However it dealt with WMC, so you had to shut us up.  You don't do the same for Solomon's article, nor any of the other skeptics. You state above that Minor4th was incivil, but take no action when shown diff of the repeated and continuing incivility of ChrisO. You haven't even addressed the fact of the reverts. Minor4th had 1 and ChrisO had 7+.  It is a double standard and hypocritical, but it's OK as long as you silence the ones you don't agree with.  GregJackP   Boomer!   16:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This was the original text:


 * "'The highest disciplinary body in Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) has no power to enforce its decisions, but depends on administrators to enforce them. An example is seen in the case of William Connolley, an admin on Wikipedia and a global warming proponent. Connolley used his administrator privileges to create or rewrite over 5,200 articles, removed over 500 articles, and blocked over 2,000 individuals who, according to the  Financial Post, took positions that he disapproved of.[8][9] ... In this case, ArbCom imposed sanctions on Connolley, who promptly ignored them. 'Many members of the community [of administrators]disagreed that these restrictions should have been placed on Connolley; as a result, the ArbCom decision was not enforced.'<[5][6] 'The administrators who should have been blocking him if he did that or whatever, said, 'I don’t want to block him.'[5][6] Faced with no way to enforce its decision, ArbCom reversed itself.'"


 * I had nothing to do with that material being in the article. My contributions to the article were minimal, but I was one of the original creators.  Anyway,  FPAS removed the bit about Connolley.   I reworded it in a manner that was closer to the source and did not cite use of his admin tools in reference to the statistics it cited.   The numbers were accurate at the time the article was published, and bit about actions being taken against Connolley's opponents was attributed solely to Solomon.   Additional sources were added as well, but FPAS immediately reverted it (seemingly without reading it or checking the sources) and blocked me for 48 hours for "persistent BLP violations."   My block was indef'd by another admin because I was trash talking, and I understand that but FPAS' block was a bad block in the first place and was over a content dispute that she was engaged in directly.  Get it?   One edit that improved sourcing and removed ambiguity about use of admin tools and attribution and I was blocked for persistent BLP violations.  This was all within minutes of the article going live and hitting AfD if I remember correctly (which I may not, I admit).  So to answer your question, FPAS, yes I do deny that my edit was a BLP violation and I especially deny that it was "persistent" BLP violation. The "warning" that was given was not really a warning as such and it was posted on my talk page at the same time I was making the edit -- and as I told FPAS, I had not even seen it until I made the edit and returned to my talk page to find that I was blocked. Now are you going to block me for disagreeing with you? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only excuse in the above that has any merit is that Minor4th didn't see the warning before making the edit. Okay. The warning came 6 minutes before the edit. It was possible for him not to have seen it (if he had the edit window open for a long while), but of course I had no way f knowing that. To me the edit looked more like a reaction to spite the warning. You could have just said this when you found yourself blocked ("sorry, didn't see the warning in time, I won't reinsert this again") and I would have unblocked you. As for the rest: the warning was very clear and very explicit . Minor4th's reworded version was not better than the previous one; it still had all the original BLP problems (admin-only diff): it still claimed that "more than 2,000 of Connolley's content opponents were blocked" (which in the context of this article was clearly an accusation of mass admin abuse, and that unhedged and clearly claimed as a straight fact). Greg's later version still had the same problems ("Connolley used his administrator privileges to [...] block individuals who, according to multiple sources, took positions that he disapproved of." – this was again a patent falsehood, because of the many refs that were then cited, only one, the Solomon rant, said anything at all about WMC blocking anybody.) It is thus also not true that Greg removed the Solomon source, as he claimed above. It was still there (admin-only diff). BTW, it was several hours after the article had gone live, three hours after a discussion on ANI was started, two hours after the AfD had been opened, and at least one and a half hours after Dougweller had first raised the issue of the BLP vio. Another thing, as for being involved, WP:BLP explicitly says that "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved." (BTW, on a side note, I'm male. It's strange. I wonder why it's only ever people I block that assume I'm a "she". It's happened a number of times.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to provide cherry-picked diffs to support your position, I would like to get the entire article and talk page placed in my userspace for the sole and limited purpose of rebutting FPAS, to be deleted after this discussion is over. It's not fair otherwise.  GregJackP   Boomer!   03:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is the wiki that anyone can edit. You need to check the diffs, and make sure the person you are charging with a BLP violation was actually the person who did insert it. But maybe you're keener on tough sounding warnings and blocks than you are in working with editors to help them? At that point Minor4th's short history of edits supported a much softer approach, don't you think? Except this was WMC related material we're talking about. Not just any hapless victim, like Sharon Creech or thousands like her, but WMC... ++Lar: t/c 20:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, at that point Minor4th had already racked up a substantial history of disruptive editing. But whatever. This last post of yours seals your case: you are not to be taken seriously, not as a good-faith colleague, not as a competent admin in this domain. From now on, I will just be treating you as yet another disruptive editor involved in this dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not my read of Minor4ths history. Diffs or it didn't happen. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm done talking to you unless you retract that breathtakingly ABF insinuation about me being less than consistent in enforcing BLP. Minor4th didn't introduce that BLP violation, but he argued against its removal, I told him not to reintroduce it, he did so nevertheless. I would have blocked any editor on any article in such a situation, experienced or not doesn't matter. Show me one case of a "hapless victim" where I didn't, or apologize for this insult against my integrity as an administator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not argue against the removal of the info, I sourced it better and changed the content and you told me not to reintroduce it and I didn't -- I changed it and it wasnt a violation of BLP and is sure as hell wasnt persistent. FPAS, you play favorites.  Just listen to what is being said to you and make the adjustments that you need to make.   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I'd really like to know how in the world you came up with "at that point Minor4th had already racked up a substantial history of disruptive editing" because that is an all-out fabrication. I don't think I had ever even been warned prior to your block. Please justify this statement or retract it.Disruptive editing is indeed something you know a lot about, but in this case, you have it wrong. Are you sure you have not mistaken me for someone else? I was basically a brand newbie when you threw the bad block on me. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The way you pestered Sarah culminating in that RFC against her (according to the unanimous judgment of people who commented on the situation), and the absurd reaction of then creating the "admin abuse" article in retaliation, was disruption enough. That's all I could see of your editing at that time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed you still haven't answered the question about ChrisO's conduct, both in incivility and 3RR violations. Why is Minor4th and I in your sights, but blatent violations such as his are not? The only reasonable conclusion is that you are biased. Please explain why you won't address this. GregJackP   Boomer!   04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving this to my page. I have nothing more to do on Lar's. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all I did not create that article, Greg did. And as I have said elsewhere, I did not want it to go to mainspace when it did, but that was not in my control.  As he said it was ill-advised, and I thought so at the time and expressed that to him as well. I had a couple of minor edits on the thing, so you must not have been paying close attention when you made up your mind about me.  Second of all, Sarah created the drama by making accusations and numerous bad faith assumption and then refusing to answer very polite questions about her accusations.  She created the drama and she could have ended it,  and the only reason I apologized to her is because I don't like things to remain unresolved, not because I thought it was all my fault because I certainly don't. Third of all, it was a bad block irrespective of whatever else you thought of me.   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

and no one thought it would last...
It's that time of year again - 29 years and the party continues!

I'm thinking we should celebrate with a new toy that we can both ride ;) - Josette (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So many things I COULD say. How about Happy Anniversary!1 ++Lar: t/c 20:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, congratulations, you two, and all the best! Obviously, we shouldn't be quarreling on such a day then. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually tomorrow (we were married on 8-1-81 (US notation), how cute is that?) so you've got time. And I prefer "Frank and open exchange of views" to "quarrelling". I've sent you a note about that other matter. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and no worries. a little advice - never go to bed mad when you can stay up and fight. ;) - Josette (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, that's not actually good advice. But never mind. ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

1 - remember seeing them in Marquette the year we were married? They're still touring, let's get another E and go find them!

Happy wedding anniversary
Aww! Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

'Alarmist' BLPs'
Re this comment: Why do skeptic BLPs get stuffed and AGW alarmist BLPs get puffed? I'm familiar with the skeptic BLPs that are a subject of controversy, but not the others. Can you please name the "alarmist BLPs" to which you refer? Thanks, ScottyBerg (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC's for one. I gotta run, more later. ++Lar: t/c 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar, you should be aware of our BLP policy. You should be aware that the policy applies even on user talk pages. Making accusations against living people, especially false accusations like this, are a clear violation of policy. Please remove your BLP violation. Guettarda (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, proper attribution then: according to Solomon and Delingpole, WMC is one. ATren (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're really going to go there ATren? The point is that Lar's claim is not only unsourced, it's actually false. I've already raised the problem of his falsehoods to Lar - I would have expected him to be especially careful so soon thereafter. If you don't know what alarmism is, have a look at climate change alarmism, and the references therein. Most of them are available online. As for Solomon and Delingpole - they are not reliable sources. Solomon's facts are demonstrably wrong, while Delingpole repeats Solomon's article, apparently without bothering to fact-check anything. Definitely not a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh please. You wanted to add a claim sourced to a Canadian Communist monthly to the lede of a skeptic BLP, and you have the nerve to call these mainstream sources unreliable. You are incapable of recognizing your own bias. 208.105.248.170 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing WMC as alarmist

 * It is not a BLP vio, WMC is described as an alarmist in a number of sources.    There are more out there, I just don't have time to look right now.

Regards  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Solomon isn't a reliable source, since he has a poor record on reliability. Avery is just quoting Solomon, and doing so in a self-published post. Delingpole has also quoted Solomon, and did so without bothering to fact-check him, thus repeated his false claims. Lindzen's self-published article (which is laughably incorrect) does not support your claims. And Costella's article is also self-published and factually very dubious. None of these are BLP-appropriate sources. Guettarda (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, did you source information in the lede of a BLP to the Canadian Communist monthly? Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC's article is "getting puffed"? Either this colloquialism is beyond me or there is a different perception of reality at work. Care to list anything in there that is puffery? On the other hand, there is, , , , , ,... It's interesting to observe how many IP addresses know Wikipedia templates, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Um -- all of those you list are well over three years old, and almost ready to go to school <g>. I fail to see where Lar committed any BLP infractions here at all, unless you think that placing WMC in the "anti-septics" class is an infraction of some sort.   Collect (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've not talked about BLP infractions. I've objected to Lar's claim that WMC's bio is being "puffed", when I don't think there is any puff in there, while there have been plenty of attacks ("stuffings", according to Lar's terminology, if I understand it correctly). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone explain? Ich bin ein Alarmist
Um, could someone explain what Guettarda is talking about? WMC's bio (among others, I believe evidence was introduced in the case on this topic) is subject to puffery/sanitization by his factional buddies, is that really disputable? I'm an "alarmist" as is WMC. Is that really disputable? What exactly is the BLP violation being alleged? I think Guettarda gives the appearance of someone so blinded with dislike for me he's willing to make any baseless allegation handy. That may be an incorrect impression, but that's how it looks to me. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess what he meant is that "alarmist" will be understood by most as a highly negative qualifier, and as such potentially an attack – not on the wikipedians who did the puffing you allude to, but on the subjects of the articles in question. Probably just an unfortunate choice of wording and no need for drama, but you might want to avoid it in future. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm an "alarmist", by that I mean that among those who accept that AGW is a real phenomenon, there is a spectrum of "prediction" about the impact/effect... some feel it will be mild or not very important, some feel that it will be major but that we can deal with it in due course and some feel that it is very very grave, and that if we do not take serious and significant action immediately to reduce our carbon output, and take other measures such as crash programs to research ways to reverse the effects and ameliorate them we are in for a very significant upset at best if not a major global catastrophe of a magnitude not seen in recorded history. I'm in that latter camp. So what term do you suggest I use? I'm amenable to a different one, but "alarmist" is what I've heard used. The different word or phrase needs to carry the right meaning and be short enough not to be unwieldy. As for drama, have a word with Guettarda. ++Lar: t/c 13:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is quite OK to self-identify as an "alarmist" (follow that link) with added qualifying definition and I agree that with said definition it's not a BLP problem. Trouble is, many (most?) seem to use the "alarmist" tag with a negative "the sky is falling" implication. That said, the label is a negative qualifier unless modified with a qualifying comment such as you've used above. That "Chicken Little" meaning is a BLP problem. To imply that climate scientists are futily advocating some doomsday "the sky is falling" scenario IS an attack. Almost all such catchy off-used terms have more than one implied meaning and should be avoided unless qualified. Vsmith (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A valid point. What term do you suggest I use? ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * None ... just say what you think. Those one-word thingys usually mean different things to different folks. You defined what it meant for you above - use that and avoid those one or two word phrases that mean something to others you don't intend. Vsmith (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar, thanks for your response, which was something of a surprise as I didn't know that WMC had an article on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate it if you could identify the other BLPs of "alarmists," especially the ones that you feel are being puffed. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

WMC's bio (among others, I believe evidence was introduced in the case on this topic) is subject to puffery/sanitization by his factional buddies, is that really disputable? - oh, it's neutral Lar grammar. "We maintain BLP, you puff, they sanitize." I also find it somewhat questionable to first make firm statements and later back them with "I believe". I believe that's hypocrisy and biased rhetoric. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that we need to withhold judgment until Lar has provided a full list of the alarmist BLPs that have been puffed. He said he had to "run", though i see that he returned without identifying the other BLPs. I trust that we'll get a full list shortly. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Guettarda gives the appearance of someone so blinded with dislike for me he's willing to make any baseless allegation handy. That may be an incorrect impression, but that's how it looks to me. - Lar, seriously, these sorts of attacks are quite unbecoming. If anyone is "blinded with dislike", I think it's you, given your repeated attacks on me, usually without provocation, often is off-Wikipedia venues where I'm not even aware that you're attacking me. But that aside, Wikipedia policy does not allow you to make these sorts of unsourced attacks on living people. Stop seeing everything in terms of "factions" and try to follow policy. BLP doesn't only exist as a cudgel for you to attack other people - at applies, even to people you dislike.
 * I'm an "alarmist", by that I mean that among those who accept that AGW is a real phenomenon, there is a spectrum of "prediction" about the impact/effect - you are free to describe yourself however you please. But you are not free to use a term that has been mis-applied by partisans. "Alarmism" is not "belief that AGW is real..." It's like the term "baby killer", that's used to certain abortion opponents to describe everyone who does not adhere to their position. The fact that some extreme partisans use that terminology in a certain way, and some of them have used that term to describe Bart Stupak does not mean that it would be appropriate for you to use that label to describe Stupak, regardless of whether you embraced their rhetoric or not.
 * So what term do you suggest I use? - I don't know...call it the "mainstream" position like everyone else, call it the "scientific" position, whatever you choose. Just stop using inaccurate slurs. Seriously - when someone violates BLP, they don't get the right to say "well, tell me what language I should use". They are allowed to retract their offending statements, and they are allowed not to do it again. End of story. Guettarda (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Mann's bio
Well, here's one: Michael E. Mann has very little discussion on the hockey stick controversy. Smaller controversies in skeptic BLPs have long sections of criticism sourced to non-scientists like Monbiot, but the hockey stick controversy has books published, and there's barely a mention of the controversy. Why is that? ATren (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping Lar could give us his list, rather than this degenerate into a free-for-all. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a short article (only 641 words) in which the hockey stick controversy is already mentioned in the lead and has a paragraph devoted to it. Two more paragraphs of this brief article are devoted to other criticisms and controversies, namely "cliamtegate" and the Cuccinelli investigation. Do you think criticism and controversy should dominate the article? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who added that material, and who resisted its addition? Factions are operating in the area, plain and simple. One faction puffs one kind and stuffs the other, and the other faction puffs the other kind and stuffs the first kind. Tug of war. Proposed Decision can't come soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who added that material, and who resisted its addition? Let's see - if you look at the relevant section of the article's talk page, Talk:Michael_E._Mann, what do you see? User:Virnbaum adding material, and Stephan Schulz, dave souza, SPhilbrick, Jheiv, mark nutley and ChrisO arguing against the addition. Factions are operating in the area, plain and simple So what "factions" are you talking about? Seriously, you've taken the "factions" nonsense much too far - when mark nutley, Stephan Schulz and ChrisO constitute a faction... Yeah, there's a "Wikipedia" faction at play, and there's an apparent Scibaby sock "faction". You really need to stop making things up, stop pulling examples out of thin air because you think they will meet your preconceptions. Facts matter. Or they should, in an encyclopaedia. Guettarda (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it seems that "factions" is becoming as misused as "cabal" used to be. This is a good example.
 * @Lar, still awaiting the names of the alarmist BLPs that are being puffed. No, two articles, both without puffery, do not substantiate your point. How many? As many as you wish, sir. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael E. Mann certainly, as well. ATren beat me to it. But I'd note that it's a common tactic to ask for people to repeat themselves, in more and more detail, while not accepting the detail previously given. I do not intend to supply an exhaustive list of BLPs that have been messed with. These two examples are, in my view, sufficient to evidence the problematic editing pattern. Now what are you guys going to do about Guettarda? ++Lar: t/c 16:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you, for once, try to communicate effectively? I assume "you guys" is the other members of your "faction", i.e. GoRight, ATren, and Scibaby? And what do you want done about him? Why? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC) ;-) (added for the humour-impaired.)
 * Thanks for that. So then, adding a smiley is all that's needed to turn something beyond the pale into something completely innocuous? Is that a general principle applicable to everyone, or just to people in your faction? ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My children use "Moo" for "Matter of Opinion" in a similar way. Any which way I am a bit stumped on condemning "faction" as battleground language cos I don't know who started it. But it should stop. --BozMo talk 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Around our house "Moo" (or more properly "MoO" means Master of Orion). Faction seems like the right term to describe the observed phenomenon. See WP:BATTLE, but if you have another term that refers to the same thing, but you find less ... stumping?... less whatever, please advise. As for StS, he's conceded he can't answer. Double standards and all that. ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh you like MOO? I preferred MOO2. MOM was pretty good too. If you like GOG is selling the first two for 6 bucks (I highly recommend their service). I think they have MOM too, but I'm not sure. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's called a Wikilink. If you, like Lar, do not know what it means, click it. Assuming either of you can read (as in, not just spell out the words, but read for understanding), he can explain to the other one what I am saying. Just a hint: Lar's comment is completely off the mark. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I don't understand? I have a finally tuned snark interpreter. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the classic Lar dodge-and-weave. When asked a question that makes him uncomfortable he deflects the issue and reiterates his standard argument. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "You guys" is SB, StS and SBHB in this case, as should have been clear. See that long and nasty attack from Guettarda near the top of this section? What are you going to do about it? Attack me some more? Your faction is the big problem. The other faction is the small problem. But you attack the neutral, uninvolved admins instead of dealing with your problems, as ArbCom members admonished you to do (remember Risker's statement at the start of the case?? Think she wasn't talking to you? Think again) I dodge nothing. You guys, on the other hand, do, all the time. Shameful. The Proposed Decision can't come soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 17:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget the proven sockmaster Ratel, who is clearly in that group. ATren (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess what, members of both factions have dirty hands in this regard. My faction, the faction of people who just want to be good wikipedians and want everyone else to be too, is just tired of it all. The Proposed Decision can't come soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 18:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SBHB:It's the classic Lar dodge-and-weave. Lar's response:See that long and nasty attack from Guettarda near the top of this section. Yep, that's an example of "the classic Lar dodge-and-weave". This is about your BLP violations here. Your willingness to utterly disregard policy when it serves your purposes. You have yet to remove your BLP violation. And that is the problem here. No matter how much you try to use this as an opportunity to attack people you hold a grudge against - it's still about your behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Now what are you guys going to do about Guettarda - I would think, given your self-proclaimed dedication to BLP, that you think thank me Lar, for pointing out our mistake. Because, you know, BLP matters. Either you're so dug in that you'll never admit a mistake, no matter what, or you're willing to toss all regard for policy out the window in order to further your own personal agenda. Guettarda (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I dodge nothing." And this only a week or so after ably demonstrating one of your favourite dodge techniques. RoscoHead (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

how many is enough?, what is puffery?

 * @Lar: You say I do not intend to supply an exhaustive list of BLPs that have been messed with. Why not? Shouldn't the puffery in those alarmist BLPs be addressed? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Theoretically. Not by me though, I'm not involved as an editor, or as an admin, and intend to stay that way. Nor do I intend to spend the time to generate such a list. I gave examples. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You said "more later," and I don't understand why A) You're not willing to keep that promise and B) Why naming alarmist BLPs that have been puffed would be such a burden on your time. In the amount of time that you've spent saying that you don't have the time to name the BLPs, you could have generated several names. Nor do I see what your being involved or uninvolved has to do with it. You made that remark in a public forum, and in my opinion you have an obligation to substantiate a serious allegation such as that. I say that because you are a senior administrator as well as a person who has held at least two (that I know of) positions of trust at the Foundation level. I think that you are bound by a higher degree of correct behavior than ordinary editors. My feeling is that if you make gratuitous comments in the midst of an Arbcom case without being prepared to back them up, they do not reflect well upon you.ScottyBerg (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I gave examples" - well, yes, wrong ones. Either substantiate them, or amend them, or retract. As an example, show any "puffery" in WMC's bio. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Stephan, the puffery in WMC's bio is that it exists. He isn't notable without the secondary sources discussing his WP involvement, though his bio predates some of those. And a lot of them are being excluded by his friends. I agree with the exclusion of one of those articles (the Solomon article where he made the mistake about William's admin actions), but the rest are reliable sources. So we either need to include them, or decide for reasons of BLP or notability to delete the article, as we have with other Wikipedians notable only for their activities here. I hope this is something else that can be sorted out once the CC case is over. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This article has been around for seven years. If there is going to be an accusation of puffery concerning this article, it needs to be more than "it exists." ScottyBerg (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are numerous academics of actual accomplishment without biographies. WMC is only notable due to his activities on wikipedia and the blogosphere. The amusing thing is that I imagine his friends will be the ones campaigning to delete the article within a few years. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not only is that comment a BLP violation, the argument is also without any merit. There are a lot of topics not adequately covered on Wikipedia. The solution for that is, of course, to improve the other articles, not to whine about how Pokemon is covered better than Nietzsche. And I assume you know who created WMC's bio? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh please, it would be a BLP violation to the hundreds of other more accomplished academics who lack biographies or have smaller ones to put them in the same category. Honestly, there are tens of thousands of people with advanced degrees, who are still in academia, and who've published significantly more papers and work of real significance. And honestly, I could care less who started his article, or who started yours (editors of yours though include Hipocrite, 2over0, Bozmo, and KDP - a coincidence I'm sure), but you have to admit being a wikipedian dramatically increases the likelihood of a person getting an article. Hell, your "e theorem prover" has an article despite other provers with far more awards and recognition having no article at all and even the "best" prover with an article is one-third the size of yours. I'm sure it all has absolutely nothing to do with you being a wikipedian right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoosh. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When the article was first VfD'd and kept, it looked like this. I'm not really sure how accurate that statement is, SlimVirgin. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * NW, I don't know which statement you're referring to. When I last looked at the article there were no secondary sources about WMC, except those about his WP editing, and most of those were being kept out by his friends. We can't base articles on primary sources, especially not BLPs, and there hasn't been a serious AfD discussion about this article since our sense of what BLPs required developed, including the importance of basing them on secondary sources. Bottom line is that it must reflect the secondary material that's out there, or if that would constitute a BLP violation, we must delete it. But we're currently hosting a puff piece. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why not nominate it for deletion? There's an excellent chance you'll get my vote. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool deletionist. But I don't care for the way this discussion has degenerated into a flog-WMC fest. It doesn't seem right. I thought that I would get a list of alarmist BLPs that were puffed. Instead there has been a pile-on, with an unpopular editor getting whacked. I don't like it. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should wait for the ArbCom case to close, then have a discussion about whether to write it up properly or delete it. I'm not here whacking anyone, Scotty. The fact is that the bio would not have survived had WMC not had friends protecting it, so there has been an absence of appropriate whacking too, as it were. :)   I started trying to fix it in January and got beaten back, with Stephan arguing that The American Spectator wasn't a reliable source.  Then I forgot about it. Then in May I got into an argument with WMC and remembered it for that reason, but given I'd argued with him it would have been wrong for me to start editing his bio. So it's been in the back of my mind for some time that it needs to be sorted.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Heck, I would probably vote delete as well. Despite the fact that WMC, with a Google Scholar h-index of 21, might meet WP:ACADEMIC #1, you are correct in that there are really no reliable or accurate secondary sources to build a proper biography. I was mostly respond to Thegoodlocust's comments where he says WMC is only notable for his actions on Wikipedia and in the blogosphere. I had thought he was referring to Solomon's articles (and others?) about WMC's admin actions and desysopping as well as RealClimate. However, as long as subject notability guidelines like WP:ACADEMIC (or far worse: WP:ATHLETE and WP:PORNBIO) continue to exist, I think a subsequent AFD nomination will go down exactly like Articles for deletion/William Connolley (3rd nomination), as nothing new has changed since then. (Speaking of which, in that AFD, I would hardly count all of those voting Keep as WMC's friends; I see quite a few uninvolved editors and only two arguing to delete). <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What has changed since then is our sense of when it's not appropriate for us to host a BLP. That third AfD was in September 2006, when the BLP policy was still at an early stage. Hopefully once the ArbCom case is over, people will be more thoughtful. The fact is that he's not notable by WP's standards, unless you count the secondary coverage triggered by his WP editing. When those situations have arisen in the past, we have deleted (where the stories were mostly negative) except for Essjay where the coverage become so extensive that deletion was hard to justify. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are far too optimistic, to be honest. I would say that he is notable by Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically by WP:ACADEMIC. Now, there is also the matter of WP:ACADEMIC being a ridiculous guideline, but that's another issue and one that will hopefully be resolved one day. If you do end up opening an AFD, please give me a heads up. It will be interesting to watch the discussion. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * He's never been an academic that I'm aware of. He works on something to do with bluetooth, which the article doesn't mention, and worked for a short time as a climate modeller for the British Antarctic Survey. We link to that in the infobox as though he still works there. He was briefly a parish councillor. The page was created by Ed Poor, who I assume was in a dispute with him, in the days before doing that got you banned. There are no secondary sources at all attesting to notability, if you exclude the Wikipedia-related ones. I have no problem hosting a bio based on WP editing if the subject doesn't mind, if there are sources (I argued in favour of keeping David Shankbone, for example), but in this case the subject does mind, and his friends won't allow the material to be added. Given that backdrop, it's in everyone's interests for it to go, including WMC's. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, that's a deficiency of you, not of WMC's status as a notable academic. A short visit to Google Scholar shows plenty of publications, some highly cited, including publications in high-profile venues like Science (journal), GRL, J.Climate, and BAMS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the kind of discussion that I dislike about BLPs, because it seems unfair to be going into this level of detail about how notable someone is. But briefly, that list doesn't show that many, and even if you see him as a former academic, he doesn't pass Notability (academics). Plus, we need secondary sources who've discussed his work so that we can show that other reliable sources see him as notable, not Wikipedians. You're one of the editors preventing secondary sources from being used, so you're part of the problem here, I'm afraid. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * He has an h-index of 21, which is fairly high. I believe people with less than that have still been determined to meet WP:ACADEMIC #1, as the "most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work: either of several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or of a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." Dr. Connolley meets that, I believe. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to calculate that, or what the significance is for WP's policies, or how we would know it was connected to him and not fellow authors. The key to notability is not what we've done, but who has written about what we've done. So the only thing that matters here is whether there are secondary sources. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This addon will do it for you. And I totally agree with you about secondary sources being more important than subject notability guidelines, but others at AFD probably will not. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a very useful add-on, NW, thank you. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at it, I compared WMC and Fred Singer, one of the CC skeptics. One of the arguments people were using about Singer was he wasn't that notable as an academic, so I was wondering how the figures compare. Not trying to make a point here, just curious. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

---
 * Fred Singer (not sure if it makes a difference how this is written)

Impact indices: (Plain values)

Citations in this page: 1786.0 h-indexClick to see what's this.: 19.0 g-indexClick to see what's this.: 38.0 e-indexClick to see what's this.: 29.0 delta-hdelta-h: the number of citations needed to increment h-index by 1: 1.0 delta-gdelta-g: the number of citations needed to increment g-index by 1: 10.0

(Normalized The citations of each paper are divided by the corresponding number of authors (authors >4 are rounded to 4) per co-authorship)

Citations in this page: 901.4 h-indexClick to see what's this.: 8.0 g-indexClick to see what's this.: 22.0 e-indexClick to see what's this.: 14.0 delta-hdelta-h: the number of citations needed to increment h-index by 1: 0.3 delta-gdelta-g: the number of citations needed to increment g-index by 1: 16.7

William M Connolley

Impact indices: (Plain values)

Citations in this page: 672.0 h-indexClick to see what's this.: 12.0 g-indexClick to see what's this.: 25.0 e-indexClick to see what's this.: 21.0 delta-hdelta-h: the number of citations needed to increment h-index by 1: 1.0 delta-gdelta-g: the number of citations needed to increment g-index by 1: 4.0

(Normalized The citations of each paper are divided by the corresponding number of authors (authors >4 are rounded to 4) per co-authorship)

Citations in this page: 208.9 h-indexClick to see what's this.: 7.0 g-indexClick to see what's this.: 13.0 e-indexClick to see what's this.: 9.0 delta-hdelta-h: the number of citations needed to increment h-index by 1: 2.8 delta-gdelta-g: the number of citations needed to increment g-index by 1: 10.5

- "One of the arguments people were using about Singer was he wasn't that notable as an academic" - did they? I suspect you misread or misremember. The claim I remember (and I admit I'm too busy/lazy to dig through the archives) is that he wasn't notable primarily for his academic work, but more for his work with SEPP and his contrariness. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

More on number of examples

 * The original purpose of my coming here, at Lar's invitation, was for Lar to substantiate/explain/discuss his comment about alarmist BLPs being puffed. I wasn't expecting Lar to change his mind, and for the discussion to degenerate into yet more purposeless CC chitchat, targeting the much-flayed WMC. If Lar is not willing to put some meat on the bones of what seems a rather gratuitous comment, I'm not seeing much point to this. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two examples of such have been given. How many more would suffice? (second time I asked) Also, part of my reason in declining in engaging in any further discussion with you on Hipocrite's page is that comments on this page are not subject to arbitrary deletion merely because I disagree with them. Hipocrite is entirely within policy to delete a comment out of the middle of a thread, destroying context, but I prefer not to do that. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you gave one example, said you had to run, and then endorsed a name given by someone else. What I was asking you to do is to identify the alarmist BLPs that have been puffed. If it is just Mann and WMC, so be it. But you say there are others, that that's just a sample, so I'd like to know who they are. I'd like to know if your statement is correct, and I can't without knowing which ones you're referring to. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mann was going to be my second example, but ATren beat me to it. I'm not going to provide an exhaustive list because I don't have one, I haven't combed through all of them, and I don't intend to. How many more examples would suffice to satisfy you the point's been made? ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What would satisfy me is knowing that you've identified all the BLPs of alarmists that you feel have puffery. If all you had in mind were those two when you made that comment, then there's nothing more to discuss. But evidently there were more. Am I incorrect? And if there are, which BLPs are they? I don't think this is a tall order. I'm just trying to figure out what you meant.ScottyBerg (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain what is deficient about Michael E. Mann? This is a question asked earnestly and in the best of faith, I promise. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with it except when you compare it to a skeptic BLP like Solomon or Monckton, which are filled with coatracks and non-notable criticism. NW, tell me, do you think it's appropriate that these editors are trying to force isolated claims and criticisms from Canadian Socialist monthly magazines (Canadian Dimension in Lawrence Solomon) and partisan commentators (Monbiot and self-published presentations in Chris Monckton) while the author of a famously controversial theory gets almost nothing on the controversy? It's blatantly one-sided that published books have been squelched on one side while obscure magazines are forced into the other. These editors were pushing Canadian Dimension as a source for Solomon's lede sentence. Do you really not see the inequity here? Come on. Honestly, I'd rather all the BLPs look like Mann's, but I've been fighting POV pushers for 3 years on that, and it ain't happening, so if they're so insistent on adding such non-notable criticism on one side then we might as well push the same into the other. At least it would be consistent, and not blatantly one-sided. ATren (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Challenges from Guettarda

 * I'm not involved as an editor, or as an admin, and intend to stay that way - seriously Lar, that's Wikilawyering to an extreme. We don't have separate classes of editors who are "uninvolved" in a topic by virtue of the fact that they don't edit article-space pages on that topic. "Involved" editors have strong feelings about content. You have expressed far stronger opinions, you have engaged in attacks on editors, you have been subject to an RFC in which a plurality of editors (many truly uninvolved) found that argument held no water. You went to far as to refuse to fix problems in Delingpole's bio in order to retain your "uninvolved" status, but attacked other editors (who were mostly unaware of the problem) for not carrying out the edits you wanted done. That's not "uninvolved". In fact, you went so far as to do nothing to fix a problem in a BLP that you were aware of, simply to maintain this fig leaf of "uninvolvedness". You've edited talk pages. You've lobbied hard for content changes. You have been an active participant in an arbcomm case. And, quite frankly, from the first time I encountered you this year, when I was expressing an opinion on your out-of-process BLP deletions, how did you respond? By attacking me on ID and "AGW". You showed up at this issue spoiling for a fight. You imported your pre-existing dislikes for me and others. Yeah, you're involved. You've been involved from the start. Because you only got involved in order your agenda against certain editors. Guettarda (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, until you brought that up, I had forgotten your involvement in the whole Moulton mess...I actually had to dig into the past to figure out why you lashed out like that. But that, apparently, was your first response to me. It says a lot about holding grudges and importing conflicts. Guettarda (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, you appear to be trying to provoke an emotional response here. That's not very helpful.  I can list some more BLPs that apply here, as there are plenty that show the double standard involved.  For example, didn't you add a blog as a source of negative information to the Edward Wegman article?  case rested. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Three years ago Cla? Seriously? I think that proves my point about people who hold grudges. Anyway, people who use blog comments as sources really have no credibility here. Guettarda (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a diff where I used a blog comment in a BLP, Guettarda? Anyway, why did you feel it was necessary or appropriate to use a blog to add criticism to that BLP? Cla68 (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There were not the same BLP rules 3 years ago and realclimate as a group blog written by notable scientists was probably considered to be a fine source for a BLP back then so this sort of comment takes us absolutely nowhere. In fact even today it is more than a little ironic that newspapers with a strong editorial bias are considered to be a better source than a blog like realclimate but for better or worse that is what we have to deal with, it does not make it right but that is what the current rules are and equally we cannot apply the current rules to 3 years ago either. Polargeo (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a diff where I used a blog comment in a BLP, Guettarda? - Did I say you used it in a BLP? Nope, and I really don't find you interesting enough do dig up your past misdeeds. Sorry. But you did try to use a blog comment to attribute an opinion to a living person, and you did try to use it in a Wikipedia article. And anyone who can't figure out that a blog comment can't be used to source anything, at this stage of the game, really just doesn't get it. Guettarda (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, you knew, or should have known, that it was wrong in 2007 to use a blog to add negative information to a BLP. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's worth mentioning that Arbcom has previously ruled that BLP is retrospectively applicable on an ex post facto basis, i.e. edits made in the pre-BLP era that were considered legitimate then can be sanctioned retrospectively years later under the currently applied BLP rules. It's insane but there you have it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

More on Solomon
And the "science" of "climate change" record on reliability is? Yet AGW advocates for this (cough) "science" to throw our political, cultural, social and economic sytem into the dumpster to "save the planet". Good luck with that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Solomon isn't a reliable source, since he has a poor record on reliability.
 * You're barking up the wrong tree, at least with me. AGW is real, and it's a serious issue. Very serious. That's not the point. It's not whether the faction is right about the science. They are. It's about the process subversion to maintain the POV everywhere else. Most of AGW/CC isn't science. Slanting BLPs just isn't appropriate, even those of people who happen to be wrong about AGW. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, Please Respond
Guettarda, why did you think it was appropriate to use a passing reference in an obscure Canadian Socialist monthly to label Lawrence Solomon something which Solomon himself considered pejorative? Why did you argue repeatedly to include that label in Solomon's opening sentence? It's pure hypocrisy, and typical of the way this faction operates. ATren (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would be helpful if you could actually link to Guettarda's pestering to include this source so we can all see how serious it was. Polargeo (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See this section, near the bottom. Note, the entire page is collapsed so you may need to find it manually. ATren (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @ATren. That is rather unimpressive. Your characterisation of the argument here is more than a little bit one sided and if it is the best you can do to distract from more useful arguments then it is really not worth it. Polargeo (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ATren, I gave your misrepresentations as much space as they deserved when we discussed them previously. I did not "argue repeatedly to include that label in Solomon's opening sentence?". That's simply a dishonest characterisation of the discussion, and you're well aware of that. When you're ready to stop making shit up, maybe we can talk. Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, are you guys not expecting other people to look into it and read what really happened? Is Atren 100% correct is what he has said? No, he's made some minor mistakes, I suspect confusing similar personalities for other such personalities - memory is an imperfect thing, but the gist of what he has said is correct.


 * Guettarda you have said:


 * Atren: "I have not seen one source which disputes the environmentalist label" - this is rather tiresome nonsense. Here you explain your rejection of one such source because it is "liberal". It's rather hard to claim you have not seen a source just days after you reverted it out of the article because you disagreed with its POV. Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And also:


 * Atren: "that revert was to the "free-market" label, not the "environmentalist" label" - nope, you reverted from free market environmentalist to environmentalist. These are very different things. So either you're misrepresenting the situation now, or you simply reverted without bothering to educate yourself about the topic. So what is it - are you misrepresenting your edit, or was it simply tendentious editing? Guettarda (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC) 


 * In the first post you are arguing that Atren has seen sources that dispute that Solomon is an environmentalist because Canadian Dimension has called him a "free market environmentalist." To argue that the latter isn't an environmentalist is an extremely tendentious argument - to ignore the source of the claim is incompetent. The second post continues with tendentious wikilawyering.


 * For reference, here is the original dispute where Hipocrite and WMC are arguing to include "free market" on the environmentalist label, when, if the situations were reversed, and Reason magazine was calling James Hansen as "communist environmentalist" then we can be sure they'd be arguing not to call him that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Surprise surprise, Guettarda responds with evasive wikilawyering. He really wasn't technically arguing for inclusion, just arguing against non-inclusion -- that's one of the favored tactics of the climate change faction. And that's not even an assumption of bad faith -- I really believe Guettarda is so blinded by his POV that he believes this argument holds water. But whatever, I'm done here, my point is made. ATren (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP compare and contrast
Selecting GW/CC BLP's at random, compare the quality and tone in the "alarmist" BLP's compared to the "skeptic" BLP's"

1. Ben Santer:  No sources cited for the "Chapter 8 controversy" and reference to Science & Environmental Policy Project remvoed by WMC. No mention of the fact that Santer's chapter in IPCC2 was largely sourced by his own non-peer-reviewed papers. No mention of his email saying he'd like to beat the crap out of Pat Michaels -- although editors tried to include this info, but ChrisO and WMC and KDP reverted time and again calling the info "trivia" and UNDUE. KDP removed a reference from International Journal of Climatology claiming it was  not a reliable source and also citing UNDUE. A link to the EA emails was removed by WMC calling it "junk" and removed again by KDP. The overall tone is very positive and supportive of this BLP.

2. Pat Michaels -- calls him a skeptic even though he says he's not, creating implication that he's stupid or dishonest. The section on "Criticism and support" starts with criticism and goes on for two or three paragraphs about Michaels misrepresentations according to his opponents -- cited to self published paper by an opponent. The only "support" is a book review. A separate section exists to make it appear Michaels is biased because of his funding. The section on his views is mostly about whether he should be called a skeptic or not and very little on his views or accomplishments. Info inserted by WMC implying he lost his job or left under questionable circumstances. WMC attempts to include negative opinions sourced to op-eds until it was taken to BLP noticeboard by AQFK. The overall tone is negative, downplaying or omitting accomplishments and notable views while loading the article with controversial info with some poor sourcing violative of BLP policy.

That took way longer than I wanted it to. Maybe add additional BLP's tomorrow. The contrast is stark. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 05:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * KDP removed a reference from International Journal of Climatology claiming it was  not a reliable source and also citing UNDUE. - assuming you refer to this edit, you are wrong. The reference to the J. Climatology was to Santer's own paper and only for identification purposes. The claim of the sentence was sourced to http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4314, not a reliable source, and in particular not a RS for a BLP.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting that the people who are sourced as having criticized Michaels aren't criticized in their own articles for far more famous things. Tom Wigley for instance is rather infamous due to some of the climategate emails (e.g. second large paragraph and lower (attempts to get people fired from journals - they succeeded at times too). TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Michaels is a skeptic, according to, well, Patrick Michaels ("...it sure did generate a lot of frequent flier miles for skeptics like me.") In light of that self-description, could Minor4th elaborate on how describing him as a skeptic implies that Michaels is "stupid or dishonest"? MastCell Talk 17:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. First of all, there's no need to label him as a skeptic or not -- it would be more appropriate to define his views, but interestingly the article does not do that. But anyway the article implies Michaels cant make up his mind about his views or he's changing his position, and it also implies theres something inherently wrong with being a skeptic (whatever that means). But "skeptics like me" was a very general comment without a particular context whereas Michaels also said he's not a skeptic in the sense that he doesnt disagree that there may be a human component to GW, but the science is unreliable and the impact exaggerated. In context the statements are not incompatible but the article portrays it differently. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, he's skeptical about the impact of climate change, rather than its anthropogenic component - sure, that should be made clear in the article. That sounds like a relatively subtle issue of content; your initial post made it sound like a black-and-white BLP violation ("calls him a skeptic when he says he's not, creating implication that he's stupid or dishonest.") Clearly, not only does Michaels call himself a "skeptic", but so do independent sources (The Guardian, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Chicago Tribune... and even right-leaning sources don't hesitate to call Michaels a "skeptic" - see Fox News and NewsMax). You're citing this as evidence of a serious BLP problem, which is why I'm trying to understand it - right now, it doesn't seem even remotely controversial to describe Michaels as a "skeptic" as shorthand, although I agree his views should be described in detail in the body of the article. MastCell Talk 19:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot source "infamy" to a primary source. Moreover, ensuring competent peer-review and editing is indeed part of a scientists job. Finally, I assume you know that "fired" is at last misleading, as editorial positions at journals are not usually paid jobs, but filled by unpaid volunteers as part of their academic work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I never said the word "infamy" should be in Wigley's article, but his comments in the climategate emails have been widely distributed. You are also nitpicking on the word "fired" - WMC's friends got people "removed" from journal positions because they didn't like what they were publishing. Hell, it was disgusting what he said in that email (e.g. "doesn't matter if it is true").


 * Oh and back on topic why is this section even in Michael's article?:


 * Intermountain Rural Electric Association


 * On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000.[22] The report noted that the cooperative has a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.[23]


 * I don't see any sections in AGW advocate articles about the millions they and their universities received from energy/oil companies. It is POV advocacy at its worst with its implicatioin that he isn't to be taken seriously because he got a grant from some energy company - ALL these people get funding from them on both side of the issue. TheGoodLocust (talk)
 * I suspect it's in the article because it was covered in detail by the Associated Press and ABC News. It doesn't seem necessary to invoke the standard rhetoric about AGW activism to explain that - it actually seems like an example of how BLPs are supposed to be sourced and written. Are there dedicated pieces from similar reputable, non-partisan news outlets supporting the material you want to see included on Wikipedia about "AGW advocates"? MastCell Talk 17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is quite simply bullshit. I've seen "ExxonSecrets" used to try and link skeptics to oil/coal companies in wikipedia. This is a common tactic - discredit the enemy. It is undue and you know it. Hell, every single criticism in Michael's article comes from someone related to the climategate emails - Holdren (yep he was in there too), Wigley, and the "ABC" news section quotes Trenberth too. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoah. I'm not talking about ExxonSecrets, so let's not change the subject. You questioned a specific section of Michaels' biography, asserting that it was "POV advocacy at its worst". That section contains 2 sources: the AP and ABC News, both of which seem to support the article's text. I don't see ExxonSecrets cited there. Can you address my actual point? MastCell Talk 18:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And both of those articles were written by well-known global warming boosters. Hell, you can ever look up Seth Borenstein in the climategate emails! The company behind Real Climate, IRRC, is focused on connecting their guys to media outlets. Sorry, but if you want a section on something that EVERY scientist has, then get a good source and multiple sources - not from environmental advocates who happen to work as journalists. Anyway, the point about Exxonsecrets, which I have seen KDP argue to include, is that it is the criticism that comes first - the sourcing in second and it is very important to you guys to link skeptics to fossil fuel companies to try and discredit them. It is sickening. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So your point is that the AP and ABC News are not appropriate sources for Michaels' biography? And the basis for your objection is that you believe the pieces to be written by "well-known global warming boosters"? I want to be clear on how you view BLP sourcing. MastCell Talk 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is was really notable that Michaels received funding from an energy company, just like every scientist does in one way or another, then it would be covered by far more sources. Use some common sense. The only reason to include that fact, a fact NOT included in other scientists biographies, is to try and discredit him through implication/association. Honestly, go and leave wikipedia if you can't admit that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address my question. I'm getting a little dizzy, but I'll go with it. So you believe that news items from the AP and ABC News are BLP-appropriate, but >2 independent, reliable sources are necessary to warrant addressing the issue? Can you accept that to some people - people who believe in BLP - the fact that it's been addressed by multiple independent, reliable, non-partisan sources means that it is reasonable to include in a biography? You don't have to agree, but do you at least understand how someone could reach that point of view in good faith, and in consonance with WP:BLP rather than simply from nefarious intentions? MastCell Talk 19:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, use some common sense, you can call that WP:IAR if you like, and continuing to describe those two journalists as "non-partisan" is ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous when compared to the articles of people like Michael Mann where relevant criticism is excluded and criticism of criticism is always included. Tell me, how is his funding important? Why is his funding important but not Mann's? Besides, this is a running theme - you guys are always trying to link skeptics to fossil fuel guys, at least in Lindzen's case he finally responded and showed how dishonest/incorrect the criticism was. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not clear on why you think the AP and ABC News should be discounted, other than your personal belief that the pieces are written by "global warming boosters". You keep changing the subject - you raised a specific example in Patrick Michaels, and I still don't understand your concern. Michaels' funding is relevant because multiple independent, reliable sources have considered it relevant enough to address. That's the usual bar for relevancy on Wikipedia. Do you have a problem with that? MastCell Talk 19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've stated my peace and shown the pattern of trying to discredit skeptics using this specific tactic. You are either unable or unwilling to understand me or I an unable to communicate my concerns properly - I'm certainly unwilling to continue this dance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This section is focused on BLP abuse, but the example you listed doesn't seem to be abusive. I'm trying to understand why you think it is. In any case, OK. MastCell Talk 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If Santer is an example of Lar's concern about "alarmist BLPs being puffed," this is a poor example. First Santer is a respected scientist. I can't see him (or Mann or Connelley) correctly referred to as a wild-eyed "alarmist." There is no puffery in the article, and an over-substantial portion of it is devoted to a controversy. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but most of the pro-AGW scientists aren't mentioned for their most famous things. Look up Trenberth's article and yo uwont' find a reference to his famous climategate statement that it was a "travesty" that they couldn't explain the lack of warming at the moment. Look up Wigley and any other climategate scientist of note and you will rarely find a mention of such well-circulated statements. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What you're describing are bios that are incomplete or poorly written, not ones that are subjected to puffery, however. If Trenbeth's statement was included, that would not reflect poorly upon him. It would make him look good. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Puffery" via excluding inconvenient criticisms. And you think that's make Trenberth look great? How these guys publicly promote one view while privately saying they don't understand what is going on? Really? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused now. A diff would help. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll point you to an earlier version of Michael Mann's article (seems to be going through major changes from people reading this talk page). In particular, the last two paragraphs were:


 * In November 2009, some of Mann's correspondence with fellow climate researchers was among the hacked e-mails at the centre of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy.[5] Mann rejected allegations of wrongdoing, commenting that the e-mails had been "misrepresented, cherry-picked ... [and] completely twisted to imply the opposite of what was actually being said". [6] Two reviews by Pennsylvania State University in 2010 cleared Mann of any research misconduct, stating that "there is no substance" to the allegations against him [7][2]; Mann welcomed these findings [8][9].


 * And:


 * In May 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli served a civil investigative demand on the University of Virginia seeking a broad range of documents relating to Mann's work there as a researcher between 2001-2005, alleging that the hacked e-mails indicated that fraud may have been committed.[10] The allegation was rejected by Mann and was strongly criticised by scientific and civil liberties organizations and hundreds of individual scientists as unfounded, entirely unwarranted and an attack on academic freedom.[11] The University filed suit to overturn the demand, citing protection under the First Amendment and stating that Cuccinelli did not have the authority to demand the documents.[12]


 * In the first paragraph, you'll notice that the investigations that "cleared" Mann were not criticized - despite widespread criticisms of those internal investigations by skeptical climate scientists like Lindzen.


 * In contrast, the 2nd paragraph manages to find criticism for Mann's opponent, Cucinelli, but doesn't submit Cucinelli's responses to those criticisms. It is all rather one-sided and always in Mann's favor. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What's this got to do with Trenbeth? i'm asking this in good faith. I'm not familiar with these people. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, I thought I read somewhere that it would be better to have examples from more fleshed out biographies which is why I was using Mann as an example. If you want an actual diff of what I'm talking about being removed from Trenberth then I found this one pretty quickly. It was the first diff I clicked on in the history (good instincts I guess) and so I can't really attest to the sourcing, but at first glance it covers the gist of the situation. I don't expect the content ChrisO removed to be perfect, but it should have a mention since it is what Trenberth is famous for. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that most scientists (at least, those deserving of Wikipedia articles) aren't – or shouldn't be – 'most famous' for a single off-the-cuff remark made in a private email. The fact that some people believe that these casual statements not intended for public consumption are the most important features of their lives and careers is...concerning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious! It's hilarious to see all the POV blindness from you and your faction. ATren (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reality seldom cares what "should be." The statements I've mentioned were highly circulated in a wide variety of publications. I've seen many articles, even of little known politicians, that at least mention their famous but embarrasing statements because they are notable due to their rate of circulation (not just 2 sources from 2 environmental activists). TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hell, it was disgusting what he said in that email (e.g. "doesn't matter if it is true"). - for someone who claims to be able to read you are surprisingly bad at it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Charming fragrance Stephan - perhaps a waft of Eau de Connolley has rubbed off on you? Regardless, interpretations may vary and I foolishly thought I didn't have to quote the entire phrase without being subject to legalistic parsing and personal attacks. But, since you insist, here you go:


 * "One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about - it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts." -Tom Wigley, in part of the climategate emails dealing with how they can get rid of Von Storch. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So what's disgusting about Wigley pointing out that the publisher cares only about perception, not about reality? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The disgusting part is that Wigley doesn't care if there is that perception - just if he and his friends can convince the publisher that there is and get Von Storch removed. Hell, they DID get people removed from their positions with their coordinated behind the scenes crap (along with preventing others from getting published, etc, etc). Honestly Stephan, just stick with good talking points like throwing out the baloney "97% of climatologists..." crap. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And here you are, not reading the text but your own mistaken preconceptions. You quote it yourself: "...and point out the fact that their journal is perceived...". Wigley clearly states that this perception is there. He just (correctly or not) points out that the publisher cares about this perception, not about reality. Now that that is out of the way, who do you think "they" got removed? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a word for my "mistaken preconceptions" and it is called context. And since wikipedia is the place for reliable sources then I'd like to present an opinion piece from the WSJ, even though I doubt the cogent points will be quoted in the relevant articles:


 * -Mr. Mann was one of the Climategate principals who proposed a plan, which was clearly laid out in emails whose veracity Mr. Mann has not challenged, to destroy a scientific journal that dared to publish three papers with which he and his East Anglia friends disagreed.


 * -But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."


 * -Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.


 * Of course, Mr. Russell didn't look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That's because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.


 * Enjoy the context and congratulations on not taking the bait and giving me the opportunity to thrash your baloney 97% statistic. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice that you avoid answering the question, but instead quote an opinion piece by Pat Michaels, which, as as such, is at best good for Pat Michaels opinion. But I notice that even in Michael's opinion, the researchers did the bad bad thing of not submitting their articles to a substandard venue. I assume you are aware of the difference between opinion pieces and research article? Research articles are vetted by editors and peer reviewers, and if they don't measure up, they are rejected. I've had a couple of "perfectly good manuscripts" rejected (although from conferences, which is where computer scientists primarily publish), and I've had to reject perfectly good manuscripts from journal issues I edited for no other reason than lack of space and competition. No conspiracy at work here... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct, I didn't answer one of your questions, which I suppose is the point of playing bait and switch - shift around until your opponent gets tired and doesn't want to play anymore or find a fallacy that sticks. Specifically, I'm assuming the question you are saying I'm not answering is *who* they got canned? Yes, well I've said as much as I will on the subject, and it isn't terribly hard to find specific names, but I'm certainly not going to reveal my private communications to the likes of you and watch them get smeared on another blacklist (e.g. exxonsecrets, desmogblog). It is obvious from my previous statements (and my rare uploads) that I communicate with various scientists privately, usually esoteric ones, but sometimes I'll email the better known ones.


 * The fact of the matter is that, in this case, we have the motive, the statement of intent, the smoking gun, and the body - but a curious refusal to even imply guilt. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

New sanction for CC articles
You may wish to take a look at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Sincerely, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have commented there. I'm not sure a unilateral imposition is appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 10:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Procedural note
I give wide latitude (as wide as our overall rules allow) to discussion here, in general. That includes people making unfounded allegations against me. But that latitude does not extend to visitors here making unfounded attacks on others. Suggesting that someone cannot read, as Stephen Schulz did here and here, is not acceptable. Please see that it doesn't happen again. Confine your unfounded attacks and character assassination to me alone, please. ++Lar: t/c 11:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't wait to read your alternative explanation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive comment moves
Please undo your disruptive move here. I'm not involved in the tagging/untagging game, and I'm no more involved in the general CC area than you are. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephan Schulz: You're obviously very much involved the CC topic space. Did you purposely post in the uninvolved admin section?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What....? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephan Schulz: You are involved. I'm not. I initally assumed that your placing that comment there was an inadvertent mistake rather than a deliberate provocation, so I moved it for you without fuss. Apparently it was a deliberate provocation since you are now here, raising the fuss I tried to avoid. Until such time as there is consensus among the other uninvolved admins (not including you, or me), a motion by arbcom, or a finding in the case that you are uninvolved, (or I am involved) that's the way things stand, and you can expect reversion of your placing comments in the uninvolved admin section. If you in turn revert that, you can expect I will place or seek a block for disruption. You might get it overturned by someone sympathetic to your faction, as WMC did, but you will nevertheless be blocked. Keep that in mind. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep Q.E.D.. The threats come out now. "faction" "block" etc. etc. not suprising none of the other "uninvolved" admins stick their necks out. Well done Lar. Polargeo (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar's classical proof by forceful assertion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Get a motion that you are uninvolved. Or a consensus among uninvolved admins that you too are uninvolved. Absent that, your assertion is baseless. ++Lar: t/c 12:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar again enforcing his own version of involved/uninvolved. The same version that has caught me out before. Lar personally decides that you are involved and then relies on some tenuous comment by a recused arb and the fact that he will not receive enough challenges or that someone will not stick their neck out far enough to deal with him. I have tried to deal with Lar's involvement and this results in calls for me to be desysopped by him and his supporters (funnily enough supporters who I had never had any dealings with before). Polargeo (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar is enacting the existing consensus, in where admins are considered involved or not. The consensus may be challenged, but until a new one is in place then the status quo remains. It is this latter type of disruption, where parties attempt to enforce opinion or stance by actions against the preceding understanding that resulted in my withdrawing from the probation enforcement pages - however, if this is going to continue then I shall become involved in sysopping those pages again; and if anyone then attempts to portray me as an non uninvolved admin then it will be shown for the subjective farce that it is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no existing consensus. Just fear of going against Lar. Polargeo (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such consensus as claimed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is, being the prevailing one - previously, you commented outside of the uninvolved admin area and when you had last tested that definition you were advised by an Arb (their recusal from the current case notwithstanding) that you were an involved admin. Also, the removal of comments by yourself and Polargeo from the uninvolved admin section has not been challenged by any party outside of those with whom there is an association of a similar editing stance, i.e. not, unsurprisingly, by those who edit to a dissimilar viewpoint but most importantly by parties recognised as uninvolved. Nor has Lar's comments to the uninvolved admin section been questioned by parties recognised as uninvolved - the issue of the definition of uninvolved is entirely that raised by a confluence of editors who also edit to very much the same viewpoint relating to AGW. The remaining editors, and admins, are able to work to the existing understanding of the definition of uninvolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This circular argument is exactly what I object to. Lar claims he is uninvolved (despite being a named party in the ArbCom case and significantly criticized, by both involved and uninvolved editors in his RfC) and hence he is qualified to decide on involvement/uninvolvement. Not so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephan, are you seriously claiming you're uninolved? Seriously? ATren (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved in what? The Watergate scandal? Yes. The tag game? Yes. Climate change on Wikipedia in general, no. But then, neither is Lar. As pointed out countless times, the CC probation uses an even narrower definition of uninvolvement than I do, and for good reason: We want admins to be active in this area, and we want reasonably well-informed ones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you admit to not being uninvolved, but you comment in the uninvolved section anyway, using some sort of "B-b-but Lar did it first!" excuse. First off, your continued comments in that section even after admitting you are involved in CC is pointy; second, even if Lar were "involved" (he's not), his level of involvement is far less than yours because he hasn't participated in the content; in fact, he's freely disclosed his opinions on the matter (which are quite mainstream), and has stated his relative lack of passion on the issue. Even if you can draw a case for involvement out of this, it's far less compelling than your involvement. In fact, since you seem to like using usernames as a unit of measure, I would venture to guess that Lar's level of involvement here is probably somewhere in the range of a millischulz. And thus your insistence that Lar's presence there gives you a free pass is frankly ridiculous. ATren (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ATren: Do not use the term "millischultz" please, it's disparaging. I prefer that attacks on editors other than myself not occur here. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Read again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will happily co sign a request for an interim motion from ArbCom prior to case resolution clarifying your, and my, respective involvement/uninvolvment if you like. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not replying for Stephan but that is not a bad idea. I will back you up as long as it is very neutrally worded looks for an interim agreement, does not prejudge and is not restricted to a handful of admins but gives an arbcom judgement of all admins who should recuse in the interim. Polargeo (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Request clarification of the criteria for determining uninvolvement, and the current involved/uninvolved status of the following admins (list)" ? ++Lar: t/c 15:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that circular argument just boils down to the most powerful established admin faction pisses all over the rest also I take exception to your judgement of my viewpoint, it seems entirely based on the fact that I tried to stop Lar commenting as uninvolved with respect to WMC and is not based on reality. Polargeo (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is astounding! We have a global warming activist, whose top 20 articles edited are mostly GW-related, still claiming he's uninvolved! It's patently ridiculous at all levels, but I have to admit, their tactics are effective most of the time. Most admins would blink under all this pressure. Luckily, Lar is stubborn and secure enough not to be chased away. Hold your ground Lar. ATren (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm more amazed at how he is still an admin - going around constantly insulting other editors and giving me an "F-" on my reading comprehension (part of a long string of provocations which now seem intentional due to his latest spat with Lar). TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a global warming activist? I'm surprised to hear that - I thought I was a computer scientist, or maybe a snowboarder. Would you care to elaborate? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not in real life. However, you are here, since you're part of that faction. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Move vs Remove
Probably just a mistake on your part, but this edit summary is false - you wrote "move," but you actually just "removed." Please be certain to clearly label the actions you take as a purportedly "uninvolved" admin clearly. If you wish to respond to me and have that response red, please do so on my talk page, making it clear that you are responding to this comment, as I will not watchlist your talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC) You have corrected your mistake. Feel free to remove this section. Hipocrite (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a "mistake", it was that I wanted to edit one section at a time. Check the timing on the edits, next time, (both were before your complaint) and maybe wait more than 180 seconds before complaining? And no, I will not reply on your talk page, first because of User:Lar/Pooh Policy and second because of your policy of selectively removing comments instead of allowing free discussion. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure this text is a fair representation of what you want to say? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is now, was missing one negation. (italicized to show it) Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Glad we can agree on something sometimes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not use your admin status with regard to WMC
I warn you not to use your admin status with regard to WMC. If you have a problem with his edits take this up with a neutral admin. Polargeo (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Polargeo: Instead of complaining about Lar, why not try to resolve this dispute by politely asking WMC not to edit other people's comments? If he agrees to do so, problem solved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. Much less dramatic. Perhaps if people took Risker's advice about reining in those you agree with on content? ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and if you and AQFK had read my comment instead of just reacting to it in the usual partisan way then you would note that I had said I thought WMC's edits were unhelpful . Polargeo (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Polargeo:I think your warning is misplaced, if not actually out of order, first in that you have no standing to issue me any warnings, since you are not an uninvolved admin (per the outcome logged here) and since WMC was until very recently under a sanction specifically precluding the specific behavior (per the outcome logged here). Also I thought you were going to work with me to come up with a neutrally worded motion request? If so, why did you post something rather different already at the Proposed Decision page? ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can choose to ignore my warning if you wish. Maybe nothing will come of it. It is up to you, I advise that you don't. Polargeo (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Polargeo, given your own actions in this case, you are in no position to be warning anyone.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well Polargeo, since you don't want Lar to use his admin status regarding WMC then I suggest that the best thing you can do is step up and do it yourself. Perhaps you can go and warn WMC not to use the term "septic" anymore, he is specifically prohibited from using it, has never refactored his many uses of it and has recently started doing it again (e.g. here). Or, if you want to look into something more serious, you could go to his talk page and page through the various BLP violations that he uses his talk page to preach with - I believe his latest is insulting Judith Curry because she isn't ideologically pure enough for him. Specifically he has used his favorite tactic of linking to his blog entry of her entitlted "Curry Jumps the Shark" - why he hasn't been prohibited from constantly advertising his blog on wiki, which he does to either insult other editors or expand on his BLP violations is beyond me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This diff, while it uses the term "septic" is not, in my view, a violation of the sanction against the use of the term. It might be a snarky and mean spirited comment but it's not a technical violation. The other matters you raise are more serious, in my view, and your message is diluted by inclusion of that item. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah it was my fault for taking the bait, which is why I think such a technical violation was made right now. The BLP issues are more serious, but they've been ignored for so long it hardly seems worth it to point them out anymore. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting other peoples talk page contributions....
I find the irony unbearable. (specially the last sentence). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think deletion is wrong, but this is a wiki, we all need to compromise and get along. That said, if FPAS is going to selectively delete, that's bad. I'd rather see it all gone than leaving some attacks behind, as he did. So in the spirit of compromise, instead of reverting him, I tried to fix it. Sorry about your unbearability. ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I suggest you take that issue up with FPAS, not with Dave. If you think removal of comments is wrong, take it out on the one who removed them (or undo the removal), don't take it out on a bystander. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not following you. Dave's comment was inappropriate. FPAS neglected to remove it. I fixed that. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you think deletion is wrong. How do FPAS actions suddenly make it right for you to remove Dave's comment (quite regardless of the fact that it was not inappropriate to begin with). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was definitely inappropriate. As much or more so than what he removed. I realise, since dave souza is in your faction, you're not going to actually admit it, but there you are. As for thinking deletion is wrong, I do. But as I already explained (what was it you said about other people and their reading comprehension again?) I was seeking a compromise. Something lost on you and your faction. ++Lar: t/c 23:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, while I have your ear, reflect on what Rlevse said to Polargeo, just above, and how it might have implications to your claim of uninvolvement. I want ArbCom to call this matter. I will abide by their decision, should they choose to make one. Will you? Or will you take the approach WMC did, heaping scorn on them when things did not go 100% his way? ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you can list all the instances where I have issued warnings to anybody, let alone you. We are not uninvolved with respect to each other. What you fail to see, consistently, is the basic symmetry of the situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have tried to act as uninvolved when you are involved. I'm not involved in the topic area. Just wait for ArbCom to rule on this. My question stands unanswered, will you abide by their determination without quibble, or will you take the approach WMC did? ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not a question I can answer. Will you have steak or pasta tonight? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what I intend to have. Do you know what you intend to do, with respect to my question? State your intent, please, it will be very instructive. ++Lar: t/c 23:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoosh. Let me elaborate. Your question requires a choice between only two alternatives, and does not remotely exhaust the space of possible answers ("Neither, I'll have curry"). Moreover, neither of the alternatives is well-defined, and both are open to misunderstandings (or misrepresentations). It's also a typical leading question, i.e. an instrument of argumentation, not of honest inquiry, with a bit of snark on the side. To answer the question you might have asked: What I will do depends on the decision and its reasoning. I will certainly abide by it. If it is reasoned badly, I will of course argue against it, something you may or may not misinterpret as "heaping scorn on them". Being human, I will most probably argue more vigorously against bad reasoning it if I disagree with the result than if I agree with it. But here is my question: Will you only abide by a result declaring you involved, or will you accept it?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will of course abide, goes without saying. Further, I'll accept it far better than WMC has accepted any adverse outcome that involved him, yet. ++Lar: t/c 00:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Gratuitous swipes
That last statement by Lar really illustrates the whole problem. You can't frame anything except in terms of WMC. That last snipe was completely not needed, just a throwaway remark by you but which ultimately displays your factional mentality. The question was, will you do this or that - your answer, oh yes i'll do that AND i'll do it far better than WMC ever could... Sorry, that is just childish. But ultimately it is the sheer willful contradiction here that bothers me. Either you believe that selective removal of comments you don't like without informing the commentator or seeking consensus is wrong, or you don't. If you say it is wrong, yet do it yourself, and seek to block people who follow your example, then it is just hippocritical. We already have one hippocrite seeking to factionalise CC space, don't be another. Weakopedia (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It would really help for everyone to take a break from the jousting for a while. Could you all please put your issues on a shelf in the closet and go do something else for a while? We've had a long arbitration where everybody had a chance to post evidence and proposed resolutions. Now it is time to calmly await the decision. Jehochman Talk 09:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's start by not unilaterally topic banning people in the area that arbcom will eventually rule on, especially when it causes disruption and is immediately discounted as having no consensus, thereby weakening what little credibility we have as uninvolved admins enforcing the CC area. Oops, too late. Weakopedia (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't understand your point. Please say it plainly. Jehochman Talk 12:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Weak: First, you're right, that swipe at WMC wasn't needed, and I should try harder not to take gratuitous swipes. But as to the second part, I'm not following you. The consensus process as exemplified at Wikipedia, in general, requires us to go along with consensus whether we agree or not. We can state our objections, make the case that the outcome should be different, but once consensus is arrived at, we must abide. As admins we need to either enforce consensus when necessary, or at least stand aside (since we're volunteers) and leave it to others, rather than actively going against it. That's background. To the specific point of comment removal, I think it's wrong in general to remove comments. Say something and stand behind it. I've said so before. I think our policy that gives such wide latitude on user talk pages for the user whose talk page it is, is also wrong. I've said that before too. In the specific case of WMC removing the comments of others without explanation or prior notification, that is against our policy. I don't know if that helps clarify my views or not. Yours, however, are not yet clear to me. Perhaps you could explain further. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Point 1 was to you, you have answered it, end of story. Point 2 was a reply to Jehochman about his recent actions at RFE/CC - . Twas only 2 days ago so still fresh in the minds of some of us. Weakopedia (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that clears it up. I wasn't sure exactly which incident was referred to... Hip's persistent and selective removal on his talk, FPAS's removal, or WMC's persistent habit of futzing with comments of others... Tangentially: After I wrote the above reply, I found User_talk:GregJackP which includes a point by you stating that FPAS was wrong to remove comments, and especially wrong to remove some, but not all comments. In that instance, I acted to remove the rest of the comments, although I was reverted by Stephan Schultz. Despite what I said, and despite the apparent inconsistency, I stand by that removal... I was faced with a choice about what to do. I could have reverted FPAS and restored everything, and to do so would have been more consistent with my principles, but I decided to seek compromise by taking a lesser action... removing the rest. I was hoping that compromise would have helped, and was willing to also compromise my own principles for the sake of harmony. As it turned out it did no such thing, no harmony ensued, so perhaps I should have instead done what I thought was the better action in the first place. Perhaps this parenthetical belongs at Greg's page, not sure. ++Lar: t/c 14:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is there admin bias?

 * Why were comments about me left in, then re-inserted while every other comment about ChrisO and Hipocrite were removed? It shows a bias, the same bias that prevented anyone from addressing personal attacks by Chris against Mark.   GregJackP   Boomer!   21:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're in the faction of editors who want the wiki way adhered to, which isn't their faction. ++Lar: t/c 23:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So what do you do when an admin does that, and then makes an implicit threat against me if I don't drop it? GregJackP   Boomer!   00:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Drop it... then seek to resolve the issue in a way that uses our dispute resolution processes, and does so in a calm and collegial way. WP:WQA is sometimes a good place to start. If it's egregious enough, consider a user conduct RfC. Or an ArbCom case. Those always work well. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Same concern here.  I've seen my edits deleted here and hatted off at the enforcement page (repeatedly on the most recent enforcement by FPAS), yet some of the comments to which I was responding got left alone and it's not like I screamed Fuck  you, go fuck yourself and stormed off in a blaze of glory.   Most of my comments that were poof-ed were defense of Greg because he wasn't around at that time to defend himself and it was a veritable feeding frenzy -- the false accusations about Greg remain and the corrections and defense are nowhere to be seen.   Ironically, the enforcement giving rise to all of this is precisely about the issue of deleting other editor's comments. Go figure.   I have never seen this behavior anywhere on Wiki other than in the CC area.   It is extremely bizarre.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're in the wrong faction too. This playing field is far from level. Sorry about that. Why don't you just give up and go edit somewhere else, in a nice non controversial area, and leave this area to those who own it. They're scientists and they know way more than the rest of us editors do. ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's funny you say that. I never had any desire or intent to edit articles in this topic area and don't know enough about it to even have a well-formed opinion.   But it doesn't take a scientist to recognize bad behavior and bullying and bias.   It doesnt take a scientist to recognize a BLP nightmare.   That is what hooked me.  I really don't care about the actual content so much as I care that it is presented appropriately and consistent with wiki norms.   I never imagined how hard it would be to achieve that in this area but it is downright impossible.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 02:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no bad behavior, bullying or bias going on, you're imagining things. Scientists, being better than the rest of us, don't do that sort of thing. You're just incorrectly resisting them when they clear away anything that might be an inconvenient truth. Let them own the articles and stop worrying about it. They're here to take care of us stupidos, for our own good. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, leaving aside all talk of involvement criteria, if your view of the situation and some of the people involved is honestly that bitter and jaundiced, do you really feel you should be adminning it? There are areas of Wikipedia where I feel the same way about some of the participants. Obviously, I think my opinion of them is justified and based in reality, and I'm definitely uninvolved in those areas... but nonetheless, I don't admin them. Occasionally I feel like maybe I've been bullied off, but mostly I think it's a good decision, for my own sanity as much as anything else. MastCell Talk 05:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * MastCell, the current situation is completely absurd, with the same core of abusive editors still allowed free reign to add crap to the BLPs of their ideological opponents and nobody willing or able to stop them. I view Lar's response above as a bit of playful parody of the current mess, a mess which any reasonable person can see plainly. Plus, the current never-ending limbo waiting for the PD has enhanced the surreality of the situation. Maybe if the "anti-Lar" faction actually tried to work with him to resolve these obvious issues, we wouldn't have to wait for arbcom. But no, you choose to continue refocusing the conflict on a single admin rather than the abusive faction which that admin is trying to address, and so here we are, hoping for relief from a committee which seems to have no intent on providing one. I understand Lar's sentiment completely. ATren (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @ATren. Just give it a break rather than wandering about backing Lar up or just being generally rude and abusive. You have just narrowly managed to be useful enough to Lar that he has not ditched you yet but only just. Polargeo (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are confused. ATren states it fairly well. You're also part of the problem. Oddly, you're not even a large part, just a bit foot soldier. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not actually THAT bitter/jaundiced

 * (and... analogies, what to do about the problem )

@MastCell: I am not honestly that bitter and jaundiced, ATren has it right, it was sarcasm for rhetorical effect (obviously), and it's due to your faction's actions. I am more bitter and jaundiced than I was at the start of the enforcement. At that time I honestly believed that uninvolved editors could make a significant difference in the behavior of the faction that you most often align with, and that if enough uninvolved editors stood together, no one editor would be singled out for persistent baiting, harassment, false charges, and the like. My experience has shown that not to be the case. This faction continues to wreak havoc even in the face of widespread opinion that they are problematic. The pressure I have been subjected to ... to try to get me to step away or to force me out .. has been very intense. It has made my last 6 months here basically not any fun at all, and my article production went to zip from the already paltry level it was before.

But what is the alternative? Leave it to LHvU until he's forced out too? No. Perhaps if this topic area were less important to the wider world, (infobox header colors, or how many Pokemons there actually are, or whether Lindsay Lohan violated her latest probation...) maybe. But if I believe in the wiki model I have to stay in, to provide balance to the partisan admins who tend to favor your faction (note that I think they're not all acting in bad faith, they're just blinded by friendship or some other reason), until and unless ArbCom effectively breaks the back of the most powerful faction this wiki has seen in a long time, if ever. I'm hopeful that will be the outcome, and at that point, if more uninvolved admins enter and stay engaged, or if some other measures are introduced to resolve this so that factionalism doesn't recur with new players, or if your entire faction membership, and those in the other faction that are problematic as well, are banned from this topic area (fat chance), I will return to less contentious pursuits, such as sorting the Balkan crisis, getting India and Pakistan to be friends, or perhaps even writing articles again. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you believe that the area is dominated by admins overly sympathetic to one faction, then the only way to "balance" the situation is by being overly sympathetic to the other faction. A situation with two balanced factions is only marginally better (if at all) than one with two unbalanced factions. The problem is that you haven't really addressed the problem of factionalism at all - you've just tweaked the parameters under which the factions operate. Where factions operate on Wikipedia, they typically contain relatively small numbers of hard-core warriors. Most of each "faction" is made up of generally reasonable people without deep ideological motivations. The problem is that there's no breathing room and no comfortable middle ground for that majority of reasonable editors to occupy. Inevitably, they gravitate one way or the other, toward whichever faction is more in line with their general worldview. The solution isn't to pick the faction you think is disadvantaged and try to give it a boost, nor (as I think you're doing in this case) to pick the faction which you think is unfairly advantaged and try to take it down a peg. The solution is to create a viable middle ground, and to incentivize editors to occupy that middle ground. The best defense against factionalism is a strong middle ground of reasonable editors who will resist being pulled too far in either direction. But the conditions need to be created and maintained so that such a middle ground can exist, because the natural pull on a controversial issue is always going to be towards the extremes. So then the admin's role is to encourage reasonable editors to leave the extremes and form a middle ground, and to support those who make the effort. Sometimes that requires taking action against people on the extremes, but such actions aren't the primary focus. Positive reinforcement is always exponentially stronger than negative reinforcement. The single greatest power an uninvolved admin has isn't the block button, but the power of example. The right examples to set are: calm, reasonable, able to rise above provocation. Reward editors when they follow that example, and chastise them when they don't. In contrast, if you set the example that one faction needs to be "broken", focus on running down a handful of people whom you're convinced are bad actors, and then get drawn into bickering with those people, your example is equally powerful, but in the opposite direction. You've tacitly accepted the overall factional state of the topic area, and focused only on trying to restore "balance" between the factions by "breaking the back" of the one you perceive as dominant. Let's say ArbCom does as you hope they will - what happens next? Because there is no oxygen and no fertile ground for a "reasonable middle" to form, the factions will re-coalesce - probably with different names, and maybe even with a different balance of power, but still. If you spend all your time pulling weeds and don't bother to plant, fertilize, or water your garden, then in a best-case scenario, you'll end up with a weedless but empty garden. And the minute you stop weeding, you'll be back at square one. Anyhow, in the short term, I agree that having more admins step in will help. There have been times where I've been convinced that I was the lone remaining bulwark between Wikipedia and disaster, and that if I left, a whole topic area would come crashing down. What I've found is that in every such case, I dramatically overstated my personal indispensability. When I stepped back, others took up the challenge, and not only did a better job with it, but were less cynical and jaded about the situation than I had been. I think that will happen if/when the current crop of admins step back from climate change. If Wikipedia is at the point where we don't have people ready, willing, and capable of stepping in to take up the slack for the few of you, then we've got much bigger problems that our climate-change coverage. MastCell Talk 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to "give one faction a boost". That is not what "level the playing field" means at all. I want the power of factions in this area broken. All the factions. That starts by breaking the power of the most powerful one. Get rid of factions and perhaps the moderate editors will return. But as long as your faction stands in the way of any sanctions placed on anyone in your faction and in general causes problems, that's not going to happen. You've scared most all the moderate editors off. Disagree that your faction does this? OK, prove me wrong. Start by admonishing the folk on this talk page commonly viewed as part of your faction for their manifold transgressions on this very page. I tire of the abuse. Else... your words are empty. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you want to give one faction a boost, and people who assert that you do aren't being fair to you. I think it's clear that you do intend to bring down or "break" one faction. In the end, I think both add up to pretty much the same result - adjusting the balance of power rather than addressing the underlying dynamic. You can't deal with a systemic problem by ascribing it to one "powerful" group and then "breaking" that group. Let's say you're President in the 1980s, and you decide to address the influence of drug cartels by breaking the most powerful one and killing its leader. Would you expect that to decrease the problem of drug trafficking? MastCell Talk 23:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * tGL does a great job of exploring your analogy. I don't think it has much explanatory power, I'm afraid. Further it's not actually what I want, I want all the "gangs" stopped. It so happens that going after the most powerful one first, especially when it's way more powerful than all the rest, is the typical way this is done. Honest citizens can't go on about their business while the gangs are fighting. They fear getting caught in the crossfire. (that has nothing to do with drugs per se, it has to do with violent gangs enforcing their will in contravention to the norms of society...) I will re-challenge you. Just as Risker did. There are problems on this very page with behavior by members of the most powerful faction. Do something about it. ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, I am doing something about it. I'm trying to set a good example, and asking others to do the same. Anyhow, I'm at the point where I'm starting to repeat myself, so I think I'll let this go. MastCell Talk 04:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not doing enough. As Risker admonished you all. ++Lar: t/c 10:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The libertarian solution would be to simply legalize drugs and let the legitimate industry drown out the illegal drug trade or convert the illegal drug industry into a legal one. In effect, the government stops legitimate business and so illegal business, with all the ills it brings, is allowed to flourish. In a similar manner, the CC articles are a battleground of socking, incivility, canvassing, meat puppetry, soapboxing, wikilawyerings, BLP violations and off-wiki coordination - but only one side is prosecuted for such behavior, often, as with illegal drugs, with alarmist and exaggerated claims of their actions. The other side, the "legal drug industry," has a stake in keeping people afraid and misinformed about the other side and keeping their de jure monopoly.


 * Yes "drugs" should be regulated, but they shouldn't be criminalized - neither should other points of view, and despite your protestations that has indeed been the case. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not my intent to debate drug policy, so if my analogy has that effect, I will be happy to strike it. I disagree that only one "side" has been prosecuted - at least 50% of general discussion in the area is devoted to prosecuting WMC, albeit perhaps not very effectively. Nor are alarmist and exaggerated claims the sole province of one "side" (for example, describing a retired professor as "retired" is not Siegenthaler 2.0). I'm not clear on where your analogy is supposed to lead - at present, opposing views are not criminalized but merely regulated, as you propose recreational drugs should be. MastCell Talk 00:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "albeit not very effectively" - that's precisely the point, MastCell. Whatever your efforts at leading by example, they are not following, and nobody wants to force them to follow. Until those over-the-top elements on that "side" have been reigned in, this will always be a mess. ATren (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion is just that - discussion. Actions have spoken far louder than words. As for the "retired" thing, I believe it was in reference to Singer, who was already described as "emeritus" - it was redundant to call him retired as well and it is difficult to AGF considering WMC's long pattern of BLP violations. Also, there is a test used for "reverse racism" where one replaces "white" with "black" (e.g. United Caucasian College Fund, National Association for the Advancement of White People, White Entertainment Television, etc), and I like to apply a similar test to this topic area in order to test fairness/bias. In this specific case, do you honestly think WMC and his friends would allow "retired" to be added to WMC's bio? It is certainly supported by reliable sources and wouldn't even be redundant, but we both should know the answer to that.


 * Anyway, back to the initial analogy, my views are indeed "criminalized" as either fringe, undue and occasionally as BLP violations. These are obviously subjective in nature, but so is the law, which is why we have judges, and on wikipedia the majority of judges (admins) have interpreted the law in a way to side with the AGW advocates - I don't like activist judges any more than I like activist admins. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan of the Roberts Court either, but that's neither here nor there. MastCell Talk 04:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ot: I have little opinion on the Robert's court and a few probably somewhat ignorant views about some of the justices. However, even when I do agree with a judicial ruling, I still don't like judicial activism. For example, in the recent California case (I don't know too much about it), I agree with the end result (gay marriage - an oxymoron!), but don't like the precedent - if a judge can unilaterally grant rights then a judge can unilaterally take them away. I also think it would be longer lasting and produce less animus if done through the legislature. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Discrediting opponents
@MastCell: Back to the retired thing, it's part of a larger pattern of this faction trying to discredit opponents. I've seen it for years. Singer? He's retired and believes in Martians. Solomon? He's no environmentalist, he's a coffee merchant. Lindzen? He's a contrarian. I can cite probably a dozen more if I researched it. It's been a long term campaign (Singer's Martian crap went in more than 2 years ago) and taken as a whole, it is quite disturbing. Do you think I care about this topic or any of these BLPs? I didn't even know Singer when I came upon the Martian thing 2 years ago. That conflict sickened me, the way they tried to take an out-of-context 40-year-old claim and inflate it to such importance that it had to be in the lede. And it's not an isolated case -- it's happened over and over, all from these same half-dozen-or-so editors, who are either acting in bad faith or so blinded by their POV that they are incapable of neutrality on BLPs of their opponents. And it's still going on, in Monckton and Solomon while the case is active. You want to know why we are focused on these editors? Because they are doing the most damage. Most of the disruptive elements on the other side are blocked or banned. The bar is so low for "skeptics" that they get banned even if they're just annoying and persistent (GoRight). But here we have hard evidence of long term abuse and they still edit with impunity. What you completely miss in your analysis above is that one faction is already being dealt with, and harshly. I don't see Lar as advocating one faction over another, I see it as Lar advocating that this long-overlooked problematic faction receive the same treatment as the "skeptics" who have been banned through the years. ATren (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. And merely "setting a good example" doesn't cut it. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Avoiding being a bad example would be a step in the right direction, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Did you plan to start avoiding being a bad example any time soon? ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To be fair, editors on both 'sides' are using BLPs to credit/discredit AGW proponents/opponents. I would love for editors who work on these BLPs to actually write real biographies.  You know, tell us about their childhood.  Who influenced them growing up?  Are they married?  Have children?  What are their religious beliefs?  Etc..  IMHO, BLPs are being used as a WP:COATRACK to re-argue the case for/against AGW.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AQFK: exactly which editors have been using BLPs to discredit proponents? I haven't seen it, other than the occasional mis-application of sources. Nothing that comes close to the long term spin that has occurred on opponents, largely sourced to weak partisan sources. ATren (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ATren: I'm not prepared to list specific editors lest I violate some rule or create more WikiDrama. Suffice it to say that SV is the only editor I noticed who seemed genuinely interested in writing a real BLP.  Everything else is a thinly veiled battle over AGW. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree with AQFK here... merely uncoatracking something that got stuffed is helpful but addition by subtraction tends not to work well. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Can someone ask FutPerf to stop harassing me and to leave me alone? He has come to my talk page and threatened to block me for pointing out issues of incivility on one side not being enforced, while the other other side gets hammered. Thanks, GregJackP   Boomer!   14:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's likely to listen to me, I'm afraid, as he's dismissed my legitimate concerns about his slant. Perhaps one of my 350 WP:TPWs will have a word? Failing that, if you think it's serious enough, open a WQA or an enforcement action at the general sanctions page. ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This was depressing...
A dedicated solid editor gets invited to become an admin and then gets dogpiled. Cg could have mounted a more vigorous campaign, but that is not Cg's style. I though some of the questions and comments were really a bit silly. Is it this bad for everyone? If so, someone ought to seriously look at the whole process. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is this bad, most of the time nowadays. Periodically, people do look at the whole process, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship. There have been a lot of proposals, none ever get consensus (there are a LOT of archives!) ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The sad fact that an edit count appears to be a part of many person's decisions is rather disappointing to me personally speaking and causes me to seriously question the entire Wikipedia process. If this is going to become a veritable match based upon editcountitis (I recall seeing one query ask why there was such a large gap between his first edit and his registration which I find to be rather menial at best of a question and absolutely pointless at bare minimal. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 06:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole process needs to change. I wouldn't go near it in a million years, even if I had the extra ten thousand edits and a a desire to be an admin. At the moment it's a gauntlet where the default assumption is that an editor should not be granted adminship unless they can prove a specific need AND pass a policy quiz where all the possible answers are wrong AND comply with two dozen people's mutually-contradictory theories about how an editor should behave. I'd like to see it change to three simple questions - 1. Will they prove their identity to the foundation? 2. Have they been actively editing in a manner generally consistent with policy over the last three months? 3. Is there any compelling, positive reason why this person should not be trusted with the admin bit? Otherwise, the default assumption should be to grant it. Thparkth (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Number 1 would be a significant and likely unwelcome change to current and traditional practice. Identity verification is only required for positions with heightened privacy concerns (in particular with access to CheckUser data). I agree that the edit count inflation is detrimental to the project - it used to be ~1000 edits, when I passed in 2007, my count of 5000 was borderline, and now you need 7E23 or something like that... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I support all three points of Thparkth. I'd in fact go farther than #1, as I have said repeatedly. I'd, if I had a magic wand, wave it and require real names (to "Amazon level" validation) for all users. We lose some Chinese dissidents and others who don't feel safe editing, to be sure, but we also lose 99+% of all socking, and gain more responsible editing. A very good trade in my view. Please do not confuse "support" with "belief that any of this will ever happen", though. Sadly, nothing short of a magic wand would implement any of this. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally don't mind, number one. Anyone with the slightest ability to use Google could probably discover my real identity with relative ease. I don't make any assumptions of anonymity with regards to the internet. To do so, I'd probably have to create at least a dozen or so different false identities and even then, I'd have only bare minimal anonymity as one blogger for Gawker proved when 4 of his falsely created identities as part of an experiment were each exposed in under a week (Yet, he visited over 5 places around the world with various disguises on in less than 72 hours). That said, I don't mind #1, but it presents some privacy concerns, and legal concerns. You yourself were just in a case of Blackmail not to longer ago, Lar. We all know the rules on Legal Threats, Threats of Violence and such, but such threats (especially with regards to violence) have indeed been carried out in the past outside of Wikipedia. I don't know about within Wikipedia but I honestly don't discount the possibility both past, present, and future. Progressing forward, I find 2 to be within reason, but I just have one query: why 3 months? With regards to number 3, I agree there as well. Unless it can be proven and shown that the person can absolutely not be trusted with administration tools under any circumstances, then there shouldn't be a problem. Looking at the excuses (because that is honestly what they are) in the section of those who disagreed with the related RfA, I find that the principle under which the user was denied administration is absolutely ridiculous. I personally don't blame the user for refusing to answer most of the questions asked as they were pointless, moot, generally redundant, and absolutely unrelated. Example, why should a user be forced to create a page they don't want to? Looking at that (and observing the conversation being held below among the 3 admins, including Lar), I'm honestly discouraged by the whole Wikipedia process and I used to be one of it's staunchest supporters. The "Sheriff"? Really? Now Wikipedia admins want to flex muscle and have a pejorative (forgive me for I cannot find a better term) "pissing match? ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 19:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a strong example of what I mean. I observe things like this on a daily basis by persons who think that because they've been bestowed these responsibilities by the community that they are better than quite literally everyone. I personally have expressed an interest in these responsibilities myself, and although I have been here at Wikipedia since 2006 as an editor (and as an observer since 2005), I don't personally think I'm ready for them quite yet which is why I have never made an RfA. But I have never been one to think that quantity of edits is stronger than quality of edits, however, perhaps my thoughts are meaningless because looking at things, it seems people want 1 x 10^4 edits at bare minimal to even be remotely considered for it. I have just under 2600 total (at the time of this post). Ignore the actual size of your edits or the contributory effect you may have had to the project. Either have ten thousand edits at minimal or you don't have the chops for admin-ship. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 19:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The link at the start of the post is to an entire talk page. Some might ask you to elaborate a bit on what the issue is... I gather that you think this is a user that got badged as a sock unfairly and then run through the meat grinder? Another false Scibaby? That was a while ago so there's no way to tell at this remove what exactly the story was. That one may well have been Scibaby, who can say for sure. But I'm not happy in general with the false positive rate. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late response. It is not so much for the fact that the user was labeled a sock, but more to the point of the lack of defense the user was granted on his own behalf, specifically with regard to the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality displayed in addition to a complete unwillingness to show good faith on any part. I don't defend the user as it very well could've been a malicious account, I merely use it as an example to show the hostility level being displayed as of late. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 22:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize number 1 would be a big change, but I believe it would be an effective and sensible one. As Lar says, never going to happen anyway. Thparkth (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on real names for the admin side. But general, I think that would lose a large part of the dynamics that made Wikipedia such a success. Have a look at how Citizendium (Whats that?) lingers on. It's not just privacy concerns, it's a whole new barrier to entry. We tend to see contentious areas, where the benefit of real names may (or may not) outweigh the disadvantages. But there are large areas where there are few problems. But maybe we could require real names to edit in certain designated "war zones" only and get the best of both worlds? Yes, I know, it ain't gonna happen... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Citizendium differs from WP in enough orthogonal ways that it's not clear that you can draw valid inferences from that experience (which I do agree is problematic). Good experiments vary only one variable at a time. Which of course is usually impossible in sociological matters, but still. There ARE valuable lessons to learn from Citizendium. That said requiring real names in war zones isn't a bad idea at all. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A note for TPWs that may have missed it, this topic (more generally, the dearth of new admins) got covered in this week's signpost: Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin_stats. ++Lar: t/c 10:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove yourself now from uninvolved regarding WMC
please remove yourself now from all uninvolved comments regarding WMC until the arbcom decision which will likely ban him anyway. Polargeo (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your request. I will give it careful consideration. However you have not supplied any basis for it. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is just plainly rude after all of the evidence I have presented at arbcom. Polargeo (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which was debunked in analysis, as I recall. Also your request relies on a premise that is not necessarily likely. Seek a motion. Or seek consensus among other uninvolved admins that I am involved. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, do you (and others, but let's worry about you for the moment) need to be restricted to prevent further melee in this venue? For your own good, please recuse yourself from all CC activities until a decision is posted. Jehochman Talk 13:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seek a motion to that effect. Or seek consensus among other uninvolved admins that I am involved. I see no need to restrict my voicing my views at this time. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No not whilst you are riding the wave of wikipolitics. You well know that arbs are ignoring everything until the proposed decision is made and you know there is no way of challenging this. Last time I admired you for being a true operator that diff got put up against me as a personal attack against you and a reason to desysop me, but you really are. Polargeo (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fish or cut bait. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Caught, well and truly :) Polargeo (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur. Perhaps you're not familiar with US aphorisms? ++Lar: t/c 14:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No maybe not. I think with language such as non sequitur and aphorisms you have been watching too much Dawson's Creek. Polargeo (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't knock Dawson's Creek. That was before Katie Holmes went from hot to creepy... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A little story for you all. Just after my PhD I went to San Fran for two weeks for the AGU conference and I had such severe jet lag (and post thesis trauma) that I watched a whole season of Dawson's Creek in the early hours. I then bought a DVD of the next season and a DVD player for my hotel room. Now that I am not proud of. Polargeo (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dawson's is one of a very long list of TV shows I've never seen even so much as one minute of. So I really wouldn't know anything about it. As for buying a DVD player? Why not just play the DVD in your laptop and cable it to the room TV? That's what I do. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that your participation in this area is hurting more than helping, and am seriously asking you to move on to something else. I am an uninvolved editor. Jehochman Talk 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it's my participation that is problematic. There are measures you can take to reduce problems in the area. Asking me to cease participating isn't one of them. Instead, take action against the actual problematic folk. However, handing out unilateral restrictions that are significantly different than the arrived at consensus isn't one of them either. As much as I might think that a blanket restriction on WMC is way overdue (and in fact it's one of my proposed remedies), it is not the consensus that has been arrived at. You are again acting unilaterally. I find that quite problematic, actually, and unhelpful. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't tell who's to blame for starting the bar brawl. As the sheriff, I've decided that the only tenable thing to do is bounce all the participants out of the bar until ArbCom has had enough time to separate the naught from the nice.  You can of course choose to leave the bar of your own accord, which I think would be an excellent decision. Jehochman Talk 18:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect your attempt at unilateral action will end badly. Seek consensus. Failing that, seek ArbCom motions. What you're doing is not likely to work, and you ought to reverse yourself before your unilateral actions make matters worse. As a note, you are not the "sheriff", sorry to burst that delusion. ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delusion is an insult that you ought to remove. Do your part to clean up the atmosphere. Jehochman Talk 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A delusion in a general sense is just a false belief and I don't think it was intended to be an insult. I can see where Lar might have bristled at being compared with a participant in a bar-room brawl. While I know your intentions were good, J, I agree that you are not the sheriff any more than I am. --John (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When a word has two definitions, where one is insulting and the other is not, it is best not to use that word in a heated situation, lest the recipient take the wrong meaning. If I call somebody a cock, and the dialog is very likely to deteriorate from that point. Jehochman Talk 19:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True. Although calling them a fanny would be even worse, leaving them wondering if they were being mildly or severely insulted, depending on the dialect of the speaker. My point was that, while L's choice of words is open to criticism, your comparison of this highly ethical and sober editor with a person involved in a fight in a drinking establishment is pretty suboptimal too. Sometimes it's better just to walk away. I worked in a bar once and can vouch for that. --John (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I could easily take umbrage at equating me with a barroom brawler, but I chose not to. Seems rather picayune to focus on. That said, since JEH has raised a concern, the use of "delusion", as well as pointing out JEH is not actually a sheriff, a superhero, or the boss of all the other admins, was done with intent to convey meaning (and perhaps return JEH to a more consensus seeking path, to come to his senses here, in fact) rather than cast aspersion on JEH... If insult was taken I regret that, as it was not intentional. I think delusion is not a bad word choice, here, but perhaps misapprehension would better suit? ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better, thank you. I appreciate the use of precise language, and am sorry that my metaphor was problematic. Jehochman Talk 20:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, while WMC should be topic banned, I don't think you should unilaterally do it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio concerns
Hi Lar. I noticed this user ripping off your work. Is AN/I the best first step, or should it go straight to ArbCom? --John (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. You might advise them to try a slightly different color though, that aqua is hideoous. :) ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th GAR request
I pont you to. Do you really think that request should stand as it is? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, "not remotely" and "ad hominiem" are fairly strong critiques. What are your specific concerns with it that caused you to characterize it that way? ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lack of neutrality: "is applying the wrong criteria", "The article treats all critiques of the book in a neutral way;", "Good Article criteria are met." (which presupposes the outcome, so why discuss?). Ad-hominem: "The reassessment reviewer has been sanctioned in the past for editing WP:FRINGE", "may be a bit too biased". Failure of good faith: "the reviewer is now once again attempting to misapply WP:FRINGE". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lack of neutrality: While those phrasings could be reworded to be more neutral I suppose, it seems unlikely that one would ask for a community reassessment if one didn't find problems with the individual reassessment or feel it needed review with an eye to reversing it, so some statement of issues is to be expected. Ad-hominem and failure to AGF: No, sorry. The reviewer has had problems in the past with this area of policy, to the point of being sanctioned by ArbCom. That is highly relevant to determining whether, as a member of your faction, SA has let his biases stand in the way of doing right by the article, the readership, and the GA process. I'll turn it around, don't you find it at all problematic that SA chose to review the article mere hours after it was promoted? Good faith only goes so far. Your faction has exhausted a great deal of it at this point. The Proposed Decision can't come soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 11:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Lar please stop this faction stuff. So User:ScienceApologist is now part of "the faction" and you also regard that I am part of "the faction". I regard the biggest conflict I have ever had with any editor on wikipedia to have been with ScienceApologist. It is apparent that in your view any user who disagrees with you is "the faction" and any user who agrees with you is talking sense and helping to balance wikipedia. Therefore "the faction" appears to just be a handy stick to beat people with. Polargeo (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your faction is not monolithic. Most aren't. I guess we'll just have to wait for the decision, though, won't we? Which can't come soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please get it straigt, I consider you refering to "your faction" as an insult. Which I am sure you clearly realise by now. Secondly, in my view if anyone has been promoting a monolithic faction recently it is you and the group of editors you consistantly encourage. Polargeo (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For me, the problematic sequence began with an editor deeply entangled in the ArbCom case and surrounding discussion decided to pass a GAR for a contentious article in that very area. Can you explain again why the qualities of the messenger influence the quality of the message? Either the article is GA, or it is not. The history of SA is entirely irrelevant for that. Comment on the content, not on the contributor seems to apply without any restriction. BTW, if you want to communicate, you can leave your ceterum censeo at home. -Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If GregJackP is problematic as a GA reviewer, then surely SA is far more so, as SA provided evidence and has been part of your faction for a long time. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. As for communicating, this page is my "home", so your comment is especially without merit here, but it's meritless wikiwide regardless, as your faction's persistent and pernicious factional behavior is an important thing to take into account when evaluating matters in this area. The Proposed Decision can't come soon enough.  Although I can see why you might not agree, and why you might continue to agitate against me in every venue available. ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you read what I wrote the way I wrote it - at least in the sense that we did not achieve a meeting of minds of some kind. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand I think I understood quite well what message you were trying to convey. But feel free to try again if you like. Take on board the comments from GregJackP and Minor4th, just below, though, if you want to improve your coherency and relevance. A side note, Latin use doesn't impress me. Except for a few very widely used phrases (e.g. and i.e. and the like) I see it mostly as an attempt by the person uttering the phrase to show off and say "see how erudite I am!", rather than actually conveying much of anything useful to move the conversation forward. Just something to mull over, since your faction already has a reputation for thinking they're better than everyone else. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The message I was trying to convey was that the permanent repetition of "The Proposed Decision can't come soon enough The Proposed Decision can't come soon enoughThe Proposed Decision can't come soon enough" ad nauseam is no longer adding anything to the discussion but rather detracts from any progress. Of course, if you want to burn Carthage and salt the Earth that's your prerogative. I'm hoping for a more constructive outcome, though. Foreign languages don't come easy to me, so I like to use what I have. Why don't you take it as a compliment that I assume you are able to follow it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in Lar's defense it (almost) goes without saying, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, and with your clarification let me just add, acta est fabula plaudite. My apologies to Lar for all the Latin.  I am embarking on a crusade to revive it as a language.  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 18:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make a brief comment as to the discussion above. First, I know the requirements for GA status - about 1 in 7 of the articles I have written are GAs, with 2 more pending review. SA has created 1 article that has reached GA status, and it was taken to that level by other editors. I have reviewed a number of GA noms, and I'm very familiar with the criteria. My review of this article was to the standards, and if someone has a problem with the review they need to clearly identify the area so it can be discussed, by the exact error allegedly made. I have a good record as to blocks, 1 for less than a day, compared to a long list of blocks for SA misapplying WP:FRINGE, including by ArbCom. I also don't have what appears to be a misleading userbox that leaves the impression that I've never been blocked. SA is calling for the book to basically be peer reviewed by scientists before it can be a GA - a condition that is nowhere in the standards (which is appropriate for Sanger's site, but not here). Those are the reasons that his history is relevant. GregJackP  Boomer!   13:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, Stephan, I would appreciate being notified if you are discussing me on someone's talk page. Second, I stand by my request for community reassessment as written and here's why.   I was actually very careful to not engage in ad hominem and toned down the language quite a bit as you'll see if you compare it to my comments on the talk page of the article.   The fact is, I think SA is grossly perverting the GA process, and I even suspect that he knows he is gaming the GA process to make a WP:POINT.    I did not say that in the request for reassessment because I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.  Everything I included in the request about his previous sanctions re:  WP:FRINGE has bearing on his manner of conducting his individual reassessment.   I believe he is applying the wrong criteria, and that is the basis for the request.   I don't know how the request can be made and the reason stated without mentioning my actual reason for bringing the request.  Third, I'm really sick and tired of partisan admins showing up to try to intimidate editors into changing their edits or making retractions or modifying their behavior based on what appears to me to be their partisanship and preference for some editors and some POV.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 14:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, if GregJackP applied any wrong criteria or if there is an actual problem with his GAR, state it with particularity as opposed to SA's reassessment, which amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 15:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a fair assessment, since ScienceApologist pointed to specific GA criteria which he felt were not met in this case. Anyhow, I think Lar said it best when he opined that "Perhaps someone who has no dog in the fight would have been a far better choice to do the initial assessment, and certainly to do a reassessment." At this point, the best possible way forward is probably for everyone who feels invested in the article to sit back and wait for some truly outside opinions. ZScout has already provided one; more are likely to be forthcoming if everyone can manage to restrain themselves. MastCell Talk 17:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * MastCell, I concur with Minor's assessment. SA is applying a science standard to the contents of the book - an uninvolved editor concurred (Jezhotwells) - by using a standard that has never applied on Wikipedia.  There is no requirement that a book has to be peer-reviewed, so to speak, before a GA-class article can be written on the book.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to apply in my opinion, but I could be wrong.  I'll defer to the opinion of uninvolved editors on that. :D   GregJackP   Boomer!   18:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't honestly believe (or expect me to believe) that SA is claiming only peer-reviewed books can be GA subjects. He's objecting to the article's emphasis on the book's scientific claims, which are both unvetted and counter to widely held scientific opinion. That should be clear to the reader, or else we've misled him/her. I tend to agree with SA's argument: the huge amount of space which the article devotes to an uncritical recitation of Booker's scientific claims is problematic. I don't do a lot of GA work and have no desire to voice a formal opinion on the article, but I think you're failing to accurately represent SA's objection, and as a result failing to address it. MastCell Talk 19:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "He's objecting to the article's emphasis on the book's scientific claims, which are both unvetted and counter to widely held scientific opinion." There is no basis in policy for requiring an article on a book to have been peer-reviewed. His objection is based on a faulty premise.   GregJackP   Boomer!   21:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. SA didn't demand that the book be peer-reviewed, much less the article, as a requisite for GA status. Where does that come from? MastCell Talk 22:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * MastCell, see Let's put it this way, Jprw, we should at least go with people who have degrees in science as the most reliable reviewers, which is basically calling for a peer review.  Your position on WP:UNDUE is also misplaced - this is not an article on the science, it is about the book.  If you have additional reviews that need to be added, then by all means, add them, but on the material presented, it meets the requirement of being NPOV.   GregJackP   Boomer!   22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not "calling for a peer review", nor does it match up with your assertion that SA is demanding that the book be peer reviewed to become a GA. It's part of a content discussion about the ordering and prominence given to reviews. You could disagree with SA's argument - I'm not sure I agree that reviewers need a degree in the sciences to be cited prominently either - but that will involve actually addressing the substance of his concern, as others have done. As to WP:UNDUE, it is worded specifically to prevent people from creating articles about minoritarian books, movies, and websites as an end-run around proportionate representation of the underlying topic. Not that you're doing this, or trying to - but others have, and the policy most certainly applies to how we present disputed content anywhere on Wikipedia, not just in articles about science. MastCell Talk 23:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could be misinterpretation. On the other hand...
 * it is fairly clear that the article is not offering proper analysis of the subject the book purports to be about.
 * What do you think was meant by that? ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I said above: that an uncritical recitation of the book's scientific claims creates a misleading impression about their level of acceptance. WP:UNDUE says as much, when it cautions that articles describing minoritarian views "must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view." SA cited that policy, and his objection is at least partly (perhaps not wholly) policy-based. I haven't really seen anyone grapple with the policy-based aspect of his argument, although I think Geometry guy pointed in that direction in his comment at the GAR. MastCell Talk 22:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To me it reads like SA wants the article authors to engage in synthesis (proper analysis). That's just wrong. The article, in the synopsis, needs to be a synopsis of the book. It should not, itself, offer any opinion of the truth or falsehoood of the book's premises, assertions or conclusions. (of the subject the book purports to be about) It instead should present critical reaction (and that includes from the lay press as well as the scientific press), properly weighted, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. This is not a science article, it's an article about a book, and about the reception it received (if any) and impact it had (if any). SA is barking up the wrong tree. And so are you. UNDUE, FRINGE, and the like don't apply at all, except as second order things. The book is what it is. People reacted or they didn't. Even if they reacted in a clueless manner, their reaction is what we need to write about. You and SA are misapplying policy here to achieve your own ends. ++Lar: t/c 22:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in large part; the article should recapitulate what reasonably reputable reviewers have said about the book, and let the reader judge for themselves. Reception and impact are key sections of the article, and I'm sure they'll sort out fine, because fortunately the book has been the subject of a reasonable number of reputable reviews. The problem is with the lengthy plot summary. It would be enough to briefly summarize Booker's arguments in a short paragraph, and focus the article on the book's reception and impact (as you suggested). The problem is that when the book summary turns into a long rehash of Booker's claims, complete with slides, then it starts to look like the article is intended as a platform for Booker's views, rather than as an encyclopedia article about a book. That's where WP:UNDUE comes in - if the article is going to present Booker's scientific claims at length, then policy requires us to accurately describe the minoritarian nature of his claims. We avoid that problem by confining ourselves to a brief but informative summary of the book's claims, and focusing instead on reliably sourced reaction/impact. I think this is do-able - I even think there's a good article (caps optional) in there trying to get out, but people need to put down the ad hominems and actually address each others' content-based concerns. MastCell Talk 23:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * NOW we're getting somewhere. (inside every large program is a small, elegant program struggling to get out :) ) I agree with you that the synopsis, proportional to the overall article length, may well be overweight (although it appears to be within guidelines in terms of number of characters/words) and the 8x10 glossies with lines and arrows diagrams all need to go. But that's not what SA said in his review. As I said, barking up the wrong tree. ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's true, he pointed to a specific GA criteria but then applied his own made-up standard. Agree that it would be best for "invested" editors to step back, and that was the point of the community reassessment request.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist responds
???I explicitly complained that the synopsis was overweighted. In fact, I had two complaints. To summarize: 1)the content which explained the reviews of the book is dominated by reviews from what looks to me to be unreliable sources because many seem to not have the capability or the necessary expertise to judge whether the claims in the book were correct, an explicit violation of WP:UW as though an article on a book about vaccine paranoia devoted the most space in the "reviews" section of the article to reviews by Jenny McCarthy and friends, and 2)the synopsis of the book was being explicated in a way that looked a bit coatrackish to me. Your objections and attempts to label me in this affair have looked very peculiar to me. They are not the careful considerations of the Lar I remember who used to at least try to understand what I was saying before passing judgment. Has that all gone by the wayside with this dispute? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I read your original review. What I got out of it is the same criticism GeometryGuy leveled at it, you took the article to task for not tearing down the book. That's wrong. The article's book synopsis is too fat, and too colorful, but it should be a synopsis, not a critique. Next, your complaint is that the reviews weren't properly weighted. That's fine, except you want to evaluate the reviewers based on credentials. Nope. If the reviews are in reliable sources, that is sufficient. We are about verifiability, not truth. In short, your original review takes completely the wrong approach in that area, you're trying to apply FRINGE to exclude reviews in the popular press. Why you took that approach is beyond me, but given your recent background... and I did not do that lightly. Trying to say I haven't carefully considered things? No, sorry, This topic area has been my primary onwiki focus for many months now, and I'm quite concerned at the patterns of behavior I have found. I think global warming denialism is bunk, and I'm dismayed at how many people in the popular press give it credence, but it is not our place to steer opinion. We report, we do not evaluate. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But we do evaluate sources, all the time. Discussing the proper way to present and weight conflicting book reviews is part of editing Wikipedia. The book has been reviewed by (among others) Philip Ball, James Delingpole, Rodney Leach, Henry Kelly. Ball is a widely published science writer and a former editor of Nature. Delingpole is a partisan polemicist, Kelly is a DJ, and Leach is best known as a climate-change skeptic. None of their reviews should be "excluded", as they've all been published in major media outlets, but a reader would potentially be interested to know who these people are. We don't need to say "the guy from Nature is reliable and the DJ isn't" - but we can, and probably should, note that one is from Nature and one is a DJ, so that readers can draw their own conclusions if they like. Otherwise it feels vaguely dishonest, like we're hiding something important from the reader, if we just list their names and pretend that these reviews are all interchangeable because they were all published in newspapers. MastCell Talk 18:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * MastCell, how would you describe George Monbiot? ATren (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Probably as an environmental journalist. How would you describe him? MastCell Talk 16:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the phrase "partisan polemicist" does come to mind for both Delingpole and Monbiot, so if those words are used to describe Delingpole then they should also be applied to Monbiot. On the other hand, if Monbiot is the less judgmental "environmental journalist", perhaps Delingpole should be labeled "conservative journalist" or something similar. My point is, and always has been, that we tend to describe the Delingpoles as polemicists while describing the Monbiots as journalists (or, more commonly, not labeling the Monbiots at all), and that is POV. Would you agree with this assessment? ATren (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really think you can equate those two. Monbiot's credentials as a journalist are extensive, and he's been recognized in that capacity by a number of reputable third parties, in the form of visiting professorships, awards, honorary degrees, and so forth. Delingpole, as best I can tell, has not received such recognition in his journalistic capacity. He seems to have attracted attention primarily by virtue of his polemicism (the attention in question usually taking the form of additional polemicism). I know there's a tendency to try to equate figures on one "side" with those on another and look for inconsistencies in their treatment, but I don't think these two people are really analogous in the sense you're suggesting. That said, I think that "conservative journalist" would be a reasonable encyclopedic descriptor of Delingpole. MastCell Talk 17:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * MastCell, Monbiot is an environmental and political activist yet around here he is treated like Edward R. Murrow. Your claim that Monbiot's activism is somehow different than Delingpole's is representative of the POV problems in this area. They are both highly partisan sources, but one is quoted everywhere as an authority and another is practically blacklisted from the site. Consider another example, a long term environmental activist who later became a writer for a major news organization, just like Monbiot: he is basically blacklisted as a source here -- why is that? I cannot fathom how the current treatment of Solomon/Delingpole and Monbiot can possible be considered consistent within our policies here. ATren (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think Monbiot and Delingpole are equivalent, and I explained why. It has nothing to do with the quality of their respective activism. Monbiot has received substantial recognition from independent, reputable sources for his journalism, while Delingpole has not. Lawrence Solomon is not equivalent to Monbiot, for the same reasons. I agree that Monbiot is an activist; I suppose if one wanted to describe him as an "environmental journalist and activist", then that would be a bit clunky but generally accurate. I don't think it's necessary to denigrate Delingpole or Solomon when presenting their views, but I think you're pushing a little too hard for a false equivalence here. MastCell Talk 20:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And I think you're pushing too hard for a false non-equivalence. They are all partisan writers for major newspapers, yet they have been treated as polar opposites here: one used liberally and without qualification, the others nearly completely banished. One of Solomon's columns was actually republished at CBS News, yet it still remains off-limits, while Monbiot's Guardian blog is sourced everywhere. Your defense of this situation is no doubt good faith (I have never doubted your good faith, nor that of most other "faction" members) but I believe your judgment is clouded by your ideological sympathies. ATren (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Or maybe we just disagree about something which is, after all, a gray area. It happens. :) MastCell Talk 21:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Monbiot's biography here on wikipedia strains credulity. Most of the "facts" in it come from his books or his autobiographies online. Honestly, read his career section and tell me your bullshit detector isn't being overloaded. I really don't know how you can consider someone offering a reward to arrest Tony Blair for "crimes against peace" and who personally tried to arrest John Bolton a serious journalist. I think we're having an emperor has no clothes moment here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * GeometryGuy did not level the same criticism as you, as he mostly incorporated my points into his critique while you seemed content to simply attack me. I'm not saying that the article should "tear down the book". I'm saying that we have policies and guidelines which prevent us from using articles about books as coatracks. To avoid doing this, the best thing to do is to only talk about content that has been properly vetted rather than to wax eloquent about the content in the book which lacks the prominence to be discussed in Wikipedia because independent sources haven't vetted it. I don't want the synopsis to be a critique and am surprised that you read that between my lines. I want the book synopsis to simply state the broad strokes that the book is about and possibly one-way link to the appropriate articles in Wikipedia about the subject. There are points where the synopsis "colorfully" describes an alternative history which is lauded by climate change denialists but runs counter to the standard story. I don't think it is Wikipedia's place to simply narrate this as though it was a neutral description of fact. I'm not saying that it is easy to balance a straightforward exposition of a book's content with the goal of not promoting the content, but it can be done and is done well in good articles in this encyclopedia.
 * Evaluating reviewers based on credentials is one of the first steps at reliable sourcing. There is a difference between someone's opinion who is a disc-jockey and someone's opinion who is a scientist when we are discussing the aesthetics of producing popular television commentary, which most scientists are woefully bad at. In such a case, we would not weight very highly a scientist's opinion of how best to make a popular television show. In such an instance, we would want to weight Henry Kelly's opinions more than Philip Ball's opinions. This book is fundamentally, at its core, trying to evaluate a scientific question in the context of history. And it's wrong to look at the credentials of the individuals reviewing when deciding how to apply appropriate weight? That doesn't make any sense to me, but please explain how it works in your understanding. Verifiability is not the issue here. The issue is one of neutrality. They are different points entirely. I can verify what a global warming denialist believes, but the weight of the evidence shows them to be on the out-and-out when it comes to how they are equipped to discuss scientific facts. Credentialism is just a first brush: a mean way of making a first attempt to evaluate reliability. If we are not equipped to do that, we wouldn't be able to say anything on Wikipedia because there are plenty of verifiable cranks who disagree with every fact in this reference work. He said/she said is not the way we write articles: it never has been. We try to dispassionately summarize and create a mainstream work. The claim that "we report, we do not evaluate" seems especially specious to me. I make value judgments all the time in editing the encyclopedia from whether to use a certain word to whether a particular source is reliable to whether a particular topic is fringe. If you don't think we are equipped to make such judgments, I suggest you try to modify WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:MoS so that it doesn't encourage editors to do that. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't need to modify any policies. Merely apply them correctly, rather than misapply them as you do. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "I'm right, you're wrong. Neener, neener, neener." It's wonderful what this conflict has done to the level of discourse. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that he is right, and no amount of wikilawyering will change that. ATren (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who can argue with such a well-explicated proof-by-assertion? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Many people have explained it to you in detail. At this point, either you get the explanation or you don't. What part are you not getting, exactly? ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I explained what part I'm not getting above. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you consider "We report, we do not evaluate" or "We are about verifiability, not truth." (these are the same concept) as "specious" there really isn't much more I can say. You're way off base. It is not our place to analyze the competency of reviewers. Only how widely carried they are. Book reviews are not science. ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying when writing an article about a book which is about a complicated topic, it doesn't matter who reviews the book: each review should be given equal weight to all other reviews as long as each review is verified to have been published? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. ++Lar: t/c 10:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'm not sure what you are saying, because that's what it read like to me. Maybe we're typing past each other? How do you think reviews for books should be weighted? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reiterating what I've already said: The weighting should reflect the impact that the review has on the general public's reception of the work, that is, it should be driven by the notability of the source, and the notability of the reviewer. NOT the source or reviewer's credentials, since we are not evaluating the veracity of the work, that would be synthesis. We are presenting the reviews, weighted by their prominence, rather than critiquing the work ourselves. The reader can evaluate their veracity. ++Lar: t/c 17:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that cementing common misunderstandings, otherwise known as the National Enquirer model of an encyclopedia? So you would give more weight to review of On the Origin of Species by Oprah Winfrey than by Richard Dawkins? On Atlas Shrugged you'd prefer Jay Leno to Noam Chomsky? Moreover, that brings us into another conundrum: While you reject evaluation of the competence of the reviewer, you now require us to estimate the impact of the review. How do you propose to do that, especially on a global scale? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In order: No, yes, yes, and by evaluating the notability of the reviewer and of the publication the review was in, in accordance with our WP:RS policy. This stuff (compliance with our policies) isn't actually that hard, except that it's harder to spin than the approach you prefer. Please remember, the article is about a particular book. We should present the impact the book had and not pass judgment on the truth of the material the book contains. I note this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's basic approach that your faction persists in holding. For On the Origin of Species, while it is true I would give more weight to Oprah's review than Richard's, I would give little weight to either in presenting material about the impact of the book. Most of the material presented would deal with the huge impact that the book has had on biology in the last 150 years rather than reviews specifically. But in the case of a new book reviews are all we have. ++Lar: t/c 18:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I misunderstand you? I understood your part of your first sentence to be "I would give a very popular talk show host more credence than an Oxford University biologist if they both reviewed Charles Darwin's seminal work." <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You did misunderstand. Credence is a value judgment the reader makes. Prominence is an editorial decision about placement and emphasis. I, as a reader, give more credence to Dawkins. But as an editor, my interpretation of our policy is that we give more prominence to more prominent reviewers. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. So you believe that we should give a popular talk-show host more prominence than a renowned evolutionary biologist if both review Origin of Species? MastCell Talk 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the article about the book, yes. But (as you said above) if it comes down to it, if doing that seems to lead to an odd outcome where we give more column inches than we would expect to some talk show host, we also should find reliable sourcing to describe what the reviewers are, and trust our readership to give the proper credence to a renowned evolutionary biologist's view (that is, a lot) even if the other review got more prominence in the article because (per WEIGHT) it's a more notable review and thus gets more inches. However, as I said, at this point in time, present day reviews of On the Origin of Species should occupy very little of the total article since they are of very little relevance compared to the vast impact the book has had on biology, which can be sourced to things other than reviews. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to write up a sample of this view in some space such as Book review? Because it is a lot different than the way I thought Wikipedia was supposed to handle book reviews in articles about books. I'd also love it if you could point to a community consensus where your position on how to write such reviews was agreed to. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I would not. I think you'll find that most folk outside your circle interpret policy this way. In articles about books, scientists get no special weighting merely because they are scientists. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I believe you are completely wrong. Maybe that's because I generally respect scientists and academics in their area of expertise more than the general public, which I count myself part of. But let's move to specifics. Let's take What Evolution Is. Imagine that the only three reviewers were John McCain, Daniel J. Fairbanks, and Barbara McClintock. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all of these supposed reviews were written in 2010. Just making up some figures here: I would estimate that 95% of Americans would recognize McCain, .0001% would recognize Fairbanks, and 0.1% might recall McClintock. In a section titled What Evolution Is, how much weight do you think each should get? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I expect I respect scientists and academics in their area of expertise even more than you do. But that doesn't have bearing on this matter, we're talking about WP policy. I don't make WP policy, I just interpret and apply it, and I think policy is pretty clear in this area. Second, your example is so far fetched as to have no pedagogical or explicatory value, so I think I'll go with mu for my answer. This isn't going anywhere useful. SA, who should have recognized what Guettarda recognized (see the article talk) and chosen not to review this GA, has misapplied policy to give undue weight to one reviewer. It's that simple, really. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is simple. Good luck with your ideology, Lar. I disagree with you, but respect you enough to see you formulate your opinions in debates. No, you will not see me avoiding controversy. I will make sure that the perspective that scientists are the most reliable reviewers of ideas and media related to science gets represented where I see it needs to be represented. Consensus will rule. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not my ideology. It's policy around here. As for avoiding controversy, you should not have carried out that GA review. Even Guettarda recused himself. Your perspective is incorrect, since it applies a litmus test to mainstream media. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of policy is ideological, but so is everybody else's. As an aside, there is no policy or guideline that says I shouldn't have carried out the GAR. As far as I can tell, the community reassessment going very well. Not sure what you mean by "even Guettarda recused himself." Seems snarky to me. Not sure how one can determine that my perspective is demonstrably incorrect "because it applies a litmus test to mainstream media." We actually have lots of litmus tests at Wikipedia. WP:FRINGE lists a bunch including, for example, one that says don't take News of the Weird seriously. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"The weighting should reflect the impact that the review has on the general public's reception of the work, that is, it should be driven by the notability of the source, and the notability of the reviewer." --> So, just so I'm abundantly clear, how do you measure the impact that a review has on the general public's reception of the work? Should we weight based on the circulation of the newspaper, the television ratings the reviewer enjoys, the Alexa rank of the website upon which the review was published, or some other metric? I just want to be clear I'm not misunderstanding you and your directions for how book reviews are to be handled in Wikipedia. Also, can you explain how we're supposed to decide which sources are more or less notable than other's? My understanding of notability can be read here. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My "directions" ???? Two words, two misapprehensions. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the misapprehensions are. Please disabuse me of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy gives direction, not me. That's one. I give my interpretation of policy, not direction. That's two. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit nitpicky, but I think most of my questions were answered above anyway in spite of the snark. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we did answer your questions in spite of the snarky way you used "your directions" in your commments to me, implying, .... well I don't know what, but patience is a good thing. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was implying that you were giving directions for best-practices in editing according to your interpretation of the policies and guidelines. It's okay for you to give directions. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, please take a look at the article as it stands now. There have been some legitimate issues raised about this Good Article, and I believe the nominator has addressed most, if not all, of those issues now.   If there are further issues related to the Good Article reassessment, I encourage you to discuss those on the community reassessment page.  SA, perhaps there is some difficulty understanding the particular way you phrase things, as several editors have had difficulty understanding you or perhaps misunderstanding you entirely.   If you feel there are still issues to be addressed, please list them on the reassessment page in very particular, clear detail.   Thank you.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that people sometimes misunderstand each other. But right now I'm trying to figure out what Lar is suggesting we're supposed to do as editors of Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is what Lar is saying, and he can correct me if I am mistaken:
 * Notable reviewers of the book should be all be cited according to the guidelines and WP:BOOK.
 * The book reviewers can be identified by their affiliations and/or areas of expertise -- i.e., if a DJ or talk show host reviews a book, the article can specify that the reviewer is a talk show host.  Accuracy is important, and these labels should not be gamed or spun.
 * A scientist does not get more room in the article because he's a scientist.
 * <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Per policy. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In sum, scientists are not the most reliable reviewers of books about science. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may make a comment here, I see reliability and weight as two different issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE connects them, in my mind. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether CC skepticism is a fringe or minority viewpoint. In any case, can you be more specific?  Which part of WP:FRINGE connects the two?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE for starters. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends on which aspect of CC skepticism you're talking about. I think the conspiracy theory that climatologists are intentionally colluding to promote a theory they know is wrong is fringe.  OTOH, the viewpoint that climatologists might be simply be mistaken doesn't seem to me to be fringe.  This later form of skepticism is nowhere near the level of Nostradamus or creationism.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These can often be mixed up, right? Someone who points out an error in a paper might be correct that there is an error in the paper. Then in the next sentence might declare it's evidence of a conspiracy. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, anything's possible, but I don't think that's really what's going on here. Most CC skeptics seem to believe that climatologists are simply mistaken in one way or another. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What you're saying sounds very similar to someone defending creationists by saying that they just seem to believe that biologists are simply mistaken in one way or another. Can you clarify the distinction? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. If I'm not mistaken, some CC skeptics, such as Patrick Michaels, agree with the scientific consensus on CC but believes the actual change in global temperature falls at the lower end of current estimates.  Other skeptics, such as Penn Jillette, believe that solar variation plays a bigger role than currently believed in climate change.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Still don't understand. I can point to creationists who act similarly. There's Hugh Ross who agrees with mainstream astronomy but disputes mainstream biology. There's Michael Behe who believes that evolution happens, but that there are certain things which cannot be explained by natural selection. Seems to me to be very comparable. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist: I think the reason why you are having trouble understanding is that you seem to view things (at least in this case) as black and white and that everything is either mainstream or fringe. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually don't think that way at all. I think there are gradations. WP:FRINGE is intentionally cast broadly. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are "skeptic" and "denialist" interchangeable terms? If something is given credence in mainstream media, and is a commonly held view, is it nevertheless a fringe view because it's not in accordance with generally accepted scientific consensus? What if the consensus itself seems to be shifting? ++Lar: t/c 16:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That question seems very akin to asking whether neocreationism and intelligent design are interchangable terms. In some sense, yes, they are and there are plenty of reliable sources which show that. In other more technical and personal senses, the terms may actually not be interchangeable. It's not at all clear from the sources. Anthropologists have demonstrated that most people on planet Earth believe in geocentrism. That doesn't mean that geocentrism isn't a fringe belief when compared to the academic consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Denialist" is simply a pejorative. It doesn't matter who uses it. It is basically an accusation of a specific form of delusion - that something is so incredibly obvious you'd have to be delusional/idiotic to disagree. Ironically enough, despite environmentalist polices killing far more than the Nazi's the term is also meant to associate "deniers" with holocaust denial. I suppose the term "skeptic" catches in too many throats because it is a little too close to implying an actual scientific view and that sort of implied respect would indeed be a travesty.


 * Basically, a person could find "reliable sources" referring to various people in nasty ways, but we generally don't put those in biographies. Do we call George Bush a racist because Kanye West called him one? Of course not, just because someone is famous doesn't mean we can use them as a reliable source to slander someone. Editorial judgment must be used. If editors can't judge properly and refuse to control their biases when editing articles then they should be made to stop. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While it is possible to find a lot of sources which describe "racist" as a pejorative, finding sources which explicitly accuse "denialist" of being a pejorative term is much harder (though certainly not impossible). The question always is, on the balance of the most reliable sources, which category/label/group ID is most appropriate? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you really being serious here? First off, any "sourcing" issues are due to the fact that "denialist" isn't really a word. It is a pejorative term used almost exclusively by environmental extremists (you know like the most active terrorist organization in the US). If you have to invent words to denigrate your opponents, intentionally associating them with the Holocaust then that is simply PR and a disgusting flavor of PR at that. Learn to have some respect for your fellow human beings and not call them terms that are intentionally inflammatory and highly insulting. IAR and fuck the "sources" because nobody in their right mind believes and incorporates into their lexicon everything they've read. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are assuming a lot of facts not in evidence, which is beautifully illustrated by your directive for us to "fuck the sources". I do not accept that it is "simply PR" to ask for sources that explain how it is "pejorative" to group people as "denialists" when they deny various aspects of the scientific facts surrounding climate change. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm demonstrating how to actually use IAR. This seems foreign to you since it is usually misapplied by agenda-driven editors who use it as a get out of jail free card when they've reached the elastic limit with other rules. Basically, you've engaged in moving the goalposts and topped it off with a straw man (saying "denialist" deny facts about science). I can show "reliable sources" accusing many people of being racists. I can show "reliable sources" that accuse black republicans of being mentally ill. But no, this isn't good enough, now you want me to find proof that such things are pejorative; that some journalist outside the insular world of climate alarmists cares about their idiotic name-calling. The funny thing is I probably could find such a source, but then you'd come back with some other excuse and move the goalposts a bit more - I don't like excuses.


 * Debate is meant to enlighten people - this is not possible where one side constantly changes the rules in order to score points or avoid being scored on. Since I'm done with this little game, then I invite you to participate in the discussion down below where MastCell and I talk about the differences between being passively deceptive and actively deceptive - I'm sure your input would be invaluable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems the responses you assumed I would make have caused you to not want to continue. To be clear, I do not think that "denialist" is "simply pejorative". You do. But that's no basis to decide how to edit an encyclopedia, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Own subheader to stand out
(was General response, arrogantly making own sub-header to stand out, incredible long and ban-worthy subtitle that is starting to look ridiculous, I really should stop typing and end the grammar massacre ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)) It seems to me that if SA wants the reviewers to all be scientists and if MastCell wants everything the book says to be refuted then they should start on any religious article. Perhaps Jesus would be a good place to start inserting "alleged" and "fictional" into just about every sentence? Do you guys feel the need to discredit everything you don't believe? The last question is more rhetorical than anything since it has been more than answered by the actions, patterns and results that have landed us at ArbCom. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be hating on my table of contents, man... :) You're making it scroll! ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It only took up two lines. My goal was to have a subtitle longer than my actual response, but I'll have to save that dream for another day. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're caricaturing both SA's argument and mine, which is easier than addressing them but also less productive. MastCell Talk 04:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When simplified and filtered of the bullshit many arguments often look like caricatures, but I assure you I could no more caricature this than I could caricature Alex Chiu. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think his potion is working. Unless that was the "before" picture. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, but he is using the amazing power of magnets to properly circulate his delicious chi! Besides, of course he looks different now with his "Gorgeouspil" realigning his face and making him look more symmetrical. Although, to be fair, I'm sure his pills might have some benefit with all the various phytochemicals in them, but not as much as a fantastic breakfast like this one (avocado, spinach, carrots, red bell peppers and raspberries (not pictured)). TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is hilarious
I couldn't have written a better script. Good article reassessment/The Real Global Warming Disaster/1

Synopsis
Lar pretends to not have anything to do with content but strangely he still manages to comment (in a way that backs up his own content stance, which he has expressed several times) on the most critical content objection ie. I don't think too much should be read into the NPOV tagging (see GA criteria part 4 NPOV!!! Also see WP:Weight etc., also see GA criteria part 5 edit warring) then Lar is backed up by his faction as they all pile on User:Marknutley, User:Minor4th, User:ZuluPapa5, User:GregJackP and User:Collect. I await the climax of the show. It is much better watching this silliness than doing something about it. Polargeo (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering that I have backed you up in some cases, don't you think your assertion here about me is ill-considered? And that I agreed with WMC et al in other places?  I am part of no "faction", as you dang well should admit, Polar!   And making asides about me in this manner is not really going to make me super well-disposed to your claims in the future, I suspect. Collect (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Collect. But I am just fed up of being described as faction by Lar (if you look up the page here). My view was meant to be an ironical mirror on what I have seen Lar doing. Polargeo (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you mean ironical or satirical? Both are tricky to get right but irony tends to be much more narrowly defined. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was highlighting the irony of the situation by parody. Polargeo (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You might find the links I gave helpful. Irony is really hard to get right. So is parody. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Polargeo (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but neither of you can claim inclusion in or exclusion from a faction® yourself. Faction® association is only determined by Lar, based on his secret patent-pending IfINoticeThatYouDisagreeWithMeIFactionalizeYou™ algorithm. Please ask Lar for an official faction® assignment before making claims of belonging (or not belonging) to a faction®. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder this one will catch on as well as "milliLar" did? ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. At this point one might wish to ponder the applicability of audacter calumniare, semper aliquid haeret.  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 19:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wanna bet that you used it more often than I did now? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing use and reference. Perhaps when you repudiate it and apologize, the reference count will stop increasing? ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think you are using it, if differently. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So no plans to apologize, then? ++Lar: t/c 13:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've no doubt said before, I stand by the substance. If you are disproportionally hurt by the form, I'm sorry for that. If you complain about the content, too bad. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, faction members never apologize, because they're always right. ATren (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No one involved in this particular conflict at any level seems particularly inclined to apologize. I suspect they're afraid that any apology will be used against them as an admission of guilt. Which is unfortunate, although probably not inaccurate. MastCell Talk 16:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * False. I apologize for stuff all the time, when the request is legit. I think when you say "no one", you're referring mostly to the members of a certain faction rather than a blanket statement. Specifically, here we have an admin who was using my ID as a way to belittle and mock. Regardless of whether his underlying assertion is valid or not, that's unacceptable behavior, it's in fact behavior unbecoming an admin. He needs to say he's sorry that he acted inappropriately in doing so, as "sorry you didn't like it" isn't actually a real apology. Now, I actually don't expect he will man up and do it. But that's the crux so forgive me for pointing out that he's non-collegial. Or don't, I don't care. Point stands either way. Risker told you guys to stop enabling each other, to start trying to get each other to act better. But that was in one ear and out the other, I expect. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to belabor the obvious, but . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is obvious to you but I fail to perceive the relevance of those diffs to this particular discussion. Could you elaborate?  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 19:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They are apologies. ++Lar: t/c 19:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But neither of them was to you and neither seems to be regarding his attacks upon you which is what I had assumed this thread of discussion was about. Hence my confusion regarding their relevance here.  I see now that he must have actually been replying to MastCell (and not you as his indenting would seem to suggest).  I am sorry that I found his misdirected response confusing and I have stricken my comment above as a result.  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 20:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true. But it often is the case that folk choose to refute a minor point or side issue that's easy to refute rather than tackle the main point, which may be much more difficult to deal with. This is something all of us fall into from time to time I think. ++Lar: t/c 17:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Meetup/DC 11
Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)12:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite. RSVP Regrets as I am in North Carolina this week. Perhaps next time. ++Lar: t/c 12:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1
Hi. You recently unblocked this editor after he promised not to edit war in the future. Would you would regard this as edit-warring? Cheers RomaC  TALK 04:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the specific restriction I placed: User_talk:Mbz1 ... it's a 1RR. Now, looking at the history, it's clear to me that there's an edit war on that page. However Mbz1 is technically not in violation of the restriction placed on them, as they only edited once in a 24 hour period (their last edits were on 4 August and appear to be non problematic. I see on talk you're saying that folk are taking turns edit warring. I won't comment on the substance of this content dispute but I tend to agree, I see that it seems to be happening on both sides. I suggest to you, and to everyone else, including Mbz1 among others, that you all stop and try to work this out on talk. Or the page will be protected. And specifically, to Mbz1, I would say they ought to stay out completely, not even use their 1RR. But that's advice, not a mandate. So... no technical violation but I urge prudence. Hope that helps. Note also I notified Mbz1 (which you did not) ++Lar: t/c 10:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Lar, although I did not violate neither my 1RR nor the article 1RR, but because my behavior let a reason to complain, and took your time, please do block me. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no need to block you, unless I also blocked everyone else who was engaged in this revert war. I'd rather you just refrained in future (that's a request, not a modification of your condition), when it might be problematic, ok? Don't worry about my time. Best. ++Lar: t/c 11:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lar. I will try to restrain myself to 0 reverts on I/P conflict articles. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Article tags sanction
As you are an uninvolved admin who commented in the uninvolved admin section of the Article tag sanction, I alert you to this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Restoring of previous version
Hi, Lar. I think that admin Future Perfect at Sunrise has a pick on me. I don't want to engage in any edit war. If he was an ordinary editor, I would argue with him on the talkpage, and I would not disturb you here. But he's an admin. He scared me with this message User_talk:Kubura .That's why I'm writing you here, someone has to know about this.

I don't want to pass through the things described here ARBMAC2, this ARBMAC2 and this here WP:RfC/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. I'd like to restore my version of article Battle of Pakrac. I've given my reasons and disagreements here Talk:Battle of Pakrac. That's why I find my phrases politically correct (for both national communities) and neutral. In fact, Future Perfect's (censored!) version is unfair towards the "other side" (non-Croatian side!), as well as factually uncorrect (blaming wrong communities and countries).

I may restore it wright now (since I explained it on the talkpage), but I'm risking this, especially knowing this. That's not the communication on equal terms.

Regarding my grammar, I'll ask some users to help me with that (I already did). It's known fact that it's easier to correct the others than myself. Thank you for reading my message. Kubura (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As you know, you and I discussed this offline. I raised your concerns to FPAS and I did not get a satisfactory response. I did carry out a review of the article and I do have concerns about a number of things. I suggested that FPAS consider giving you some more specific guidance and make some example edits but FPAS declined to get involved in assisting you. FPAS seemed to feel that you've been around long enough and have received enough feedback already... that you should already know what the issues are. I have some sympathy for that view but I also think that if you're asking for assistance, you should not be blamed if no one wishes to give it. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I did have several very serious issues with Administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise in the past myself and I have collected quite a collection of evidence of his very biased, unjust and questionable behaviour as an Administrator on Wikipedia. I realize that FPaS will portray me as a former EEML member not worth any attention but anyway I would like you to know that dissatisfaction and criticism of him is well known also to me and many other regular users of Wikipedia.--Jacurek (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't bother, even if you are right (I have no idea if you are), nothing would come of it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I’m not expecting anything to happen out of this yet, don’t get me wrong. I’m just letting you guys know that there are a lot more people VERY disappointed with FPaS and his work as an administrator. Best.--Jacurek (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Thegoodlocust, on what basis do you say that nothing can be done about it? Do you have information that I, as an ordinary editor, do not have? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, FPAS was quite right to warn Kubura. I've come across this editor before, back when I worked on Balkan articles; he's an extremely partisan Croatian nationalist with a history of violating NPOV. He's been around for a long time (since 2005) and has been embroiled in NPOV disputes before, so FPAS is correct to say that he's received enough feedback already. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur that the two new articles FuturePerfect warned Kubura about were heavily Croat POV. Therefore the warning was legitimate. Polargeo (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am kind of new in Wikipedia, but I am not very impressed when I see a couple of comments supporting an administrator. Survey or polls, including improvised ones, have a very limited value in my eyes. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a survey or a poll - it's a comment by an editor (me) with experience in the topic area and prior knowledge of Kubura's edits, and an uninvolved admin (Polargeo) who's taken the trouble to review FPAS's actions. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize that I have doubted your judgment. You obviously have all the Wikipedia credentials to express positions like that. You do not have to justify them. I am learning how Wikipedia works. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone can express an opinion, and theoretically all opinions are equal. But practically, some are more equal than others. In particular, we tend to discount, or should, the opinions of agenda driven editors, or those who have been sanctioned in the past by the community or by arbcom for inappropriate POV pushing or other unacceptable behavior. But not always. Sometimes powerful factional forces ensure that things are skewed even when they shouldn't be. ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think, as I said privately, the warning was merited. But I'm not sure that the refusal to explain in more detail what the issues were was the most helpful approach. Nor was refusing to work with the user when the user said they wanted some guidance. I offered up a rephrase of one of the problematic phrasings and suggested that FP work with the user a bit more but they declined. That is what it is. Perhaps someone with more patience could spend some time with the user to see if that is a way forward. Because I DO agree that the article needed a lot of work the way Kubura left it... ++Lar: t/c 20:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Weight Vs Reliability and Context
This is a question for Liar Lar. I spent some times trying to understand the policy and find the best way to apply it. I was kind of surprised when someone pointed out that reliability and weight are two different things, suggesting that we should not use reliability to weight sources. I see that the policy suggests that reliability should be used to select the sources, not to weight them, but why? If a criteria is good to exclude a source, which is like giving the weight zero to the source, why we cannot extend the use of this criteria to only lower the weight when the source has still some reliability? I understand that the non zero weight can become a subject of discussion among editors, but it is as much a subject of discussion when we give a weight zero.

A related point is that the reliability policy says that "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." Isn't this a kind of weight, in the following sense that, if the subject of an article is a scientific theory, then the main sections of the article should use sources that are acceptable for this context (e.g. peer-reviewed scientific journals)? Shouldn't other sources, even though not excluded, only used in sections that are appropriate for them? I am not arguing against notability. If these other sources are highly notable, they can even deserve a complete main article that defines its own context. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I did not look at the details of the book review issue, but I can see that if a book was itself written to disseminate widely a scientific subject in the general population, then it will be hard to argue that a review article on the book should mainly use peer-reviewed journals as sources. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not "Liar" so maybe this question isn't for me. :) But I think it's a good question for further exploration, and I agree with the BTW. ++Lar: t/c 16:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment removal from CC PD talk
I removed a bit a comment of yours from this section as Carcharoth asked only for comments on their own, not replies to comments to each other. You're welcome, of course, to rephrase into your own words. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 18:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Note that the comment you removed was in my own section. It was not a threaded reply. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do scientists have a POV?
This is directed specifically at SA, but others may respond: Do scientists have a POV, and if so, why do we treat their POV differently than other POVs? In other areas (non-science areas) we value independent views over the views of those involved, but it's flipped around in the science articles: we place the opinions of those most involved over the uninvolved. Why is that? ATren (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I love this question! If possible, I would like that we consider it in the light of the policy. I mean, I don't mind that we express how we feel a scientific POV should be treated irrespectively of the policy, but it seems important in Wikipedia that we consider what the policy says about it. Three elements come to my mind. First, the policy says "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts,.." Associated guidelines, even define some specific contexts such as Identifying_reliable_sources. Second, the policy says that we must represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."  Third, the policy also says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." See No_original_research. So, combining statements that belong in different contexts might imply that they can be treated on the same footing. Unless it is done elsewhere in a reliable source, it seems against policy.  Anyway, how do we conciliate these different parts of the policy and associated guidelines and use that to answer the question? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The flippant answer is that everyone has a POV. It's inescapable. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, of course, no one has the NPOV - but a distillation of everyone's POV, duly weighted and referenced, provides the NPOV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, NPOV is as simple as that. However, in practice, very wise points are added by WP:SOURCE and WP:NOR. For example, in WP:SOURCE we have : "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context....". Let say the context is clinical research. In this context, as required by WP:SOURCE, it is normal that we mainly use sources that are peer-reviewed journals (WP:MEDRS suggests that we use meta-analyses). I guess that a given article can include other sources, but it should be in a different context, say in a section about the viewpoint of popular media. This is not against NPOV. However, it is not hard to see that these wise points can also be misused against NPOV. For example, it can be misused in the way we evaluate the reliability of a given source. It can also be misused by artificially restricting the scope of an article, say to the scientific point of views.  What I want to say here is that, in practice, we cannot just provide a simple formulation of NPOV as suggested above and hope that it will be fine.  We also need to address important questions such as what is a reliable source for a given context? What is the natural scope of an article?  In particular, I believe this applies to this discussion with SA. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the way this question is framed. If we're writing an encyclopedia article about a topic, then we tend to lean on work done by experts in the field. When we write about history, we look to reputable historians. When we write about software development, or aviation, or literature, we look to experts in those fields. For some reason, it's only in "science" (more narrowly, in areas where political challenges to established scientific thought have been mounted) that we obsess over the "POV" that these experts bring to the table. MastCell Talk 21:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I totally agree that we must chose sources that are appropriate for the context. This is why, in practice, it is not as simple as it may seem when we read the simple formulation of NPOV. I feel we need to look at a specific case, a specific article. We must determine what is the natural scope of the article, i.e., determine the different contexts in which it can be presented. We must also determine the reliable sources for each context. The last question is often answered in the wrong way. Verifiability says that we must consider the professional structure in place to analyse the facts, etc. If a POV about the source is not about this professional structure, i.e., not about its review process, this POV cannot be used to conclude that the source is not reliable. Note that it is the source with the professional structure that must be evaluated, not the author. This seems obvious to me because the evaluation of an author is always connected to its POV. How can we use a POV to evaluate another POV and reduce its weight? It is obviously against NPOV.  We can says something about the author in the article, as long as a reliable source does it in the same context, but this has nothing to do with evaluating the reliability of the source.  The WP:RS guidelines also say that we can consider how the source is cited by other sources. If it is often contradicted, then the source can be considered unreliable. This is a way to evaluate the source and its professional structure.   Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Established scientific thought? It that similar to government approved political parties? Seriously, the vast majority of academia and the media is liberal and yet you don't think this affects results at all? You can design a study to "prove" nearly anything you want - confirmation bias and groupthink is rampant. I've met more than my fair share of fruit loops when I was at college, but most of their work wasn't being used to justify the destruction of the industrial age - and so most people outside of the echo chamber of academia don't really care what they think and don't mount "political challenges" against their loony tune hypotheses. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you doubt the sources even when to the best of our knowledge they have a good professional structure to review facts, etc., then you ignore the foundation of WP:SOURCE. Moreover, are you sure that you need to doubt these sources? What do you want to do? Suppress a POV or make sure that another POV is included? If you want to include a POV, there is no need to doubt the sources of the competing POV. It is sufficient that you argue for the reliability of your sources in their context. This, assuming others understand the policy in the same way, will allow you to include this POV in the given context. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent researchers doubt every source, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that reliable sources opposing the Real Climate POV are suppressed using a variety of tactics that have been cultivated over the years. It doesn't matter how reliable the sources that support my personal POV are - there will be some excuse to delete or denigrate it that will never apply to the opposite POV. To be clear, this really isn't about fundamentally differing interpretations of policy, this is about the abuse of policy and situational interpretation of policy based solely on the criteria of whether or not it promotes a certain POV. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is possible. Nevertheless, would it be possible for you to stick to your basic arguments that use the policy, at the least for those that are interested? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could argue policy; however the point I was trying to communicate is that not only have I and others argued policy, but that it is pointless to do so. Ideology, not policy, is at the heart of the dispute. It is a lens that is opaque to every light but its own. Arguing policy with activists is like Sisyphus repeatedly pushing that boulder to the top of the hill and expecting that this time it will stay up - you can't win by playing the game and so the only logical option is not to play at all, which is entirely the point. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Experts vs. reliable sources

 * @MastCell: Yes, experts are utilized in other topic areas, but generally, when other reliable coverage exists, we include it. We don't, for example, require that someone reviewing a book be an expert. In the science articles, there is a constant push to eliminate everything except the expert views, and furthermore, the designation of who is an expert is often based on which position they take. Basically, one "scientific POV" is chosen as the POV, and everything else is suppressed, marginalized, derided or spun -- including alternate scientific views and even reliably sourced media coverage. That's not how it works elsewhere, and it shouldn't be how it works here. Frankly it's shocking to me that it's the science editors who are pushing this kind of policy; I'd expect this kind of thing in religious or political topics, but not science. As one long term editor said recently: "ideology masquerading as science gives us the worst of both words." ATren (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true of "the science articles". You're talking specifically about climate-change articles. As is Thegoodlocust. Personally, I don't really feel like fighting about the climate-change articles here and now. I was commenting on the question of whether scientists have a "POV", as the thread initiator had asked. MastCell Talk 08:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about science articles in general. There have been numerous science-related conflicts here (cold fusion, intelligent design, climate change are the ones most prominent in my recollection) and the pattern always seems to be the same: an overzealous attempt by science editors to emphasize a single scientific viewpoint while deriding all other viewpoints as well as the scientists who advocate them and the editors who try to add them. Some of the most dogmatic editors here are found in the science articles, and they last so long because their ideology is hidden behind the veil of science. When someone tries to challenge them, they're immediately labeled fringe promoters and equated to flat-earthers.
 * There's even an attempt to codify this practice in policy, with the old "SPOV" policy debate -- which failed but seems to have resurfaced again as a proposed guideline. CC is just the latest example.
 * And even as I write these words, I am thinking about how I will be labeled, as an anti-science, fringe-promoting, agenda-driven whack job who is attacking science, because dogma does not allow shades of gray: either I'm with them or against them; either I support the scientific POV unconditionally or I am no different than a flat earth advocate. ATren (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just want to add that though many science articles have in common that they are controversial and that any of them can be used as a start to illustrate how the policy can be applied, it remains that the policy must take into account the specific of each case and that different conclusions can be drawn in different cases. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

CC as an example of policy usage
Even if we are not in the talk page of a Climate Change article, we still can use it as an example to illustrate how the policy should be used in general. In this line of thoughts, it would be useful to have I am not involved in any article on the Climate Change subject. My desire is to discuss how the policy should be used in general in the context of disputes regarding science. I feel the Climate Change subject is as good an example as any other. There is politics, finance, etc. involved, but this is typical of many articles where there is a dispute. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Diffs of talk page arguments used to include (or exclude) sources that are disputed in a specific article.
 * Diffs of edits to add or remove these sources in the article or at the least an idea of where and how these sources were to be presented in the article.
 * Wikipedia sucks at dealing with situations where expert opinion is clear, but a highly motivated minority of predominantly non-experts dispute that opinion. This site's ethos is militantly egalitarian and anti-authoritarian, and its suspicion of any form of recognized expertise has been frequently remarked upon. The basic tension is between that egalitarian ethos and the aspiration to be a serious, respectable reference work (which entails making what are disparagingly called "value judgments" - that is, accurately conveying expert opinion, and relegating minoritarian or discredited viewpoints to lesser prominence). It's hard for me to think of a single minoritarian view which is not grossly overrepresented on Wikipedia in relation to its acceptance among experts in the field in question. that is a function of the fact that we are edited by motivated laypeople (see sentence #1 above). MastCell Talk 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This post is illuminating for anyone perceptive enough to read the unwritten points. Personally, I tend to believe agere sequitur credere (i.e. action follows belief) but MastCell would appear to be a bit of a counter example to that principle.  To reconcile his words with his actions requires the following interpretations (or similar):
 * Experts = "good people"
 * Non-experts = "bad or disillusioned stupid people"
 * Authoritarian experts = "the people who should be making all the decisions"
 * Egalitarian non-experts = "everyone else whose opinions and viewpoints are wrong and should not be mentioned"
 * Recognized (by him) expertise = "good and reliable"
 * Expertise of everyone else = "bad and unreliable fringe beliefs akin to a religion or voodoo"
 * Referring to people as "motivated minority non-experts" = not disparaging or judgmental on his part
 * Grossly overrepresented = "mentioned at all"
 * Motivated laypeople = not disparaging or judgmental or illustrative of arrogance on the part of the speaker
 * Perhaps I am incorrect? Is there an alternative interpretation of these phrases which reconciles this statement with the actions of MastCell and other members of the "science faction"?  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 11:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @MastCell: while Absit's response is a bit over-the-top, I do somewhat see their point. You (and others) talk about how important it is to have "experts" here, but from my perspective, the most desirable "expertise" here is library science -- a qualification which would indicate the ability to distill information from secondary sources which have already done the interpretation of the difficult concepts. You seem to be confusing Wikipedia with a peer reviewed journal - where experts in the field are obviously necessary to interpret and evaluate primary research.
 * Now, granted, it is sometimes nice to have a domain expert on hand to help in that distillation process, but the expert should not be driving the process, because expertise on some topic almost invariably implies a strong POV on that topic. This brings me back to the question I asked at the top: do scientists have a POV? Maybe it should be do experts have a POV? Nobody has really answered that question, but in my view it's a resounding yes -- of course they do! Anyone who has studied the history of science can attest to the fact that scientific debate can be just as factional and polarized as political debate. But even as actively ban all political partisans from contributing in the areas of their expertise, we simultaneously endorse and encourage the participation of scientific partisans, and in some cases that encouragement is so strong that the partisans have de facto editorial control over the topics! Can anyone trust an encyclopedia which allows obvious partisans to control content? Once we cross that line, we are nothing more than an advocacy site. ATren (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absit's response isn't "a bit over the top". It's a classic example of the kind of facile caricaturing that takes the place of serious, nuanced discussion on this site. I'm not talking about having more expert editors. I'm talking about exactly what ATren is talking about - getting the editors we do have to accurately distill and convey the best available sources. I notice no one has addressed my last point - I can't think of a single minoritarian view which is not grossly overrepresented on Wikipedia in relation to its acceptance among experts in the field in question, and that detracts from this site's credibility as a serious reference work. The comparison between political partisanship and scientific "partisanship" ignores a basic distinction between the fields. Political questions lend themselves to a range of viewpoints because there is no single recognized "mainstream" line. You can present Israeli and Palestinian viewpoints on a question, but you can't say that one deserves greater weight than the other according to this site's policies. The encyclopedia doesn't benefit by enshrining either viewpoint. On the other hand, the scientific questions you're talking about are characterized by a clear consensus - virtually all experts working in the field who have reviewed the available data agree with certain broad conclusions. Inevitably, not everyone agrees, and the ~2% who think X get equal press as the 98% who think Y... but these situations differ markedly from political disputes, because there is a clear body of expert opinion, and the encyclopedia benefits (as a serious reference work) when that body of expert opinion is clear to the reader. MastCell Talk 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two points: (1) I think you vastly oversimplify the situation by equating scientific consensus with fact. "The earth is round" is a fact; "the earth is warming due to human influence" is an opinion which is held by a majority of experts. Those are very different things, but the science editors here want to treat them as exactly the same. Consensus is not truth, and deviation from consensus is not (necessarily) fringe, but some of the most vocal (and ideological) science editors fail to recognize this shade of gray. (2) Many of the problems in these topics are not regarding the science itself, but rather the debate and its participants. Even if you were able to convince me that scientific activists (and even SPOV itself) are valuable on the science articles, they certainly are not applicable to BLPs and political aspects of the controversy. But we all know that the same articles who control the science also control the BLPs of the scientists and the articles on the political controversies, even though those articles have little to do with the science itself. And furthermore, we've seen the effects of these activists on the BLPs especially, where they (as one example) edit war to include a professor's unpublished smears in the BLP of someone they disagree with. ATren (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't (and don't) categorically equate scientific consensus with "truth". I thought I was pretty clear in that respect in my comments above. If you haven't read this letter from 255 members of the National Academy (protesting the "McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution" against Michael Mann and other climate scientists), I'd highly recommend it, since it has some bearing:
 * The Academy members go on to name the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years), the Big Bang, evolution, and anthropogenic climate change as examples of such "well-established theories". A scientist who disputes these theories is not necessarily wrong, but s/he is clearly operating on the fringe of established scientific knowledge. MastCell Talk 20:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I highly recommend you read up on the differences between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory - starting with the essential criteria for scientific theories. Also, having some 10% of the NAS signing off on a letter means very little to me. I can easily imagine that 10% of that body is foolish enough to think that wikipedia or "Real Climate" (hard to tell the difference really) are good sources of information - it is easy to con people by only giving them the facts that confirm a hypothesis rather than those that disprove it. Finally I would recommend you read the theory of gravity and see how such an article should read, but I imagine you may take the wrong lessons from such an endeavor. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think many people (including those members of the National Academy) would conclude that anthropogenic climate change has met the essential criteria that you linked. You may disagree, but the point is that your dissent shouldn't be juxtaposed against the conclusions of the National Academies of Science as if it were just a difference of opinion. MastCell Talk 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't even about a difference of opinion. It is simply a matter of ignorance. The facts not only don't support the hypothesis, but they flat out contradict it. This would be clearly obvious if the articles weren't owned by environmental activists who define "fringe" as anything that doesn't support their theory. If you like we can have a nice private chat about it, but I would not be surprised if you declined. I'm personally quite open to being persuaded, but so far the evidence is neither sufficient in quantity or in quality, which is why logical fallacies and rhetoric must be relied on (e.g. pointing to some scientists as "proof"). TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So then if our articles were factually and neutrally written, it would be obvious to the reader that anthropogenic global warming is nonsense and the international scientific community is ignorant and wrong? That's a line of reasoning that I frequently encounter at, say, Talk:AIDS denialism, but I haven't heard it spelled out in this dispute. MastCell Talk 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, trying to associate me with a group of morons eh? Remember what I said about how your side tends to rely on logical fallacies and rhetoric? Thanks for proving my point. My offer to privately discuss this with you is withdrawn - I don't think a productive discussion would be possible. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; given the volume of unflattering associations you've applied to people with whom you disagree, I didn't realize that you would be so sensitive, although perhaps I should have known. A wise person once observed that the Internet is populated with eggshells armed with hammers. In any case, I can't help but feel that you've chosen to storm off in a huff rather than engage in a critical exploration of your argument (shades of Absit invidia II), but if you change your mind, the question stands and we can pick up again. MastCell Talk 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't about sensitivity. It is about capability. I used to argue with people who prefer logical fallacies/rhetoric all the time, but I came to the conclusion years ago that it is pointless to argue with such people - they can always come some new logical fallacy to support their faith. If you really think you can discuss this with me without resorting to such tactics and have a fact-based exchange then feel free to drop me an email. After all, if the facts are really on your side then you should have no problem demonstrating it.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you weren't offended. In that case, maybe you'd be willing to ignore my logical fallacy, or consider it withdrawn, and address my question? If our articles were factually and neutrally written, should it be obvious to the reader that anthropogenic global warming is nonsense and the international scientific community is ignorant and wrong? MastCell Talk 22:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be obvious to some and invisible to others. It depends entirely on a person's understanding of the scientific method, use of logic, intelligence and whether or not they've been brainwashed into thinking humans are the scourge of the planet. If you really want to continue this discussion publicly I'd rather do it at WR. I have no desire to break my sanction no matter how unilateral, draconian and without consensus it was arrived at. If you want to propose at the RfE board to reduce this restriction so that I can talk with you then that would be another option as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be obvious to some and invisible to others. It depends entirely on a person's understanding of the scientific method, use of logic, intelligence and whether or not they've been brainwashed into thinking humans are the scourge of the planet. If you really want to continue this discussion publicly I'd rather do it at WR. I have no desire to break my sanction no matter how unilateral, draconian and without consensus it was arrived at. If you want to propose at the RfE board to reduce this restriction so that I can talk with you then that would be another option as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

facile caricaturing vs. WP:SPADE

 * I wasn't actually aiming for facile caricaturing but rather more along the lines of calling a spade a spade. I can accept that you might see it differently.  But regarding your point my comment was intended as a direct response to that, so I would argue that I have already addressed it.  In the interest of making it more obvious let me reproduce your comment with the implications of my interpretations interspersed: "I can't think of a single minoritarian view (i.e. a wrong-headed view being promoted by uneducated fringe theorists) which is not grossly overrepresented (i.e. by virtue of having been mentioned at all) on Wikipedia in relation to its acceptance among experts in the field in question (i.e. who are the right thinking people who should be making all of these judgments and decisions), and that detracts from this site's credibility as a serious reference work (i.e. since non-experts are obviously never credible on anything)."
 * Whether you intended it to, or not, this is how your point comes across and so a more direct response is unwarranted as it would only dignify the implied sentiment. --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 20:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly the sort of facile caricature that I was talking about. My definitions of "minoritarian view", "grossly overrepresented", and "experts" bear no resemblance to the straw men you've set up. You've evaded the actual issue, again, in favor of point-scoring. Why don't you use your definitions of "minoritarian view", etc, if you think mine are unreasonable. I think the point still stands, and I'm not alone in making it (e.g. "... This criticism is common among information scientists, who also point to other problems with article quality, such as undue prominence given to controversial scientific theories." Nature 2005). MastCell Talk 20:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad verecundiam. Actually, now that I think about it, this whole "only experts are reliable sources" amounts to exactly the same thing.  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 21:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I get it. You're not going to engage my question. If you feel like having an actual discussion instead of playing to the bleachers, let me know. MastCell Talk 22:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When I was becoming an atheist I used to argue with a lot of theists. I wanted to fully understand their arguments to understand any flaws in them. I became a better man for it. On wikipedia however, certain knowledge, especially scientific papers which disagree with the Real Climate approved POV, are suppressed. These are not the actions of a confident majority, but rather the actions I've seen played out a hundred times by religious zealots who don't want "dangerous" knowledge disseminated to the faithful. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This topic covers more than just CC, like Intelligent Design, for example, so I'll comment also. It's not really a matter of an "expert majority" having touble with a "fringe minority."  There is plenty of room on Wikipedia pages, as opposed to paper pages, for information on all viewpoints that have reliable sources to back them up.  There are several issues involved here.  One, is that most editors are psuedoanonymous, which inherently means that Wikipedia culture is saying that experts get no special treatment.  Even if we did choose to give experts extra privileges, the problem is that Wikipedia, perhaps because of its high traffic account and the anonymity I already mentioned, attracts a high number of political or idealogical activists.  In my opinion, the easiest way to tell if an editor has an activist agenda is if how often the editor seeks to remove reliably sourced information from a non-BLP instead of cooperating and compromising with other editors to find a way to include it at appropriate length.  Cooperation, collaboration, and compromise is the only way that Wikipedia can work effectively in controversial topics, and if self-described experts, who are primarily here as activists, refuse to do these three things, then Wikipedia is better off without them, because otherwise they will cause too many problems. Cla68 (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes Cla, I think you may have found the perfect test to discover activists. It is incredible how often I see them removing information for a variety of reasons when it would've been easy for them to simply correct it. It is the information that is the problem for them - not the presentation. On a side note, I've seen several skeptical experts either chased off the CC articles or suppressed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

historicity of Jesus

 * Mastcell, we're having exactly this discussion on various talk pages about the historicity of Jesus articles. Some editors want only expert sources to be used, and that ends up being so narrowly defined that of course they all say "yes, Jesus existed and it's silly to suggest otherwise." Any attempt to open up the range of sources to introduce other academic POVs is resisted on the grounds that they're not specialist enough, i.e. haven't spent decades studying the New Testament and learning Aramaic and Koine Greek. Is that the kind of Wikipedia you want, with increasing compartmentalization, and neutrality judged only from that narrow perspective? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * AFAIK there were no contemporary accounts of Jesus during his lifetime. I'd think it would be relatively easy to find experts asserting this fact. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but mainstream biblical scholars nevertheless say it's fringe to say he may not have existed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There will always be people who are overly protective of their faith. Protecting the truthiness of their religion is essential to gaining and maintaining converts. The evidence is judged by the hypothesis, not vice versa as it should be, and it nearly impossible to reason with such unreasonableness. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I partially agree with Cla68. Because the Wikipedia editors (which also act as authors and referees) are self-selected, they are not at all in the same category as the authors, referees and editors outside Wikipedia. I totally agree with this. I also understand that this self-selection will attract those editors that are the less impartial, the most interested.  This is not a conspiracy theory - we are not saying that there is a collusion amongst these editors, only a simple self-selection.  One might argue that, because it works in both directions, against or in support of a given thesis, no bias is created. However, as pointed out before, arguments that apply against one side do not necessarily apply against the other side. For example, perhaps both sides use science, but only one side can be further identified under a given specific umbrella and easily attacked whereas the other side is nevertheless influenced by financial interests or other factors.  OK, but we are going nowhere with this. To be clear, even if I agree with an editor on this general thesis, I still have no idea whether this editor correctly applies the policy or if he only pretends (or believe) to do so and hides under (or fools himself with) this general thesis. This is why I maintain that we must go back to the specific. In particular the general rule that someone who wants to remove material is an activist is dubious. Some material needs to be removed because of WP:NOR, etc.  Let us go back to the policy in connection with specific arguments that are used to support or reject sources or the way they are presented in a specific article. We are going nowhere with this general discussion. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some content does need to be removed, but many of the global warming advocates on wikipedia have 80%+ of their edits in the area as reverts - in other words, thousands of their edits, the vast majority of their article edit counts, consist of reverts. Obviously some of those reverts are good, but many of them are bad. It is a pattern, it is an obvious pattern, and I stand by Cla's idea that this is a good way of detecting these activists. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry but the editors doing these reverts could simply argue that it is the other side that consistently add material against policy. It only means that there is a side that desperately tries to add material, but without success. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm sure they could, some people are very good at giving excuses for their behavior, but good parents are able to determine when the excuses don't match the actions and are simply ploys to avoid punishment. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a good way to spot problematic activism, where a large percentage of the activity is removing material citing UNDUE. What I wish they'd realize is that the same rule they're using in science articles is being used in religion articles in a way both sides would abhor. I doubt the science editors want Wikipedia to proclaim that anyone questioning Jesus's existence is a flat-earther, and I've seen religious editors annoyed that they can't introduce sources into articles about evolution that express doubt. But it's the same interpretation of UNDUE that's causing the problem in both cases. We need to return to the concept of neutrality from the point of view of the reasonably well-informed Man on the Clapham Omnibus, not from the perspective of the high priests. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right here is an excellent example of a problematic activist, caught in the act of removing material citing UNDUE. J&#39;accuzzi (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What you completely fail to grasp here is that the "man on the Clapham omnibus" will come to wikipedia as a first point of reference expecting an answer to his enquiry, not a reafirmation of his preconcieved ideas. Polargeo (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Spotting activists
Maybe it is a good way to "spot" them, but ultimately we must look at each case individually. Since, we are not detectives that must "spot" activists, let us go back to the ultimate criteria that must be used at the end. One might also argue that a way to "spot" activists is to see who is avoiding specific arguments regarding edits, but like to hide himself in generalisation... (Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) We look at individuals when dealing with the actions of individuals and groups when dealing with the actions of groups. And no, normal editors and even admins can't effectively deal with activists, but we can certainly spot them. Unless and until there is some process of dealing with this sort of disruption then it will always be under the purview of ArbCom. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no groups in Wikipedia. There are just individual editors (with different admin status) and Wikipedia projects. This is the main reason why you cannot have action against groups. It would be like fighting ghosts. There is a self-selection of interested editors and there are typically two sides in a dispute, but this is a different point. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No groups on wikipedia? I guess basic social behavior is another one of those things that doesn't apply to wikipedia for some reason. However, I must say, some of this "self-selection of interested editors" engage in behavior that seems awfully group-like to me - it must be my damn lying eyes again I suppose. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, it does seem like a collusion inside groups. Of course, there are divergence of opinions outside Wikipedia and there are also, of course, religious groups, political parties, large corporations, etc. outside Wikipedia. However, there is no need to assume a collusion within groups inside Wikipedia to explain the observed behaviour. In Wikipedia, some editors are easily identified under some special umbrella. They are more easily attacked and they are less likely to become administrators, etc.  However, the other self-selected editors are as much if not more biased or interested. They are perhaps under the influence of irrational fear or scepticism or influenced by large corporations, etc.  This fact alone is enough to explain the observed behaviour. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I absolutely agree that collusion certainly doesn't have to be assumed at this point. As for your last three sentences not only do they assume facts not in evidence, but they assert facts contrary to evidence. Glad we worked this out. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another indication, from what I've observed, that regular participants in a certain topic area are activists, not neutral, although there are exceptions to this, is that they'll rarely nominate one of "their" articles for WP:Good Article (GA) or WP:Featured Article (FA) consideration. The reason, I believe, is since they're here to keep the articles "on message", they could care less most of the time whether the article is a GA or FA.  Going through the GA or FA processes rarely helps their mission of keeping things on message, so they don't see any value in them.  Again, this isn't a hard and fast rule, but it does seem prevelant. Cla68 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the same effect. So long as the article covers the 'necessary' points, and omits 'taboo' items, it's not important if it's coherent or readable. While one might expect advocates for a cause to write the best possible article about it, the opposite is often true.    Will Beback    talk    08:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the same token, articles that are written or dominated by critics of the subject are often incoherent and unreadable. Critics often try to over-sell their position by larding the article with masses of low-quality source citations. --J&#39;accuzzi (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to produce good articles, not WP:Good Articles or even WP:Featured Articles. If it were the second, just lower the standards further. See Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia's featured articles for some considerations. From my personal experience with Global warming, we have seen that a "faction" of "sceptical" editors tries to derail the process for any article that remotely reflects reliable sources, with, as too often, a small part of the uninvolved Wikipedia community tipping the scales. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I take from this that you have a definition of "good article" in mind and that you believe that definition is not in line with WP:Good Article or even WP:Featured Article. This is a refreshingly honest and eye opening statement.
 * The remainder appears to be political hyperbole that seems to echo MastCell's sentiment from above where "motivated non-experts" (i.e. your "sceptical editors") equate to nefarious individuals who are seeking to harm the project. It seems that there is no room for the idea that they simply hold a different point of view and are trying to see that it is expressed in accordance with concept of neutral point of view.  Please clarify if this was not your meaning.  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 11:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Absit. You have never edited an article. Please do some editing then come back and give advice or otherwise declare what previous user you were. At present you just appear to be a sockpuppet Polargeo (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I decline to edit in the climate change area because of the environment which currently exists there. Perhaps I will after the arbitration committee makes it's ruling if things are improved.  Is active editing on the climate change articles a requirement for participation here?  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 12:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, requirements for participation here are set by Lar, since it's his talk page. That said, it's a bit hard to extend a lot of credibility to an account that appears to have been created largely to politick in non-articlespace. If you are in fact a new user, then you would greatly benefit from actually editing some challenging or controversial articles (not necessarily climate-change-related) before moralizing about how it should be done. Alternately, you could use your main account, which presumably has a history of editing such articles. MastCell Talk 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Absit: My definition of "good article" is "in line" with our GA and FA criteria, but the application of these criteria is very unreliable. As a result, there are some GAs and FAs that are quite bad. And, of course, there are quite a lot of articles that are good, but that either have some minor technical problems or that have never been evaluated. So FA status is correlated with article quality, but is neither necessary nor sufficient to identify a good article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification. I have stricken part of my comment above in response.  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 20:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephan, even knowing the extent of the POV pushing in this area, I still find your response astounding. Do you really object to the objective evaluation of articles by neutral third parties? Are you really implying that uninvolved editor input is a bad thing? Really! So now it's not just the "skeptical faction" causing problems here, it's basically everyone other than your tight group of editors? Wow. Now I've seen it all.
 * As for Cla68's suggestion, I think objecting to the GA process is a far greater indictment than simply not participating in it. Non-participation can indicate a variety of things (it could be ignorance -- many simply don't know the processes) but it's difficult to fathom how resistance to the process can be interpreted as anything but the desire to protect the articles from experienced-but-uninvolved editors who might destroy the carefully-constructed POV. Stephan's comment seems to confirm this. ATren (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @ATren. GA is a good thing. But as anyone who reviews GA regularly should be able to attest GA does not mean the article does not need sorting out, or improving. Same goes for FA. the criteria for GA are very restricted and ignore many wikipedia policies. Polargeo (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ATren, I actually tried to write the opposite of what you read. But I see that the grammar is ambiguous. Here is the breakup:
 * a "faction" of "sceptical" editors tries to derail the process for any article that remotely reflects reliable sources
 * a part of the uninvolved Wikipedia community is tipping the scales in favor of the RS version
 * but this uninvolved part is all to often very small, so the process is painful, acrimonious, and uncertain.
 * --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some examples of skeptics derailing the GA process in the CC articles? Examples of attempts to gain GA status by WMC et all? Are these comparable to ScienceApologist's attempt to delist an article a mere hour after it had passed GA review? Or will I have to sprinkle a bit of imagination on a healthy portion of innuendo and implication to fully understand your position? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, excellent discussion! It's getting long so I may insert some subheads. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did. ++Lar: t/c 23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Experts considered harmful
SV has been making a good point of this above and elsewhere but this is how I would sum things up. Experts are considered harmful (to the goals of the project with respect to NPOV). I am using expert here to be synonymous with specialist.

As SV points out the current policy has been corrupted to allow it to be used to argue that only ever increasingly specialized individuals should be considered reliable sources. This is indeed how it appears to be used. The problem is that increasing specialization leads to an increasingly myopic view of the topic under discussion. This can be best illustrated by analogy. The specialist's view of their topic of expertise becomes rather like The World As Seen From New York's 9th Avenue. They see all the minutiae in their immediate vicinity in great detail and as a result their inherent cognitive limits (i.e. the limits of all human cognition) prevent them from seeing all of equally important aspects of the topic that lay just outside their field of vision.

Just as there is more to the world than is depicted past the Hudson River in that painting, there is more to just about any topic than is visible through the eyes of a specialist. In the case of climate change, this is abundantly clear. The relevant Man on the Clapham Omnibus in that space would probably be other scientists from unrelated non-specialist fields of study. Who are the legitimate scientific skeptics in that space? Exactly those non-specialist scientists. These are exactly the set of people who are qualified to tell the climate change kings that they have no clothes. These are also the people that the climate science experts are trying to denounce and defame.

No, increasing specialization is not the road to a neutral point of view. Qualified and even well educated laypeople are the ones who have a better perspective from which to view the rest of the world and to put a given topic into context. By virtue of being specialized the experts explicitly lack that perspective and thus they are harmful to the project's goals. --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 12:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is more to the world than listening to the rants of users who are likely socks. quack quack, quack quack. Polargeo (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reminder. This page has loose rules. But one of them is no attacking other people. You can attack me all you like but not others. The above is, in my view, an attack. Please either make a formal allegation in the appropriate place, or cease making snide comments like "quack". After all, no one is forcing you to listen, here on my talk page. ++Lar: t/c 02:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is fine, providing that those non-specialist (or specialising in other areas) scientists who conclude that the specialist scientists are correct, whether in part or whole, remain recognised as third parties. Simply concuring with the AGW scientific consensus does not mean that they are part of those advocating the scientific consensus. Independents are allowed to agree with the majority, and their findings accepted in as good faith as those who might disagree. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I agree. I also think this is not stated as clearly as it might be. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he can have another go at it because I don't follow at all. To the extent that he is saying that we should not discount the views of other non-specialists and well educated laypeople who happen to also agree with the specialists, I agree, but of course I am an inclusionist at heart.  Also, this group of people don't seem to be in danger of having their points of view expunged from the project.  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 13:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are an inclusionist at heart? Please show evidence outside of this discussion. I also think you should take Lar's hint and make this a "Latin free zone". Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added the evidence you requested above. Please accept this self-published source as being reliable for a statement about myself.  If you believe that my opening comment above is actually intended to be exclusionary rather than inclusionary then perhaps you should read it again.  I am not arguing that the expert opinions should be excluded, rather I am arguing that using their opinions as a rationale for excluding the opinions of others is wrong.  Ergo, it is inherently an inclusionist argument.  Perhaps this was not clear, though, as Less Heard seems to have been confused as well.
 * I am amused that you are primarily focused on engaging in ad hominems rather than addressing the substance of my argument. This illustrates at least one of the problems on the climate change pages and it seems self-evident which of the warring "factions" you would come closest to falling in line with.  This is doubly amusing because judging from your user page you would appear to be one of the non-expert (in climate science) scientists whose opinions I am arguing should carry the most weight, or do you consider yourself to be a climate science expert/specialist of some sort?  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 19:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your account history gives rise to the perception that you've edited here before, in which case you're being deceptive and violating this site's social contract. On the other hand, if you are in fact a new user, then the credibility of your pronouncements would be boosted immeasurably if you were to actually gain some experience in editing articles. Neither one of those observations are ad hominems, exactly - people are justifiably uninterested in engaging with people who are actively dishonest, and also don't readily respond to being told how things should be done by someone who has never actually tried doing them. MastCell Talk 19:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is being passively dishonest a more desirable state of being? At least the actively dishonest is being honest with himself, while the passively dishonest person fools both himself and others. I'd say that the actively dishonest person has a much greater chance for redemption since they are aware of their flaws, while the passively dishonest person requires some sort of epiphany. People tend to be actively dishonest because they have to be that way - the passively dishonest are naturally in a state of dishonesty. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's too deep for me. I have no idea what it means.  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 21:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's deep. I'm curious whether Absit understands my point, though. MastCell Talk 20:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do understand your point. But are you actually suggesting that only on-wiki experience is "valid experience" in this context?  Cannot real world experience from other contexts also provide insight into what is occurring here.  Feel free to accept, modify, or ignore my points at your own discretion.  They are offered merely as observations and nothing more.  It remains worth noting, however, that your comment here is again primarily an attempt to deflect the conversation rather than addressing the substance of my original point.  Both you and Pelargeo seem intent on driving me off from this conversation and so I shall take my leave and give you what you want.  If you have anything substantive to add that you would like a response to just let me know.  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 21:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should've said that I'd rather be actively dishonest and understand my own dishonesty rather than being inherently dishonest and unaware of it. As for the suggestion that Absit is a returned user that seems entirely plausible. It also seems entirely plausible that Edith is a returned user or has another account. It doesn't really matter to me too much unless they are vote-stacking.TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (resp to StS and Absit invidia II) You both do appear to have understood my main point; that concurring with the majority is not prima facie evidence of collusion and therefore less valid. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are two points here. One is that somebody who agrees with a mainstream position does not, therefore, lose his brain or credibility. But secondly, neither does a dissenter gain credibility just by dissenting. It's a mistake to grant one marketer more of a voice than e.g. one astronomer just because the former opposes the consensus, while the second supports it. And exactly there is the problem with reporting extreme minority positions without giving them undue weight... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And who better to have complete and utter dictatorial editorial control when it comes to determining "undue" than the editors who think they are saving da world? Yep, no possible room for bias there - I can't think of more than a dozen tragic historical scenarios where people declared themselves to be on the side of angels and ended up screwing over millions of people "for the cause." Amirite? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Third sign

 * OK, here's the third sign that you might have idealogical activists infesting a topic, and that's BLPs. Activists treat the BLPs of their idealogical adversaries as dumping grounds for almost any kind of pejorative or impeaching information they can find.  It doesn't really matter how tenuous the sources are.  They could be posts from an advocacy blog hosted by a political lobbying organization, a professor's self-published slide show, or the subject's signature on some controversial petition, it's all good to go as far as they are concerned.  Any attempt to remove or qualify some of the negative information or balance out the BLP in question, even a little, is met with wails of "whitewash!" by the activists on each others talk pages and a quick call to action.  If someone tries to do the same thing to the BLP of someone who agrees with their ideology, however, WP's BLP-related policies suddenly become holy writ, strictly interpreted and strenuously enforced to the letter.  Normally reliable sources, such as major newspapers, suddenly become unreliable, partisan, self-published, rantings from fringe fanatics and cranks.  Cla68 (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I may have to post these signs to my blog or something, they're superb. Or maybe you could? ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to write a WP essay on them. I'll have one more point to add when I write it. Cla68 (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please put them up as a checklist somewhere, because it's spot on. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you guys do me a favor? Could you link to the actual cases you are (not so obliquely) referencing? There's no reason to hide them behind anonymous hypotheticals and unnecessary generalities. Also, could you make a list of editors who you believe have engaged in these kinds of actions? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a reason. Unless one is pursuing dispute resolution, generalities should be used instead of editor names and diffs.  I might link to some applicable ArbCom cases in the essay. Cla68 (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But these aren't generalities - they're specific cases. If your concern is honestly to avoid identifying specific editors outside of established dispute-resolution processes, then you haven't succeeded. I agree that it's a major problem when disputes spill over into associated BLPs, which is the underlying generality. The self-published slide show refers to this dispute. The online petition refers to Rosalind Picard and A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. The use of poor-quality partisan sources is, unfortunately, indeed a general phenomenon. MastCell Talk 16:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The petition refers to more BLPs than just Ms. Picard's ... she just happened to be the BLP that brought things to a head. Others were smeared as well in that incident. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's Dr. Picard. Like Dr. Curry . Some people are sticklers about that sort of thing. :P MastCell Talk 21:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ms. suggests it's an acceptable reference but that could be incorrect. Mr. seems to make a similar claim. Once it is clear what preference is, the proper title should be used, of course. ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to use those specific examples to illustrate my points in the essay, but I'm not going to identify where or when they occurred or who was involved. I may add more examples in the future to the essay that occurred in other topic areas, as other readers might also, but again they should be done without naming names or including diffs.  Cla68 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as you remember that if you put it in Wikipedia-space, it'll be an essay anyone can edit. Sometimes these projects can turn out to be useful. Tag team started off in rather a similar vein which, after some adjustments by others, has turned out to be quite useful in fighting certain elements. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tag team reference. Interesting reading. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At 04:05, 18 August, above, ScienceApologist asks about specific cases. I have no idea whether or not anybody was referring to KimDabelstienPetersen, but I think his behavior fits Cla68's third point perfectly, and I made that case on the ArbCom CC case evidence page, here. That said, I'm not interested in arguing the fine points about that on this page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Latin free zone?
People who feel the need to use anything other than English, please remember there are 350+ watchers here, and not everyone has time or inclination to look up phrases... if you want to use non English phrases, please provide a parenthetical with the meaning right after it. Thank you. I may have to adopt a rule of no latin quotes or something, if that doesn't help. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have only used phrases from List of Latin phrases (full) but your point is taken. I will go back and add in the translations above.  People should learn more Latin.  I have a fondness for Latin that I cannot explain.  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 18:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I sometimes use Latin terms related to logic/rhetoric (e.g. ad hominem, Argumentum ad populum, etc). These are fairly natural to use and I imagine a decent % of educated people understand them. Would I have to translate those terms as well? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, I see that I just used ad hominem above without even thinking about it. I will include that as well in my translation pass which is about to commence.  I will use direct wiki links where they are available and parentheticals everywhere else.  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just restrict ourselves to the Latin phrases and words that are often used in popular television shows? I think "Law and Order" and "Judge Judy" covers most instances... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, too broad. Let's just stick with the Latin used on The Brady Bunch (see #8). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * damnant quod non intelligunt :) AGK   23:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Si monumentum requiris, circumspice. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ein dunkles bier, bitte. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Atinlay isway orfay oserspay.  Igpay Atinlay ulesray.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Semper ubi sub ubi.  Horologium  (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nil Illegitimi carborundum --John (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Vos pesky liberi! Adepto ex meus ortus! ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" Montanabw (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Моё судно на воздушной подушке полно угрей. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe me, if I could have resisted this, I would have: ഇന്ത്യൻ ഭരണഘടനയിലെ എട്ടാം ഷെഡ്യൂളിൽ ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തിയിരിക്കുന്ന ഇന്ത്യയിലെ ഇരുപത്തിരണ്ടു് ഔദ്യോഗിക ഭാഷകളിൽ ഒന്നാണു് മലയാളം. മലയാള ഭാഷ കൈരളി എന്നും അറിയപ്പെടുന്നു. കേരള സംസ്ഥാനത്തിലെ ഭരണഭാഷയും സംസാരഭാഷയും കൂടിയാണ്‌ മലയാളം. കേരളത്തിനു് പുറമേ ലക്ഷദ്വീപ്, ഗൾഫ് രാജ്യങ്ങൾ, സിംഗപ്പൂർ, മലേഷ്യ എന്നിവിടങ്ങളിലെ കേരളീയ പൈതൃകമുള്ള അനേകം ജനങ്ങളും മലയാളം ഉപയോഗിച്ചു് പോരുന്നു. ദേശീയ ഭാഷയായി ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തിയത് മറ്റ് 21 ഭാഷകളുടേതു പോലെ തനതായ വ്യക്തിത്വം ഉള്ളതിനാലാണ്. മലയാള ഭാഷയുടെ ഉല്പത്തിയും പ്രാചീനതയും സംബന്ധിച്ച കാര്യങ്ങൾ ഇന്നും അവ്യക്തമാണ്. പഴയ തമിഴ് ആണ് മലയാളത്തിന്റെ ആദ്യ രൂപം എന്നു കരുതുന്നു. മലയാളം സംസാരിക്കുന്ന ജനവിഭാഗത്തിനെ പൊതുവായി മലയാളികൾ എന്നു് വിളിക്കുമ്പോഴും, ഭാഷയുടെ കേരളീയപാരമ്പര്യം പരിഗണിച്ചു് കേരളീയർ എന്നും വിളിച്ചു് പോരുന്നു. ലോകത്താകമാനം 3.5 കോടി ജനങ്ങൾ മലയാള ഭാഷ സംസാരിക്കുന്നുണ്ടു്. ദ്രാവിഡഭാഷാ കുടുംബത്തിൽ ഉൾപ്പെടുന്ന മലയാളത്തിനു്, ഇതര ഭാരതീയ ഭാഷകളായ സംസ്കൃതം, തമിഴ് എന്നീ ഉദാത്തഭാഷകളുമായി പ്രകടമായ ബന്ധമുണ്ടു്. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Kast ikke med sten når du selv bor i et glashus. (and that is good advice) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whurz arl thayz wroiden? Nayz zum wroid Henglish arz duz Ay! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Exemplum de simia, quae, quando plus ascendit, plus apparent posteriora eius (He is like the ape - the higher he climbs the more he shows his ass). TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to the Bard's language
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves rage in vain. -Friedrich von Schiller TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sit vis nobiscum. I know, it is the wrong language. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I love it
So I ask for no more Latin and what do I get? Pages of quotes in various incomprehensible languages. (I puzzled out all of them so far except JWB's... I'm not even sure if that's Tamil or what, much less what it says) I gotta say, you people really know how to show a user proper respect... :) ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's Malayam I think, given that when I search for "ഇന്നും അവ്യക്തമാണ്. പഴയ തമിഴ് ആണ് മലയാളത്തിന്റെ ആദ്യ രൂപം എന്നു കരുതുന്നു. മലയാളം സംസാരിക്കുന്ന ജനവിഭാഗത്തിനെ പൊതുവായി " in Google, the first thing returned is the article on the Malayam language on ml.wikipedia.org (the Malayam wikipedia) As to what it says, who knows. ++Lar: t/c 04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct: Malayalam. So incomprehensible that even the name of the language in English is difficult. And yes, that page is where I got it from. Google won't even translate it. I don't even know what it means. It's probably more fun to look at if you're on drugs (but probably dangerous if you're on LSD). Look at this word: കരുതുന്നു -- looks kinda like "tra-la-la". It must sound beautiful. Nice loopy lettering, I think. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, you can't complain after you posted your own untranslated Latin. Personally I wanted to quote something of Latinus', but I'm not sure if there is any such thing in existence. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't real Latin. It was jackleg and it was supposed to say "you pesky kids! Get off my lawn!" but when I fed it back in to the translater again (but in the other direction) it seemed to say something about bodies or crypts or maybe biting the wax tadpole... ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought it looked a bit odd, but then again, I learned my Latin from Medieval poetry made into song and the occasional video game.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nod. ++Lar: t/c 04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You ain't got no well-rounded edication unless you studies Asterix! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, oops. I might have started something horrible back there… My bad Lar ;). AGK   23:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "might have" ??? :) ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
Not helping your cause. If you want to complain, at least do so in the designated venue. Spreading the conflict to unrelated matters is not going to help in any way. Jehochman Talk 02:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DGAF at this point. I think it's a bit rich for people to plead how busy they are and then write 10 thousand word (exaggerated for effect) long analysis entries. Look, I love NYB as much as the next guy but that really took the cake, and I don't at this point care any more about what effect it has on the outcome. Thanks for sharing your concern though, even though I don't agree, I do appreciate it. ++Lar: t/c 02:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DGAFism is a great reason to walk away from a dispute. It's a really, really bad reason to continue one. Jehochman Talk 12:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you got what I was driving at. I've never been one to try to moderate what I thought merely to get along, so at this point I don't really care if saying what I think damages my standing. Also, it's a little late to walk away from this particular arbcom case. I appreciate your concern but I'm not sure your advice is really all that cogent. ++Lar: t/c 12:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At some level we all must moderate what we say and do in order to get along in a civil society. You don't need to walk away permanently.  Just give the committee time to finish doing a thorough job.  You're creating undue pressure, and this may convince them that you're part of the problem rather than the solution.  I'd hate to see that happen. Jehochman Talk 12:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please realise: I'm not trying to give you the brush off. I really appreciate that you want to help, and that you think you've got a good grasp of matters here. I just don't completely agree that your advice, while applicable in the general case, applies in this specific situation. The pressure is not undue. Locking things down for a month in order to present a fait accompli decision is not a good approach. If pointing that out costs me furthe standing, (reminder, I already lost my stewardship in a carefully orchestrated backroom long-knife deal, over speaking my mind, so...) so be it. It's just a wiki. You've made your point, and I will give it careful consideration, and then do what I think best. ++Lar: t/c 12:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll have to go look up that backroom steward knifing thing.  It sounds like interesting drama.  As you say, sometimes it's good to drop something after making one's point.  (I think the Committee "gets it" that you and others, me included, would like faster service.  I did prod them, gently, once, to post what they had ready so it could be discussed in public.)  Jehochman Talk 12:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention and participation
As you know, The Signpost has been reporting on the Climate change case for the past several weeks. One of the drafting arbitrators is clearly unhappy with my reporting, and a couple of other users share a similar view. However, some users disagree (and on at least one occasion, one case participant disagreed with the objection raised (see this). Each user is obviously going to have their own opinion, but irrespective of the outcome, I think actual participants in the case (who are involved in the dispute or may be affected) should add their input. Therefore, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing for "denialist" newspapers?
For The Daily Telegraph, one editor assures us that the newspaper's "denialism" is not an "innocent mistake" as a rationale for using a self-published blog by an "expert on bad science" claiming that the paper deliberately refused to correct a "notable mistake" regarding global warming. I suggested that raising that sort of issue about a major newspaper while the arbitration is pending is likely not a great idea. Lurkers here on any side regarding reliable sources might wish to consider that article. Collect (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Come see the bias inherent in the system!
This coupled with this and then with this pretty much says everything that needs to be said on the topic of systemic bias. Imagine if a skeptic (or even a neutral party for that matter) had acted like this? They wouldn't for long nor would they be given any opportunity for a repeat performance as we have seen here.

It is amusing, albeit sad at the same time, to see how Connolley constantly seeks to defy even the most basic attempts at getting him to play nice with others and simply show even the most basic elements of civility to his fellow editors. His actions here only serve to highlight the extent to which he will go to antagonize his opponents and yet there are those who still support and encourage him. His wikilawyer credentials are clearly on display here.

And all of this while the Arbcom case is still pending and he is supposedly on his best behavior. Truly amazing and amusing at the same time.

Apologies to Monty Python for my title which is an obvious rip off from Dennis The Constitutional Peasant. --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 07:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I don't know, it is kind of amusing in a [PA redacted] manner the way he pushes people by making technical violations of a rather petty nature. He then gets to sit back and watch pages and pages of discussion between those who think strict interpretation of the rules is essential (and with some people it really is) and those who are focused on the petty nature of the dispute and not how the situation was arrived at - all with "helpful" input from WMC's friends.


 * I'm surprised nobody else realizes that he does this stuff intentionally for moar drama, he certainly does it often enough, which more often than not ends up with other people getting seriously sanctioned for reacting to him. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well of course he's just doing it for teh dramahs. Was that really ever in question? He baits others into overreacting. Childish, really, but it is an effective tactic here. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I also believe it's tactical. Now that he's indef'd he's officially a martyr to the cause, and editors like Wikidemon can fly to his defense (even though they have no idea of the history here). He can make the (false) claim that he was blocked on a trivial technicality. Not only that, he's gotten one of the arbs to indef him, so now he can claim the committee itself is corrupt. It's the same game he's successfully played for years, and it's gained him enormous popularity among a certain segment of editors. At the same time, I agree with the actions of both TWS and SF, because at some point someone has to stand up to him and his trollish behavior. ATren (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are plenty who see it for the tactic it is. He wants attention and he thrives on causing controversy.  I am just stunned that anyone still supports him.   I nearly fell over when Jehochman posted about how mistreated he is and suggested coddling him rather than sanctioning him for his persistent violations and taunting, rude behavior.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unblocked he's disruptive. Blocked, he's a martyr. "Heads I win, tails you lose". ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Put it another way, it is a collective failure to permit a content contributor from becoming a nett negative to the project. The admins (me included) were unable to find a regime that allowed content editing to continue while more dubious practices were curtailed, and WMC was apparently uninterested in voluntarily amending their attitude and behaviours sufficiently to not be sanctioned on a regular basis. It is no reason to "celebrate", but something to reflect upon for the next time we are faced with a good content producer who becomes estranged from the usual editing practices and policies. Of course, he may yet come back. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite. <b style="color:#965">u</b><b style="color:#864">n</b><b style="color:#764">☯</b><b style="color:#664">m</b><b style="color:#564">i</b> 20:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ditto here, too. LHVU, I really like your comment, and as much as WMC irritates me, I would have liked to see a way for him to continue contributing because he does have a lot to add if he could do it in a constructive way, but he seems unable.  In a sense, I think the community helped create this monster though precisely because he was treated as something special and handled with kid gloves, and he was shown that he is not subject to the same behavioral norms that the community expects of every other editor.  This situation did not have to reach the magnitude that it did.   The community does indeed need to look at how to handle "special" content contributors.   Is it helpful to give them more leeway and forgive behavior that would not be tolerated if "regular" editors engaged in the same conduct?  What has Wiki gained from WMC and what has it sacrificed, and how could the community have responded differently to weight the outcome more heavily in the "gain" column?  Undoubtedly a similar situation will arise again in the future, and if the community does not learn from this experience, then the community should be prepared to deal with another 5 years of disruption and handwringing and a topic area riddled with warriors. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, the community which coddled WMC is as much to blame as WMC himself. His "friends", who constantly defended him no matter how blatant his transgressions, might have helped him by being more harshly critical of his approach. Some tough love might have gone a long way. To their credit, some did try (SBHB and particularly BozMo) but I don't think they tried hard enough. And much of his friends' advice to him was muted and often apologetic in tone, where perhaps a tougher stance was required. BozMo even tried blocking him, but the message did not sink in. BTW, for the record, everyone thinks I have always been WMC's sworn enemy, but long ago I tried to advise him on his methods. His response then was no different than it is now: he rejected my advice and insulted me for giving it.  ATren (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Summer 2010 USRD newsletter
The Summer 2010 USRD newsletter has been issued here. JCbot (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please revert
Please revert this. I count such action as wheel warring (Dragons flight made the original modification, I reverted back to his, you were the second person to revert Dragons flight). However, I really would not like this matter to escalate any more than it should. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wheel warring? Really NW? Where is the use of tools here? You specifically reverted M4th with the statement that he was unqualified because he wasn't an admin. Well, Lar is an admin, in fact, one of the admins who formed consensus on the original sanction, and he objects to the unilateral modification of that sanction. The fact that it was apparently modified for the express purpose of defending a long term problematic editor who pointedly violated that sanction makes it all the more worth of overturning. Now why don't you stop with the unilateral defense of those you like, and participate in the discussion rather than flinging warnings to everyone? ATren (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Minor4th's edit wasn't in an admin section. I'm not sure that Minor4th did anything wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * NW, I consider your action offsetting Minor4th. (Reminder: you've argued they didn't have standing to do so, so by that line of reasoning, neither "counts"). So therefore my revert is actually the first real revert. See User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy for my thinking on this. I think ATren puts it a bit strongly, but I agree. Instead of blustering, you might try discussion. I plan to open a section at the GS/CC/RE page requesting that we determine if consensus exists for DF's unilateral revision of an existing sanction. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think ATren puts it just right, but I'm not an admin so I can say that :P. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverting an administrator who believes he is acting on consensus found at ANI is entirely inappropriate for anyone, admin or not. It is slightly more so for a non-admin, but not by much at all. A consensus had already been reached on the matter(as assessed by another administrator). If you felt that a consensus had not been reached, the proper thing to do would have been to start the discussion and wait until that discussion came to a conclusion, not revert and then start a discussion (locking the sanction page in your preferred version, essentially). <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold on there - so we have a sanction, X, that was decided by admins. Then we have an ANI discussion about it. A discussion that saw at least one admin state that they might just go ahead and modify the sanction since they didn't agree with it. But at that point we still have sanction X in place. So then admin Y says "I saw a consensus to modify, so I already did it and am now informing you all at ANI" and admin Z says "I saw no consensus to modify and have undone that".
 * Now NW says to admin Z "discuss first, then modify..." - but it is pretty clear that he is just too late with that comment and in fact, if he had paid attention, it should have gone to admin Y who was the first to revert without discussion.
 * What is also clear is NWs role as WMC apologist, one he had faithfully fulfilled since his very first foray into CC probation, and his inability to act as an uninvolved admin. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "What is also clear is NWs role as WMC apologist ..." Indeed. He appears to be attempting to nose his way into User:Raul654's old position with respect to having Connolley's backside covered. That and other other areas of the project as well. It's almost like they share a brain sometimes. --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 19:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weakopedia has it exactly right. Also, Dragons flight is not uninvolved. ++Lar: t/c 12:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is a naively optimistic question, but when you say Weakopedia "has it exactly right", you're not including his final paragraph in that endorsement, are you? MastCell Talk 04:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think W words it a bit harshly. However I have grown increasingly concerned with NW's enforcement actions. I found especially concerning the incident where WMC made a direct request at his talk and he promptly acted. This gives an increasingly partisan and one sided appearance to what he does. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Have you raised your concerns directly with NW, as opposed to endorsing other editors' attacks on him? MastCell Talk 19:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * False dichotomy, inasmuch as characterizing Weakopedia's last para as an "attack" is not necessarily a characterization that I agree with. I think it's worded harshly, yes, but I'm not sure I see it as an attack. You should stop that apparent rhetorical trickery. As for raising concerns? Multiple times, in multiple venues. As have others. All that input apparently has been for naught, though. ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You clearly feel attacked when your impartiality is questioned in those sorts of terms, so I assumed you would extend a degree of empathy to NW. In any case, we can disagree about whether it's an "attack"; that wasn't really my point. I just wanted to check that you're raising your concerns directly, since otherwise they're unlikely to be addressed. MastCell Talk 21:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I've requested a preliminary injunction against you playing the uninvolved admin in a request you yourself initiated. See here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I have responded there, although I see I wasn't the first. ++Lar: t/c 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's surprising how quickly your faction tries to defend your behaviour, isn't it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If by "my faction" you mean "those editors who abhor factionalism and just want WP to work the way it's supposed to", no, it's not surprising at all. If you are insinuating something else, you're seriously confused about who is in a faction and who isn't. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Was Stephan aware of at the time that he made that motion for an injunction? (Hint: and .  Also, he doesn't seem to have complained in that case for some "unfathomable" reason.)

This raises the obvious question of whether the aforementioned example from the CC RfE archives is a valid example of an admin participating in a request that he himself initiated because it was made on a pro forma basis similar to Lar's action here, or is there some hair to be split between the two? Otherwise it would seem that the precedent has already been set for such pro forma actions, no? --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 16:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On a separate point, consider the content of Stephan's edits provided above. He is basically arguing that Connolley should be given some slack because he is a lightning rod for abuse. Now Stephan meant this to be an explanation for (a justification for?) Connolley's bad attitude, but the other side of the lightning rod theory he is putting forth would seem to beg the question: If Connolley being a lightning rod for abuse is creating an atmosphere which is abhorrent to the collegial atmosphere needed for the smooth functioning of the project, would the project not be better off without him drawing such controversy here in the first place? It is a reasonable question to consider regardless of whether this is actually Connolley's "fault" or not. Thoughts? --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 16:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is very interesting and deserves a thoughtful response. Short of minutes right now though. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A very interesting graph
I don't know about you but I'm scared by that graph. That's not why I posted it though. ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The amount of hot air being produced by activist editors? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your scared that that is what passes for science nowadays? mark nutley (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never edited a climate change article beyond 3 or 4 purely procedural edits. I would have liked to, not because I know much or even have an opinion, but because I inherited an antique library and found a popular science publication from the end of the 19th century that explained how they had just spent a hundred years analysing sunspots and were predicting non-AGW for the end of the 20th, which seems somehow relevant. However when I took a look at the articles involved and the battleground atmosphere there I realised honest contribution might be impossible. I remain of the hope that one day this will no longer be so. Weakopedia (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll bite, why DID you post it?-- SPhilbrick  T  21:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Check the contrib history and see if the username rings any bells with regard to recent events. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

TGL
Hey there, I am replying to your recent post on that section of RFE to avoid clutter. Looking at LHVU's post it seems like we are back to an old debate about how the admin-only section should be used. It seems like his comment would have been better placed among the discussion taking place above that section. It also brings up another old debate about the role of admins on that page - are they there to form consensus themselves, or implement community consensus?

My point about their being enough contributors already was covering everyone who has contributed so far, admin or not. I think that some people may be too frightened to post in TGL's case for fear of prejudicing WMC's, including some admins. There is obviously far more discussion pertaining to WMC than TGL, and more active participants. If this case starts to look stale then I think enough people have contributed to the RFE on TGL to call consensus, not about overturning the original block or calling it unjust or out-of-process or anything else, but limiting it to time served, as you suggested. Weakopedia (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are obviously several factors at play for the relative lack of discussion in my section. One of the factors is that I made it clear (yet had to repeat myself a few times) that I wasn't going to engage in back-and-forth minutia gamesmanship when I felt the issue was pretty clear cut based upon the rules and consensus regarding WMC's defense on ANI.


 * I suppose I could appeal it based on the original circumstances and "evidence" for the topic ban which were pretty ridiculous and in that case there would certainly be a huge amount of back and forth since some people wouldn't be worried about appearing too hypocritical. Ideally in an appeal based on that aspect of the case the questions/discussion could be limited to admins involved in the decision - otherwise the case would quickly get out of hand with mountains of text as I repeat myself answering the same questions to the same set of editors and explaining those answers over and over to people who plainly wouldn't want to understand (speaking from experience here). TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if GS/CC/RE is already a lame duck or not. But some of this seems at least somewhat overcome by events. I have not re-looked into every diff in great detail so may not have the full sense of everything. I do think that a revisit of the original case might be useful, even if it involved back and forth. Let that be by others. Make a coherent case in one go and leave it. ++Lar: t/c 12:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it actually has been overcome by recent events, assuming you are referring to the PD. As PD is exactly that, it is P.  The final results may look entirely different from what is there now and/or certain proposals may not be adopted.  There is also the issue that the current PD proposes that open cases at GS/CC/RE be kept there through to their conclusion rather than being subsumed by RfE as are future requests.


 * The consensus at ANI and its application to WMC would seem to also carry over to TGL so long as we are even trying to be consistent. But consistency may only be a gleam in my eye, unfortunately.  --Absit invidia II TC (Hominem unius libri timeo) 17:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I may just open up a request about the original topic ban itself. It was crap but I tried to be as gracious about it as my grating personality allows. I'm not going to do it while the PD is up though which may mean I won't be able to do it at all if I get banned. I've looked at the PD a bit and there are huge problems with it. The most obvious of which is that they aren't proposing to ban Hipocrite, which is rather surprising considering the socking that's been going on the PD page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @TGL Just my .02, and motivated by the politics, not the merits - I think you have an excellent case for reversal of the extension, but asking to re-open the original ban is not a good use of time.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be a huge waste of time and a dramafest, which is why I proposed the extension elimination. It seemed to have the highest possibility of drama reduction/bullshit detergent and I was really rather curious how it would turn out in light on the WMC case on ANI. That being said, if this request fails then I am kind of leaning toward making a request based on the original topic ban itself, but again, only after the PD work (only sooner if I've seriously misunderstood the ArbCom process/timeline). TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible TGL coaching
I see a suggestion that you coach TGL to put together a coherent case. I can't offer to help substantially (work pressure), but I was struck by the fact that TGL was not asking for a reduction of the original ban, but a reversal of the extension. My impression is that TGL was clear on that point, yet questions by Mastcell, NW, and SBHB were written as if he were asking for the original ban to be lifted. Atren made this point, perhaps too sharply. Issues such as "...give examples of articles you would contribute to, with specific additions and sources?" are entirely appropriate if you are asking for a validly applied topic ban to be reduced. They are quite irrelevant if your point is that an extension was added improperly. IIRC, the extension exists because TGL accepted your invitation to talk on your talk page. While that might be a technical violation of a topic ban re CC issues, it is perfectly understandable that some might feel discussion at user talk pages (as opposed to article or article talk page) is acceptable, and even if wrong, the proper response is a warning first.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now, TGL is topic-banned. He's asking to no longer be topic-banned. The most compelling argument would be that he's going to contribute positively and constructively in the topic area. That's what I was trying to get a handle on with my question, because when I review unblock requests, it's the #1 consideration. Focusing on the technical aspects of the ban is much less compelling, because Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy or a moot court. Least compelling of all are attacks on the admin who placed the sanction. All of this is detailed in our guide to appealing blocks, which contains good advice for people appealing topic bans as well. In this particular case, the suggestions in #Talk about yourself, not others and #Agree to behave would be good starting points in my opinion, although others may differ. MastCell Talk 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I was arguing on a technicality to keep the request focused, not on the original topic ban itself, but I'm not going to contribute positively to the topic area if it is lifted because I'm not going to contribute much to it at all. I see too many fart-in-the-wind promises that other editors make to admins to get unbanned to go down that road - I'd rather make a promise to myself since I care far more about what I think of myself than others. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there is a case to be made that the extension ought to be overturned at this point but so far you haven't made it crisply and coherently enough. MastCell gives some good pointers to commonly accepted wisdom. You have to decide what you want to do and what you care about. If you don't want to contribute in the topic area, then what do you care if you're blocked from it or not? It's not your real name, or a well known handle, is it? Railing against the injustice inherent in the system can be satisfying for a while, but it may not ultimately give you the result you want, or think you want. So, if you want more advice on how to put together a better case I can give it, up to you. ++Lar: t/c 00:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I have used this username for a long time and am rather attached to it. My real name is easy enough to find as well (who cares! I'm armed!). The point about overturning the topic ban isn't so much about being able to edit in climate change articles, but about me being willing to edit in other areas again. To say that the topic ban has soured me on wikipedia is accurate, but it isn't irreversible. I tend to get really annoyed when I perceive things as being unfair/biased, it isn't so much about wanting to "rail against injustice" as knowing that the place I'm contributing to is redeemable and not inherently unjust. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Mastcell - I'm not sure why you think he is "asking to no longer be topic-banned", (although, to be fair, he entertained that notion above). But in the request thread, he did not ask for an overturn of the topic ban, and when you and others asked questions that were predicated on the assumption he was asking for a removal of the topic ban, he reiterated that he was only asking about the extension, not the original topic ban. You aren't the only one who reached that conclusion, so by definition, something isn't clear, but I've read it a couple times, and don't see where the confusion lies.
 * @TGL - IMO, you are the victim of an injustice, and wrongs should be righted. That said, there are so many wrongs to be righted, it isn't worth the time, if you don't plan to edit much in the area.--  SPhilbrick  T  01:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I just answered some of what you've said above in my response to Lar. And there is one climate change article I would like to write, but I do find it incredibly amusing that all the "experts" have managed to miss it for so many years (yes it is a science-based article). Today I noticed an article about a climate skeptic didn't mention that he used to teach the subject at university and I would've fixed that. Generally speaking though I'm tired of conflict and as the current proposals stand there is going to be a lot more of that in the future in the CC articles.TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * On another note, probably the best argument for lifting the topic ban is how I've reacted to it. Can you imagine how any of the AGW editors would've reacted? They certainly wouldn't have waited 6-7 months before trying to get it overturned. If I was really as extremist as I sometimes sound then I would've moved on it right away. Not only that my article edits would've been focused on the big article and wouldn't have been as high quality as they were. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk page format
FYI, your talk page appears to use a customized layout that makes it difficult to read on mobile devices. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or static devices without quite so wide a default window as you may be used to. Franamax (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know. It's been this way for years so fixing it may require some research. What exactly is the nature of the difficulty? I find it formats too wide sometimes, but that seems to be when people use very long section headings. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On an iPhone, the default view is so wide, the text is too small to read. When you try and zoom, it's impossible to fit any sentence on the screen without panning back and forth, which nobody is going to do.  Normally, a user page is readable from the wide view and from the zoom. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't have an iPhone so it may be hard to debug exactly what the problem is. But it merits finding. Not just for my TPWs but for those folk who have cribbed my design, which are a fair few folk. Can you give some examples of other pages that have this problem, or that look like mine in that they have borders and tabs, but don't? I went to your page to see what it looked like, but it has no discussion. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it ok to upload screenshots? Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of talk pages? I would think it is. Not an expert though. The puzzle globe has a copyright status so you will want to tag the page with the special template used for that. ++Lar: t/c 10:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Input please
I'd appreciate your input and feedback regarding my proposed proposed remedy/enforcement found here. Thanks. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Commented there. ++Lar: t/c 18:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to get this right, to minimize the number of re-edits
I'm glad I got it mostly right, but I'm not fully parsing your second comment. I can either give you authority to edit my post, or you can put here exactly how it should read, and I'll do it.

This is how I view your summary:
 * 1) Warn first
 * 2) Counseling on how to improve (if appropriate)
 * 3) Uninvolved admin unilateral sanction
 * 4) Appeal to: original sanctioning admin
 * 5) Appeal to: uninvolved admins - consensus overturns sanction,while no consensus means retain sanction
 * 6) Appeal to: AE, AC

I understand TS's point, because it reads like it is bureaucratic, but it is essentially the AE model with a safeguard to avoid the bureaucracy of AE or AC in the case uninvolved admins clearly agree the imposing admin was out to lunch.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey I was pretty close. I agree with the mention of the notice board - I was thinking that was a detail missing.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I missed this. I posted another version below the thread, please feel free to take it and delete my comments, you have my explicit permission. The board still gets all requests, either in advance, or if the uninvolved admin themselves spots and acts, afterwards, to record what happened. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony's concerns
Since you're proposing to change the implementation of the probation, it's probably best to make your proposal to the probation talk page. The talk page of the proposed decision is already obscenely large, and adding off-topic material doesn't help.

As I think I made plain I have no interest in any such proposal as long as the committee seems to be building a much more robust solution that has been tried and tested in other problem areas. I've never agreed with the idea that the climate change articles need special treatment that, say, the far more controversial Israel/Palestine articles do not. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the committee necessarily is building a more robust solution. I'll make the proposal at the probation page when the time is right, right now it's not a fully baked idea yet. The material is hardly "off topic". ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * At best it's only tangentially related to the proposed decision because it doesn't discuss anything the arbitrators can action. As I understand it you're only proposing a change to a community process. I wish you would carefully consider my comment on the vast size of the discussion page, which must be very hard on the arbitrators. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I will. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why bother? These matters will be heading to AE soon, and that board has very well defined processes in place for sanctions appeals. No need to duplicate "code". Jehochman Talk 05:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two reasons. 1) I don't share your optimism on "soon". 2) I think some road testing is warranted, because I don't think stock AE will necessarily work as is. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The CC enforcement has been terrible. No matter how justified you think you are in doing so patching it up by an admin such as yourself will likely render the place even more bitter and derided than it already is. Please realise this is not about "winning" battles. Polargeo (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Polargeo has a point. I can't do anything substantive today, but I would be willing to take a stab at starting a discussion at GS/CC/RE talk tomorrow. I'm not a sysop, but if anything, that's an advantage, as the proposals will give more authority to sysops, so a proposal from me won't look like a naked grab for power. (That's mostly a joke, although I realize it isn't totally.)-- SPhilbrick  T  12:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow would be fine I think. And why are you not an admin? You seem to be very sound. Perhaps my saying so is the kiss of death but still. ++Lar: t/c
 * I agree with you here, Lar. Polargeo (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

<-I share TS's concern that the PD Talk page is too large. (It's quite discouraging, but that's another topic.) However, unless I completely misunderstand Lar's proposal, it was one of the few items actually on topic. As I tried to summarize, there is a process at GS/CC/RE, which the PD proposes to replace. I view Lar's proposal as a minor, but helpful modification to the ArbCom proposal. The one thing I may be missing is whether Lar is "simply" proposing that the Arbcom accept his modification, in which case we would wait for the Decision to be final, and then the new process would go into place under the oversight of the Arbs, or whether Lar is suggesting that the community can go ahead and debate/implement a new process now, and if it largely reflects the Arbcom Proposal, they will be likely to accept it as part of their decision. (Technically, the community can implement a process that includes a referral to a non-existent AE board, but if we debate the process, it could be in place and ready to go when the decision is ready to be finalized.)

It is unreasonable to expect the Arb Committee to manage every aspect of this decision—the limited responses to some questions boil down to "can't you figure that out for yourselves?", so I view this as taking the bull by the horns—ok, ArbCom, we see your conclusion that the GS/CC/RE process isn't working, and we see your proposal. We are going to put the finishing touches on your proposal, and put it into place.

I'm happy moving the debate to the GS/CC/RE page, as long as a link to the discussion remains in the PD talk. The one thing that would be absurd is a community decision to modify the GS/CC/RE process that is only valid until the ArbCom process is put in place. -- SPhilbrick  T  12:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We have failled spectacularly and this is why this is at arbcom. Whatever you think of arbcom I am dismayed that both the CC regulars and arbcom have both roundly ignored the community views widely expressed in General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC which suggested alternatives to enforcement. This just goes to show that the community is roundly ignored by themsleves. Arbcom have not grasped this community consensus and dealt with it in any way and just listened to the minor squabbling we are all guilty of. Polargeo (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder of the RFC. My recollection is that it was longer on complaints than on concrete proposals for change, but I'll re-read it again to see what the community has said.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with SP about why this is a good idea, he's articulating my thinking better than I did myself... ++Lar: t/c 14:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward
This is being discussed further at Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement ... interested folk should continue there. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

My talk page
I would appreciate if you could respond to MastCell's comment of 21:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC) on my talk page when you have the time. Thank you, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see much to respond to. It seems like rhetoric to me. I remain concerned about the appearance of bias I see in your actions. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you might comment on why you disagree with MastCell's comment. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 11:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems wildly out of proportion to me, a lot of straining at gnats and swallowing camels. A characterization that, I'm afraid, fits some of your recent actions as well. You (and he) find fault in others for things far less serious than those that you blithely pass over with WMC. You (and he) need to work on that before you (and he) lecture others. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. One should work on one's own behaviour before lecturing others. RoscoHead (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We are none of us perfect. But WMC's behavior is pretty far from the norm of acceptable behavior around here. And his cadre of enablers just don't help matters. If it's any consolation, your behavior, while not really up to par, is nowhere close to as bad as his. Cheers. PS I meant to stop by and tell you that NW's ban from my talk page wasn't what I had asked for (I wanted him to tell you to stop trolling quite so repetitively) and that I didn't see it as operative. But here you are so I guess I don't have to. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well just in case anyone missed my point, I think your post was hypocritical, maybe something you need to work on? And I think it's totally OK to question others' behaviour at any time, no matter how imperfect one is. Whether those questioned choose to answer is totally up to them, as you so often demonstrate. So I also disagree with your conclusion in that post. RoscoHead (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll keep your input in mind, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great to hear! I, for one, will look forward to a vast improvement. RoscoHead (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "supervised editing" proposal
Should I be asking people to do it? Would they have to be admins? Could it be done by multiple people or just one person? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, not necessarily but at least some of them being such would help, yes it can (and I think multiple is better than one person). ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, well I looked through my history to find editors/admins outside of CC that I respect and the vast majority have quit editing wikipedia. I've asked one person so far, but I may have to actively look for more. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Activist essay
I have drafted an essay on activism in Wikipedia here. Before I post it, I hope anyone interested will provide some feedback or constructive criticism on it. The essay especially needs some amusing images to break up its wall of text. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Ombudsman Commission is not responding to my emailed requests
What I believe to be an entirely spurious complaint about my actions was filed with the Ombudsman Commission approximately three months ago. Not only did no violation of the Foundation's Privacy Policy take place, but since I lack the technical ability to access confidential information covered by the Policy, it is difficult to see how it would be even possible for me to engage in a violation. It should have been a straightforward matter for the Commission to reject any such complaint and close the case.

As the lone English Wikipedia member of the Commission, you have been my sole contact with this investigative body. Regrettably, despite (at least) three emails to you asking for a brief formal statement from the Commission, no final statement of findings has been forthcoming. Aside from acknowledging receipt of my emails and telling me that you'll ask the others about it, no member of the Commission has made any effort to contact me or update me on the status of the case; the latest silence has lasted nearly a month.

At what point does the Commission intend to formally respond to my request and decide my case? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The commission already has disposed of this. There is nothing actionable and you have no need to be concerned. The loose end is getting the email that says that written and rubber stamped and sent. I am sorry about the delay and you are correct to be concerned that the loose end is not taken care of, but I think you have nothing else to be concerned about. ++Lar: t/c 06:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you speaking with the full force and authority of the Commission here, or as yourself? If the latter, then the Commission has not already disposed of this, as there has been no final notification to at least one of the parties that the matter is closed, and that no wrongdoing was found.  I also deserve to know what allegations were made, if any, that I engaged in any activity that warranted attention from the Ombuds Commission in the first place.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Somewhere in between, because I cannot by myself speak for the committee without the rest of the committee saying they endorse. As I said, it is lax not to have driven this to conclusion and I will seek to get it done. However, I have every reason to believe it will be resolved exactly as outlined because that is the conclusion that was arrived at internally. I think you should accept this statement of mine as an interim resolution and if anyone raises any issue, point to it, until a more formal statement happens. ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar, that's what you told me a month ago &mdash; but the issue is still unresolved. Can you enumerate what specific steps you have taken with the Commission to close this issue, since my first request for a statement on 17 June?  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions
Lar, I've asked a set of questions at the climate change arbitration case proposed decision talk page related to the finding of fact on your actions. Please see here. They correspond to a set of questions I asked Stephan Schulz and I intend to ask some other questions of others as well. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * These have been answered. As I said on your page, interested in your thoughts. And those of others. ++Lar: t/c 12:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned you
I dropped your name and proposed something here: Jehochman Talk 11:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've commented there. ++Lar: t/c 12:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing
How often do people get banned for soapboxing? I see it happening all the time and one editor in particular I've noticed seems to go around wikipedia aggressively (in multiple meanings of the word) soapboxing his POV. I'm not turning anyone in for this; I just find the rules to be really odd. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So stop soapboxing your POV as you did with the very last edit you made before this one and you may not get banned and we will all be happy then. Polargeo (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No no, you've made a bit of a mistake here, you see I was responding to soapboxing, not soapboxing myself. This is an example of real soapboxing.


 * What I find most interesting about the rule is that some soapboxing is welcome or encouraged, while other soapboxing is cause for topic bans or bans. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pghbridges.com


A tag has been placed on Pghbridges.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Şłџğģő 18:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thparkth removed this speedy nom given that there was a previous AfD... a second AfD has been started at Articles_for_deletion/Pghbridges.com_(2nd_nomination) ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)