User talk:2over0

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

your adminly duties wanted

There's a request at WP:RFPP to full-protect Global warming. Since you are (apparently) having success with that general content area, can you handle it? Cheers, tedder (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see comments at RFPP before protecting. There may be better ways to handle the situation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I concede Boris's point. A stern warning might be more appropriate. --TS 04:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a 3RR/EW violation, and BozMo took care of it while I was playing catch up. I think everything else is okay for the nonce, but I will check back in the morning. Best of luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another one for you at RFPP, this one on RealClimate. Mind handling it? tedder (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Prolog got it, but thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm tempted to refer any related protections to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. What do you think? tedder (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the thought of funneling reports towards people already familiar with the area and willing to act on the probation. I am not sure about the location, though - would we eventually need to create AN/CC/Archives? That seems out of place. I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Should we encourage people to direct page protection requests here? about putting it there. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and that was very well framed. I'll watch that discussion. tedder (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Articles related to climate change are now subject to general sanctions per the abovelinked page. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way I did this [1]. I have been on that talk page discussing with him but on the only content issue raised (including NIPCC) [2] I seem to be aligned with him so I thought I would do a civility warning even though I was in the room. Per User_talk:BozMo#NOTICE:_Climate_Change_articles do step in if you think I am being too bold... --BozMo talk 19:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was weighing what to do there, and I think your request to that user is a good one. Did you plan on logging it as an official notification? For myself, I am just going by the old rules until the probation settles in for fear of wikilawyering. Blockable behavior is blockable behavior, after all. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the answer to your question is no. I will probably just be a bit more rigorous in applying the old rules. --BozMo talk 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit waring warning at IPCC please ...

If you intend to enforce these new probation sanctions even handedly please issue this same warning at the IPCC article. --GoRight (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking about this one. AFAIK I have only edited this article on spam/vandalism (most recently once in Dec 2009 [3] prior to which twice on 13 April 2008 reverting two Scibaby socks) so I would be prepared to enforce it, and I started typing the notice out. However the version which was protected was the version with the contentious text supported by GoRight in, so moving from protection to permanent veto might remove one side's motivation to get consensus. I think waiting until some agreement has been reached on the glacier thing first (e.g. to move it to another article) before we drop protection gives the best chance of achieving consensus. What do you reckon? --BozMo talk 23:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And in the example I provide above the article was protected with the contested removal supported by TS and ChrisO. If you're going to defacto lock in the WP:WRONGVERSION when it suits the warmers you also have to be willing to lock in the WP:WRONGVERSION when it suits the skeptics. Otherwise you will only be proving my point that these sanctions will be disproportionately targeted at the skeptics in a non-neutral manner. --GoRight (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Bozmo - Ale jrb's userhist script agrees with your memory. Jayron32 is currently holding the protection for that article, so I want to consult with them after seeing what people have to say at the talkpage (I am still cooking dinner, so it will be a while yet and I have not checked the current status as of this post). - 2/0 (cont.) 02:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GW and ZuluPapa5

I feel like I'm being snippy and unproductive.[4][5] People, whether for better or worse, won't tell you that until it's too late. For reasons that to criticize the critic would be unwise. I, of course, don't buy into that; and I'll be frank and forthright and ask you: what do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[6]. --GoRight (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I am a big fan of ignoring comments or parts of comments I find unproductive - the trick is to make sure that it takes more time and effort to rile you up than it takes you to avoid it. In this case, instead of linking BAIT you might have ignored the history that lead you to think baiting, and instead pointed to where such proposals have been made and rejected before. Even just WP:RTA would work; it would be a bit terse, but would cost almost none of your finite time and attention (a pretty good ratio, I would say). The best part about this approach is that it increases the behavioral contrast between people here to build an encyclopedia and people who are just here for a flamewar or to push some outside objective (not saying that that is the case here, obviously, just making a general observation).

So, yeah, a bit on the snippy side - thank you for having the self-awareness to notice. On the other hand, taking it to usertalk is a good step. As for ZP5's original comment, TS basically dismissed it when they first raised it, and everyone else ignored it until the article was edited. As long as people are discussing at the talkpage more than in edit summaries, there is yet hope for that article. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In passing...

For your patient and diligent (not to say thankless) work on climate change.

Thank you, it's a big task and you're doing remarkably well. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :). Do please drop me a line when I royally foul things up or, better yet, send a clue my way before I go too far. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

William Connolley

Hi, since there are article that are sanctionable now under the new guidelines I think this article needs some administrator attentions. There is a slow ongoing edit war going on there about WMC loss of administratorship. I personally don't want anything to do with this so I am bringing it to your attentions and you can decide what is best. Some are saying that there is a breach in WP:BLP policies and that some of the references used are know to be inaccurate. I just thought I'd bring this to others attentions before things get to hot to handle. The template being used is on the talk page. I hope I was correct to bring here. AN/I seemed like a bad place to bring it for obvious reasons. Thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That editor just got a notification of probation and a final BLP warning ... I guess I am okay with seeing if those help. I will glance through their contributions for the next few days, but do please bring it up if they step over the line. Hipocrite already removed the BLP-violating blog-sourced material.

The RfC seems to be an exercise in talking past each other, which tempts me to lock the edit-warred material out of the article until it concludes, on pain of blocking - do you think that would help? I am obviously familiar with several of the regulars at that article, but have not been following it at all.

On the topic of not watching articles in serious need of attention, I stopped monitoring Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident a while ago. If anyone wants to bring diffs to bring me quickly up to speed for some action between normal editing and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, I would be happy to take a look. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncle. I'm a talk page lurker here, I didn't have that article watchlisted. I agree that the RFC is failing. I'm going to prod the article now. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Schultz has been doing a pretty good job watching things there. I think if the new editors and anon IP activities were stopped it might make it easier for those who are trying to keep things free of violations may help. I don't really know the players except for the ones constantly being brought to a board. I stopped watching the other one long ago, too noisy for me. If you know some of the editors from other articles causing problems then by all means let them know someone else is watching at the minimum. Sorry I can't be more help. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming faq edit war

First, thanks for your kind note on my talk page.

The NPOV template I put up on F22 in order to draw attention to the dispute discussion in the gw talk page has been deleted prior to consensus being achieved on the grounds that NPOV template is not appropriate for talk space. I'm having difficulty coming up with a polite response to this that achieves the simple goal of letting people know that F22 is disputed and not edit warring. Could you please intervene so that it's fairly resolved. F22 is a very recent addition and I can't see where it was discussed prior to be posting on 30, December by TS. TMLutas (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked TS please to discuss such things in future; unilaterally adding to the FAQ without establishing wording and need is not the best way to go about it. The wording could use some work, but I think the discussion retroactively indicates the need. Hopefully it will be hammered out at talk now, but you are not going to get anywhere arguing that any single paper should be given the same space and weight in an article as the general consensus view of the field. The issue of whether the FAQ is being inappropriately used to dismiss every new source is, of course, entirely separate. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Anybody currently looking at the FAQ but not at the talk page would have no idea that F22 is controversial in any way. Is the POV template acceptable? Can it be put back in there?

I do not believe that any single paper should be given the same space and weight as consensus. That's a straw man that I would never intentionally give the impression I'm supporting. I'm saying that minority views should have some representation appropriately weighted and appropriate weighting should be determined as WP:WEIGHT lays it out, with general articles highly tilted towards consensus citations and text balance and specialist articles like global cooling less imbalanced but clearly identifying what is consensus and what is minority opinion. TMLutas (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that any editor who has the FAQ watchlisted is also watching Talk:Global warming - it is only transcluded to one page ([7]).

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that overweighting single papers is your point or intention, only that avoiding it seems to be the purpose of that particular entry. You are correct that NPOV is very clear that minority opinions must be covered in relation to their prominence, but that FAQ is meant to address the entirely separate issue of reporting papers as they come out instead of waiting for the results to be replicated and integrated into the general understanding of the field. If I may be permitted a small digression into a field about which I care a bit more than all the hot air around climate change, every 18 months or so a new paper comes out claiming that a particular material is "harder than diamond" under some set of conditions. The reports are based on phonon frequencies or single-crystal compressibility or indentation or whatever ... and yet, I would guess that there is a very good chance that you have never heard of any of them. The materials science community will sit up and notice when materials with interesting properties are synthesized, and it will become apparent fairly quickly that the particular paper in question has not had enough impact on the field to warrant reporting it here. Superhard materials is not overrun with a blow-by-blow of the history precisely because waiting for the relevant academic community to indicate how a result should be weighted is the proper procedure here. Contrast this with the new iron-based high temperature superconductors: they are still new and exciting (last I checked, we were still at the "working out a phenomenological model" stage, with the underlying physics being summarized as "not BCS"). And yet, since the community has clearly indicated that the discovery is highly significant (not to mention fascinating), there is a significant section treating the phenomenon at High-temperature superconductivity.

All of which is to say, waiting to see how a new result is received has nothing to do with minority opinions, and I remain unclear as to how FAQ22 conflates the two. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I only heard about FAQ22 in a functional attempt to squash coverage of the entire decade just ended on global cooling. Now global cooling is different than global warming and the majoritarian opinion does not need so much space as in a general purpose page like global warming as per WP:WEIGHT. Global cooling is also much shorter, just 32k v 98k for global warming and thus there's plenty of headroom to weight properly and no need to squash on WP:TOOLONG grounds that appropriate weighting necessarily will cause article splitting.

I'm in my 3rd week of debating coming up with some sort of section covering the decade. Whether or not there's actual bad faith intent, the result is indistinguishable, so far, from a bad faith attempt to squash the global cooling minority opinion which does have some support, especially among solar scientists, especially in Russia. The debate predates F22's creation but the same issues are being hashed out. So when F22 was brought up by Bertport as a FAQ that has applicability also in global cooling, I trundled on over and the rest is history. I know that F22 is useful in attempts to squash because that's what's happening to my own pendin edit on global cooling. TMLutas (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you want the Neutral point of view noticeboard (recall that DUE is a section of NPOV) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force - outside volunteers there can discuss whether the sources presented justify the language proposed. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly an RFC. Might be a good idea not to make accusations of bad faith, though. I wrote that FAQ question so I know for certain no ulterior motives went into it. --TS 21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please close this thread? It's not going anywhere. And it can't go anywhere because one "side" of the dispute doesn't understand how science is done and is more interested in denigrating scientists. Of course, a better option would be to ban the people who know nothing from editing the page... But the odds of that happening are less than my head spontaneously exploding in the next 5 seconds. -Atmoz (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not object if someone else were to close that thread, but as long as the conversation does not stray afoul of WP:CIVIL or wander completely off topic, I am not touching that one. It is my expressed opinion that the entry is basically a good distillation of policy, though I have not ventured over to Talk:Global cooling or otherwise checked to see if it is being used to stifle legitimate discussion or prevent the WP:DUE use of sources. Suggest in the thread that it be closed? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Advisor

A little bit more context from the people whose sound advice you follow. - lol Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear 2/0

I have no polite response to your message. "You are way out of bounds" would be by far the nicest thing I could say. Please refrain from posting on my talk page in the future. Consider that a polite, formal request. I also am not watching your talk, so there's no need to reply.

Oh PS, I really hope you warned folks other than me. Really I do. It would restore my faith in you if you warned the AGW folks..

PPS. I changed my mind. Please spare me the trouble of combing through your contribs: please post a list here on talk of everyone that you warned. I'm checking for bias, of course. • Ling.Nut 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The climate change probation enforcement log is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log. If you would like to see examples of informal requests, advice, and notifications I have discussed, pretty much the entirety of my time on Wikipedia for the last few weeks has been devoted to trying to restore a normal collaborative editing environment at our climate change articles. Referring to the AGW folks is an example of what I would really prefer that you avoid in future - it is unfair to a diverse group of editors to tar them all with the same brush.

For archival purposes: formal GS/CC warning citing [8] and [9]. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Page deletion and possible stalking ...

I had noticed a conversation at [10] where Mark was working on an article on the Gore Effect in his user space. Bozmo, you, and even KDP seemed OK with him trying to work on it there.

Seeing this I went to take a look and I made a few formatting and cleanup edits to help Mark out. This morning I find that ChrisO has appeared out of no where and had the page speedily deleted. We will pursue an appeal of this. If you think that it is acceptable for Mark to work on this in his own user space as your comments seemed to suggest (since you took not action to have it removed yourself), could you please weigh in on this?

Also, I believe that this MAY be an indication that ChrisO is beginning to stalk me so I have placed a notice to that effect on his talk page indicating that if he persists appropriate resolutions will be pursued. This is just FYI for now and to register that I will be paying attention to this issue and may be seeking assistance in this regards should the problem continue to manifest itself. --GoRight (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody would say that that draft should be moved to articlespace any time soon, but glancing through it I considered: potentially there is coverage of this term that is not in-universe; public figures are subject to satire as a matter of course; and the page is not indexed by search engines (part of {{userspace draft}}). On the other hand, Dank makes a compelling case at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. I am going to wait and see how the draft develops over the next few days, but thank you for the heads up. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I've responded to GoRight's completely false claims about me here, following Tony Sidaway's request for article probation sanctions against GoRight for what Tony characterises as a "rampage" today. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have decided to make the following public statement, [11]. I do, however, appreciate the create way that CO was able to call my actions a "rampage" without actually having himself called it a "rampage". I'll have to remember that technique.  :)

Climate change related discussion

Since you appear to be currently online, invite your input here. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good conclusion from the available data, but when I started looking at Carbon tax I decided I was too tired to be confident of making good decisions and instead went to bed. I will check it out if Lar does not solve it first, thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please judge

I've been trying, I thought quite patiently, to work through some coverage of global cooling in the 2000s in the global cooling article. It's been half a month with little serious accommodation going on with getting something acceptable up, even an acknowledgment of popular press interest. The talk's gone dead and so absent anybody declaring they didn't want a section at all, I stubbed one, text to be determined later. I joked that I was being bold on this most timid of edits. William M Connolley reverted within a few minutes calling a section heading and a stub notice "reckless".

As I looked at the history of the talk page, I noticed the following edit notice from WMC "people have seemed to give up even bothering to respond to you; that seems like a good idea to me" which I had overlooked before. This put the following section in a different light User talk:Guettarda#Tut. I took it originally for some odd joke and tried to play along (not very well). Now it looks a bit more like bringing somebody friendly in line that had gotten off sides on an attempt to simply not cooperate on edits, relying on me to either go away or go down the road of editing without a consensus and getting reverted to death over it. This can't be consistent with policy if it's real. Am I adding 2 plus 2 and getting 5 or does this stink as much as I think it stinks. TMLutas (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

People have got depressingly used to TML pushing his POV there, which is why most have given up. TML's idea is fundamentally misconstrued; it is like someone trying to push serious discussion of aether into general relativity, and then complaining that none of the editors will "accomodate" him. He has been told this again and again, but won't listen William M. Connolley (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made it very clear that I wanted one of two behaviors. Editors should either say that they do not want a section at all and give their reasons for it or they should help pitch in on improving the text until it arrives at consensus and then we publish it. There are exactly zero texts that others have suggested that I rejected. How this can reasonably be construed as POV pushing escapes me. Please read the relevant text. If I have pushed anything it is that some people in reliable source land have talked about global warming during the 2000s and we should have some coverage of that. Since WMC's group blog, RealClimate has published a bet offer with his name on the byline wagering against global cooling believers, it is reasonable to think that he is aware of global cooling interest. In fact, that very article could go in the 2000s section (or maybe we could have a subsection on bets, there are others). When an editor pretends that an article he wrote in a forum sometimes used as a reliable source simply does not exist and nobody has spoken about global cooling in the past decade, it's destructive and it needs to stop.

Think about it. I'm accused of POV pushing for a section headline consisting of a decade and a section stub tag. Does this strike you as normal? TMLutas (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit bored with saying I'm not a member of RC. But maybe if I say it often enough people will listen. RC didn't get any replies to the bet, so I think it rather disproves your contention. You're accused of POV pushing for the text you've repeatedly tried to put into that section. Putting in an empty section with no clue as to what text you might add (or so you now seem to be claiming) is merely pointless and provocative William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

TMLutas, the other editors at Global cooling seem to think that your proposals do not deal with the topic of the article, and the current hatnote indicates that material well outside the mid-20th century would be off topic. On another hand, the More recent section already deals with a quarter century of aftermath, so there is an argument for continuing to build on that structure. Much as it pains me to admit that publication in PRL does not automatically convey relevance and truth, the cosmic ray paper appears to be a non-starter. The current examples are nuclear winter or some other event throwing globally relevant quantities of dust into the air, and a DoD commissioned study (as opposed to just funded); I believe that the argument being made is that these concerns have received significantly more independent coverage than Lu (2009). Have you tried Global warming controversy? The other point you make, that 1998 was exceptionally warm, seems to come up only in political rather than scientific contexts. Politics of global warming does not quite look like a fit, but Instrumental temperature record might be a good place to check. Disclaimer: I have by no means read all of our climate change articles, I am just guessing from Template:Global warming.

I am sure you had only the best of intentions in creating the contentless section in the spirit of collaboratively encouraging other editors to expand the article, but can you see how other editors at that page might view it as disruptive? One of the weaknesses of a volunteer project is that we all choose where to direct our efforts (although if anyone starts arguing British Isles terminology in a climate change article, my head may explode); trying to require that other editors work on improving a particular section is completely inappropriate. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that the global cooling page is appropriate only for the 1970s scare a priori than of course the more current global cooling content does not fit on the 1970s scare page. It does, however, fit someplace, perhaps as its own page. Do you have any suggestions for a title, perhaps to go into the article incubator so we don't get into the nonsense of the speedy delete garbage that sometimes plagues new articles? TMLutas (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

MN close

I object to the wording of your close; see the page. I don't think you've thought it through carefully. The fact that you *are* closing it like this... hmm, well, that's another matter William M. Connolley (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC, why not present diffs there to support your case? There's only vague accusations from you. ATren (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing vague there. If you're asking for edits by MN that could be deemed problematic but not reuiring enforcement, I'm sure I could dig some up but I'd (a) rather not waste my time and (b) it would be better for peace+quiet not to stir up trouble like that. But If I need to in order to get the close changed, I will William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I've just read your comment there. You've misunderstood. I did *not* say I wanted this to stay open William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I misunderstood. I'll read it again. ATren (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC) ^{I've struck my comment there ATren (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)}

Struck the proposal pending further discussion. Thank you for mentioning this point. Your objection is fair - in any way problematic is probably too strong - but I meant the non-italicized text as explanatory, with the actual recorded result only to be the sentence in italics. For your other point, I left a comment there; I would not say that a statement to the effect of nobody is allowed to change this qualifies as a good faith objection, but less gameable wording is probably in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go look there William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR

Can you tell him to take it to talk? Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I protected the page on The Wrong Version and found the WQA. Could you point me to the relevant 1RR restriction, please? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can only point you to this This. I don't know where the exact page is but MF has been involved long enough to know the restrictions - although he knows that if he reaches 4RR he can get his version protected by you. Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh and you missed the first personal attack on the page Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Now is your chance to reinstate his personal attack Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin Canterbury Tail is very familiar with the whole British Isles debate and should be firt point of call. BigDunc 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He became "Involved" long ago. Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point - the first post was not as over the top as yours and contained some productive material, but the tone was certainly combative. The regular editors at that page can work out their preferred terminology, or the Specific Examples page can. I have requested clarification on 1RR from Black Kite. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Black kite has retired, his last edit was this BigDunc 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bah, humbug; thank you for pointing that out. Does anyone else have links to specific sanctions that might be in force on these articles? I will need to consider whether further action is warranted and whether I can devote the time to do so. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked HK Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not worth the effort. I don't think there's a 1RR anywhere apart from British Isles. BK is one of an increasing number of editors who have been ground down by the BI issue to the point of retirement. Mister Flash (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

BK was ground down by other Admins enabling disruption Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles article has a 1RR placed on it due to edit warring but this could also be dealt with under The Troubles arbcom. BigDunc 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as my two cents. Only the British Isles article itself is under 1RR. There have been discussions about restrictions, MOSs etc for British Isles on other articles, but no consensus has ever been gained. So with regards to BI, it's only the article itself, everything else is open to normal Wikipedia rules unless it's covered by another restriction or policy such as The Troubles etc. I'd like to see some other restrictions around it, or a proper agreed upon usage guide, to stop this constant edit warring with the usual suspects on both sides, but frankly I can't be bothered anymore. It's like re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic, but people keep adding more chairs.

However at the risk of sounding unpopular, HighKing's edit to the article was incorrect. He replaced British Isles with Home Nations which was completely wrong. Home Nations does not include Ireland, and a player from Ireland (state not island) had won it previously. Whether the British Isles should have been in there in the first place or not is a different matter. Canterbury Tail talk 02:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear. The edit was discussed in advance here. A place that Mister Flash well knows about. If he didn't agree with the edit, there's no excuse for edit warring like he continues to do. His editing and attitude is disrputive, and his edit summaries and editing are full of unfounded allegations and in breach of WP:CIVIL. It's an interesting experiment to watch a British editor be allowed behave in this way, with no sanctions of any kind. I wonder how long I, or any other Irish editor, would be allowed to behave in this manner? Double standards, stinks like hell. --HighKing (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, didn't realise it had been discussed elsewhere. And if MF knew of that discussion and consensus, well then he's edit warring and editing against it. I still think Home Nations is incorrect, and in fact nothing should be put in there at all. British Isles just smacks of trying to put it in for no reason.

I've warning him over that, and if there is consensus we can lift the protection and revert to HighKing's edit which has the community consensus as shown. Canterbury Tail talk 23:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I took care of the unprotection and reversion to the version preferred by consensus there. As I do not recall ever seeing a formal definition of either of these terms prior to seeing the edit wars here, I would appreciate if someone would check what I left. HighKing and others - in future when making edits based on a consensus elsewhere than the talkpage of the article you are editing (and sometimes even then), it can be helpful to link to the relevant discussion or mention it at the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, thank you for your reply. My tentacles are a bit full of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation right now (see e.g. about two thirds of the threads on this page) ... but roving around and reverting each other, which these editors seem to be enjoying, is disruptive and completely at odds with the aims of the project. Hey TPWs - free unblock for anyone who can work out a solution short of ArbCom. Okay, I cannot actually do that, but seriously - you would have my gratitude. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)The original notice was placed on various editors Talk pages - the version posted on my Talk page was here as a result of mass reverting being done by a number of editors: See this revision of BlackKites Talk page. He posted the message at:

• 20:02, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:MidnightBlueMan ‎ (→Bold, Revert, Discuss: rp)
• 20:00, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Vintagekits ‎ (→Bold Revert Discuss: new section)
• 20:00, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Jeni ‎ (→Bold Revert Discuss: new section)
• 20:00, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Tfz ‎ (→Bold Revert Discuss: new section)
• 20:00, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:BritishWatcher ‎ (→Bold Revert Discuss: new section)
• 19:55, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Canterbury Tail ‎ (→BRD warnings: tweak)
• 19:55, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Canterbury Tail ‎ (→BRD warnings: new section)
• 19:52, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:TharkunColl ‎ (→Bold, Revert, Discuss: new section)
• 19:51, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:HighKing ‎ (→Bold, Revert, Discuss: new section)
• 19:51, 29 September 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:MidnightBlueMan ‎ (BRD warning)

And this warning was posted to Mister Flash (still visible on his Talk page) as well as others:

• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:GoodDay ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Þjóðólfr ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:HighKing ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:MidnightBlueMan ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:LevenBoy ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)
• 22:49, 29 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Mister Flash ‎ (→Just to make it clear to everyone: new section)

How many warnings do you think Mister Flash needs? --HighKing (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor q

I am a bit surprised by what appears to be an unprovoked personal attack on me here: Talk:Global_warming#1.29_homeostasis_2.29_established_fact. Did I miss something> my comment was intended to be observational and I was surprised to see it termed "childish spite" as well as the various "unlike many editors" comments which are generally unhelpful. Anyway if you think the response was deserved perhaps you should collapse the thread and I'll forget it. --BozMo talk 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Had you written But given some of your other comments I guess getting the term right is not going to be a worry at me I'd have been offended. So while I think L has grossly over-reacted, your hands aren't quite clean. There are some other "attacks" on others, too, that might merit note, e.g. [12] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. My comment did follow on immediately from [13] where he did make some comments about his personal definitions of things. You would have been offended because you are not fumbling words in Global Warming. If someone had made it to me in a subject where I was struggling with words I think I would have taken it without offence. --BozMo talk 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah well. I leave the should-there-be-action type stuff to you admin types :-). Aside: his Bertport... honestly, if I want to be contradicted without insight or explanation I have a 14 year old nephew who is willing (nay, eager) to oblige; I don't need to come to wikipedia for that. could be taken amiss too William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WMC's reading above, at least based on a quick review of the section. As Lar is fond of saying, there are some awfully sharp elbows going around. A while back I edited fairly extensively with (read: against) Ludwigs2 on some alternative medicine and pseudoscience articles. The above assessment looks fair to me, but I intend to minimize my interactions with Ludwigs2 in an administrative capacity. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment of editor

Do you agree with my comments here: [14] --BozMo talk 10:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with your comments here and here, but the other editor stirs neither my memory nor my log, so I will need to check. TS notified them of the probation. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there it is - they were edit warring some email material at the beginning of December, and then again last week. Hrm. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement

Things are starting to back up at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. Needs some uninvolved admin intervention (that's you!) rather than the usual suspects bickering William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have started but would like some second opinions. --BozMo talk 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Down to one where I need a second and one where I am still considering. One of the new cases I was looking into already, but one of them really surprised me. Some of the other comments there sure do not surprise me, unfortunately. Thanks for the heads up on the surfeit. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have requested intervention to your action at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboardJPatterson (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jpat34721 Topic Ban. Thank you for notifying me. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's chat for a second about Sirwells (talk · contribs)

You templated Sirwells (talk · contribs) with the climate change template - his only edit of the year - wait, sorry, year and a half - was to revert the lead of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident to remove the sourced information about the response of the mainstream to the emails.

Now, I could revert him - but wait, I can't, because I wasted my revert, and yes, I'm talking about it as an entitlement, on a driveby lead reverter from yesterday. I guess I could pull out my iphone, walk down to starbucks, create a whole bunch of accounts, and play the same game that the denialists are playing - that would probably work. I mean, every new participant gets one free revert, right? Wait, I know, I'm supposed to engage him on the talk page. Here, I'll write something on the talk page. It'll get responded to by the usual suspects, but Sirwells? He's in the wind. We'll get another reverter tommorow - I guess I should respond to him on the talk page!

I suggest that this attempt at probation has failed. All edits that are by editors who did not discuss them on the talk page prior should be revertable on sight without penalty. If the editors are discussing their edits on the talk page, not reaching consensus, and making the edits anyway, sure, I'll jump through the stupid probation hoops. I don't know why I need to waste my time on driveby SPAs, however. Hipocrite (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That could have been put less confrontationally, and I wish you had, but the substance is correct. SW's history is:

1. 2010-01-12T06:50:45 (hist | diff | all) Climatic Research Unit hacking incident ‎ (missing citations, vague, violates npovWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC))
2. 2008-06-09T02:14:19 (hist | diff | all) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→3RR concern)
3. 2008-06-08T23:05:18 (hist | diff | all) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→3RR concern)
4. 2008-06-08T23:02:00 (hist | diff | all) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→3RR concern)

so this is someone who has been called in from outside to revert. I *don't* agree that the probabtion has failed, though it could be tweaked to be better. Allowing people to revert driveby SPA's, as H puts it, seems fair. Would need a clear edit comment (a la "claim BLP exemption to 3RR") and a clear defn of driveby. Is it needed? Not sure. I would be nice to have, but the obvious suspects will whinge William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries on the tone - I understood from User talk:Hipocrite#Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and my good friend Captain Obvious that there is a great deal of frustration associated with trying to build and maintain a quality article in this kind of environment. One revert per editor per day is easy to enforce and a simple modification of existing editing standards, but is even more prone to the same sorts of gaming as 3RR. Providing a perverse incentive to create socks or collude rather than collaborate is definitely a problem. It also creates an artificially sharp distinction between the cases where two undiscussed drive-by editors choose to contribute within minutes of each other as opposed to hours apart - reverting two edits at the same time as edit-edit-revert-revert only counts as one revert, but edit-revert-edit-revert counts as two. Then there is the problem of imbalance of time and effort from the good faith contributors. The system should be designed to make simple maintenance easier than continual disruption (on a somewhat related note, I have been fairly loose in semi-protecting climate change articles that I notice seem to be attracting a lot of socks or blog-recruits, but am bad about remembering to check RFPP - do please feel free to drop in if it looks like an article might need attention). I admit that sometimes in my editing I will revert with only a cursory edit summary, and only bother with the effort of a full explanation on the talkpage if anyone comes back to object; in some ways this pattern is less than ideal, but I do understand the desire to leverage your time effectively.

Personally, I prefer to focus on content rather than editors - let everyone revert any edit for free unless it has been discussed and consensus reached first. This puts a pretty heavy bias on whatever Wrong Version is in place when this is instituted, but most of our articles are pretty good most of the time. Documented obstructionism and negotiating in bad faith to be topic bannable, of course. This has all the usual problems with Consensus and probably encourages polarization, but it at least increases the cost and behavioral detectability of maintaining a sock army (and, you know, might lead to better articles than if all the discussion is via edit summary).

Instituting an exception for "obvious but not vandalism" reverts makes a certain amount of sense, but if we all could agree on a definition of "obvious" WP:Dispute resolution would be a lot less noisy. It misses the spirit of WP:Edit warring, but unfortunately hits the letter. Please keep in mind that this is just my extemporaneous musing on the topic, not policy. In the spirit of brainstorming, would revert any and every edit that is undiscussed, with re-insertion to be considered edit warring be viable? This would be a fairly dramatic departure from the wiki-wiki model, and would require an active buy-in from at least most of the active contributors at a particular article; it also creates a pretty heavy enforcement burden - checking content against the talkpage and every previous revision takes time and effort and is prone to errors.

Better suggestions and pointing out the weak points and instances of failure continue to be welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

By the way, thanks for taking the lead in trying to bring peace to the "climate wars". Guettarda (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I only do it for the puns - the topic area is heating up, a storm of editing ensues, ice cores from the archives indicate long-intractable disputes, the North Encyclopedia oscillation in where the battlesome editors go, azolla editors are drawing down the issues poisoning the current atmosphere (though hopefully they will not be buried for geologic ages under ice and coal). But seriously - thank you, I appreciate the social reinforcement. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Azolla event?!! And I thought I had a hard time keeping the duckweed in check on my aquaria... Guettarda (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about filing request

Hey 2/0. I was wondering whether there was any reason for one not to file requests for sanctions against users who recently filed requests for sanctions against oneself (sorry, I couldn't really figure out another way to phrase that). I'm mainly curious what WP policy has to say but if there's a common sense reason not to as well I'd love to hear it. E.g., I don't want it to be thought that I'm retaliating, as that isn't/wouldn't be the case. Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as you carefully document your case, specifying the behaviour you find problematic and the steps you or others have taken to discuss the matter, there should be no reason not to. Frivolous countersuits and vexatious litigation are definitely frowned upon, of course, but requesting enforcement is not a free pass for one's own actions. It is standard practice to look at the behaviour of the filing editor, same as at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but, well, complex issues can be difficult to tease out after the fact and may be missed. I was just chatting with Hipocrite here with some thoughts on decreasing the percentage of those reports that are actionable, if you would like to read some of my further thoughts on filing probation requests. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Are steps supposed to be taken to discuss the matter prior? I wasn't contacted by Hip prior to his request... I imagine you must mean discussion of some other kind?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Best practice, in my opinion, includes negotiating in good faith at the talkpage, informally discussing a perceived problem at usertalk, and a more formal specific warning before bringing an enforcement request. Some people dislike it when certain other people post to their talkpage, in which case making such a post is decidedly not part of dispute resolution. The only step that is absolutely necessary, though, is the first one - WP:GS/CC/RE is not a content board. How the case is received depends very much on how much you can demonstrate that the party against whom sanctions are requested should have known better or whatever the particulars of the case. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I'd like to apologize. In the past 4 hours of not wikipedia, I've cooled down substantially. I shouldn't have lashed out at you - it's not your fault. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No harm done - it is incredibly frustrating to try to hold a discussion, carefully iron out all the points of contention, finally get ready to think about making an edit ... and then somebody who in all likelihood did not even see much less read the discussion waltzes in without consideration for all your hard work. There is a similar problem at Naturopathy where every month or two someone swings through with a heavy revision and no discussion except sometimes an edit summary along the lines of what is all this nonsense? this is totally a legitimate well-respected medical speciality / totally bogus and anyone who tries this stuff deserves to stay sick. I do not comment on as many RfCs as I should for similar reason of worrying about due diligence - I do not want to be the guy who comes in at the end of the discussion to say hey, here is this facile solution I bet none of you ever considered - just get along with each other or whatever. One of the reasons why we have open discussions and humans monitoring the probation is precisely so everyone can present mitigating factors like pointing to an open discussion.

Still, thank you for your consideration - I pretty much volunteered for a certain amount of abuse when I took this on, but I must admit to preferring the encomia to the opprobrium. Also, any ideas you may have for systematically encouraging the creation of good articles are especially welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

With all the negativity going on the two of you remind me that there are adults here that can actually behave like adults. Kudos to both of you! This should be an example of how editors should work out things. Have a wonderful night, I hope tomorrow is better for both of you! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1. What Crohnie said. 2. Get a Room. --TS 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Climate change probation

Can you point to any of my contributions to these articles that were potentially disruptive, or were you sending me the notice to remind me that the articles were under probation? I was a frequent editor of climate change topics, and I edit these articles occasionally. However, there currently appears to be a climate shift underway, so I am attempting to update articles, but only when I have the required sources. However, if you can provide me with a brief but deeper background on the dispute and what led up to the probation, please do so. If any of my specific edits concern you, please point to them using diffs. I am not involved in the climate change dispute, and will make my additions as NPOV as possible. However, this does not justify maintaining the status quo on all relavent articles, as this is a broad topic. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The couple of your edits that I checked before leaving the templated notice of probation looked productive to me - thank you. I left the message with the sole intent of letting everyone know that tempers are running a bit hot in the topic area of climate change, with no implication of wrongdoing on your part; my apologies for the redundant notice if you were already aware. I am afraid that the discussion leading to the community decision to impose sanctions is far from brief, but it is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change. The short version, as I understand it, is that a combination of interminable intractable disputes (almost daily AN/I threads, four or five open requests for comment, the same editors having much the same arguments about different climate change related articles at all of the content noticeboards, and almost an ArbCom case), years of incessant sock puppetry, and the media attention on the topic from COP15 and Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (or whatever that article is titled this week) all added up to lead the community to try Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Please feel free to copy this to your talkpage if you would like, and any suggestions you may have regarding the wording of the notification template would be welcome. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

More on the revert issue

I tried out the new process and there's still a problem. On the edit notice we link to Help:Reverting which contains yet another, even more benign definition of revert, and not Wikipedia:Reverting which contains the new language. I suggest we change the link or (add the plain text). Helping edititors to revert is probably not what was intended in this context :>) JPatterson (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Free reverts for all! Any editor who does not revert an article at least three times in a given day may be blocked from editing!

Er, sorry, I do not know what came over me there. I suggested over at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Proposed Change to the Article Probation Warning that the WP:Edit warring#Reverting might be the best place to point that, but so far the only change I have made is to point to the probation page itself instead of the talk. I would like to wait to see if other editors would like to weigh in on that discussion before changing it - tomorrow should be soon enough. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I added in whole or in part to the introduction of Help:Reverting - thank you for pointing this out. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments invited

I have indef blocked a user that you previously sanctioned. Could you review the block and comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block_review_of_User:Jpat34721? Thank you very much. I respect your opinion and neutrality. If you think the block should be refactored, or undone with conditions, or just undone, feel free to take whatever steps you feel are proper. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that was a bit of an amazing furor while I was away. I think the net result is good - I am not ready to give up on the productive potential of this editor despite some of their more ill-advised posts of late. I will try to leave some more detailed advice over there before the block expires. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology (2)

I wanted to apologize for my implication in my article ban appeal that you acted in bad faith. At the time, my confusion regarding what constitutes a revert lead me to feel like I was in a kangaroo court. I now realize there was know way for you to know about my misunderstanding and that you were just doing your job.

Thanks again for your help in getting the revert issues worked out. Regards.

JPatterson (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Echoing the sentiments of a few threads up in another section of the same name, I would need to be quite oblivious not to expect a certain amount of backlash from trying to tamp down the present storm, but I certainly appreciate your consideration. I can see how, if you had not seen me around the rest of the topic area, WMC's post might be misconstrued as calling in a friendly administrator instead of just one who is already up to speed on the probation but had been slacking at the WP:GS/CC/RE board.

I think that you really hurt your public image in terms of being perceived as here to build an encyclopedia with the nature of your appeal (though the appeal itself is, of course, perfectly agreeable - consistency across the project concerning what constitutes editing and adminning norms is important for long-term stability) and CoI thread (discussed elsewhere, so I will confine myself to expressing mild surprise at how long that thread went on, especially after the previous thread citing the same opinion piece was linked).

I recognize that you were engaged at the talkpage, as I expect did BozMo, which was part of the consideration that an article ban for one month would be more productive than a topic ban or a block. Reading the last week and a half of your contributions, you seemed to be arguing tendentiously. Obviously I am not privy to any of your actual motivations, and there a few significant instances outside the pattern, but taken as a whole that is how it appeared to someone outside of the discussions. I cannot speak for the other participants in the enforcement discussion, but personally I barely considered the issue of 1RR - strict enforcement of a technical violation in the pursuit of a stable compromise is not always the best approach. For example, WMC slipped up himself yesterday (see here); I probably would have blocked him briefly if I had been active at the time, but self-reverting is a much better solution in terms of creating quality articles and promoting a collaborative atmosphere. I will also state that I consider the unblocking bar to be pretty low in such cases; it is an entirely different matter, of course, if future edits do not show an earnest attempt at greater care.

Your attention in harmonizing the policy, guideline, and essay pages is particularly welcome. I am not sure that I had more than glanced at any of those pages except WP:Edit warring (which reminds me - I hope WP:AN3 is not getting backed up while I am distracted over here). The term revert is being used in its usual sense, but it is still something of a term of art and should be well-defined.

Topic areas subject to significant debate outside of Wikipedia are something of a conundrum for the continued growth of the encyclopedia. They are among the most likely to attract new editors to leap the first-contribution hurdle (the other being popular television shows and other media; somewhat tongue-in-cheek, WP:OVERLINKING should not apply to WP:FICT and WP:MOSFICT), but among the worst places to start in terms of acclimating to encyclopedic writing and the steepness of the expected learning curve. The rampant sock puppetry in such areas (read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles if you have time on your hands and would like another example) does nothing to foster the collaborative and welcoming environment we would prefer to prevail everywhere and especially to present to new contributors. I genuinely hope that you expand your editing interests, as indeed you seem to be doing, so that you can experience the more positive aspects of encyclopedia-building. The joy of reading a well-written comprehensive article and being able to say I had a hand in that is what keeps me, and I suspect most of us, coming back year after year. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful remarks. Lots of good advice. I really do want to be constructive player here. I take from above that the reason my sanction was so much more severe than the others that day was because of the additional charge of tendentious editing. If by that you mean article editing (as opposed to the talk page), my error, I think, was in applying WP:BRD in a context where evidently it is inappropriate. Perhaps it would be wise to place some discussion of WP:Bold and WP:BRD in the context of an article on probation on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation.

I don't have a good feel yet for the role admins play in refereeing disputes as part of the probation process but you wrote somewhere that one of your roles is to "restore a normal editing environment" in the climate change space. In that regard, I wonder if I might get your feedback on this exchange which led up to the incident in question. Assuming you agree with my theme which runs throughout my Talk:Climategate interactions, that we're here to chronicle the controversy, not pass judgment on which side is right (and if you don't please set me straight), I'd like some feedback on the process to follow in the future when faced with this kind of intransigence. I also have some thoughts on article probation in general here that you might be interested in. Thanks again for taking the time with this. JPatterson (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, although arguably the block on Dcowboys3109 (talk · contribs) was the more severe sanction, as your contributions outside of that article are still welcome (and good from my brief glance at them the other day - rock on), while theirs got a big ol' no thanks for a day (the standard block length for minor edit warring blocks). Editing confined to the talkpage can still be disruptive, and is generally taken into consideration in topic ban discussions.

On most articles, BRD is a good compromise for promoting article development without getting bogged down at the talkpage while still moving to the discussion phase before the battle lines are drawn. Most people, I think, have far more nuanced positions and well developed thoughts on the issues they edit than might be apparent from their edits in hotly contested areas. On less well trafficked talkpages, it is not uncommon to find comments from months or years ago to which nobody has felt the need to respond - clearly a case where just making the edit and waiting for any comments is the best course for building the article. On heavily monitored articles like many of those within the scope of the probation, however, it can be that there is enough information already on the talkpage to understand who and why will object to a particular edit. It is better in that case just to skip the initial edit in favor of hammering out a consensus that everyone will defend first. The make a change and then edit war over it until somebody gets sanctioned method still seems popular, though, perhaps for its potential to silence the opposition. Bad faith proposals and tactical use of sanctions would, of course, themselves be in gross violation of policy, which is part of why the entire situation is considered at those cases. It is difficult to divine the motive behind a bold edit, but the discussion-first model has the advantage that editing against a clear and obvious consensus is disruptive. The basic advice if you feel a discussion is not proceeding productively is to wait for or seek outside input. Perhaps input from a new perspective will induce one or another participants to change their mind. I cannot overemphasize the importance of clear, concise writing - not only will it minimize misunderstandings, but it also is much more encouraging to potential outside input than ream after ream of discursive or circular discussion and general incivility.

Personally, I consider that my time will yield better results for less effort whenever articles get past a few dozen edits per day (try getting a word in edgewise at 2010 Haiti earthquake). Worse, the rapidly evolving nature of the coverage makes any consensus tenuous and subject to tomorrow's news cycle. All of this, though, is within the normal editing environment. The ultimate goal of the WP:GS/CC/RE page is to make the sanctions redundant for reason of the topic area being full of editors discussing, perhaps vehemently but certainly politely and in good faith, all points of disagreement until everyone is equally (un)happy with the articles. It is when the battle lines are drawn, the clarion horn sounded, the less-impassioned and less-disputatious editors driven off, the WP:POINTs sharpened, and "winning" is measured in steepness of MYPOV instead of NPOV that the community needs to step in with a gentle but firm reminder that this is an encyclopedia. meta:How to win an argument and User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war should be required reading for anyone in my position.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that the raison d'être for articles here is to reflect the reliable sources according to their prominence. The disagreement comes once specifics are in play. Should the focus of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident be the fact that data traveled from their servers to one in Russia in contravention of established procedure? Or should it be what the emails etc. contained? Or is reporting what has been said about the coverage of the incident most encyclopedic? Then people who agree on the grand focus contend with each other that this source or that is unusably biased and involved in one side or another of the controversy, or a particular point is unweightably minor or should be covered only alongside some other point or must (not) be included in the lead.

The evenly dispersed nature of content control is a perennial conundrum. Ling.Nut and Cla68 were discussing some sort of content court of appeals the other day, and might have some more thoughts on that part of your retrospective. That sort of discussion usually goes to the village pump, though understanding what has been said before on similar matters is generally advised.

As an admittedly pedantic aside, I think you mean wikt:aspersion rather than wikt:dispersion, and wikt:exacerbate rather than wikt:exasperate. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a lot to digest. I think the nutshell of the advice I was seeking is contained in "The basic advice if you feel a discussion is not proceeding productively is to wait for or seek outside input." I'm not sure of how one goes about doing that (I guess that was my question) but I'm not sure that in the case of the Climategate article more input is the thing that's needed :>) I hope you are right about universal acceptance of the raison d'être you spoke of above but when a Mom-and-Apple-pie appeal like this one gets the response it did, it does shake one's confidence in that view.

"Should the focus of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident be the fact that data traveled from their servers to one in Russia in contravention of established procedure? Or should it be what the emails etc. contained?"

I guess my answer is yes to both. I thought the idea was to chronicle the controversy. People seem to be trying to apply the same WP:Weight arguments that would be perfectly appropriate in article about the science of AGW into an article that is only peripherally related to the science. Twenty years from now, the scientific issues will be settled. Regardless of who turns out to be right, the hacking incident will remain an interesting historical footnote which perhaps will have had a profound effect on politics and policy. I want WP to accurately reflect the history ans it's the history we miss if we pretend that the only one qualified to speak to the issues raised are those sympathetic to the implicated scientists or worse, the blatant POV-pushing view that was expressed in the exchange I pointed you to, that the role of an editor, and by implication, WP, is to prevent skeptics from turning a molehill into a mountain. The outside world will decide if its a mountain or a molehill, our job it seems to me, is to frame the debate and chronicle its effects with encyclopedic tone instead of the current disjoint cascade of he saids/she saids that too often characterizes WP articles on current events. JPatterson (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant the comments above as a generic commentary on some of the hurdles that have to be gotten over when writing about current events and not to veer into prohibited territory. But then again, you brought it up ;>) JPatterson (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I suppose I was talking about the cesspit that shall not be named a bit, there. On the other hand, I am relatively confident that you have not been using this discussion in a subtle bid to try to influence me to edit that article on your behalf. Call it a hunch.

Outside input can come from editors involved at the article but not in a particular discussion. Too often I see a back-and-forth from two editors run in the span of a scant few hours the gamut from a polite request for clarification to little better than a flameware. This quick progression limits the chances for other editors to weigh in before intransigence sets in. Taking the time to consider each post, perhaps waiting a few hours or a day if tempers are running hot, increases the signal-to-noise ratio of a talkpage.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution has some good general advice, as well as laying out where and how to attract fresh input. Every step requires time and patience, though, both of which tend to be in short supply on hotly contested evolving topics. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Picky point

Re Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Jpat34721 On the one hand, I suspect that Jpat34721 will be pleasantly surprised to see his banning period is over, and perhaps he'll marvel at how fast time flies. On the other hand, you may have meant 2010-02-13. Frankly, I haven't finished my 2009 MBO's, so I wish it were still 2009, but I don't always get my wishes.--SPhilbrickT 00:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

/embarrassed Ah well, it is good to know that somebody reads those things - thanks. At least at less than two weeks into the new year I can claim habit instead of plain ol' not knowing what year it is. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, because to be quite honest, half the reason I posted was to show that someone is actually reading.--SPhilbrickT 18:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A question on my article ban

Am I allowed to engage with users on their TPs regarding the article in question? Thanks,JPatterson (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The idea of a partial rather than site ban is that a user can probably be a productive contributor to the encyclopedia, but needs to disengage from a particular area. Using various usertalk pages as a proxy for Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident would not serve that purpose. If a user approaches you with a specific limited question, it is probably okay (though less than ideal) to render an answer including reference to this temporary ban; users who repeatedly make such approaches after being informed of the ban might be engaged in baiting, attempting to game the system, or otherwise editing disruptively. Thank you for seeking clarification. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks JPatterson (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight's block statement

In your block statement there is a mistake that you should correct. Diff #3 needlessly inflaming an already passionate discussion doesn't go to an edit made by GoRight , but to an edit made by some other guy. I looked at the history and GoRight has never edited that article nor its talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

From 2006, probably indicating I dropped a digit in the copy/paste. Thank you for noticing, I will dig out the correct one soonest. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:GoRight would like you to know

GoRight asked if someone would alert you to this conversation. I told him I would. It's all yours, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have been following along at home while trying not to add to the noise of that discussion, but I think something more from me is required there in the near future. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

procedural Question

Hi 2/0, I'd like to get out of jail re the CRU hacking incident article. Could you point me to the proper forum for initiating a review? Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents would, I believe, be the best venue. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Remedy has a link for a handy template that may help in formatting the discussion. I would advise waiting a few days before opening the discussion so you can point to a solid week of uninterrupted productive contributions to other areas. This is by no means required, it is merely my personal opinion that that will bolster your case. I would also advise pointing to the original WP:GS/CC/RE discussion, the first ban review, and any related discussions - somebody will bring them up fairly soon anyway, and doing it yourself gives you the best chance to state your views on the concerns raised therein. Our discussion on the precise meaning of the term revert is also a mitigating factor, though somewhat tangential to the final decision. I am honestly not sure right now what would be best for the project, but good luck anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was thinking it had been a week but I miscounted. I'll take your advice. I'm busy with other stuff anyway. JPatterson (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it violate policy if we handled this quietly here? I am anxious to get all this behind me but it seems the last thing the community needs right now is another forum to play out the us v. them meme. I have absolutely no desire be a foil in that fight (a pox on both houses as far as I'm concerned). This experience has given me a better idea of what's expected in this new environment and I am confident I can contribute in a constructive manner. I propose the rest of my "sentence" be converted to probation, revocable by you at your whim. JPatterson (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think so, but I have asked BozMo for advice. Moni3 wrote up some advice for editing the article covering the recent earthquake in Haiti (linked from the first Signpost article at the top of this page), some of which also applies to other emerging stories, paralleling some of your own concerns. I definitely am interested in not stirring up more drama, but I also want to be careful not to ignore the original community discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In mulling this over, I would ask both of you to consider, given the reception I received here upon my return to editing after a three year break and the battle mentality on display by both sides (diffs upon request), that my conclusion that this was the behavioral norm was reasonable. I realize now that I entered the fray at an inopportune time, shortly after this probation thing was put into place and admins were trying to restore order. It was not my intention to exacerbated the situation, nor is it my intention to jump back into the fire. My interest remains in creating an article that reflects the controversy accurately, but I intend to concentrate on the social, political and policy impacts that have occurred, subject matter that should not be nearly as controversial. JPatterson (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Words of wisdom from the King

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. ... Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
~ Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.

Javascript tool to help with external-link review

Hello - if you're like me, you've often been frustrated that Special:LinkSearch doesn't have a facility to restrict an external-link search to a specific namespace. (After all, we usually care most about links in articlespace). Like any self-respecting wannabe amateur, I've hacked together some Javascript to address this lack. I thought you might be interested. If so, you can go to User:2over0/monobook.js and add the line importScript('User:MastCell/el-namespace.js'); there.

After you refresh your browser cache, the next time you go to Special:LinkSearch you should see a drop-down menu where you can specify the namespace you want to search. Technically, the script intercepts your click on the "Search" button and sends an AJAX query to the MediaWiki API. I've set it up to display the results in the familiar format. There are still a few kinks to be ironed out, but it works well for me so far. Anyhow, if you're interested, give it a shot and let me know how it works for you. MastCell ^Talk 05:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes - thank you! - 2/0 (cont.) 06:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any problems with it. It needs a little cleanup, but I think the only major issue remaining is that the internal wikilinks in the results table don't work right if you're on the secure site.

My next project is more ambitious. Have you ever noticed that there are a few people who add very little substance to discussions, but who are irritatingly difficult to ignore? The idea would be that you have an "ignore list" in some central location. Each time you load a discussion page, a piece of Javascript runs the content and collapses, shrinks, disemvowels, or completely removes any comments from the offending editors, thus enabling you to focus on content issues without irritating distractions. Unfortunately, it's hard (for me, at least) to come up with a functional, elegant, efficient algorithm to remove comments from a specific editor that will robustly handle edge cases (poor indentation, breaking up others' comments, etc). But a person can dream... MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)