:# The consensus view covers the science of global warming, across all articles. It mandates that we not include the tiny-minority view that climate science is wrong. If you have a specific edit you'd like me to explain with respect to the consensus view, or a specific editor who you feel is being inapropriately lumped in with a group of people trying to edit science articles to reflect political opinion, I'm happy to do that, also. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
:# The consensus view covers the science of global warming, across all articles. It mandates that we not include the tiny-minority view that climate science is wrong. If you have a specific edit you'd like me to explain with respect to the consensus view, or a specific editor who you feel is being inapropriately lumped in with a group of people trying to edit science articles to reflect political opinion, I'm happy to do that, also. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
*The first mention of the word "holocaust" on this page is from ''you'', Hipocrite. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Unit</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F">'''''Anode'''''</span>]] 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
*The first mention of the word "holocaust" on this page is from ''you'', Hipocrite. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Unit</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F">'''''Anode'''''</span>]] 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,100:
Line 1,102:
::::No you wouldn't, I suspect (although who knows for sure?). Side issues are exactly the ticket to distract folk from the main point. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
::::No you wouldn't, I suspect (although who knows for sure?). Side issues are exactly the ticket to distract folk from the main point. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
::::: I don't quite understand what you are getting at, Lar? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
::::: I don't quite understand what you are getting at, Lar? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::: This is a side issue about a side issue, isn't it? The main point is several side issues away now. Maybe that was the point. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Charitably, we should assume that Lar meant the [[Boer War]] and it's all a ghastly misunderstanding. Goes off to relieve Mafeking, [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Charitably, we should assume that Lar meant the [[Boer War]] and it's all a ghastly misunderstanding. Goes off to relieve Mafeking, [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
:::: Was wondering when you'd turn up. You're a canonical example of the problem, you know, since you so often indulge in snark to the exclusion of anything else in these bunfights, just like a good enforcer. With that as a preface, you know that wasn't what I meant. Didn't you? ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
:::: Was wondering when you'd turn up. You're a canonical example of the problem, you know, since you so often indulge in snark to the exclusion of anything else in these bunfights, just like a good enforcer. With that as a preface, you know that wasn't what I meant. Didn't you? ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
My real name is Larry Pieniazek and I like LEGO(r) Brand building elements. Feel free to mail me with comments or concerns if you don't want to post.
Here about a BLP that's persistently getting vandalized and you want me to semi protect it? Leave a note below, (User:Lar/Liberal Semi is no longer in use) and I or one of my TPWs will get it.
Here to leave me a message? Response time varies depending on where I'm active... Ping me if it's truly urgent, or find another admin.
Here about accountability? see my accountability page. Note: The apparent listification of the category (it's back but may go away again) does not change my commitment to my recallability in any way
Please read the two blue boxes :).
A Note on how things are done here:
Being a "grumpy old curmudgeon", I have certain principles governing this talk page which I expect you to adhere to if you post here. (This talk page is my "territory", (although I acknowledge it's not really mine, it's the community's) and I assume janitorial responsibility for it.)
I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. If I inadvertently change the meaning of anything, please let me know so I can fix it!
While I reserve the right to delete comments I find egregiously poor form, I am normally opposed to doing so and use monthly random archives instead. If you post here, your words will remain here and eventually in the archives, so please do not delete them, use strikeouts. In other words, think carefully about what you say rather than posting hastily or heatedly.
Edit warring here is particularly bad form. One of my WP:TPW's may well issue a short block, so don't do it.
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.
Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.
please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy
Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification request
Am I to take it that you closed Nothughthomas' complaint against me when you blocked him? I ask because he's reopened it.[1] Grateful if you could clarify this. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's highly frivolous but I think we need another uninvolved person to pass judgment, once I blocked him I should recuse myself from closing it. If no one turns up shortly, I'll jump on IRC and see if I can find someone. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Sorry you had to be the one dealing with this silliness. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief... [2] You know, I think Nothughthomas and GoRight are deliberately trying to wreck this sanctions regime at the outset. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need more admin eyes on this, getting on IRC now to see who's about. As I said, I have no horse in this race except wanting this to work. Any WP:TPW's about??? ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obvious to me that User:Nothughthomas is either the most unlucky new user in the history of the encyclopedia or yet another in the unending parade of agenda-driven editors (sock, meat, externally motivated, take your pick) that drive people to distraction on the various articles. I wonder if the discretionary sanctions permit an admin to just topic ban him from global warming for a month. If he's really just so unlucky as to have joined the encyclopedia, made a few edits then got sucked into the mess, wouldn't that topic ban save him from the standard flame-out? If he's just another sock, isn't the one month topic ban the same as the indef ban he'll eat in a few days when someone gets around to jumping through the hoops? If he's a meat puppet or angry blog reader, isn't the one month topic ban the same as the one year topic ban he'll eat as soon as someone figures it out? Hipocrite (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Hipocrite, you're ChrisO's sock (or vice versa?)... [3] and [4] :) ++Lar: t/c 07:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea, topic banning folk for their own good. If he keeps up what he was doing before the block I'd favor trying it in this case. I'd probably leave it to someone else to actually place it though. ++Lar: t/c 06:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's some evidence that he may be a sockpuppet or shared account of another blocked user. Tony Sidaway pointed this out on my talk page and suggested a checkuser run. I've written up his evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nothughthomas. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. Being worked. Thx. ++Lar: t/c 06:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated, apparently. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I knew that... Something fishy though. ++Lar: t/c 06:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GoRight makes an unfounded allegation of involvement
I'm just tidying up some loose ends and not trying to be pointy here, but please be aware that this means that you are no longer an uninvolved admin with respect to myself and any use of your administrative tools against me would likely be considered an abuse thereof. If you ever have occasion to believe that administrative actions against me are required please seek out an uninvolved administrator to perform them. Have a nice day. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct. I remain as uninvolved as ever. You may not game the system this way to "knock out" uninvolved administrators. Have a nice day. ++Lar: t/c 05:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that would be for others to decide should such a decision ever be necessary. If my notice is meaningless then no harm done. --GoRight (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're continuing the same pattern of vexatious rules lawyering I warned you about, GoRight. You are unfit to lecture anybody else about policy as you seem to have a very poor understanding of it yourself. Please stop before external restrictions are applied to your account. You filing an "appeal" does not disqualify any admins appealed against from taking further actions. JehochmanBrrr 05:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. As I said. I am only tidying up loose ends, not being pointy. I just wanted to record a notification. Moving on ... --GoRight (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that you think you're not being pointy. However, that view doesn't seem to be widely shared. Your notification is spurious, and I've changed the section heading accordingly. You really need to internalize the advice you've been given to "up your game". A lot. ++Lar: t/c 05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's been blocked by Viridae. Cue drama cascade. --TS 06:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a little out of left field, eh? I'll see where things stand in the AM, I'm for bed. ++Lar: t/c 06:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was only a matter of time, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion request using bigdelete
Hi Lar, since you're a steward, I tghought you'd be able to take this request. Would you be able to delete the cricket article and then restore it minus the first two edits from 2001? I accidentally imported them into the wrong place. The article is *just* over the 5,000-edit limit for deletion, so deleting it won't cause too much disruption. Deleting these edits won't be a good use of the revision deletion tool since it leaves a visible trace of the edits. Thanks. Graham87 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and in case you're curious, the imported edits were meant to go to the page cricket (disambiguation). Graham87 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you want those two edits moved there? ++Lar: t/c 11:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I think perhaps a developer is needed, as something seems munged up, when I walk those diffs it jumps from those right to the very last revision, skipping the 5000some in the middle. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've bigdeleted, restored the first two revisions to Cricket temp nostalgia restore, and am trying to restore the rest of the article as we speak. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything is restored. I leave it to you to move the two edits (on the page I created) to where they need to go. Please advise if there are other issues or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's all sorted now. Those two edits at Cricket temp nostalgia restore don't need to go anywhere, because they're already at cricket (disambiguation) (I imported one of them yesterday - see the page history there). The reason why you were able to walk right from the first two edits to the last one is because the imported edits have a high revision ID because they were recently imported, and the previous/next edit function moves by revision ID, not date.
As it's summer here in Austrralia, I'm already sick of the sound of chirping crickets - I've been kept awake by them too many times already! I bet it's the opposite for you since it's winter in the northern hemisphere. I'm not a great fan of the sport either; summer is the season for both the sport and the insect in Aussieland. :-) Graham87 03:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
psb777 sanction
Hey, however this works out, thanks. Paul Beardsell (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. However it works out, make sure going forward you're on your best behavior. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christ almighty your good at obfuscation ain`t ya
I think it is fairly easy to see why the header I've used above would be objectionable. But I find it harder to see what you're objecting to on my side. If you'd care to point it out, I'll give careful consideration to striking the objectionable parts William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Back off, or its the enforecement page for you." was what jumped out at me. As I said on the enforcement page, sharp elbows is the level of discord. Not knives at the jugulars. So merely an observation. But it does make it harder to get the sense of what's really going on. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically fixed, I suppose, in that the words changed. 173.101.153.240 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've fixed my words but Lar hasn't updated his even-handed rebuke to that effect. Anyone coming here will know he has thanked me; anyone reading that page will still see his (now unmerited) rebuke William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:) That IP is me. Apparently I didn't notice my lack of green button. (see my monobook.js if that comment makes no sense) ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I thought it was some snarky IP. Err, well what better were you hoping for? Are you asking me to withdraw all warnings from him at all? Do you not like the new wording? Go on: propose a form of words for the same meaning William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snarky IP? :) naaaa just snarky me, I guess... The sharp elbows are mostly present in the meaning, not the wording choices, I think. What was I hoping for? Less "in your face-ness". Dunno if hoping for better is a good use of scarce resources. Thanks for the refactor just the same. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
curious with regards to sudden appearance
Hi,
It seems the issue might get closed any moment, and since I added my comment in the middle of everything I'm worried no one might've read it. Did I go out on a limb or is my comment with regards to one of the editors in question seemingly relevant? I'm not an admin here and I feel I have too little knowledge on how everything works sometimes, but I've admined more Internet-activities since the early 90's than I'd really want to admit to and the appearance in question struck me as really odd. Troed (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it got looked at very hard. I didn't. Will the 1RR restriction sort it do you think? Who is that editor? You could always open a new request if you think the editor is problematic, I dunno. I think these requests should be clearly actionable though, rather than "this seems odd to me" sorts as I'm not sure what we do with those. Just my theory. Best. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the editor in question has as far as I can see in the history never contributed at either the talk page or the article itself, yet appears immideately after the article has been opened for editing and deletes a complete paragraph. After having seen various accusations thrown around at other venues, the closest I could describe this as would be either an incredible coincidence or "meatpuppery" I'd guess. It did strike me as something that should also have been looked at when bringing the issue of reverts up. Sorry if you feel I'm rambling at the wrong place, I guess I just wanted to know someone had read my comment. Troed (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After writing the last bit, above, I did go look at the contribs and I agree, it does seem odd. But what happened next? If that removal didn't stand without discussion, that may be the best we can hope for. I'm not sure we can afford pages of analysis of each edit... I just don't know what to suggest. Sorry if that's not helpful. And yes, maybe this needs raising somewhere more public. I have 300 WP:TPWs but still. ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sharp elbows"
Why is what Connolley does called "sharp elbows", while when others make similar troll remarks, it's called "incivility" or "trolling", and they're warned and/or blocked for it? UnitAnode 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not by me. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my point was clear, but perhaps not. You used the phrase "sharp elbows" for behavior similar to that which has resulted in warning and blocks (though not by you) of people on the other side of the discussion. Why do you call it "sharp elbows" instead of calling it what it is: in some cases, trolling, in others, gross incivility. UnitAnode 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was clear. And I agree, to a point. But I try to be mild in my wording. Perhaps I was too mild. But I'd rather err on the side of mildness. And I'd rather that a mild thing stick than a precise thing fail. If you're referring to GoRight, I'm afraid while I may not have blocked him indefinitely, I do think he has went way too far. Not sure that helps. Really, I want this to work... ++Lar: t/c 21:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message at GR's talkpage to that effect as well. Honestly, I find myself in a position that seems surreal. I'm a fairly liberal Democrat, yet I have found myself growing more and more frustrated with the leftward-tilt of our political and GW articles. Frankly, it's something that I think makes the project look incredibly bad, but I really don't know how to approach the problem. UnitAnode 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhere read that "one side is edit warring to introduce POV, and the other side is edit warring to maintain OWNership" which... sucks. I want to not remind people of exactly what my views are about AGW... I'm trying to stay out of the content itself completely. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then. My question was intended to be more Meta in nature, in that the perception of the project takes a big hit when this type of thing goes on, but I can understand your reluctance to proffer any type of firm view on the subject. Regards, UnitAnode 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Without taking any sides about content, yes. The projdct DOES take a big hit when the types of things that have went on in this area go on. Maybe I'm wasting my time. I don't know. Maybe we all are. I hope not. At least we're trying something, unlike, say, BLP and flagged revisions, which seem hopelessly mired. Maybe I'll get bored with all the fighting in a week and go back to doing something else. Who knows. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave you to it, then, Lar. I've removed all pages remotely related to either Pres. Obama or Global Warming. I just don't have the stomach for what I know is probably coming in both areas. UnitAnode 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Counting TPWs
I noticed above that you said you have over 300 TPWs. How does one go about figuring that type of thing out? I've had some ... "interesting" posts to my talkpage (and "other" places as well), and I have been growing quite curious as to how many people actually are watching my talkpage. UnitAnode 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, rereading my edit comment, it should have read "watcher and tool!" not "watcher, tool!" - I realize it could be misread. Hipocrite (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting! I'm quite happy to not be nearly so "popular" as Lar! :) UnitAnode 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31, which is more than I could imagine. --Cyclopiatalk 01:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK all you BSDs, go boast somewhere else. :) I expect the lot of us put together don't have as many as Jimbo. ++Lar: t/c 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I can make this statement freely and not under the threat of indefinite block I wish to say that this was wrong-headed, I should not have done it, and I apologize for having done so. Let us both endeavor to put this matter behind us and speak of it no more. --GoRight (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your apology. I hold no grudge and do not consider it personal. I cannot promise to "speak of it no more", though. It may come up in some legitimate context or another where it is appropriate to make some comment or another. In the larger matter I do think you have to try to be meticulous in your approach, even if those you disagree with don't seem to be (in your perception). ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MisterSoup is back
User:MisterSoup has returned and is vandalizing my user page as of this evening. I thought he was blocked...? -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was blocked for a week but has come off. I see Nancy has warned him, I seconded the warning. ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that as of early today UTC MisterSoup has been blocked indef by Nancy. I see in the discussions on various pages that it's alleged that MS is a returning sock. I was not able to determine who might be the sockmaster, only that MS was themselves running a sock. Given the contribs I think an indef block is appropriate. I've also followed up at User talk:Nancy ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Climate Change diffs
I'm not sure if this is reportable or not, but these [11][12] appear to be baiting. Should this type of comment be reported to the enforcement board? I'm going to let Guettarda know that we're talking about him. Cla68 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your take on it is right. I also don't think anything will be done about it. UnitAnode 05:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was of the opinion that Ling.Nut was mis-using the talk page of a climate-change related article. So I thought it appropriate to remind him that the page was under sanction. When I got to his talk page I realised that he had already been warned specifically about his behaviour on the same page. I could have added a second template or some nonsense like that, but I really dislike templates as an alternative to actually using your own words. But the point is the same - if you show up to warn someone about their behaviour, and you find that they have already been warned about their behaviour on a specific page, you can either reiterate the warning, or take the next step and file a report. Me, I'm always optimistic that an established editor will get over their problem and step back into line.
I agree that I should have ignored Ling.Nut's taunting and not replied to his/her response. But it was a simple factual statement in response to a question. I've done my best to approach other editors with an assumption of good faith. Which is a lot more than I've gotten in return. But I've quit letting that bother me. Guettarda (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can reasonably argue that those two diffs rise to the level of notability William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I object to my edits being labeled as "taunting", but I'll let it go. I later tried very hard to argue logically in a way that would establish the relevance of my initial remarks, as my edits show, though G (and perhaps others?) seems to have disbelieved me... I'll try to studiously ignore any personal remarks by G in the future, though I'm happy to continue discussing article-related info. • Ling.Nut 08:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I wasn't around while this was going on, I've been away from the wiki for a bit. I am not totally sure I see what's going on here but it seems that Cla raised an issue, and then the issue got turned around to criticize the other party instead of being dealt with. I'm not sure that's useful. I see sharp elbows all around and all parties ought to be doing more to try to understand the viewpoints of the "other side". Something that seems to be lacking. Whether there is anything that can be done, I'm not sure. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a problem of opposing viewpoints—those are not a problem at all, under normal circumstances. No, it's a problem of questionable practices. Even more, it's a problem of shitty or nonexistent governance Wikipedia-wide (lack of editors in chief, and lack of accountability for the content of articles), but that is Wikipedia's fatal shortcoming... However, these particular opposing relationships are quite likely going to continue for a long, long, long time. I for one am going to do my part not only to color inside the lines, but to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing in both my words and (far more relevantly) my editorial practices... This of course places me at a huge (and, quite likely, decisive) disadvantage, but... • Ling.Nut 09:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe that en.ep should have three pillars of governance, editor behavior (ArbCom), policy, and content, supervised by three separate but equal committees. I'm afraid, however, that the content decision committee would be constantly overwhelmed by requests to decide content disputes. I don't know how to resolve that problem. Until we do, we have the current system, which, as we know, gets constantly gamed and manipulated and is frustrating to observe. Cla68 (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is rambling, but it is pertinent as well as important to me personally... I think you're wrong about "constantly overwhelmed". In fact, Wikipedia actually works in all areas but the genuinely controversial ones (which is the only reason I still contribute). Any Content Court of Appeals [permanent or ad hoc, but preferably the latter, so that membership could be better targeted to the issue to ensure NPOV] could simply reject all cases that come to their attention that don't seem intractable, and in fact the Wikipedia process would effectively work things out far more often than not, in time. But someone needs to act as a final authority on content disputes as virulent and prolonged as this one. WP:CONSENSUS has no magic powers in these cases; in fact it is counter-productive, because it very strongly encourages the formation of tag-team gangs of bullies etc. (no accusations meant here). • Ling.Nut 10:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a point there. Cla68 (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've don't think the "tag team" essay translates well to a mainstream science topic like global warming, even if it may be useful in cases such as, say, articles about religious sects and the like where meat puppetry is well known phenomenon.
If a lot of editors tend to hold similar views on a subject, particularly one where those views are backed by a very strong scientific consensus on a matter, surely those editors will tend to be viewed as a "tag team" by those whose views differ with the consensus view. To those whose views differ from the scientific consensus, they will appear to be acting in concert according to some mysterious outside direction, but this is an illusion.
Conversely there may be a tendency to view those who consistently edit against the consensus as pushing a non-neutral point of view. It may simply be, and in practice probably nearly always is, that they are misinformed.
I think that way of looking at things--both in terms of POV puchers as well as tag teams---has proven sterile because it encourages a battleground mentality. We should all recognise that we're trying to represent the facts in accord with the neutral point of view, and discuss any differences we may have with a view to achieving consensus. --TS 13:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy chatting with you about tag teams and NPOV, Tony. If you're ever in Taiwan, please do stop by for a Taiwan Beer. .. Time to quit for the night again... • Ling.Nut 13:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been away from the wiki and unable to participate very meaningfully. I do see a problem here. I'm not sure how best to phrase it. It's true that most people accept a particular view of climate change in general (that there is a problem here and that we need to take it seriously and that it's highly likely that it's a problem of our own making). But it's also true that there seems to be some difficulty in getting the articles to acknowledge that there are other viewpoints (that it may not have the effects that are generally accepted, that there are questions about some of the data and some of the methods, etc) to the right level.
This seems to be a problem that occurs in more areas than just climate change. There doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy or grand cabal, just a few like minded editors who agree with each other, and who are active in the topic, and you have the same effect as a conspiracy, even if they never even exchange one email. I'd point to the previous "ID Cabal" discussions as another example of this. It now is clear to me that there never was an actual cabal, or conspiracy... just editors who felt strongly about the topic and who acted in ways that skewed our coverage of ID. There are many other fringe science topics that seem to exhibit the same effect. The generally accepted view seems to be the only view discussed, or there seems to be POV present that it's the only meaningful view. I've always believed that presenting all the information and letting the reader draw their own conclusions is the way to go rather than predigesting things. Saying this is not going to make me any new friends, but there you have it. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you please help with this biography of a living person? It's under attack by anon IP's putting false information in like she was wrongly accused.] It's been brought to the IP's attention that BLP's need to follow reliable sources but they are ignoring saying it's the truth. I don't want the hassles of ANI for an IP like this. They have been reverted by multiple editors and take it to 3r before starting it all over again. The IP has been warned. We could use your help in stopping this by blocking the IP, if that's not possible then protecting the article from this user. Thanks for any help you can give, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took this to ANI. Hopefully someone there will put a stop to the game. Thanks, sorry for bothering you. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was no bother, I am sorry I wasn't on wiki to respond instantly. Please advise if you need further assistance on this or other matters. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been away from the wiki and unable to participate very meaningfully. I find myself in agreement with you and I've said so at that thread. Hope it's not too late. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She's back
Hi Lar. I need help right away from someone before I blow my stack. Una is back, causing problems with an article I just created and she needs to butt out now and not later. Feel free to toss this to a non-involved neutral admin if you'd like. See Colitis-X, which I created just a few days ago, sourced up the wazoo. I am open to knowledgable editors improving it, but I got Una. Now I have tenditious arguments to deal with, She's creating a problem with my DYK nom, and her usual problem with OR edits (Just for starters, one never calls signs of disease in animals "symptoms" because animals can't talk-- they are "clinical signs" in veterinary medicine). I don't want this to escalate, and it's the annual time when it does. Thanks to Una, I have not created a new wikipedia article since the Sockpuppet debacle last year, and I have been terrified to take any article I personally care about to GA or FA because of her past involvement. Help! Help! Montanabw(talk) 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned her. She should not be allowed to disrupt a productive editor such as yourself. I would appreciate help from my WP:TPW's to review this matter. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say, Greg... why is this sock of yours unblocked again, exactly? ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soup's off
Hi Lar. The bigoted harassment of SRQ continues with a new soupy sock[13] . I blocked on sight; happily I was online at the time and caught it within a few minutes. I am wondering whether a CU is in order to identify the underlying IP and see if a block is feasible. Nancy talk 11:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ran one before, but matters may have changed. Let me take a look and see what makes sense to do. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Followup to Nancy: This wasn't a MisterSoup sock, surprisingly. Perhaps they were Joe jobbing? I found another sockmaster. There may be further followup required after some inquiries return. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I am getting harassing emails from the same person, Lar. Something referenced in one of the three emails was mentioned in the post to my talk page. Only the writer of the email would have made that reference. If you would like the headers from the email, let me know. Also, I have my suspicions about the possible identity of this person based on the IP address contained in the email header. I elaborated more on Nancy's talk page, here [14]--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are the emails via the wikipedia mailing system or does he/she know your email address already? Send them along, please. I can't promise to be of much help but I will take a look. Sorry you have to put up with it. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user has my home email address and they have been coming from outside wikipedia at the following email: trinketsandtreaures@live.com I am not home currently and don't have access to the emails right now to send you the headers. Regardless, it appears you have found the culprit who has been vandalizing my pages? Still, in case there is more than one person working this "game", I will send you the headers and emails when I get home later on today. Oh, and before I forget - the reason I know why the sock and the anonymous harassing emailer are the same person is that the email mentioned a song by the artist, "Beck" - the harassing edit on my talk page made reference to the same artist. Thanks for working on this for me - I truly appreciate it and feel better overall that things should start looking a little brighter on my Wikipedia horizon because of your efforts. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Send the headers (and the bodies too if you're willing to share) when you get a chance. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, after I finished with the above, I had another vandalizing message on my talk page. You can see it here [15] <heavy sigh> Seems my suspicion of there being more than one person here may be accurate. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you're still getting hit. That IP appears to be from Verizon Wireless. (see this whois ) and is probably someone editing from their cellphone. All I can say is just hang in there and don't let it get to you, I'm not sure a range block is warranted. Yet. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC that's a disclosed sock of Thekohser(talk·contribs·count·logs·page moves·block log). I don't know that every disclosed sock has been blocked again. Something to check, there may be more we missed. ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure as I am not sure exactly when it went up. Probably the Cool3 thing if I had to guess but who knows. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:-( I'm upset and annoyed right now that another minor has gone up there, too - Alison❤ 22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what his problem is. The WR thread is filled with the usual apologist blather. You may want to avoid reading it if you want to keep your blood pressure down. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too late! :x sigh- Alison❤ 00:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whaddya know - I'm back on Hivemind, too. There's a shocker!! - Alison❤ 04:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wildhartlivie
Hi, first let me say I don't think you did anything at all wrong. I appreciate you explaining more at her talk page. I just find that she is kind of in a catch-22 because it's impossible to prove or disprove a negative. I expected your reasons for the block there because of the use of two accounts when the explanation came. User:LaVidaLoca used the two accounts for the explanation on their page I expected the results and reasoning to be because of this. I do believe though that they are good friends who at times share Wildhartlivie's computer. I have been trying to check for overlapping times between them but this is very tedious to do and I'm tired to boot so for now I've stopped looking. I just like things to be fair. I think you did do a fair look at things. I just thought there might be something specific that could show that there are more than one editor here. I am going to let the rest for now though. Thank you for more of your time. I am sure you get tired of having to explain things. If I should come across something, I'll make contact, if I don't I won't bother you. Thanks again for your kind explanations. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for stopping by.
First, the LVL and SOM account correlation is stone cold, there's no possible way to even cast any doubt thre... if LVL is a different person than WHL, he/she was socking there, and using a sock to harass another user.
Second, no worries about your questioning me, it's fine. What gets up my nose perhaps a bit more is Equazcion using phrasing like "You're basically saying you're sure but you can't tell us why you're sure, but we should believe you because you think you're good at this" ... that's just needlessly snarky on his part. But whatever, it's kind of what I expect from some folk.
Third... perhaps I still haven't explained myself well enough. While it may never be possible to actually prove the negative, certain cases are such that it is easier to show there are plausible explanations, and certain cases are such where it is harder. That is an intrinsic feature of the case itself and the circumstances of it. In this case, the explanations offered just do not fit. I don't see how they can. It will be exceedingly hard to convince the other CU, me, or (I wager) any other CU that is shown the information that what was offered so far fits. It's possible that what was offered so far wasn't true, and that these two people live together. If that's the case, things fit better. But that's not what was asserted. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you weren't aware of this I thought I should show you. My understanding is that they are occasional roommates and have been good friends for a very long time. They visit with each other. Also the mix up last night is that LVL was at Wildhartlivie's at the time she wrote on her talk page the explanation but didn't remember to log Wildhartlivie out and to sign in on her own name. She realized it afterwards and made the correction to her own account. I find this probable, how about you? I know when I go to my son's house and come here I always worry about being told I am not me because of the change in IP. I don't use his computer very often but when I did I always made a note of it once so editors new. I just think the explanation I was given sound accurate and true. Obviously I can't share without permission but I'm sure you can ask Wildhartlivie if she would share that email with you privately. Maybe she was clearer to me than she was to you about the events last night. I woke up to all of this, so it took me by total surprise. Like I said, I'm going to leave this for now. I appreciate your time on this though, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC) (didn't proof read sorry if there are errors)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder of the original SPI report. I had forgotten I opined there but rereading, it all came back to me. At the time, I found it reasonable that these were different users, because the explanation on offer was that they lived together. Now, they are saying they do not. That doesn't fit the findings. So something is off. I don't know what, none of my business whether they do or don't live together or why, except where it impacts operations here. You're a good friend and true for sticking up for what you think is right. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's why I brought it here to refresh memories. User:LaVidaLoca from my understanding of things was visiting and didn't remember to log off and log on with her account when she first edited. She realized later that she didn't log off Wildhartlivie so she returned to her page and signed in to her own account and made the adjustments. This sounds logical to me. It's like when I use my son's computer to me. Though he doesn't edit here anymore as far as I am aware it could be the same situation as here that's why I am kind of trying to make sure this is understood. I just think we should be fair and Wildhartlivie has be fair with me so I am trying to look and see what's going on. Something seems off to me too but I can't seem to understand what. I believe Wildhartlivie and some others I've spoken to so I am just trying to get this to a point where I feel comfortable about what is going on. At this moment I just feel like we are missing something or someone else. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lovely. Nothing found though. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be more explicit, I found no connection between this user and any other user. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured you meant :) Equazcion(talk) 01:10, 17 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Locked userspace?
Hi Lar - is it possible to have my user and talk pages locked for a period of time due to continued vandalism (probably executed by you-know-who)? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection of her userspace would probably take care of the problem. Equazcion(talk) 20:31, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Who is the "(probably executed by you-know-who)?" The two accounts are blocked. Please stop poking, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crohnie, please...this has nothing to do with you. I know you're upset about recent events, but it's my user and talk pages that are being continuously vandalized over the last few days by the same person, not yours. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor can ask questions about what is going on. You still don't need to be poking people, and yes they are people. Don't act like you know me because you don't. What is going on is something I will pursue if and when I feel like it. I'm am sorry though that you are being rudely attacked. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All true, Crohnie. SRQ is under the mistaken impression that she can tell people to "butt out of her affairs". Still though, the success of the poke is in your response to it. If SRQ wants to throw around vague accusations that won't have any real consequence, I think the best response is to pay it no mind. Equazcion(talk) 21:12, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)
You are making inappropriate assumptions, Equazcion. If you want a further explanation, see Crohnie's talk page where I responded to what she said above. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer you guys not feud here, please. SRQ, if you want your user or user talk page semiprotected I'm happy to oblige you. How long do you want it for, and do you want your user full or semi (we never full protect talk pages though...) ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know...what would you suggest? I was thinking at least until the block expires (but you may have a better suggestion). Semi is fine and should at least slow down vandalism-only users. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try a week. I went with that for both user and user talk. Advise if you want it removed early. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, wasn't sure what to make of it. Is there an action item there for me or were you just letting me know? ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I can neither confirm nor deny it, as I don't have the facts and I prefer not to get involved unless necessary. I have received your second mail, which asks my opinion. I don't have an opinion on this at this time. ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ping
You have mail. I hope it is alright to email you. I'm sorry for not asking first which would have been the proper thing for me to do but I just didn't think of it until now. You'll understand I think, thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to mail me, no worries. I replied. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, when you are feeling up to it would you please check out my talk page at the Zodiac Killer section. I mean it, I have had enough of the hounding, following and assumptions of bad faith to last me a life time. Please make it stop. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did look. I can see why people are frustrated, there is a lot of talking past each other going on.
I am thinking that the matter of whether the WHL investigation has validly found socks or not... is separable from the matter of the difficulties that are being encountered amongst various parties. I am fearing that the latter needs to go to AN/I or somewhere other than various talk pages, because it's not getting resolved amicably. I may not have the time to do that matter justice. Perhaps mediation might be considered? Perhaps one or more RfC/Us about various parties? I'm not sure. ++Lar: t/c 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, after I wake up a bit, I'll pop in thru email and tell you what my thinking is on this. I think I understand a bit more of why this is going on and it may be a bit less controversial, no sure so I'd like to pass it by you privately. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.
A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.
After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question re SPI
Hi Lar. I asked you a question here [16] in relation to Wildhartlivie but it then got moved so I’ve no idea whether you have it on your watch list. Leaky Caldron 19:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I answered it, it's now here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie ... it may not still be embedded in the main SPI page. It may not be an answer you care for, but it's one I feel about fairly strongly. This is a delicate situation, it involves a very long time contributor with a lot of edits, we want to find an answer that serves all parties best, and jiggling elbows prematurely may not end up with best results. Don't confuse that with not wanting to answer at all. But sometimes respect for the individual is best served by circumspection. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP policy and deleting unsourced BLPs
Lar, it seems that you have saying at several pages that BLP allows you to delete any unsourced BLP article. Please notice that BLP talks about removal of contentious unsourced material, not removal of all unsourced material.
In particular, I was looking at the history of the BLP, and I found this diff[17]. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message in the talk page of BLP about your, ahem, "fixing" :D Nice edit war that you started there. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I see. I think full protection for a while is a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I had just finished writing up the RFPP request :D --Enric Naval (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you wasted the paperwork :) It seemed needful, so I did it. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think this is the link you were looking for. I'm much more interested in what Jimbo has to say than in SlimVirgin editing policy, which she does a lot. Who knows what she was up to with that series of edits? ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the part about "This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."? JBsupreme quoted here all the first paragraph except for this sentence. His message from May 2006 clarifies this further "If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.". This is the real reason because the "contentious" wording and its synonims have survived for so long in the policy, and not because of SlimVirgin. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find the second line of your RfAr statement contradictory. Isn't BLP supposed to be policy that complements the threecorecontent policies, not trump over them? - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's complementary to those. It trumps how many #As WP:CSD has or hasn't. ++Lar: t/c 02:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. You might want to make that clear. - Mailer Diablo 03:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LMKWYT. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi: I noticed you indefinitely full protected WP:BLP, giving as your reason the ongoing edit war. I don't believe short-term edit wars are a good reason for indefinite protection. Would you care to pare it down to some reasonable period (like, say, a week)? Thanks, RayTalk 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indef doesn't mean permanent, I'll lift it as soon as there is forward progress on consensus on the talk. That could be much shorter than any short period I might set (like, say, a week)? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GWH makes an unreasonable request and an inapt characterization
This behavior is up for an Arbcom case, and there is significant objection to the activity. Please stop the BLP deletions until a consensus emerges that supports the activity.
I issued Scott MacDonald a warning that I'd block him for disruption if he kept it up. I believe that you're doing so from an equivalent starting point and in equal disregard for the community dispute and lack of consensus, which is equally disruptive. Please let the community decide where we want to go as a project on this. The issue is not up for individual admin fiat.
Lead, follow or get out of the way. However, I'll be happy to userify any BLP so you can add references, just let me know which ones and how many at a time. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind you, as I did to Scott, that this is not an emergency, and there's no jusification to climb the Reischtag with your spidey suit on over this. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your characterization of the situation, not mine. The WP:BLP victims I just saved from further harassment have had unsourced bios for 'three years. How much more time did you need to get them properly sourced? Time's up. How many did you want me to userify to you so you can fix them? Lead, follow or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We want you to restore them in the exact place that you deleted them from. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I want you to lead, follow or get out of the way. Also a pony. But that's not on offer. LMK if you want any userified... if not, that's an answer too isn't it? PS, who's "we"? ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"we" == everyone who has opposed the "delete all unsourced BLPs" thing. You have a handy list at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Comments_in_Opposition. And all the people that has complained at ANI in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Rdm2376's_deletions. And everyone who has opposed an "unsourced BLP" A10 speedy criteria (see my statement in the arbitration request page for a list of discussions). And the talk page archives of WP:BLP should reveal a few discussions rejecting your position, since the policy history had several references to the talk page when changes to that part of the policy were being done. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar...... at this pace you are going to get yourself blocked......... --Enric Naval (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check the timestamps on the deletion log and on the first post in this thread. Make sure you correct for UTC. Then try again. ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that you stopped. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's no current activity which is problematic. There's no point in arguing over restoring articles at this point; the community is hopefully going to decide shortly whether these deletions are the new standard OK thing or not. If they're ok, then we'll keep them all deleted until someone rebuilds with sources. If they're not ok, they can be restored then, without any warring over them in the meantime. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely laugh out loud at something written on Wikipedia. Your blathering self-importance is truly chuckle-inducing. UnitAnode 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLPs are problematic by definition, and every day is one day too many. GWH: How many did you want userified so you can fix them? ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote:
Unsourced BLPs are problematic by definition,
Agreed.
and every day is one day too many.
You suggest a sense of urgency here, or some sort of an emergency situation, in which there is no community consensus or admin consensus, and much dispute.
That there is a problem does not imply automatically that we must nuke the problem from orbit immediately. It's not evident that there's consensus that nuking without good faith repair attempts is appropriate or acceptable. There's clearly much disagreement over nuke first, determine policy later.
The first few deletions could have led to a healthy discussion and new policy. Instead, by having multiple people drive forwards hard enough to raise it to an arbcom case level multi-block wheel war situation, you all have increased drama and decreased the odds of actually getting a community consensus.
The odds of what I think you would consider a successful outcome here have dropped since yesterday, in large part because of your and Scott MacDonald's actions. That is pretty much the definition of a spidey stunt or WP:POINT. The time to stop and constructively engage was this morning, not tonight or tomorrow. Further disruption is only going to make it worse. If you can't see that, you need to take some time off. Significantly degrading your own preferred end goal's chances of success is truly pointless behavior.
Why don't you block him, Georgie? See how that works out for you? UnitAnode 04:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't egg him on to doing something foolish. As misguided as he is I would not want him to lose his bit over this. I've done nothing blockable. ever. And everyone knows it. ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no yolk here; you stopped immediately after being asked to, as I saw, you pointed out, Enric acknowledged etc. I don't think this is in dispute or an issue at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PRODs don't have to be supported by policy. Lar, good work. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PRODs are for "cases where articles are uncontestably deletable, yet fail to meet the criteria for speedy deletion." Tomorrow (or the weekend, because I might be busy), when I can edit wikipedia again, I will take a look at those articles. I will contest those prods that don't have a policy-backed rationale, I might send a few to AfD, or tag a few, or put some source, or make some fix, or put a better PROD rationale if they are really bad (no notability, etc). You are, of course, free to take them to AfD. It would be nice if you remembered that contested PRODs may not be restored.
(and please reconsider not making mass-PRODdings of articles with the same faulty rationale that is still being disputed simultaneously at ANI, at the deletion policy's talk page and at the arb request page, or I'll have to ask that the arbs put an motion against placing PRODs based on that rationale. Whether arbs will heed my request is a different thing, but I'll give it a try.) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do me the courtesy of not lecturing me. Especially while you have unanswered questions.... ++Lar: t/c 05:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added you as a party to the arb case request, see my statement for why. -E
Thanks for letting me know. -L
If the unanswered question is "How many did you want me to userify to you so you can fix them?", it was implicitely answered at [18]: none, thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then, if you don't want to help solve the problem by working on the articles, stop bitching about the deletions and proddings. UnitAnode 06:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it, that was my line! :) ++Lar: t/c 06:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enric, how many did you want userified? Time's awastin, lots of referencing to do. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd let you know that Gwh has focused his sights on me now. He informed me at my talk that he's told mommy on me reported me to ANI for hurting his feelings. UnitAnode 05:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proding (prodding?) unsourced BLP
I don't usually commend people for their edits, but this task is worthy of a big thanks. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why thanks, dear IP. Just for that maybe I won't even CU you! (KIDDING!!!) ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just add pages under /Articles/ from 8 on up (User:AeronPeryton/Articles/8 and so on) as needed. Thanks. æronphonehome 12:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, happy to oblige. It may not be this very instant but it will be within a few hours. As a procedural note, if the article has been restored, it doesn't make sense to userify it, as it's already been restored to mainspace and userification would thwart the will of whoever decided to restore it. When it's userified, the entire history will be restored as well (unless there are some revisions that need to stay deleted). If someone decides that the deletion needs to be undone completely, they will presumably move it back. So given the state of flux here, it pays to check to see what's going on before acting. I'll check histories, and I'm suggesting that you check before doing a big edit run, so no one happens to move it while you are editing (maybe add an inuse while doing significant editing? not sure).
Alright then, it'll make more check up work but just move the already red linked deletions. In light of the case built up over this I'll wait and see if the others go down too. In all fairness it's not your fault that people are screaming about this, that happens anytime huge changes are made whether they're needed or not, but the way it was done combined with the attitudes of the people doing the deleting (or supporting it cause they can't do it themselves) makes it hard for me and others to believe that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia, Her purpose and primary goal. Good luck with your case. æronphonehome 14:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TPWs please feel free to restore/move these if I haven't gotten to them. AP: Thanks for volunteering!++Lar: t/c 12:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolution list
I will update this list as I identify what's going on.
My deletions:
Osamu Migitera - this was never deleted, I just placed a PROD tag on it. You can work on it in mainspace, and if you feel it shouldn't be prodded, remove the tag. I'd appreciate you referencing it well first though. If not I may take it to AfD so we can decide what to do.
Easier to watch them here, because of this whole thing my watchlist is very difficult to read. æronphonehome 18:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
As for working on them in the mainspace it's clear that we've exceeded the Wikipedia deadline for article completion. æronphonehome 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can do the rest of these for you, sure... but can you sort out this many at once? Presumably you have enough to do to keep you busy for a bit, I may not get to the rest right away, but I will get to them, probably within 24 hours or less. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe my sarcasm was too subtle. There is in fact no deadline for anything here, but you guys want it in dress uniform right now or you want it gone. So give 'em to me. I'll build what I can and trash anything I can't. At least I'm offering to DO something, right? æronphonehome 02:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are. And good on you for doing so. I wish more people would. You have my sincere thanks. These articles sat with problems for 3 years and 11M users didn't do anything while the backlog grew and grew. We need a reordering of priorities here. Sometimes a shock to the system is what's required. That's regrettable, but it is what it is. We gave the shock, and now the community, at last, is responding in a myriad useful ways... improving tags, processes and articles. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I solemnly agree, but I still maintain that all the effort put into rocking the boat could be used to plug the holes that the rocking is being done for. Just like I was telling Bali Unlimited in one of the first article to go up for AFD, if you spent half the effort fixing the articles as you do yelling about them things wouldn't be so bad. æronphonehome 16:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not debate the point here in what is essentially a "work thread". But no. 450,000 BLPs and growing. How many are problematic? No one knows for sure but it's a large number. The backlogs grew and grew and grew. Efforts to do anything less radical were thwarted. Enough. ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not disagreeing with you, more like lamenting. At least you're being a real person without an apparent social disorder. I guess I just need- *sniff* someone to talk to... ^_- æronphonehome 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
real person, without a social disorder???? [citation needed] ... at least according to some folk. :) Lament away, though. Because I agree. It's too bad it came to this. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least not one you can't handle. I don't like how mass deletion and bad attitudes seem to always go together. I put up a watchlist since I doubt this thing is over and while other people are open to mass deletion I'm open to mass adoption. Thanks for your help so far. æronphonehome 18:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also what's going on with this: Wikipedia:AN3#User:AeronPeryton_reported_by_User:JBsupreme (see lower on this page too)... Please don't edit war. Please discuss things and arrive at a good arrangement. Removing red links is legitimate maintenance. ++Lar: t/c 02:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I'm keeping this list on your talk page. If you want it somewhere else just let me know. As for the spat with the deletion brothers, what can you do? My last attempts to talk with both of them were simply deleted. It doesn't get any unfriendlier than that. They're both unashamedly crude, but I get disciplined. Gotta really love this place to give a care about it sometimes. Look towards the bottom too, I have a couple of questions. æronphonehome 17:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re the list, I'm fine with it here, but fair warning, I archive my talk page monthly and so all the Jan stuff (unless it's sitll active) will get archived away... so you may want to make a list in your own userspace or whatever. I thought maybe you wanted those actually userified. If you do just ask, I am happy to but I need to know, right now I'm not totally clear. As for the other matter, I'l comment below. But I'd again implore you to try to talk to folk first, and avoid edit warring. I think at least one of your "adversaries" thinks you're the one not being comunicative, so maybe a reset and start over might help.... put the past behind you and communicate clearly and hope for the best. ++Lar: t/c 20:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the list is there in the hopes that you will userify those as well. I didn't want to make a new entry on your talk page every time yet another article went under. I imagine the scope of what I'm asking your help with will be active for a while, so if you archive this section I'll just fish out the ones that still need to be done and put it somewhere else.
I'll respond to the rest below in our other conversation. æronphonehome 21:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I already commented. If the matter ends up being a full case rather than summary motion, I'll have more to say in the evidence section. ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A request that you consider using AfD for some unsourced BLPs
Hi, Lar. Since it looks like you are going through old, unsourced BLPs, I just wanted to request that you at least consider using AfD instead of PROD for some of them. I'm specifically talking about ones where the claim to notability is particularly strong, or where it is clear that another user disagrees with you that the article should be deleted (Hasan Muratović is the case that I have in mind, but I'm sure there will be others). I skim through the entire list of AfD discussions on most days, and I've actually seen many articles that were unsourced for years but quickly had sources found when taken to AfD. Since AfD and PROD both delete things after the same amount of time, taking something to AfD won't keep bad content around any longer than using PROD, and I think AfD has a better chance of finding sources when they are out there. I'm certainly not suggesting that you use AfD for all the unsourced BLPs, only the ones that sound notable enough that it would be likely sources are out there. Anyway, if you would at least consider it, I would appreciate it. Calathan (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable request. PROD is faster to do though. I'll AfD any articles that the PROD tag is removed from without improvement of the references but if the PROD tag achieves a reference improvement, there's no need for the AfD. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What in the blue blazes is that? --Gwern (contribs) 16:05 21 January 2010 (GMT)
"Blue blazes" ??? Looks like a poorly handled (ec) rather than anything sinister... let me fix it for you. Or you can if you'd rather I not touch your words. Or just null edit after I put them back to validate it, whatever works for you. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you fixed it. If not please advise. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see; I withdraw any imputation of sinisterness or censorship. But really, you've been on Wikipedia as long as I have - oughtn't you be familiar with edit conflicts by now and how to deal with them? --Gwern (contribs) 20:33 23 January 2010 (GMT)
BLP deletions
Please make sure that the unsourced-BLP tags on these articles are correct before you delete. For example, BJ McKie had a perfectly good source -- it was just listed as an external link rather than a reference. Deleting articles because you don't think the sources are good enough, or aren't in proper format, is a whole different can of worms. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, nearly everything is subject to consensus. The only situations where consensus could be argued to be overruled are in cases of majority representative body fiat - i.e. Arbitration Committee or WM Foundation Board directive. However, the same community that forms consensus elects those august bodies, so divergence seems unlikely. — James Kalmar 21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nawlin: I've switched to PRODding and AfDing... for now. A bare external link needs to be turned into a more usable cite and tied to specific parts of the text though. Else it's not really a source, just an alleged one.
JEH: See what I said to you on KL's page. BLP is a mandate from the board, and a moral imperative. This is a project, not a community. ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your rush to be the crusading knight in shining armor you've managed to do a lot of collateral damage. For example, Christopher Maher had a source listed just under further reading rather than under references. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improperly sourced, then, and a valid deletion, wasn't it? Did you want me to undelete it to your user space so you can fix it? I bet you can fix it in less time than 3 years... if you set your mind to it. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And it strikes me as quite hypocritical to complain about these deletions when 47,277,620 users had over three years to fix the articles. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it is improper sourcing to take 10 seconds because someone mislabeled what section it should go under and rather than just undelete and make the single tiny edit to relable "Further Reading" to "References" it has to first go into userspace and then get corrected and then get moved over. And this is coming from the people who are trying to claim justification under ignore all rules. Unbelievable. If you insist on making it take up more of your time and more of my time so you can feel good about yourself by all means go and userfy it to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do that. Unlike the other user, above, I expect you to fix all the loose ends like cats and templates and the like unless it's ready to right back in an hour or two. As for the rest of your lament, the community had 3 years to fix it. Tough noogies. This may or may not get through to you. Probably not. But one can hope. ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, argumentum ad Jimbo. Yeah that has real logical force. Especially when it just him thanking someone for something rather than anything resembling an argument that even he's making. And tough noogies isn't an argument. As has already been explained most people haven't touched these articles because they aren't the actual problem. The real problem is in serious BLPs of notable people where bad content can slip in or where POV pushing can create problems. Now you can go back to having fun and convincing yourself that you are actually doing something helpful or you can try to actually understand that. And frankly, I might have bothered thinking about correcting templates and categories but I'm really not inclined to because that's not a BLP concern. I'd love to see you try to justify deleting an article because it doesn't have perfect categorization though. That would be even funnier than your previous activity. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't read it, did you? You need to actually think about why the founder would come out and endorse the activity and what that means. ++Lar: t/c 23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read it. No claim made there was any different than any other claim. Simple repetition of claims doesn't constitute an argument. I am interested however in your assumption that I didn't read the remark. It is noteworthy that one of the strong signs of when ideology rather than logic takes over is when an individual feels the need to make negative assumptions about those he disagrees with. I can't say I've been perfect in that regard either during this discussion. But it might help to understand that humans can legitimately disagree and even disagree vehemently and still have read the same material, thought about points being, made rejected them, or considered them to simply be permutations of prior points. To think otherwise invites the worst sort of tribalism. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JoshuaZ: Done. See User:JoshuaZ/Christopher Maher. Note that you are incorrect about the article being sourced. IMDB is not a WP:RS. You'll have to find another source than that or the article is subject to redeletion. How much time do you need? ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for undeleting. Frankly, I have to wonder whether you actually bother reading what I've wrote or not. There is an IMDB link which isn't even under "Further reading" The source I directed you to is the source under "further reading." Imagine that! JoshuaZ (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I promise I read what you write most of the time. I suspect far more often than you do, actually. ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a clever remark. I've move the source in so it is explicit about where it sources. I haven't added any templates or changed categories. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you. I try. Was there anything else you needed here? ++Lar: t/c 23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The harassment continues
I am still receiving harassing messages, although, since my talk page is locked and inaccessible to new IP accounts, the harassment is being placed on articles I am currently editing. The most common place right now is the Charles Manson talk page. I would like my userspaces to be protected at least another two weeks (or more), if you can do it as I fear that as soon as the lock is removed, the harassment will just continue there. Needless to say, it's beyond annoying to have to continually revert vandalism until a determined vandal (IP or otherwise) can be blocked. Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do but as you can see I'm kinda busy :) ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering where you are on extending the lock on my userspaces. I realize you are busy, but I don't imagine it would really take all that long to extend the time period, would it? Thanks for looking into this, Lar. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It ran out already? I hadn't realised... OK, no it hasn't. I think (as tedious as it may seem) the Powers That Be like to see the protection run out to see if the vandalism/harassment stops. I'll check in again once it does to see where things stand. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another 2 weeks for your user talk. ++Lar: t/c 22:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noroton makes an unwarranted demand for an apology
According to the AUSC, in a communication with Versageek, you wrote that you suspected my account was an alternate account purely to participate in contentious discussions, and do so aggressively and disruptively.
Since a quick check of the contributions history of my account up to that time fit into a single 500-count contributions history page, which easily would have shown that most of my edits were not to discussions, and just a little further looking would have easily found that contributions even to those discussions were mostly not contentious, and barely any of even the contributions to contentious discussions were "aggressive" and none disruptive, why don't you tell me why I shouldn't consider this statement of yours a lie? Why don't you take it back and apologize? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not demanding an apology from you. Just pointing out the problem and inviting you to fix it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I calls them like I sees them. Your claims have now been thoroughly discredited. I think the apologies that are actually owed need to come from you, and go to Versageek, to me, to the AUSC and to the community at large. But I don't think you have it in you to admit fault at all. Or to interact civilly. Say, weren't you banned on WR? That says a lot about your approach right there, if it's true. I forget. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you've done is lie. Provably. It isn't a mistake. It wasn't harmless. It wasn't a white lie or a misinterpretation. It was a lie which looks like it was meant to achieve a political end by crushing an opponent, or perhaps it was just anger -- I don't know. I'm relying on facts anyone can see. You're relying on authority and hiding behind private communications you refused to release. AUSC released one short quote from your private communication, and it's simply a lie. If, somehow, there's a context in the language of that communication that exonerates you or puts that statement in a much better light, feel free to make it public. But no amount of sneering at me or insulting me is going to help you or bait me. I wanted to give you one more chance to settle this. But I don't think you have it in you to admit fault at all. That's a personal attack, and, since you're familiar with my previous statements about this matter, you know it's also untrue. Clearly, you're not interested in taking the opportunity I'm giving you, so I'll stop posting here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that I'm lying is itself a lie. By you. Your aspersion casting is getting rather tiresome, I wish you would stop. You do not know how to take no for an answer, and you do not know how to quit. The very model of an incollegial, tendentious, timewasting editor. So, am I misremembering, or WERE you blocked from WR? ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question about my PRODing
Should I keep some kind of a list of the articles I've PRODed so far, so that when and if they are deleted, it will be easier to userify them? UnitAnode 02:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems prudent if it's not easy to derive from your contribs. We're out to foster the articles getting fixed if they're worth saving, not to be difficult by hiding what we do. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I've done between 50 and 60. Should I just make a user subpage, or is there going to be some sort of central "holding place" for these? UnitAnode 02:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of such a central place yet, so I'd say make a page for now, if one develops you can move stuff over then. I probably should do the same thing I guess. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a holding page for my work. Please ping me if something more central is created. UnitAnode 03:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. We need more eyes, a more central listing, and some clever template coders to make it all be more table-ish with clear status markers, sortability, etc etc etc. But that's great to start. I think I will use the same format as you. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there are descriptive edit summaries when the PROD is placed, it's a pretty simple cut-and-paste plus wikilinking to get it done. UnitAnode 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you finishing up December 2006? If so, I'll move on to a different month, when I resume working on it later this evening. I think there needs to be some sort of coordination of efforts, so as to avoid duplication of efforts. UnitAnode 15:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say you should go ahead, I have a lot of other WP tasks I need to pick back up (an ongoing investigation, userifcation requests, general drahamahs etc) so I don't know when I can get back to this... I agree that coordination might be good. I also think (on the other hand) that it's OK for multiple eyes to look at these. I switched to PRODding instead of deleting. So I have some of my PRODs to go review too, if they got unprodded and not fixed I am thinking of either deleting outright, or AfDing, depending on what makes more sense. (after first asking the person who unprodded to fix them) ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've been working at January 2007 for the past day, so feel free to help out. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum is now threatening to wholesale revert my PRODs, without working on the underlying problem, and to block me if I readd the PROD. This is just surreal. UnitAnode 16:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I'll have a word if you can give me a clue. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk. I'm being harangued by him and Off2riorob. I'll be offline for awhile now, but when I come back, I'll get back to the work. It would be nice to have those to off my back once I get back to it. UnitAnode 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said something. I dunno if it will do any good. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either. I'm prepared to have my block log sullied for this, though, as it's the right thing to do. Chillum is making it pretty clear that if I continue, he's going to block me. Not in so many words, but that's what's going to happen. UnitAnode 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undeletion of BLPs
I randomly picked 5 BLPs you deleted recently (Chris McDevitt, Almanbet Matubraimov, George A. McCarthy, Jing Jing Luo & Vaughan Lowe). For four I found a source, so restored the article and added the source. The other one is a comedian for sure but would probably fail an AfD so I didn't bother. Ideally I would have asked first before restoring, but it was far easier for me to edit the articles once open because my source, Factiva, has tiny browser sessions.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to ask. I'm glad that you improved the articles so they could be restored. The point of this exercise was not to delete the articles forever. Merely until they were properly sourced. Thanks for your efforts on behalf of the project. ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Krynauw Otto, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Agree with basis for prod. Have included refs in the article and deleted all remaining unreferenced or unferenceable guff. Have removed prod. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Nice work! Too bad some of that other material couldn't be sourced. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earns warnings and blocks.
Example
Whack!
The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.
To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.
Lar, you should not have prodded that in the first place. Did you even check the external link in the version you prodded? It's a reliable source: the official site of South African Rugby Union, and it was wikilined as such! Your action was no better than that of the random tag spammer. A similar commentary applies to Mkativerata action to remove most of the info: similar to that of the random vandal that deletes info instead of tagging with {{fact}}. Not everything needs an inline citation. Please read Wikipedia:CITE#General reference. Pcapping 17:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I don't agree, though. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. What exactly did you solve with your comment? ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum stirz da drahmaz
He's now opened up an ANI on my work. I really don't understand how people can't see that I'm working to solve a big problem. UnitAnode 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it closed already, while I was in the air. I've left Chillum an invite to pop round here to talk about this further. As for using your sock, I think probably you should stick to one account at a time just now. Especially if both accounts are editing in the same area. Even given how clear it is that it's your account. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum tells me he undid my joke archive in which I said: " UnitAnode is to be troutslapped for using an alternative account name that could easily be confused with his first account name." I can't think what else one can say about this that would result in sysop action, or why it needs to be discussed anywhere else but User talk:Unitanode. I mean, people are still allowed to stick PROD tags on articles, I should think. --TS 01:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I thought it was a for real close (although it brought a smile... those are the best kind). And I thought people could darn well PROD things so color me confused. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the alt account simply for logistical reasons. It's much easier to cut-and-paste the article names from an uncluttered contribution list than it is from one that has ANI, my talk, your talk, and other general editing mixed in. There's no attempt to hide, though, as I immediately update my main account userpage, and the holding area when I finish a run. UnitAnode 02:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One can always hope that a jokey close like that will be taken as conclusive.
In this case evidently there was more to say. And that's okay too. I think it's reasonable to try to funnel discussion to the RFC, but this was framed as a conduct issue, and arguably there's a good hand/bad hand issue that definitely needs to be handled if only by making sure that UnitAnode understands the implications and won't do it again.
Compared to us old timers, UnitAnode is very new. He's doing pretty much the kind of thing one does in exploring a new and broadly welcoming environment, testing the boundaries. This is not the time to conduct such experiments unless one has built up a substantial head of credit. I don't know whether he has such credit, though I find the fact that he knows you very promising. (I just edit-conflicted with UnitAnode) ---TS 02:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here for three years, Tony. Take another peek at my userpage. UnitAnode 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us were editing Wikipedia when the American President was Illinois Senator Barack Obama, If you've been editing for three years, that means you were a new editor during the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration and you cannot remember a time when there was no biographies of living persons policy. --TS 02:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of BDJ, but I'm not sure of the details. I didn't start editing as an account until early in 2007. UnitAnode 03:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. You've been editing for longer than I had been by the 2007 Badlydrawnjeff arbitration. By that time I'd been an admin and an arbcom clerk, but that was in the days when neither adminship nor clerking was a big deal. I suppose that was my point:things have changed. But I was wrong of course. Old Timers always tend to think they have something sensible and useful to say to others, and they're almost invariably wrong. --TS 03:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by this post. I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me. And about adminship, et al, I've never been that ambitious about those type of things. I like to write, and had been focusing on that almost solely lately. But the BLP issue is more important, so I've decided to focus on that for awhile. UnitAnode 03:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well now that I learned the reason for the alternate account I have to say I think it's a perfectly valid use (to make list generation much easier) and since it's disclosed, it's not an issue at all. I was thinking of using User:Larbot the same way. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It really does simplify the construction of the list of articles. It's still a pain in the butt to wikilink every one of them, but doing so greatly enhances ease of use for anyone who wants to try to save them. Whatever people may be saying about me now, I am not a deletionist. I have just come to understand that unsourced BLPs are a major problem, and this seems to be a way of beginning to fix it that is working. UnitAnode 21:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you should probably try using the API to grab a list of article names in machine-readable format such as json or XML, then you can just extract those names and do what you like to them. --TS 22:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is "the API"? UnitAnode 22:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun! --TS 22:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again everyone... I think actually since U is making this list: User:Unitanode/Unsourced_BLP_work the API may or may not be of help... basically he is just taking ALL the edits of his sock and using that as the starting point if I'm not mistaken. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the API would just make that easier to automate. It sounded like he was just scraping the contributions screen and then manually editing the page names to links and scrubbing out the extraneous html. I've done that and it's a pain. The API is just cleaner, as long as you have a XML or JSON parser handy and can write a simple script. --TS 01:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm doing is cutting and pasting the contributions from my Unitasock account onto the top of the holding area page. I then delete the usertalk notifications, and selectively cut-and-paste the rest into the appropriate sections. I then number them, and wikilink them. In all, that process itself takes 5-10 minutes at the end of each run I do. I'm willing to do it, though, if only to prove that those people who claim I'm being "disruptive" (Off2riorob and DuncanHill are particularly bad about that) are simply not paying close attention to my actual activities. UnitAnode 01:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try this. It's in htmlized XML so you'll still have some pain unless you're scripting, but at least it include only namespace 0 edits (articles). --TS 01:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I like the "date/time" that c-and-p-ing the contribs allows. But I also like that the tool scrapes out the usertalk notifications. Hmmm... UnitAnode 01:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That helps, but I was wondering, how does it help me with the largest problem, which is manually wikilinking all of them, after I finish a run? UnitAnode 02:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what tools and languages you have available. If it was me and I was going to do a lot, I'd probably write something in perl that could quickly change that list into what I wanted for wikimarkup. Another way to do it is to use AWB, save the list as it is somewhere and then use AWB's search/replace facility to change it. It has the ability to save a bunch of regular expressions so you could just run it against the page each time you did a new batch and apply the same text changes. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Say, I wonder if we should be trying to (in general) get better tools to help with this? Get the Twinkle/huggle/AWB guys thinking about this, get Magnus and the other toolsmiths thinking? IF we are going to be doing a lot of big improvement drives soon, making the tracking of who did what and where things stand easier to do will help a lot. Where to discuss? ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no skills in regard to coding, so I'll leave you lot to that. I'll keep doing it my way for now, but let me know if the guys who know how to do such things come up with something better. UnitAnode 03:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prodego takes the baton
He has informed me at Chillum's drama-stirring ANI thread, that if I'm asked to stop PRODing, that I will stop PRODing, which I interpreted (reasonably, I think) as a threat to block. What can be done to stop this harassment? Prodego himself has been involved in mass-deprodding without bothering to add sources. UnitAnode 22:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember a time when finding a forum of uninvolved admins to look at an issue was considered a wise course of action, I am not sure when such wisdom became "drama-stirring". If you have any concerns about my posting to ANI you are welcome to come to my talk page and talk it out with me. Chillum(Need help? Ask me) 01:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ANI is a noted dramapit. You know that. And yet you took this there anyway. Fortunately, enough admins there were able to see through he "complaint" that nothing remotely resembling consensus developed to block me. UnitAnode 01:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mass AFD nominations instead? If prod isn't the solution, outright deletion isn't it, then the next step is AFDs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you haven't been asked to stop, you have no need to worry Unitanode. But if there were a consensus that you should stop, you absolutely should. Prodegotalk 22:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus doesn't override BLP policy, so you're wrong here. UnitAnode 23:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, AFDs then. Either they could ensure they have seven days through the prod backlog or let it get listed and absolutely have to deal with it. Then we'll see what consensus is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you have "good-faith" users like Off2riorob that are just mass-voting "keep" after barely even looking at the article, what's the point? (See his !vote at the AFD on Bobby Cruise.) UnitAnode 01:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is formed from consensus. No policy overrides consensus. The WMF can override consensus, but in practice, almost never does. Prodegotalk 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP policy does "override consensus", if consensus actually were against these PRODs and deletions. Consensus is not. A loud group of editors is griping about it, but that does not equal "consensus." UnitAnode 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't have any consensus supporting all the non-free image requirement we suddenly made years ago but it was done anyways (and through similar admin fighting, IAR complaints, etc.). That was by a Foundation statement which some could argue is similar to WP:BLP. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prodego: No local "consensus" (i.e. whatever random folks happen to turn up somewhere) can override application of BLP policy if it is done reasonably and with consideration. If you're confused about that, review the ArbCom motion issued recently finding that the deletions and proddings WERE within policy. Further, no consensus, even a real global consensus, can override the underlying principles of the wiki, and BLP policy is a direct outgrowth of those underlying priniciples, seasoned with some mandate from the WMF that it's not just talking points. Prodego, really, I'm surprised you seem to be on the wrong side of this. You really need to rethink things We could use your help instead of your resistance. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And they're trying to find an itchy trigger finger again
This is getting really tiresome. I really think that some of them are of the opinion that if they threaten me enough, and harass me at ANI enough, that I'm going to stop trying to fix this problem. UnitAnode 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disconnect in comment...
Hmmm? Accusations of a cabal behaviour or "patterns" is OK, because they are done by "good faith editors". But making the general observation that both sides are mudslinging at each other is .... ? What does that make the other "side"? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe i'm just tired (i should've been in bed 4 hours ago), and writing nonsense, but it seems to me that there is a serious disconnect in this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is. I'm not really sure what can be done about it. ++Lar: t/c 06:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outside dispute resolution it's mere mud-slinging. The most egregious mud-slingers can be sanctioned if they show no serious interest in WP:DR. --Tasty monster—Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
If you've added citations (and I see 5 different refs there now) I see no reason to AfD it. It's not about deleting everything, it's about deleting things people don't care enough to fix. You fixed it. Bravo, and thank you. ++Lar: t/c 06:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well since those deletions are clearly out of process (I don't know what lar was thinking there), done. Prodegotalk 18:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages too? --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had done that, as it turns out I had missed one of them. All of them are restored now. Prodegotalk 19:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prodego, those deletions were not out of process, they're supported by policy. You may not like it, and in fact I certainly derived no satisfaction from doing them, but it's not particularly helpful to assert that they were. I'm glad someone wants to take them under their wing and sort them out. That was the idea. Thanks Apoc for stepping up! ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, there is no CSD for that, and that purports to be the cases when an administrator can unilaterally delete. Prodegotalk 21:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there is a CSD for it or not is minutia... policy wonkery. Broadly, policy supports removal of unsourced material. This is especially true of unsourced BLP material. If nothing remains after you remove unsourced or very poorly sourced material, then the entire thing should be deleted. ArbCom has already spoken on this and I will not engage in indefinite debate about it. If there isn't a CSD, that's a sign that things there need to catch up. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So make them catch up! WT:CSD awaits. It will never be done unless someone does it. Prodegotalk 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's needful, please do. I'm personally not seeing a strong need for that kind of paperwork, and I am also not so keen on long drawn out discussions that don't resolve much (wasn't there a discussion about this already, I forget) ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the undeletion Prodego. I might come to you with more requests later. Gilles Morin and Jérôme Minière actually had a source each, but had been tagged wrongly. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has degraded enough.[32] Want to test the new template we're discussing dealing with inappropriate comments? ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear what action is desired at this point. This appears collapsed already, and CoM is disputing that it should be collapsed as he is asserting the matter is not resolved. I see some merit in that view based on a quick skim. But I could be wrong. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well I guess it's already taken care of, thanks! However CoM wants to reopen it, and apparently it's not official until an administrator does it. I definitely see some hints WMC should take, but the merit in CoM's accusations is a measure of the dirt he can dig. Well this is my take, and what you see may be different. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Protection request
Hi Lar. Could you semi-protect Zach Randolph? This was up for over 15 hours, and is now visible in the Google results: [33] Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 01:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 3 months since there is no previous protection history. Please advise if anything further needed. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this kind of battleground mentality acceptable. His obstructionism on the BLP issue aside, his attacking tone there just seems, I don't know, kind of unhinged. UnitAnode 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it acceptable in theory? No. Is it "acceptable in practice"? It shouldn't be. But it's pretty run of the mill rhetoric for Ikip, unfortunately. I have too much of a history with him myself to do much other than wring my hands. An uninvolved admin is needed. Which isn't me, given the amount of rhetoric emitted in my general direction by Ikip. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improper assertion of applicability of WP:BLANKING by Ikip
"Repeatedly restoring warnings does nothing but antagonize users, and can encourage further disruption..."[34]Ikip 03:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, you are off base with that policy cite. We are talking about a discussion thread, here, not a warning. I restored the thread one time aspart of adding my comments in the appropriate place in the thread. Further, you removed **my** comments from someone else's talk page.
Do it again and you will be blocked with no warning. Since you've turned up here in response to my posting on your talk, further discussion will be here (per User:Lar/Pooh Policy) and you will be deemed to have seen what I said. I hope I make myself clear but if not feel free to ask for clarification. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that is clear here is that certain users are unfit to continue as stewards. — James Kalmar
Thanks for your input, dear Anon. ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I must apologize for two unintentional (and unrelated) matters: my earlier post did not carry my signature and it came across as more snarky than intended. I respect the work you do. However, my mild frustration with the BLP deletions has caused me to post in more direct terms than is deserved. All I meant to communicate was that:
Your role as steward clearly is one of very great trust.
Your deletions call into question your agreement with community definitions of appropriate intervention.
Your interaction with User:Ikip directly above appears to be threatening a block from an involved administrator (you).
I suspect that most people believe you are still very qualified to serve in all your capacities. I really do not mean to belittle your long and vast contributions. I truly wish you the best in your productive encyclopedia-building work, and again ask you accept my apologies for any offense with my snarky comment. Your colleague, — James Kalmar 06:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tracking improvements
I'm looking for suggestions on how to track improvements to the articles that have been prodded. Ray has been kind enough to source every single article he's deprodded, and to notify me that he's done so. Others have simply mass-deprodded dozens of articles, without fixing the problem. Any ideas how to track what progress is being made? I'm thinking of simply clicking each article, and creating a separate "results list" that shows what improvements are being made. UnitAnode 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ikip has officially proposed banning me from PRODing. I've offered a counter-proposal right below his. UnitAnode 04:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I'm late for bed. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me as well. Want to make book that I wake up banned, blocked, or some combination thereof? UnitAnode 04:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No bet but I certainly hope not. ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I'm off to bed, and Durova's joining the band, we'll see what tune they're playing tomorrow. I've posted the actual stats of my "overwhelming" amount of work to my userpage. UnitAnode 05:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bigtimepeace and Risker have given you some VERY good advice on your talk page. I hope you give it very serious thought. ++Lar: t/c 11:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied there, with a general note regarding my disgust with this whole issue. UnitAnode 12:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that once you go through them all, you will be able to restore some of the text that was removed as unreferenced. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research, but that's not really my area of interest. I did enough to establish the person exists and I removed the uncited stuff. ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
For your note. I'll watch my email. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sent. Best. ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed you added the PROD tag to this BLP aticle. I've found four references for it so far and was wondering if it's okay to remove the tag? - JuneGloom07Talk? 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the PROD tag, thanks for your work! --Cyclopiatalk 14:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was a good removal, Cyclopia, looks to me like there was significant improvement indeed, thank you for your efforts, JuneGloom07! ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Pamela Paulshock, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Paulshock. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Enric Naval (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not just a moaner
Hi, firstly feel free to delete this after reading. I saw you comment that I was only complaining and doing nothing to help and wanted comment about that, I assure you I am here to help the wikipedia, I also know there is an issue with this just I disagree with what is being implemented. I have done work to save articles since this started and will also do more to help in the coming times once it is clear there is agreement on action. I am not an inclusionist, my position is that I do not want to see decent content lost, it should be cited, I agree, myself I would have put some energy into collecting a hit squad to cite the uncited, so to speak and there may be after this cage rattling more people willing to join a task squad to do that, but the community is imo still working out what is best and when it clearly does I will be part of the team available to help implement that decision.
Here are some of the prods I removed, it is not comprehensive, just a cut and copy of some to show you I have also helped with this and not only complained.. I have also saved an article from the mass deleted articles from the Google archives and cited and replaced it, I also have cited and replaced two articles from the incubator collection and here are some that I have simply added a citation and removed the prod.
08:36, 24 January 2010 (hist | diff) Barry Stewart ? (remove uncited template)
08:36, 24 January 2010 (hist | diff) Barry Stewart ? (add reflist)
08:35, 24 January 2010 (hist | diff) Barry Stewart ? (add citation)
23:23, 24 January 2010 (hist | diff) Tímea Dragony ? (add citeation, add reflist aremove prob and remove uncited template)
18:39, 22 January 2010 (hist | diff) Keith Caputo ? (add citation, remove prod, remove uncited template, add reflist)
Thanks for your efforts, apparently I misjudged. ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I am actually coming round to the idea slowly, accepting it. Off2riorob (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed you making positive contributions in a number of discussions. Thanks for that! ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
question
how does one ask for a check user search? Is that something only admins ask for? Thanks.Malke2010 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can request it. Review WP:SPI, that's where public requests are made. If you have reason to think that the request is so sensitive you don't care to go public, you can email any CU with your concerns. I also get requests here if they relate to cases I've worked in in the past. ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check email. Thanks.Malke2010 05:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are in agreement at the talkpage there, and someone else added a comment to that effect to the WMC thread. He has asked at my talkpage that the external links be removed from the evidence. I replied here that I did not consider those links when formulating the close, but would defer to others regarding their removal. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a bit too cryptic for me, as I'm trying to parse if there's an action item for me. ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...because I'm increasingly frustrated that an editor with a grand total of 106 main space edits, nearly all of them political POV pushing, keeps distracting and baiting valuable expert editors with thousands of constructive main space edits. I think this aspect needs to be highlighted. If we want to build an encyclopedia, we need to protect our most valuable assets better. And that value is, in the end, the ability to contribute actual content. I believe in WP:SPADE. Civility is useful, but it's not a goal in itself. Establishing a pleasant climate of cooperation between 150 undereducated morons by driving away everybody who has an actually qualified opionon cannot be our primary mission. As for the mu (negative): It's about the only useful answer to the "have you stopped beating your wife" type of questions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I agree that creating content is what the project is about, and being able to contribute good content is a (key, if not the most important) characteristic of a valued editor. But that said, in this area, there is an view held by many that the "long term editors" are controlling the topic to keep it a certain way. Suppressing each new voice as it appears is not going to help dispel that aura. Finally, I don't think you actually were asked a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. Try reading it again in the light of it being an honest question and a valid concern, and see if you can answer it. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify the WP:WEASEL "many" above? And I'm not talking about "each new voice", I'm talking about a couple of SPAs who have not shown any serious interest in contributing to Wikipedia beyond pushing their very narrow POV in a very narrow area - and even that not by rational discourse, but by spurious complaints and persistent whining (laid over a carpet of permanent socking and anonymous insults).
Looking at the Mu in question, it's in reply to the claim that I " consider WMC calling people "septics" and "fools" to be "spurious" allegations of misconduct." Since I don't even grant the premise, and never have, this seems like an adequate answer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Many" means more than just a few people. I'm not sure that your characterization of matters is going to lead to successful resolution. Socking and insults are not acceptable but I think you've shut down to the notion that there's more to this matter than "spurious complaints and persistent whining" from "a couple of SPAs". Finally, what premise is it you're not granting? That WMC used that terminology? Perhaps if you answered more plainly? ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not researched the phrase in question but I believe the statement is that WMC has not called other wikipedia editors the Sword, without endorsing or refuting the statement, or approving or disaproving of any specific action statement or whatever. In fact, without taking a position on anything, at all. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That WMC called people "septics and fools", which is quite different from "using the terminology". "Septics" is a harmless play on words blown out of proportion and illustrating that the so-called "sceptics" usually are anything but - they typically accept the most unsupported claims based on the weakest imaginable sources as long as it fits their preconceived notion. I've not seen anybody on-wiki being called a fool. And I see your "more than a few" and claim "nearly all Wikipedians and nearly all Buddhists". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" 'Global warming hucksters' is a harmless play on words blown out of proportion and illustrating that the so-called 'climate scientists' usually are anything but - they typically promote outlandish theories based on manipulating the data to fit their preconceived global warming conclusion." Stephan, if someone were to say the preceding words, would you call them a POV pusher? ATren (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite: that confused me. Could you clarify? ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means that in all the cases (so far) where people have pointed out that WMC used 'septics' he wasn't referring to editors, but instead to a generalized component in the climate change debate. Much the same (but not directly the same) people/groupings/industry that amongst others Newsweek terms "deniers"[35]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed exactly the point. It is regrettable that Lar has got so far into this debate without realising it. Still, you know it now, Lar: do you disagree? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do I disagree with what, exactly? That seems to be lost on all the verbiage. I think your use of the term "septic" is derisive, and you yourself have admitted as such. When it's used here, even tangentially, I think it's not just derisive, but divisive. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question, since you have that opinion, is now: Who is it derisive towards? And what is it divisive about? And the resulting question then becomes, are "liberals", "sceptics", "alarmists", "pro-AGW'ers", "deniers", "POV-pushers" etc. derisive, and in what cases is it sanctionable? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Derisive towards whoever is called that, of course. Divisive in that calling names never improves discussions. Sanctionable if the disruption rises high enough to be sanctionable. I agree with TS that even one use of the term onwiki, or via reference to his blog, when done as a substitute or circumlocution is unacceptable. Bygones are bygones but it needs to stop, going forward. ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan Schulz confused: Septic is not a "harmless play on words"
Stephan Schulz: Septic is not a "harmless play on words", sorry. WMC has issues that need addressing. Are you sure you're here in good faith? ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to differ on the significance of "septic". WMC is sometimes abrasive. But the reason he is being agitated against is not his abrasiveness, but rather that he as a subject specialist has been tirelessly maintaining our climate change articles to reasonably reflect the state of the science. The behavioral issues are used as a club only. William's language is harmless compared to what I regularly get - I'm a communist, a lackey, a tree-hugging liberal, I want to destroy western civilization and bring us back into the stone age, I want the UN to take over the Earth...you get the idea. I've not yet seen any spontaneous mob arising to challenge people calling me that...
Can you explain the "good faith" issue? My Buddhists followers are confused as to why you would doubt it. But in case that was not clear: I object to your use of an unspecified "many" - its a hollow rhetorical device. Speak for yourself or be specific. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First: use of the term septic? see above. Second: Are you sure he's actually "tirelessly maintaining our climate change articles to reasonably reflect the state of the science" ? That appears to be contrary to the view of many editors(1), who seem to have rather a different view of what is going on, although I don't happen to have a list handy. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - More than a few... but not necessarily a majority of the population.
Let's rewind a bit. Even one use of the term "septic" (or reference to derogatory statements on his own blog) is unacceptable. But I find it hard to swallow that "many" editors have a problem with the content of the global warming article. It's a featured article and it's widely accepted to reflect the state of the science. As for the other articles, I think it would be fair to say that we tend to err on the side of giving a tiny minority of climate sceptics too much weight. Your mileage may vary, but I'm willing to bet not by much. There are some pretty severe conduct issues, but they seem to be pretty evenly spread. --TS 20:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I speak of the topic area as a whole, not the specific article. As with many contentious areas, all the factions involved are wrong in some ways and all share blame for how things are now. But in this particular contentious area, there is a perception among "many" editors that one side is controlling the topic quite effectively. "Many" is not a majority of the 11.5 million editors who have edited here, to be sure. It may not even be a majority of the active editors (most active editors I suspect are oblivious to this). Or even a majority of the editors who are involved in this topic area. But there is such a perception, and it is held by more than a "few"(2) editors. I'm not so sure that this control is as blatant as it is in some other areas. Or even there at all. But I can see characteristics in the behavior of one "side" that make it look like that control is there ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 - 3 or 4
(outdent) Oh my. Yes, all "share blame" for how things are now, just like the Sioux shared part of the blame for Wounded Knee. But that's an essentially useless common-place statement. Matthew 7:3 seems to be appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to avoid assigning specific blame. I'm not sure your analogy is the most apt one that could have been chosen. If we want to be more specific about blame we could be I guess. Also I'm sorry, I don't know the christian bible well enough to get the reference. (a Google search later) Ah. The beam/speck thing. Yes I think it's highly relevant. I just suspect that the senses are reversed in my view of relevance. Apropos, I think fortress mentality might be useful reading, though. (well it would be if it wasn't a red link)... because I think you might think that I'm attacking you and that you might be attacking back. That's a good part of the problem, actually, if my perception is true. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're getting a taste of the tag-teaming that a lot of people who've tried to edit GW-related articles have faced. It's relentless. UnitAnode 19:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We agree the term Septic ought not to be used, and aspersions cast on the host
Regarding "septic," I would prefer that WMC not use that term. I also would prefer that Lar show the same high level of concern about derogatory terms being used against those editing from the consensus perspective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was in agreement (I agree, for example, that derogatory terms are not a good thing and in general ought not to be used) but then I got to the end and I got confused. What is "the consensus perspective"? Is that a POV of some sort? And who are "those editing against" it? That last part made my head spin. ++Lar: t/c 03:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "consensus perspective" I refer to the broad perspective on climate change endorsed by all national academies of science. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So what other "perspectives" are there? If I, for example, think that man's impact on climate and the environment is sharply negative, and is of serious concern, and that it's likely that it has caused warming, and will cause serious harm to us and the rest of the organisms on earth, and that something ought to be done about it, but I don't necessarily agree that all the data presented by certain parties (c.f. the email scandal for example) as supporting this view necessarily does support it, or has been collated appropriately, or necessarily agree with the relative emphasis given to certain articles here on Wikipedia, does that means I am "editing from the consensus perspective" or not? What exactly does this consensus cover? ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just as confused as ever. What is it, exactly, that you've conceded? ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's dropping a non sequitur on you, in which Boris doesn't have to answer the question, while still seeming to imply that you are simply playing some sort of game with the "you're quite good at this" portion of his comment. UnitAnode 03:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you think he concedes "nothing", then? I don't get it. I was asking a serious question. I also don't know what the other part of this is about, what derogatory terms, said by which parties, was SBHB referring to, he hasn't said. ++Lar: t/c 03:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want a concession, I wanted an answer to my question. So ... now what? I don't have time for games, nor desire. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a ton of experience there, but from what I have seen, the pro-AGW editors drop far more backhanded insults than the anti-AGW crowd does. Unless misspelling WMC's name or calling him "Will" counts. UnitAnode 03:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I could use it as a blanket concession, then, until it's clarified what was meant? That might come in pretty handy. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should. UnitAnode 03:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to explain my views on this, your hypothetical example lacks context: It would certainly depend on what data you were sceptical about, and how you went about turning that scepticism into the concrete. Your hypothetical person could be anywhere from a rabid left-of greenpeace treehugger to an equally rabid denier of climate change, it would all depend on the whats, the wheres, and the how it gets materialized.
But this is also a completely irrelevant example, since the hypothetical person may be well aware of his biases, and work towards understanding what can and cannot be shown to be reality by reliable sources. He may also be aware of exactly where the scientific opinion currently is located, and strive to keep articles as NPOV as possible.
On the other hand, he could also be completely unaware of his biases, and truly think that everything he reads on his favorite blogs/op-eds/whatever, and that everyone else is lying, are biased to the extent of being untrustworthy on everything, and that everyone around hir is ganging up on hir, since they will not accept the latest tid-bit as being the WP:TRUTH.
Or your hypothetical person could be somewhere in between... It all depends on context. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you asked a simple direct question, and so far have received pages of responses from several editors, none of which contains a direct answer. This is the way it is on the talk pages of these articles, and it's why reasonable editors never stick around long enough to fix it. ATren (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the pro-AGW editors way of denigrating the position of the anti-AGW editors. It's also very common for pro-AGW scientists to refer to "scientific consensus" to denigrate the positions of scientists who don't believe in AGW, even though science has never operated by "consensus." UnitAnode 03:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the "scientific consensus" argument is used everywhere, not just on questions of science. I personally have not touched the scientific aspects of the GW debate, mostly focusing on the BLPs, yet I've frequently seen the consensus argument used as justification for arguments that are only tangentially related to the science; i.e. allegations of conflict of interest against scientists, which are included much more liberally in skeptic BLPs than in proponent BLPs.` ATren (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by "the consensus argument used as justification for arguments"? Further, is that COI allegations are included much more liberally in skeptic BLPs actually true? Have you actually collected statistics on these allegations showing that? That might be useful data to put forward, if indeed it's true, as that's a violation of WP:UNDUE is it not? ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the "scientific consensus" argument seems to be raised in debates about content that doesn't have much to do with science, i.e. public opinion, controversy (i.e. climategate), and BLP claims. It's just something I've noticed in the time I've spent here, but it's not something I've researched deeply. I don't have an example handy, maybe I'll look for examples this weekend.
Regarding the weight argument, I have had long arguments on BLPs about weight of critical claims (mainly with Kim). I did collect a small amount of data on this, but it's too sparse to be considered "statistical". You can browse what I have here. Unfortunately, I've recently become very busy IRL, so I don't have a lot of time to pursue it further. ATren (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be WP:UNDUE, but that isn't what is happening. Its a simple fact of reality, on all topics, that if someone moves outside of the mainstream, then that person will be criticized more, than if hir moved inside the mainstream, whether hir is correct or not. Thus the weight of material would balance more towards criticism. The main point of contention between ATren and me, is that ATren wants that pro/contra mainstream has equal weight of praise/critique - whereas my view is that no individual can be measured by generalities (where he stands on a pro/contra scale), but must be weighted on prominence of material available. Ie. no two cases (material available) will be identical although they may superficially look that way (both scientists). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the justification Kim gives for suppressing criticism of a GW proponent sourced to multiple major newspapers on at least continents, while including criticism on a skeptic sourced to Mother Jones. ATren (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Do you have a link to that discussion? If that happened, it's ludicrous, and needs dealt with immediately. UnitAnode 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this section of the Stephen Milloy article. Actually, checking it again, the claim is also sourced to Union of Concerned Scientists and The New Republic -- but that's two clearly partisan sources and one borderline, and certainly no major newspapers. I never tried to fix this one (because by then I'd given up). I think there was another place where Mother Jones was used, but I can't remember right now. Certainly, a similar claim would never be accepted in a proponent BLP if it were sourced to Cato, Heritage Foundation and Fox News. ATren (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't. And it shouldn't be acceptable for "sourcing" of anti-AGW BLPs either. UnitAnode 00:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what Boris had in mind. Perhaps he meant that if Wikipedia is to honor its basic principles, then whatever one's personal beliefs about Climategate or urban heat islands or what-have-you, our coverage of the science of climate change should reflect mainstream scientific thought and consensus, which is fairly easily demonstrable (coverage of the politics of climate change is, of course, a separate matter). I think that when Boris talked about "editing from the consensus position", he meant editing that is brings our scientific coverage in line with mainstream scientific thought. Editing that systematically seeks to obscure, minimize, or downplay the existing state of scientific knowledge on the topic is harmful to this project's goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work.
It's not really useful to talk about "pro-AGW" and "anti-AGW" editors, because that takes for granted that we're on a WP:BATTLEfield. It's more useful to talk about editing which moves Wikipedia closer to its project goals, and editing which moves it farther away from them. I think that might move some focus away from a toxic fixation on the personalities involved, and toward a focus on the content, which is sort of the point. MastCellTalk 04:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Implying that not believing in anthropogenic global warming is akin to pseudoscience (which you did by citing the pseudoscience arb case) isn't helpful in the least. There is a significant minority of scientists that question this "scientific consensus", and to have articles that read otherwise, or that denigrate the position is not helpful at all. To doubt some (or even all) premises of AGW is not a fringe theory, akin to the Truthers and Birthers. Yet, it's treated as if it is. That needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. UnitAnode 04:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific consensus allows that a minority of scientists may disagree - it does not imply unanimity (have you looked at our article on scientific consensus? It's not bad). I agree that our articles should not denigrate any position, though they should note its level of acceptance among knowledgeable people in the field. I agree that a notable minority of scientists disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. We should cover that viewpoint. And we do. And as with most minoritarian viewpoints, Wikipedia gives it far more prominence and visibility than does any other serious, respectable reference work, due to its overrepresentation among Wikipedia editors as compared to experts in the field. I don't think I've ever compared climate change skepticism to the beliefs of Truthers or Birthers, and I agree that is an inappropriate comparison. MastCellTalk 05:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for others, but many of the so-called "regular editors" of the GW articles often seem to be trying to make those who try to bring more balance to GW-related articles look like they're nothing more than extremists of some kind. The BLPs in the group of articles are especially bad in this regard. And Boris's dismissive "you're really good at this" comment is just one more example of it. UnitAnode 05:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Often", the positions advocated do not "try to bring balance" based on the published work of the very few reputable scientists (like e.g. Lindzen) that are skeptic, but rather try to confuse the issue based on press releases, think tanks, blogs, and political statements citing people who have not published original scientific work in decades, if ever. The "balance" is that 97% of active climate scientists support the core IPCC positions, as do more than 30 national academies of science, with not a single notable scientific organization in opposition. Heck, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists changed its position to (lukewarm) acceptance of the consensus due to grassroots pressure from its members. If you look carefully, you will find that the alleged "pro-AGW" editors are working to maintain the integrity of the article in either direction - we don't have runaway to Venus conditions or famed "by 2015, hurricanes will destroy 3 times the world GDP" graphic in the article, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could, in light of the above articulation of your view, take a shot at answering the question I posted to SBHB? ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to put your question from the hypothetical into the concrete? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is non-concrete about it? I gave some very specific specifics. Try. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the "if" to move us from the hypothetical to the concrete, and, while you are at it, clarify "likely", "certain parties" and "all data". 30% is likely, and given the 1000s of scientists involved in the IPCC, I'm quite sure that someone somewhere made a mistake. So these statements are lacking in specificity. If you make it "up tp 30% likely" and "significant parts of data have been misrepresented in a way that significantly changes our understanding of global warming", we have something tangible. Your original formulation is compatible both with mainstream and denier positions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that didn't parse for me. Perhaps post a version of the question somewhere that you think is sufficiently concrete that you would be willing to answer it. (I'm surprised this is so hard, actually...) But the last sentence gives me pause. My original formulation is compatible with denier positions? How so? What exactly makes it "compatible with denier positions"? (and what does "compatible" mean in this context?) ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's trying to pin you down to a particular viewpoint. It seems that many of the "regular editors" like to dichotomize in this way. UnitAnode 22:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd like a sufficiently concrete description, and I feel that would be easier if we are talking about Lar's own position (which I suspect is what he tried to describe). But I'll give it a try:
If I, for example, think
that man's impact on climate and the environment is sharply negative, and is of serious concern, and that it's likely that - so far it's mostly fluff and does not commit you to any position specific to global warming.
it has caused warming - how much and since when? 0.1 degrees in the last century puts you into denier country. 5 degrees means you are weird. 0.7 degrees puts you squarely within the mainstream.
and will cause serious harm to us and the rest of the organisms on earth, - mostly fluff again, and not particularly scientific. "the rest of the organisms on earth" is very broad - no doubt some organisms will even profit. I would take this as evidence of someone with a not very well developed scientific understanding of the issue, or someone with less than precise language.
and that something ought to be done about it - another political position, although one that is easily reached when looking at the science.
but I don't necessarily agree that all the data presented by certain parties (c.f. the email scandal for example) as supporting this view necessarily does support it, or has been collated appropriately - again, unspecific. It is highly unlikely all the data "has been collated appropriately" - after all, we talk about thousands of humans working over many years and large distances. If, however, you believe there are problems significant enough to seriously challenge the mainstream position, I would consider this a denier position. Likewise, if you think the CRU emails demonstrate serious distortions of the science, you are beyond the mainstream.
or necessarily agree with the relative emphasis given to certain articles here on Wikipedia - "necessarily" is another weasely term, as is the whole "relative emphasis". There is a fairly widespread feeling that the skeptical position is overrepresented, compared to its prominence in the literature and its scientific merit. Is that what you want to say?
In summary, your statement is so unspecific that it could be truthfully be made by either a denier or a mainstream supporter - or even someone with a much exaggerated position. That's what I mean with "compatible". The statement would not commit you to either position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mastcell: this sounds very reasonable, but in practice, many respectable non-Scibabies are of the opinion that it is taken too far. I've seen editors compare GW skepticism to flat earth theories, which is absurd even for people like me who are not antagonistic to the science. And further, not every dispute is a question of the science. I focus almost exclusively on BLPs and BLP issues, and I've seen the pseudoscience/flat-earth/SPOV argument raised frequently in debates to justify a position that only tangentially relates to the science (if it relates at all). It is this misapplication and overapplication of the pseudoscience principle that is problematic. ATren (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that one of the most distressing aspects of Wikipedia is the tendency to litigate scientific/political disputes through the biographies of involved parties. I agree with you that it's a real problem. I also have some sympathy to the view that the approach on climate-change pages is overly heavy-handed. I think it's a matter of two sides pushing each other, and neither being willing to be the first to back down. Empathy would probably help. On one side, people need to honestly ask themselves how they would feel if they had to deal with over 500 sockpuppets of a single editor, and how that might affect their approach to Wikipedia. On the other, people need to honestly ask themselves whether, in the effort to eliminate clear abusers like Scibaby, they've alienated reasonable people with differing views who ideally should form the bulwark against POV-pushing from either side.
A journalist once crystallized the Israeli/Palestinian issue by saying that each side viewed itself as the victim, and the other as the perpetrator. In truth, both sides are victims and perpetrators. Same sort of dynamic here, I think. Hopefully it will turn out better. MastCellTalk 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree. On one side, GW proponents see every new arrival as an agenda-driven POV pusher. On the other side, GW skeptics are distrustful of the motives of long time editors and admins, who have created what they view as an uneven playing field. This mutual distrust creates a feedback loop that spirals out of control.
For my part, I am more than willing to fight Scibaby-type abuses. But the plain fact is that I rarely get the chance to do so, because there are already a bunch of editors who undo the damage before I see it. There is no such band of protectors on the skeptic side, so I find myself in the position of defending skeptical claims much more often than proponent ones, even though I consider myself neither -- and I am therefore viewed as a skeptic. Once I'm viewed as a skeptic, I become part of that degenerative feedback loop. I believe this has happened to other uninvolved editors who have tried to mediate this mess (User:Tedder comes to mind), and once they realize how toxic the situation is, they don't stay long. So the only ones left are the ones who care enough to fight. Ergo, it's a constant battle. ATren (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My attempt to answer Lar's question
Since Boris declined to answer your question, instead dropping a non sequitur, I'll have a go. In your hypothetical, you would be considered as not part of the "scientific consensus." As far as I can tell, anyone who believes anything other than the "company line" is outside of the "scientific consensus." UnitAnode 03:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, UnitAnode. If you want to argue about global warming please use your blog. Here we require no test of ideological purity, real or hypothetical. We can all work together on articles, subject to site policies. --Tasty monster 16:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, if it were actually true. UnitAnode 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few points.
First... Tony: I don't think Unitanode is "arguing about global warming". Rather, he's making observations about how he perceives things operate here with respect to this topic area. Which is fine, as long as he stays within site policy, which he is.
Second... Unitanode: For the most part it DOES work that way here. And when it does, it's wonderful. However there clearly have been cases in the past where it hasn't been true, for one reason or another. There are many editors who think that this area may be one of those places, where for whatever reason, some sort of purity test seems to be applied in evaluating the stances of some folk.
That Boris chose not to answer my question was interesting... I still haven't got a grip on what it means. Perhaps I should ping him? ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could try, but I doubt you'll get much more than the dissembling you received above. UnitAnode 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best talk page practices
I know there's some dispute about best talk page practices around global warming. What should be done about this. Was my intitial collapse wrong? Hipocrite (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't on the global warming pages, it's on the enforcement pages. I think it helps to keep discussion there focused. Seems a good collapse to me, but if TLG reverted it, I'd expect him to immediately explain why the topic was germane... if not, or if the explanation really isn't any good (as opined by several others) I'd probably say it ought to be restored and left collapsed. Makes sense? Note that there's another thread where some folk think I went into the weeds too. ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made me involuntarily raise my eyebrows
Please refrain from such behaviour in the future. This edit summary was the offending article. At least until I had read the actual comment. ViridaeTalk 13:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
eh? ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poor attempt at humour :) ViridaeTalk 00:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So was "eh?" :) ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC) (VERY poor)[reply]
Awesome ownership
I'm trying to remove backlinks to deleted pages at User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Mutsuhiko Izumi, which is a userfied WP:BLP... I am really not sure what the rules are pertaining to this so I'm asking you, as you know better and are the admin who moved it upon request. I'll leave it alone for now. JBsupreme (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either, or that there are specific ones. In such cases, common sense probably is the way to go. I'd suggest you drop Aeron a note explaining what you're doing, and then just carry on turning redlinks that are gone back into plain text... it may be worth seeing if the redlinks have any chance to come back before you dewikify. Hope that helps. If I misunderstood the question please advise. ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading I can see that my question wasn't laid out very clearly. With normal articles (in article space) it is common practice to remove red links from connecting articles when they are deleted. Should this practice apply or not apply to connecting articles which have been migrated into user space? I didn't even think this was up for debate until this person reverted me, twice, when trying to perform the cleanup task. To me this is no different than de-categorizing an article in user space, but maybe I'm missing something. JBsupreme (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, while it is in user space some latitude is allowed, I suppose. But before the article is taken back into article space, if such should come to pass (not a given), or shortly thereafter at the latest, yes. Were you reverted first? I again recommend opening a dialog with the user (they are on my talk page up a few sections and seem like a reasonable person to me.) ++Lar: t/c 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More problems
User:Wikidemon is edit-warring to reclose AFDs that were inappropriately closed early, as well as attempting to readd unsourced information to articles, without providing a source. I'm unsure what to do here, as he's making it clear that he's on some kind of crusade to undo my BLP work. UnitAnode 16:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged his talk asking that he come here and clarify. Can you give me some specific examples of edit warring, or of inappropriate reinsertion of unsourced material? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 17:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking into this you might look into the AFD that Unitanode is refering to.[36] I would question both the description on inappropriately closed early as well as who is edit warring here. As far as I can see Uni didn't even have the courtesy to discuss this with the closer.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four or five quick keeps != SNOW close, period. When I realize a nom is wrong, I withdraw it. I'm not convinced there yet. UnitAnode 17:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you're convinced or not. It's an obviously notable individual who you nominated to prove your WP:POINT about BLPs and sourcing. You prodded the article; I selectively reversed this and perhaps a dozen others as obviously bad prods. You then nominated most or all for deletion on your new theory. The article is not going to be deleted, and your reversion of a snowball close is out of process. As I mentioned in your edit summary, if you have a problem with it you need to take it to a different venue. And if you want to change BLP policy please use the policy discussions and stop warring it out by hacking away at articles in article space. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bull. 4 or 5 keeps != a snowball close, period. And once a premature, non-admin closure has been reversed, it's YOUR edit-warring to restore the close that is "out-of-process." Stop with your accusations of POINT as well. I'm sick to death of your bad faith accusations. UnitAnode 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in your conflict, but with this AFD, your only expressed arguement for deletion was addressed and it was open for 3 days with 5 keep !votes. Can you explain how there's a "snowball's chance in hell" that anyone could come by and close that delete? Or even NC?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a more concerned about the aggressiveness and battleground approach. I've left a warning on your talk page[37] for referring to this as vandalism[38] and mass reverting the deletions I objected to. You've been around long enough that you should know better than flinging around accusations of vandalism. I'm not going to join you in edit warring or trading insults, but if you do it one more time after this I'm filing an AN/I report, as I said, and we can work it out there. Thinking that you're improving the encyclopedia is no excuse for antagonizing a bunch of editors who disagree. This has gotten quite obnoxious. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not checked extensively, just checked the samples given above. A few points:
That AfD was not a snow close, in my view, It wasn't a bad faith nom. It's open now and people are continuing to comment on it, and it should be left that way. Further edit warring is Not On. However if Wikidemon tries to snow close further AfDs rather than edit warring, the thing to do is take it to DRV. Try one reversion of the close, and if it doesn't stick, DRV for the nom and AN3 for the edit warring by the person resnowclosing.
On obligations. WP:BEFORE is not policy. The obligation is not on the nominee to fix things. If an article has been unsourced for a very long time, the community had their change. Deprodders that didn't add sources should be glad that the article was only taken to AfD instead of summarily deleted. Wikidemon, if you are deprodding things without adding sources in regardless of how notable the subject is in your view I suggest you discontinue that.
On charges of vandalism. Restoration of unsourced material is not vandalism. Only bad faith edits are vandalism. However it IS against policy and I suggest it be discontinued. The proper response to removal of unsourced material is to either source it, or demonstrate why it is "sun rises in the east" sort of infomration that doesn't require sourcing. (note: there is NO BLP content that fits that description) Wikidemon, if you are readding material without adding sources in regardless of how obvious the facts are in your view I suggest you discontinue that.
On "aggressive editing". I think Unitanode could benefit from a bit of stepping back, but I see the aggressive editing here is in things like snow closing AfDs that don't warrant it, deprodding, and reinserting unsourced material. Those are all unacceptable behaviors.
Arbcom has spoken on this matter. Disregard that at your peril, Wikidemon. I would like to see an acknowledgement that unacceptable behaviors are going to stop, or I may act further. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On your first point, Do you understand that WP:SNOW has nothing to do with good faith or bad faith? Rather it's about wether there's a chance that the article will be deleted.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict - addressed to Lar) Please get off your horse here and stop making threats. I have every right to deprod bad prods. I am not edit warring over that, I have exercised my discretion on a case by case basis, after carefully reviewing each case. What behavioral policy do you claim I have violated? Please point me to one - I don't see one. I assume you followed the ArbCom case and the AN/I threads. If so you must know you are not on the side of consensus here. UnitAnode, and you apparently, have a minority content position that material must be sourced and not just verifiable. That content position, if taken to its logical conclusion, would gut 90% or more of the content on the encyclopedia. It's absurd. Yes, ideally the fact that an author wrote a book or that a news reporter had a byline should be cited in proper format to a third party source. But it's as easy as finding google to do, and if you look at it, the claim that an author wrote a book is sourced because the source is the book itself, if anyone cares to check. The vast majority of claims in Wikipedia that a person wrote a book, or acted in a film, or sang a song, simply do not have citations. If you and UnitAnode wish to change that you have a long road ahead of you, and taking potshots at random articles is not a good way to get there. Making block threats and calling things vandalism only makes it worse. Threatening to use tools against me to advance your position is abusive, and actually doing so would be an abuse of tools. Regarding the AfD, the article certainly is a snow close. Undoing a reasonable snow close without consensus, particularly when done by the nominator, is clearly disruptive. UnitAnode was engaging in a campaign to delete verifiable BLP articles for lack of sourcing, which is disruption given the RfC on the matter. ArbCom has opined as much that mass deletions at this point would be a problem. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and carefully review Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Motion_regarding_BLP_deletions. In particular think about the implications of "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns". Reinserting unsourced material is a policy violation. Regardless of how easy it is to source. If it's easy, do it, THEN reinsert.
As for your claim that I'm not on the side of consensus, I'm on the side of policy. BLP policy trumps local consensus. As for your claim that I "threatened to use tools against you" that's false. I said that unless you indicated you were going to discontinue violating policy, I would contemplate further action. That likely would be taking this to AN/I. Or ArbCom. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read that muddled case carefully. Thank you for your clarification that you are not planning a block - a reasonable editor in my position could easily get the wrong impression. I for one am not about to go against consensus, and would heed the outcome of an AN/I or arbcom process. If you truly want to keep order here, I would urge you not to encourage or help in the IAR deletionism. UnitAnode's editing over my in process article fixes was just plain mean spirited and it wasted a lot more time than I should have spent addressing his misguided concerns. The "policy trumps consensus" argument is a canard here, and is no excuse for disruption or harassment of editors who disagree. Arbcom members did make that point clear in the round of follow-up explanations for their motion. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, you chose to readd the unsourced material BEFORE you added the INUSE tag. I simply removed the material, until you sourced it. The only real problem is how angrily you reacted to that at my talkpage. UnitAnode 23:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what happened. I did not add any unsourced material before applying the "inuse" tag. Please refrain from messing, simply or otherwise, with articles I am editing while the "inuse" tag is on. You are also wikigaming to claim that I am adding content when I am reverting an edit of yours with which I disagree. Equating the two is misleading. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty safe to say that it can be snow-closed now. Two more supports since the re-opening of this pretty much seals the deal per se. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back when AFDs were changed from 5 days to 7 days there was a big push to put an end to snow closures. So may as well just let it run. –xenotalk 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've withdrawn the nomination, if one of Lar's admin TPW's wants to go ahead and close it. Looking over the article, it's now much-improved from where it was at the point it was nominated. UnitAnode 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improvement of articles to rid them of BLP problems is the desired outcome. Deletion is a poor second best. ++Lar: t/c 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly true, that's why I had such puzzlement about your !vote in the AFD. Although you had Keep rationatle in there, the first word was a bolded delete, and your edit summary read "delete". It seemed to me that it was an opportunity to commend article improvement. Instead it came across to me as if you couldn't even pry the word "keep" out of your mouth.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point that needed conveying was that as the article was at the time of the nom it was an exceedingly valid delete. (there seemed to be some contention around that point). I was delighted at how much it improved though. I have no problem advocating keeping things when appropriate, which is why I said Keep in my comment. As for the edit summary for it I think I slipped up, it got saved before I was done typing. I usually do longer-ish summaries (but not always) Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the edit summary (which was the first thing I saw on my watchlist) strongly colored my reading of your comment. I at least see where you where going with it now.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome
I am pleased by your willingness to join the conversation. Welcome. Ikip 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back Ikip. That project has potential. IF done properly. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A serious question
OK, I get that the BLP situation has been festering for a long time, and I get the argument that we have an ethical responsibility to cut through the crap and actually do something about material with the potential to cause real-life harm. I was thinking through the implications, and I have a serious question.
Suppose that I've concluded that our medical articles contain a great deal of material that is incorrect, misleading, and promotional; that presents isolated preliminary studies as if they were conclusive truth; and that presents discredited or unproven treatments in an overly credulous fashion. Suppose I had concrete data indicating that regardless of our hidden disclaimer, Wikipedia is among the most prominent sources of medical information (e.g. PMID 19390105, PMID 19501017, etc).
A reasonable person could conclude that erroneous or misleading medical information on Wikipedia has at least as much, if not far more, potential for real-life harm than does biographical-article vandalism or the presence of neutral/positive but unsourced statements. Following this train of thought to its logical conclusion, would extreme measures (of the sort envisioned and carried out on BLPs) not be equally or more justified, on the same ethical grounds, in our medical articles? Again, this isn't a trick question - it's a serious train of thought sparked by the recent BLP flap. MastCellTalk 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a good question all right. A snap answer is that there isn't necessarily an equivalence between incorrect BLPs and incorrect material of other kinds. Incorrect medical information is a very serious problem but it's not causing harm in quite the same way.
If I (or my doctor acting as my agent) choose to use unverified information and it causes me harm, that's negligence. My negligence. It's information I actively sought out and then misapplied (or my agent did). ON the other hand if I'm detained by the TSA for days, or fired from my job, or my reputation is damaged, because of misleading information about me in a BLP, it's not my negligence that caused it. I'm the innocent victim.
A subtle distinction perhaps, and perhaps a meaningless one, but I don't think so. It thus argues that it is reasonable to ask for more responsibility for BLPs, because the BLP victim isn't the consumer and has no control over what others do with the information.
That in no way denigrates how important it is that all our information be as accurate as we can arrange. ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, Lar, I think from a purely legal perspective you are ignoring the fact that killing someone harms not only that person, but also the people who were otherwise positively impacted by their life - spouse, kids, parents, whatever. Those individuals did nothing wrong, but because our medical disclaimer is A. Buried and B. Never Enforced, they lost their sole breadwinner to the fact they believed colloidial silver could cure AIDS. Hipocrite (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a good point. But that is a knock on effect, and there is still someone (other than an anonymous and hard to track down editor) to hold responsible. Bears more thought. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just lurk here on occasion, but wanted to weigh in that Wikipedia is what wikipedia is, and really, as far as medical advice goes, there are plenty of fringe lunacy sites out on the web that look mainstream and have totally bogus information that lack even the editability of wikipedia. Anyone who takes medical advice (or any other kind of advice, legal, psychological,e tc...) off of the internet -- and not just wikipedia but also including WebMD or the Mayo clinic!-- without vetting it through a trusted licensed professional is sort of an idiot. (Anyone remember Laetrile -- and that scam predated the internet) That said, I noticed that there was a big BLP dump into WPEQ for us to fix, and it made me thing about how the notion of verifying sources and getting stickier about having references is not entirely a bad thing...maybe WP Medicine has the personnel to start a similar project to that of the push to verify the BLPs. Just food for thought. Back to lurker mode now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if some project wanted to do such a drive, frankly, it would be awesome. And for people who don't want to work on BLPs but still want to make things better in a meaningful way, it's a good project! I'm just worried about BLPs and have been for a while. ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about other topics that can cause harm?
I wonder what the standard would be for medical articles, as another lurker around here. With BLPs, off the top of my head, we remove potentially damaging material that's poorly sourced. It's easy enough for most people to understand. Could something as simple be devised for medical articles? There may be intricate issues relating to pseudoscience and what weight to give it, but I get the feeling MastCell is talking more about direct statements about procedures or the medical benefits of certain treatments. So perhaps an analogous provision would say, for instance, "Poorly sourced statements about medical treatments should be removed immediately, not subject to 3RR." I am not following the current discussions about BLP, admittedly, so perhaps there are stronger protections like flagged revisions or whatnot that you have in mind. This would seem to sharpen the question of how an adequately narrow standard could be created (would it go so far as to cover all medical information?). The next question that pops into my mind is whether there are other fields or topics with similar risks. How to repair your circuit breaker, maybe. It's an interesting question, I agree. Mackan79 (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the problem is that you really can't idiot-proof anything. You make a good point: medicine can be dangerous, but so can electrical repairs, tree-trimming, truck driving, who knows where it will end? I suppose a distinction is that a poor BLP hurts a specific individual, while a poor article on medicine or home electronics hurts no one simply by existing, it is simply inviting people who don't use common sense to self-nominate for a Darwin Award! Montanabw(talk) 07:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we think of defamation as a harm that flows more directly from something being written, whereas other types of statements usually require someone else to cause the direct harm. And yet, people rarely die from being lied about. Do people neglect to go to the doctor because of bad advice on the internet? It seems plausible to me that removing potentially defamatory statements is just a much simpler problem to deal with than improving the quality of medical information on the internet, or at least that each may require a different approach. Mackan79 (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think fixing BLPs is (at least in terms of what needs to be done to fix them) easier than fixing the accuracy problem in general. But whether there is will in the community to fix them is a different question. The RfC seems to be losing steam, as they often do. We shall see. ++Lar: t/c 03:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC's civility probation
Hi Lar, I am a bit flummoxed as to what to do, I know you were involved in the additional civility probation condition wording a couple of dayd ago, I have an issue with the way it is being administered by User 2over0 and I am just not getting a satisfactory reply from him. I reported the issue at the probation page this morning and User 2over0 closed the thread without discussion as no action I felt this was not correct and I moved my question to his talkpage, WMC replied there with what appeared to me to be more uncivil comments compounding the issue, Admin 2over0 has edited but has not replied to my question, I am at a loss as to what to do for the best, I hope you don't mind me asking you to have a look at my report and please comment or suggest how I can best deal with my report.
User 2over0 acting in his capacity as an Administrator has imo failed to act regards the requests asked of him in regards to Climate change, my specific complaint is his failure to act on a report I made to him in regards to William M Connelly incivility after a probation report in his name this morning , it is important imo that the issues around global warming probation are dealt with in a fair way, imo this report is a clear violation by WMC or his recent additional probation, in my opinion WMC has failed to take the new conditions on board and is continuing in the same manner. Here is the report that I feel has not been acted upon when imo it is a clear violation of WMC's additional civility probation.
(note from Lar: the above was posted by Off2RioRob at 16:11, 29 January 2010}
Demeaning names
I would have thought that considering the only very recent additional civility conditions applied to WMC in reference to demeaning other editors that this edit on his talkpage from yesterday is a violation of those conditions, he clearly refers to editors as the idiots. Could you let me know your opinion as regards this edit, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially in regard to these two parts of the recent closing report from yourself ... he (WMC) is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory termsand Please be careful when throwing around terms that might be interpreted to refer to your fellow volunteers - even if a subtle dig falls within the letter of WP:Civility, it can still sting and contribute to the level of dysfunction at those pages.... I would have thought that whilst in discussion with User Short Brigade Harvester Boris about the Skeptic editors on his talkpage that WMC referring to them as the idiots is a clear violation of the sections of the report that I have posted here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to second these concerns. Admin:2/0 has edited numerous times since the questions were posed to him by multiple editors. He's only given a passing nod to the concerns about Gavin Collins' draconian 3 month article ban, while ignoring completely the concerns about his leniency toward WMC. This has to stop. UnitAnode 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third. I too have multiple open questions to 2/0 that he has simply ignored; meanwhile, he is more than willing to act with force on Gavin Collins. And I also echo the concerns of others about BozMo, who absolutely should NOT be acting as a neutral admin there. ATren (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Bozmo should be removed from enforcement, as he absolutely is not neutral in these matters. UnitAnode 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has commented on his talkpage to my question but he has not answered it, is makes me feel awful, I have made a request from the administrator that is claiming to be the overseer in this issue and I haven't even had the respect of a straightforward answer, awful. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking here: There are a lot of sharp elbows being swung in this area. It comes from all sides, but the "AGW defenders" as a group may have a bit of a bunker mentality. (1) And I agree that perhaps the reporting and enforcement may have been somewhat imbalanced at the sanctions page. But I think focusing on civility misses the crux. Civility is important, but what is more important is whether the articles are balanced properly, are written in a proper NPOV tone, and give the appropriate amount of coverage to the mainstream view without either overweighting or unfairly excluding other views. As an outsider looking in I think things are tilted a bit. That's concerning. Especially because that sort of thing tends to turn off those who share mainstream views but are disinclined to get involved because of the high levels of hostility. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 - see, for example the threads just above where it seems some members of that "group" seem intent on taking me to task while being unwilling to answer direct questions.
Thanks for commenting Lar, if your going to impose sanctions then good balanced management of them is important or they become of no help with the issues, but saying that I think that as the issue has been brought to peoples attention that it appears generally to be improving, as in that old motto, keep your head down or you'll get it shot off. Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, if a topic I cared deeply about was beset with >500 sockpuppets of a single agenda-driven editor, on top of the usual drive-through agenda accounts that beset every controversial corner of Wikipedia, not to mention being attacked in published opinion pieces which display an ignorance of Wikipedia's basic workings... I might develop a bunker mentality too. I can see why people are worked up about heavy-handedness on the "mainstream" side, but I think there's a corresponding lack of interest or empathy for the conditions that create the bunker mentality in the first place. The bunker mentality is real, but the dominant mentality on the other side is at least as toxic, if not more so. If you try to address one half of the problem in isolation, you're unlikely to succeed.
I'm curious where, specifically, you belive that climate-change articles are "tilted". The scientific and mainstream press, when it has noted these articles, has been quite positive about their presentation. A 2005 piece in Nature, aimed at encouraging experts to participate on Wikipedia, cited climate change articles as an area where "skeptical" editing threatened the project's scientific respectability ("In politically sensitive areas such as climate change, researchers have had to do battle with sceptics pushing an editorial line that is out of kilter with mainstream scientific thinking." Nature 2005 438(7070):890, PMID 16355169). A rather famous piece from the New Yorker also commented on the climate change articles:
For all its protocol, Wikipedia’s bureaucracy doesn’t necessarily favor truth. In March, 2005, William Connolley, a climate modeller at the British Antarctic Survey, in Cambridge, was briefly a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming, to which he had contributed. After a particularly nasty confrontation with a skeptic, who had repeatedly watered down language pertaining to the greenhouse effect, the case went into arbitration... It can still seem as though the user who spends the most time on the site—or who yells the loudest—wins. [39]
The climate-change article also received high praise from experts in the field in a 2006 Denver Post article ("a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia." [40]). I know it's fashionable at present to depict these articles as some sort of embarassment to Wikipedia, but the fact is that they are not perceived as such by reputable, mainstream observers. And when these observers comment on the associated conflicts, it is usually to say that "skepticism" is given excess prominence, rather than suppressed. That's not to say that there aren't real behavioral issues, and the editing atmosphere definitely needs work all around. But you argued that a focus on civility misses the point, and it's more important to assess whether we're achieving our goal of producing content worthy of a serious, respectable reference work. So you can breathe a bit easier in that regard. :) MastCellTalk 21:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly... You're citing stuff from 2005 and 2006. I think things have changed since then.
As for where things are tilted in article space, one area that comes to mind easily is all the churn about what to name the article on the email hacking incident. There are others. In userspace, one quick example would be the exchanges above where the "bunker inhabitants" seem to be trying to trip me up somehow, but won't say what they really mean, and won't answer questions. I think that sort of behavior alienates folk who might otherwise want to step in and try to hep keep the articles properly balanced. I know it turns me off. You take a sample of those folks views on dozens of fringe science questions and then of mine and you're going to find congruence. And yet I'm the enemy, apparently, because I don't care for their tactics. The ends don't justify the means. The articles have to be kept balanced but at what cost? This is not a new problem. We saw it with ID, with homeopathy, with cold fusion, you name it. It's not merely a focus on civility that's needed, it's a focus on overall editor behavior. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Things have changed since 2006, but not in the way you're implying. The centralization of power and deference to "established" contributors was much more ingrained in 2006 (when I started editing) than it is now. The sort of policing that used to be practiced on the global-warming pages - and, I might add, which produced the work spoken of highly by Nature and the New Yorker - would never be possible today. Compared to the medical articles I worked on in 2006, where an editor could aggressively push nonsense more or less indefinitely, that sort of thing was stomped out quickly on climate-change pages. One checkuser used to run a huge number of queries on "skeptical" editors of climate-change articles, a practice which has since ceased due in large part to community uproar. I'm not saying we should go back to those days - in many ways, the current level of accountability is a huge improvement - but the bottom line is that any "suppression of minority viewpoints" was worse in 2005-2006, when these complimentary reviews were published.
I think we're in agreement with a lot of the "bunker mentality" stuff; certainly I see your point in your second paragraph. There's no question that people on the "mainstream" side are alienating the reasonable middle by overreacting. I would like that to change, but that's unlikely to happen if this is tackled solely as a problem of misbehaving "vested contributors". MastCellTalk 22:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell, with respect to your last concern about it being "tackled solely as a problem of misbehaving vested contributors", I would suggest that the "other" problem is already being tackled, and has been for some years. Scibabies are efficiently rounded up (even without the omnipresent checkuser), and overly tendentious "skeptical" editors are usually dealt with using topic bans and blocks. The remaining problem, as I see it, is that similarly tendentious editors on the other side are not dealt with. This is in evidence on the probation page, where skeptic-leaning editors are banned much more quickly than proponent editors.
So, what may appear to be "solely dealing with vested contributors" may actually be leveling the playing field and treating both sides equally. ATren (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument assumes that, absent administrative bias, "skeptics" and people who accept the mainstream scientific view of climate change would be sanctioned at an equal pace. I don't know that I agree with that a priori assumption. The goal of our scientific coverage is to provide an outline of topics that accords with current mainstream scientific thought. When editors consistently move us away from that goal, then they may well be sanctioned at a greater clip than editors who don't, regardless of politeness. The playing field is level - everyone is being judged by whether their contributions help achieve the project's goals. But I suppose that's a philosophical question where we differ, as reasonable people sometimes do. MastCellTalk 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to hand out sanctions exactly equally. That misses the point. What we need to do is hand out sanctions in a balanced manner. Right now the playing field isn't level, that's my view. If everyone were in fact being judged by their contributions, I think things would be a bit different. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On playing fields and the levelness thereof
(outdent)I'm not convinced the playing field is level. Again, I refer you to the threads above... for example User_talk:Lar#Comments_at_the_WP:GS.2FCC.2FRE_page. Those threads leave me queasy at best (is that the field tilting?). ++Lar: t/c 00:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell, I think that many of the questions being debated (such as due weight for sourced claims) are sufficiently "gray" that it's not possible to make an objective judgement as to which editors in the debate are moving us closer to "the goal". It may be that no single editor is 100% correct in their analysis. For such situations, clarity is obtained only after respectful discussion between reasonable editors - but this is impossible in a hostile atmosphere, and that is why civility is important. Again, this assumes that the disruptive and tendentious elements are removed, including the "Scibabies". But we also must remove (or reform) long term editors who refuse to acknowledge and respect reasonable editors who happen to disagree on the fine points. ATren (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with pretty much everything in your post. I have a healthy respect for the subjectivity of most judgments about blocks and bans. The only thing I would add is that it's unreasonable to expect someone to treat you with more respect than you show them. To be clear, I don't think that banning a greater number of "skeptics" is the answer. I would like to see someone - anyone - commit to taking the high road. That means ignoring petty name-calling or insults directed at oneself, and ceasing to dish them out to others. If a few people on each "side" were willing to do this, the problem editors - on both sides - would find themselves effectively marginalized.
Lar, without trying to be difficult, I'm not sure what about the thread in question makes you queasy, nor what about it suggests an uneven playing field. MastCellTalk 04:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go out on a limb here: William M. Connolley will never be "marginalized", no matter how bad his behavior becomes. He has far too many supporters who rationalize and justify the way he treats people, no matter how bad it is. UnitAnode 04:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell, I'm not sure why you don't get why I'm discomfited by the rhetorical approach in the thread ref I gave you. Read it again... Consider the part that starts here. A quick review: SBHB turns up to criticise my evenhandedness, and uses the term "the consensus perspective". I ask him what he means, exactly, and he answers (with a somewhat snappish/snarky edit summary " OK, I'll play along, though I may eventually regret it...") and when I ask for clarification by way of giving an example that I think cuts to the heart of the problem... a person who accepts pretty much everything the "bunker guys" do about how the world is, except who has some qualms about some things, his response is "I give up" with edit summary "indeed, yes, now I regret it"... no real attempt to engage. This goes on for pages and pages with several other members of the "bunker guys" participating, and I never do get a straight answer. Again, I thought my hypothetical was worthy of investigation, it was a great example of someone that is their ally in all but exact, slavish adherence to their tactics. But they displayed the very tactics that I'm concerned about in a conversation that I was trying to use to get at what the problem is. And you wonder why I'm queasy? Really? ++Lar: t/c
As one of the bunker guys, I'm happy to answer any question you might have. Apparently, your question was "What is "the consensus perspective"? Is that a POV of some sort? And who are "those editing against" it?"
The "Consensus perspective" is the broad and basically unchallenged perspective held by the vast and overwhelming majority of informed experts regarding climatology that a human-driven increase in atmospheric CO2 has, is, and unless reversed, will lead to an overall increase in global surface temperature, and that that overall increase in global surface temperature will have negative effects of varying (but substantial) degrees on the quality of life of humans. There is a tiny minority of dissident scientists whose roundly ignored views are excluded from scientific articles, per "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority." Note that I am refering only to articles about the science of global warming. More to come.
The "Consensus perspective" is not a POV of some sort. It is the only significant viewpoint that has been published by a reliable source with respect to the science.
However settled the science might be, the politics are quite different. Because the creation of atmospheric CO2 is an externality, it creates rent seeking behavior in beneificiaries of the externality - specifically, CO2 producers. In this case, that rent-seeking behavior has been opposition to introduction of pigouvian taxation and coasean bargaining via political manuevering. Specifically, some of the future rents created by restrictionless generation of CO2 are allocated to individuals known as lobbyists whose job is to influence public opinion and the opinion of political figures. Part of this involves riling up less than fully-expert individuals about how a giant cabal of evil scientists is trying to take over the world and turn off their air conditioning units. Suitably riled up, those individuals are mad, and try to poke holes into the science, alledging all kinds of nefarious controversies - see global warming controversy and Climate change denial. Now, those riled up amatures and experts in the wrong fields have no effect on the science, but a great deal on the politics. The problem is that those riled up individuals sometimes show up at Wikipedia and try to edit the articles on the science to conform to their view. Is everything clear now? Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The question that has been dodged, is not the one you answered in detail. As a note I already knew everything you answered in detail, having been a Libertarian for years and knowing quite a bit about rent seeking, externalities, lobbyists, and the conceptual tragedy of the commons, but it's a good set of references nonetheless, thanks for typing it out.
Rather, the question that has been dodged was the one that was posed by me at 03:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC) That question is rather more specific to the situation here at WP, instead of the wider world. And thus subject to less moralization or regurgitation of already known things. ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having had the fortunate opportunity to participate in the Military History project early on in my Wikipedia sojourn, I know what effective and congenial collaboration looks like and feels like. I think all of us do. When it happens, we have a feeling that everyone involved is making an effort to build a balanced, complete, neutral article. We feel that their contributions are sincere, honest, and without guile.
Knowing how this feels, we can also tell when these attributes of effective collaboration are missing, such as when fellow participants use subtle but unmistakably condescending, insulting, and/or patronizing edit summaries, make demeaning or evasive comments, and/or use delaying tactics on discussion pages. Such tactics earned a number of editors long topic bans from the Palestine/Israel articles. I think Lar knows what I'm talking about. If anyone else is unsure of what I'm talking about, I'm sure I can find some examples of effective and honest collaboration which could be used to contrast with what we've been seeing in the GW articles for the past several years. Cla68 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's it exactly. This topic area is not collegial. Thank you, Cla68, for expressing this so clearly, and with such a cogent example... Milhist is disproportionately rich with Wikipedia's best work. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite: A swing
I think I'll take a shot at the second question, which was "(1. OK. So what other "perspectives" are there?) (2. If I, for example, think that man's impact on climate and the environment is sharply negative, and is of serious concern, and that it's likely that it has caused warming, and will cause serious harm to us and the rest of the organisms on earth, and that something ought to be done about it, but I don't necessarily agree that all the data presented by certain parties (c.f. the email scandal for example) as supporting this view necessarily does support it, or has been collated appropriately, or necessarily agree with the relative emphasis given to certain articles here on Wikipedia, does that means I am "editing from the consensus perspective" or not?) (3. What exactly does this consensus cover?)"
There are no other reliably sourced perspectives on the science. There is a reliably sourced other perspective on the politics, which is that the science is bunk, but, to be clear, that perspective is not at all related to the science, and such should be made clear in our articles.
Your views on data are not relevent, as you are not an expert, nor are you published. If you want to discuss how climate science is somehow wrong, you'll need to find relevent reliable sources to back your views on data. There are not yet reliable soruces on the science that show that the emails have done anything to the science, because the emails have not done anything to the science. Reliable sources for science are not single primary papers, or the rantings of physics professors, or newspaper articles by journalists, but rather review articles and influential, multiply cited academic papers. Wikipedia is not the way to change science to reflect what you want it to look like, but rather reflects what the published literature reflects - which is that this email scandal has not made it's way into scientific literature. If you want to discuss what the emails have done with respect to public scandal, that's great, and I don't think anyone is stopping anyone from doing that - except to stop them from saying that the emails have totally discredited climate science.
The consensus view covers the science of global warming, across all articles. It mandates that we not include the tiny-minority view that climate science is wrong. If you have a specific edit you'd like me to explain with respect to the consensus view, or a specific editor who you feel is being inapropriately lumped in with a group of people trying to edit science articles to reflect political opinion, I'm happy to do that, also. Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first mention of the word "holocaust" on this page is from you, Hipocrite. UnitAnode 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly true, but the first mention of "concentration camps" is from Lar, and it's from before I wrote "Holocaust." I'd hate for us to get caught up in this side issue, however. Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No you wouldn't, I suspect (although who knows for sure?). Side issues are exactly the ticket to distract folk from the main point. ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you are getting at, Lar? Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a side issue about a side issue, isn't it? The main point is several side issues away now. Maybe that was the point. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charitably, we should assume that Lar meant the Boer War and it's all a ghastly misunderstanding. Goes off to relieve Mafeking, dave souza, talk 18:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was wondering when you'd turn up. You're a canonical example of the problem, you know, since you so often indulge in snark to the exclusion of anything else in these bunfights, just like a good enforcer. With that as a preface, you know that wasn't what I meant. Didn't you? ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's quite civil, is it? It appears to me that DS was attempting to lighten the dour mood. Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree that was his likely intent, but YMMV. As for the first question, I calls them like I sees them, and I've never seen much snark free input from dave souza. We may just hang in the wrong places, I'm sure he's a charming dinner companion. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar steps up to the plate, and staggers from the tilt of the field
Trying again, there are loads of controversial topics that Milhist has dealt with successfully and by and large they've remained collegial, produced more than their fair share of great articles, and are a lively, vibrant, non exclusionary community. The science cabal, (of course [[WP:TINC|it's just a turn of phrase) on the other hand, drives away people from whatever topics it touches. Are you lot just socially inept, or is it a deliberate control mechanism? ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm socially inept, quick to anger and mostly unwilling to suffer people I consider fools gladly. But, I'm trying to work on that. However, I think to play fair, you do need to note that the articles that you attribute to the "Science Cabal," are viewed by some of the participants in those articles as having real life higher-stakes, and both sides are far more motivated to "win," than in a typical millitary history dispute. I wonder what advice you would give to the "science cabal" that would help us make good articles that serve to inform the populace - that is, you know, the goal of scientists. At the same time, you should probably help the "anti-science cabal" to work with the science cabal, and accept that their fringe views can get airing in articles about their fringe views, but the consistant attempt to push relativity denialism in speed of light isn't helpful or productive. Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suffering fools gladly isn't one of my strong suits, either. :) If you really mean what you're asking, try WP:Writing for the enemy as I said above. It's really hard but it works really well. And if you do it, make sure you ask the other side to do it too (and if they won't be fair about it, just revert out your awesome prose). That's my best idea right now. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite: and a miss
I'm afraid that still missed the mark. Except perhaps to highlight the difficulty in working in this area. Answers like that are what chase like minded (as far as the science and the politics go) folk who are not keen on your methods away. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I wonder what the vaunted MilHist group would do if faced with a group of people desperate to say that the only reasons the Greeks won the Peloponnesian War was their utilization of advanced sword-wielding-skeleton technology. Wait, I do know what would happen - because I've seen it in action. They would do exactly the same thing that happened with Global Warming, and get the tiny-minority views right out of there|. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the best example you've got? The matter of exactly what the causes and impact of global warming are isn't quite as clear cut as that. Using strawman examples like that undercuts your argument and worse, makes you look more bunkerish. A more instructive example might be how Milhist dealt with controversy over the use of the atomic bomb. Or coverage of concentration camps. Those are both very controversial topics with significant minority views, and yet by and large that group of editors worked together, and remained collegial and non exclusionary. ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying our holocaust article should note the minority view that it didn't happen? Have you reviewed the treatment of Holocaust denial in the article about the Holocaust? I think that's an excellent analogy here. You alledge that editors "remained collegial and non exclusionary," but you seem to be forgetting all the people that got banned right out of there. Of course, denying the holocaust is more offensive than denying global warming, but it's certainly just as wrong.Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furter, I think you are giving short shrift to the revisionist stance on the atomic bomb by saying they have less evidence than the global warming deniers. At least they have all kinds of real academic historians getting published about it - including some who are not just a little bit respected. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this gets better and better. You raised a strawman argument about some completely ludicrous theory of animated skeletons used in an ancient war that maybe 3 people in the entire world even have heard of much less given credence to. I rebutted you with two examples that (I think) bracket this topic in their percentage of adherents and you go off on holocaust denial. Way to miss the point completely. Look, milhist does a far better job of dealing with reasonable disagreements about the amount of coverage to give something, in general, than you guys do. You can't worm away from that. And you especially can't get away with trying to twist the arguments around to try to cast aspersions on me ... not here, that just won't fly. Try again, or better, admit that there's a problem. Or go away. But whatever you do, stop being hypocritical. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny for a second that MilHist appears to have a better track record. Of course, they are entering from a far easier set of starting circumstances. Clearly we are talking past eachother - You stated "Or coverage of concentration camps." I responded to that. There are about as many qualified historians who deny the camps as there are qualified climatologists who deny AGW. The difference is that there are a lot of politicians and corporations and cranks who deny AGW, and no politicians and no corporations but a lot of cranks who deny the Holocaust. I certainly don't intend to cast aspersions on you - if you could point out where you see me doing that, I'd happily redact. I've admitted there's a problem multiple times, and I've admitted it's from both sides - diffs on request. The only difference I see, however, is that the badness from one side is at least moral. Of course, I'm certain the other side sees it that way also, but, of course, both you and I think they are wrong, per your earlier statements? And, for the record, let me further note that the incivility on this page didn't start with me, wasn't continued by me and was all directed at me. You ask that people start at home, I hope, by being civil and respectful. Please convince everyone here to do so. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the vaunted MilHist group" vs. "I don't deny for a second that MilHist appears to have a better track record" ... so are they worthy of your scorn when you call them "vaunted" or do they actually have a better track record, one that you could learn from? When was the last time you tried WP:Writing for the opponent, for example? ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vaunted (adj) highly or widely praised or boasted about. I thought it was an appropriate moniker. I don't have any scorn for MilHist - none at all (well, some of the members use MilHist as a stepping stone to level up, but that's not the project's fault). I think I wrote for the other side about 15 minutes ago when I removed this per a request from the other side, which I suspect will be opposed by at least one on "my side." There's also the page where I suggested that WMC be given a real final civility warning - that was what, 5 minutes ago? But, if you can think of an article where it would be approprite for the "other side" to have a bit written for them, I'm happy to give it a go. Can you suggest a spot? How about something in economics where the Austrians are under-represented, because then I'll actually be speaking in my speciality. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd further ask that you review the articles I linked to in my first post in this subsection, as it was adressed to MillHist's passing the buck with respect to the atomic bomibings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<undent>Do not compare disagreeing about AGW with holocaust denial. It's offensive and vulgar in the extreme, and a symptom of the problem at related pages. UnitAnode 17:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope you're not adressing that at me, given that Lar brought it up, and to my knowledge, the only gentile in the room is you. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To add my own tuppenceworth on the topic you seemed to be discussing, I have no expertise on the significance of AGW, but all I've seen is explicit that the majority scientific view is that it is of considerable significance. Our articles should give due weight to that, and if more editors accepted that policy we might see peace in our articles. . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't parse for me. Could you try again please? ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brief Response to Hipocrite
This sounds very suspiciously like SPOV, which is not policy.
This is an appeal to authority, as it assumes that the science is untainted by the misbehavior brought to light in the email scandal, simply because the scientists behind the science say so.
Treating those who disbelieve in some portion of the AGW theory as FRINGE instead of a significant minority does your position no favors.
If there was a significant minority, clearly a substantial number of trained climatologists would be dissenting from things. Where are they? Where are their articles? Why isn't there a scientific debate, if the science is so uncertain? Are you honestly telling me that there is some big lie out there that all of the trained climatologists are part of? Hipocrite (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that portions of the emails dealt specifically with your "where are they at" argument. They're actively shut out of most of the peer-reviewed journals. It creates a catch-22 for scientists who are skeptical: publish in non-peer-reviewed places and be derided; or submit to peer-reviewed journals and be shut out altogether. UnitAnode 17:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that there are a lot of academic climatologists who are publishing articles in non-reviewed journals sceptical of the scientific consensus on AGW? I'd love to read some of those articles - could you forward them to me? Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your uncivil condescension aside, I never said there were "a lot of academic climatologists", though your creation of a false requirement that appropriately skeptical scientists be "academic climatologists" is noted. With that, I'm disengaging, s conversing with you is pointless. UnitAnode 17:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not a climate change expert. I don't follow the literature. I thought you were saying there were people publishing outside of the typical peer review - and I wanted to get a look at it. Please don't assume that I was being snide or incivil. I'm not, I'm just not up to speed on the entire corpus of information. I'm also not making a false requirement that skeptical scientists be academic climatologists. I accept anyone in the dicipline they studied. However, I don't think there's a lot of value gleaned from looking at econometric analysis by mathematicians, nor from chemistry by anthropologists, nor from climate modeling by physicists. Further - to your deleted item - Lar said "concentration camps" before I said "Holocaust." Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so many sections. A problem with the topic is that a lot of publicity is given to retired amateurs and claims that their work overturns the academic consensus. Until such overturning becomes the scientific consensus our articles should give due weight to the current consensus as the majority view. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean excluding all dissent? Would that be the ideal in your view? And is scientific consensus the only valid way to determine the weight of articles on the political aspects of the overall topic? It is not Wikipedia's place to Reveal Truth, it's rather to report what other sources say ... and let the reader draw their own conclusions. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not - the political articles should be weighted based on the political debate as evidenced by reliable sources for politics, like newspapers. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the need to remind Dave (and Hipocrite), that we as a project are not controlled by WP:SPOV, as your continual issuance of decrees regarding what must happen in the articles based on "scientific consensus" implies. There is far more to this debate than just the science of one side of the issue -- even if that side currently claims "consensus." UnitAnode 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I don't deny for a second that there are other facets to the debate than the science. That's why the article on Global warming controversy exists. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of backlinks to deleted articles
I understand that it is common practice to do this, as I see this form of maintenance performed every day. Well, I wanted to know if you were aware of any policy or guideline that instructs this to be done... is there such a thing? I ask because I've now entangled myself in a dispute with a person who is pretty unhappy about it and has tripped a 5RR as a result (see WP:AN3#User:AeronPeryton_reported_by_User:JBsupreme for details). I've left what I felt were calm and level headed comments on the editor's talk page but was greeted with a less than civil response in return. JBsupreme (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be bothering you with this shit, really... I took your earlier advice to heart and felt like it backfired. I'll continue to try and keep an open mind here. JBsupreme (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks are a source of growth for the encyclopedia, but only when it makes sense to have them. I don't know of a requirement that removals be done, but I agree with you it's common practice, and that it makes sense if it's not likely that the article would come back. I'm sorry that things went pearshaped. I've commented a bit up (at User_talk:Lar#Userify_request, very last section)... Dunno if that's helpful or not. And it's no bother, don't worry on that score. As for your comments on his talk, I thought they were pretty measured. But I can't find the other half of the conversation so I can't tell... was it on your talk? Best. ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think Aer means well but may not be assuming enough good faith of others. He's working to fix things up, or so it seemed when I reviewed what he was doing before, which is why I was willing to userify things for him. But that talk page post wasn't very friendly, was it? ++Lar: t/c 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, see below. ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and comment on my observation of extensive vandalism to Nate Kaeding's article two weeks ago, and on my request to semiprotect all the articles of players in Super Bowl XLIV for the next two weeks until a week after the game ends. Chutznik (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented there as has at least one of my WP:TPW's ... Hope it helps. ++Lar: t/c 05:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amend recent WMC refactoring ban to explicitly exclude own usertalk?
A user pointed out at my talk that after Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#William M. Connolley: on refactoring comments and civility (note that I changed the title of that section - it is the merged discussion that recently closed with a refactoring ban and a warning), User:William M. Connolley has removed whole comments from his own usertalk. Personally, I did not consider this when discussing the close, which omission I view as an oversight. Removing comments from one's own usertalk is generally given wide latitude, and given the purpose of that page I do not think that it violates the intention of the prohibition. Prodego already expressed here that they are okay with such removals. Would you mind if the refactoring ban is amended to specify that such removals are not included in the prohibition? I have also asked User:LessHeard vanU as the other admin commenting on that thread. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's given wide latitude in general, I'm not sure I agree in this case. Can we talk this through there for a bit first? ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Posilutely. I do not think that we should disinclude editing another editor's post to his own talkpage or misrepresenting what they have said, just straight removal with an edit summary that is not uncivil. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any case where an unblocked user has been prohibited from removing material from their own usertalk page (and certainly we've had much worse than WMC come through these parts). Are either of you aware of any case in which such a restriction has been placed? MastCellTalk 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A key feature of Wikipedia is that we constantly try new things out to see if they work. This restriction, were it to be placed, would be a new thing, I think. That is not, itself, an argument either for or against it. ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is if we are trying to persuade WMC to act according to the standards and practices expected of all editors, then we shouldn't be disallowing what other editors find commonplace. Hmm? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we seem to be talking it through here rather than there but you certainly have a point, I suppose. ++Lar: t/c 22:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LHvU. Even blocked users have editorial leeway on their own talk page. ATren (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to quibble but blocked users have less leeway than most editors, they can't remove material that the blocking admins left them, for example. But I'm ok with this. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked users are absolutely permitted to remove material left by the blocking admin, or by anyone else. If a blocked user wants to blank his entire talk page in a huff, that's fine, too. As long as the blocked editor isn't being abusive or disruptive, his privileges to edit and archive his talk page aren't suspended. (Merely deleting a block notice, for instance, doesn't qualify as 'disruptive'.) If you're not sure about this, feel free to confirm at WP:AN — but I'm surprised that you're not already aware. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked users who wish to be unblocked, are not. Hiding the circumstances of their blockage is not allowed. They can go off in a huff if they want, or wait their block out, but as long as they are dialoging about being unblocked, rugsweeping is disruptive. I'm surprised that you're not already aware. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean that they can't blank a rejected {unblock} template in order to place another one and pretend the first one never happened — yes, I agree. That would be deceptive, disruptive behaviour. In general, however, blocked users are welcome to remove content from their own talk pages while blocked, including notices from the blocking admin. I agree that an admin reviewing an {unblock} request would probably take a jaundiced view to any 'rugsweeping', but even then there are no hard and fast rules. In any case, I was concerned that you were espousing (and encouraging) the mistaken view that blocked editors are not permitted to delete material from their talk pages — full stop. Your comment didn't talk about best practices for a blocked editor filing an unblock request; it plainly stated that blocked users weren't permitted to remove the comments of the blocking admin. That flat, unqualified statement was not correct, which is something I think we both agree on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Policy at WP is descriptive. Not prescriptive. No flat, unqualified statement is ever correct. Including your last sentence, in fact. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not looking to start a fight here. I just don't want the already-heated situation surrounding WMC to get more inflamed through the introduction of incorrect information. Under the narrow circumstance of 'the blocked editor's {unblock} was turned down', the blocked editor can't remove the rejection. Otherwise, they have a pretty free hand to remove material from their talk pages as they see fit. I agree with you that it is often inadvisable for an editor seeking an unblock to remove the original block notice, but even that's not a hard rule. (Let's say an editor violated 3RR and was blocked. He had an otherwise clean record and history of good contributions, and blanked his talk page out of embarrassment. A few hours later, he posts an unblock request along the lines of "The blocking admin is right; I screwed up and shouldn't have been reverting like that; I'm sorry for the trouble, and I'll stay away from the article for the next couple of days until things cool down" I wouldn't be surprised if the {unblock} were granted.)
Your statement above, "blocked users...can't remove material that the blocking admins left them" just wasn't correct. I was concerned that you genuinely didn't realize that, because it's a mistake that a surprising number of admins seem to make — even some fairly experienced ones. It leads to the ugly situation where an admin starts edit warring with a blocked editor just to keep a scarlet letter on the blockee's talk page. I'd much rather correct that sort of misconception here and now, rather than have to deal with the fallout on AN/I after some future block. Since it seems you just misspoke, I'll not bother you further. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things, first can you read the first couple of paragraphs of WP:REDLINK at tell me if I'm crazy or not? It starts by saying why red links exist, how important they are, and then it says when bad articles are deleted one should make any link to it go away. It seems contradictory so the way I interpret that is the backlinks should be removed only in the case that it's glaringly obvious that the article will never return. If an article is deleted about a notable or important subject and it was simply not conforming to guidelines and no one was willing to help it do so then I believe, and am supported by WP:REDLINK in thinking, that red links should stay there for future reference and work.
There are figures on Wikipedia that aggregate red links to tell how wanted a non-existent article is. Removing red links on purpose prevents people from getting an accurate reading that way. And what happens when an article is reintroduced that is done proper? You'd have to do a plain text search of Wikipedia to re-link the term or subject manually. What a waste of effort. If that is how the guideline should be interpreted then it seriously needs to be re-evaluated and revised to be clearer of its intent. Otherwise you have what JBSupreme and I had. Is there a process in which policy and guideline can be introduced for overview and discussion?
Second, when an article is created for a person is there a limit to discussing only one single person per article? I was considering taking all the individuals who may not meet notability on their own and wrapping their bios into List of Bemani musicians. The article would assert the person's importance in the series specifically rather than their importance to world in general. If one or more of them are notable enough to have their own article then a stub section in the list would simply link to their own article and give a brief overview of that person inline. I have spent just about no effort on Wikipedia making BLPs so I know next to nothing about the protocol with them (even less so now with this pitchfork riot) so if you can, I would appreciate your help. æronphonehome 18:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok on the first part, I agree with you, the page wording is conflicting. But that is the way of many wikipedia policies. We expect people to use common sense when applying them. What is that page really saying? It's saying that redlinks are good, except when they're bad. They're good if they link to pages that we ought to have, because they're on topics we don't have yet but should. SO link them so the project can grow. They're bad when they link to pages that we ought not to have, because they're typos, misspellings, or (more importantly) on topics we know for sure, or we already decided, we shouldn't have, and it's not likely that will ever change. SO don't link them so people don't get confused and create pages we know not to create.
Where things have gone awry here is that there is a disagreement on certain pages... they were deleted. Normally that's a sign that we shouldn't have a link, and that's why policy says get rid of the links. But in this case they were deleted not because we are sure we should never have an article, they were deleted because they were unsourced and we were playing it safe. Strikes me that some of the redlinks here might well come back as articles, and soon, as soon as they get sourced.
All THAT said, things went in the weeds because edit warring broke out. As soon as that happens, it tends to break down communication. As I said above, I'd try communicating again. I can have a word with JBS if you want. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to what you said above, I did try to talk to both of them. When you approach someone with logical rationale (however cynical) and they respond with deleting what you wrote it's pretty obvious who's being uncooperative. I chose to continue reverting the bad idea changes because I see them as just that, and I asked for arbitration (literally), though nothing got intelligently discussed there either (I was blocked by someone involved in all the deletion, surprise surprise). Even though, I can't think of anything you would say to either of them that would change their behaviour for the better... though perhaps you could do something about this? Bali has been doing this to several articles in and not in the process of AfD. Is he trying to bolster his edit count? æronphonehome 21:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for your second question I honestly don't know. Seems a good question to me. I know we do similar things with songs that don't merit articles, they get described in the album article, and albums, they get described in the musician's article.... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I'm clearly trying to inflate my edit count. What else could explain my decision to quietly remove a post to my talk page that said I "behave in a manner that goes against the spirit of the Wikipedia project and you barely actually contribute to it so that makes your existence here almost worthless" and that I clearly "have no time in your busy life to be a nice person or to aid and contribute and instead want to see categories of information removed on the grounds of your personal (Oxford-like?) tastes." I was of course thoroughly convinced by your logically devastating statement (demonstrating a mastery of classical rhetoric) that all that was why my "bad faith edits to List of Bemani musicians has been reverted as will anything else that goes against the purpose of this project that I contribute to while you cynically critique."[43]. Of course, a rational contributor in good faith would have responded positively to your edit summaries on your fourth revert calling my efforts "vandalism" [44] and your fifth revert calling them "bad faith."[45]. Well played, sir! I can see why you've declined defending the maintenance of entirely unsourced information about living people on the article's talk page... your case has already been succinctly and irrefutably made. And if that wasn't enough, you finished with a logical flourish: "As for my excuse for exhibiting 3rr behaviour, again, I do not believe that their edits are in keeping with good faith or even good ideas. It feels as though they simply want to delete and bury everything for good."[46].
In fact, the creation and maintenance of unsourced articles on living people has to stop. There are strong ethical, real world reasons for this. There are strong research and verifiability reasons for this that need to be the core of any encyclopedic project. And it's all well-supported by wikipedia's policies. I'm not particularly interested in educating you if you can't be bothered to read and figure it out for yourself. Perhaps Lar will be more patient. One last bit of advice: being nice does not mean "letting you have your way." I was willing to let the edit warring slide after the fourth revert as i informed you on your talk page. That was me being nice. I'll make you a deal: You can do as much original research and unsourced editing as you like to the Dance Dance Revolution walled garden without any interventions from me so long as you leave living people out of it. Any creation of articles on people (or aggregating lists about living people) that are unsupported by reliable sources independent of the subject and that fail to pass any of the notability guidelines, will draw my attention.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
