Misplaced Pages

Could we have a CU for this sock? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree although I am fairly sure that Cla, Lar or LHvU would not be this silly. Polargeo (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Missoula, Montanna? Does this ring any bells? Polargeo (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aside from being a sock, is this a valid point? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What???? This is an obvious sock of an editor with a grudge don't be so silly Polargeo (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. WMC has a history of filing frivolous complaints. The question that was asked was whether this request is disruptive given that it was already being discussed at Ani. I note although you replied to my post, Polargeo, you failed to answer this question. If you don't know, no response is necessary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ATren

How many frivolous requests does WMC get to file before he gets a ban on filing RFEs? ATren (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. Irrelevant here, since this is anything but frivolous. Are you going to use every enforcement request to engage in off-topic attacks on WMC? Guettarda (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please ask on on-topic question Guettarda. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment (2) by SlimVirgin

I'd like to make clear here that this was not a frivolous RfC. The very best way to deal with the situation at these articles is to request fresh eyes as often as possible, and RfCs provide a structure with some basic rules that allow a calm decision to be made. I wouldn't want to see admins say anything to discourage that. SlimVirgin 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to ask a question about what counts as "involvement." I see BozMo commenting below as an uninvolved admin, yet today he commented as an editor on the talk page of one of the key climate-change skeptics. People engaged as editors in that area really shouldn't be acting as admins in it too. SlimVirgin 17:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually meant to say "frivolous complaints." I am amending my statement. The Wordsmith 18:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin 18:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You put an RfC on top of a merge discussion that had being going on long enough, had already had plenty of participation and had already reached as much consensus as was ever likely. Putting the RfC notice was therefore disruptive. The RfC appears to be largely gaming because you were losing the argument. Also I wasn't aware that simply placing an RfC stopped consensus edits in any way. Does an RfC put consensus on hold? I wasn't even aware that you could suddenly turn several editors' comments or !votes into an RfC. Now you have invented a new rule that any admin who has ever edited a climate change article is involved. Polargeo (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

@SV. Reasonable question. FWIW I do occasionally not only engage in talk but also edit some Climate Change pages, at least in the last year or so only BLPs where I have some concerns and almost always delete marginal or disrespectful material. I have edited Singer in that time. I would count myself as involved in a probation issue if I had been involved in an episode which ended up here. But per the definitions there is no blanket involved and uninvolved, you, SV are obviously uninvolved in most of Climate Change but on the opening and closing of this particular RfC, you were involved I think. No big deal, just a technical thing as I see it. Some admins like vary between above and below the line depending on the micro-issue. That ok? --BozMo talk 19:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

When I started editing WP, the rule (in general) was that we couldn't use the tools on any article we were involved in, but we didn't extend that to whole areas. But over the years it has come to be extended when dealing with contentious issues, so that now if someone is editing Israel-Palestine articles, for example, they're expected not to use the tools in that area, even in articles they've never edited. Because I've now edited a few climate change articles, I would see myself as not able to act as an admin in this area for a long time, even though I've never edited the vast majority of them. Given that you're involved as an occasional editor, BozMo, I don't think you can wear the uninvolved hat too. SlimVirgin 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That opinion is worthy and I understand it. However it is not in line with the way the Climate Change probation is drawn up. Tools is another issue but I do give "uninvolved" opinions here as do other admins with varying degrees of "involvement", by your definition. I have not had another uninvolved admin ask me to withdraw from a particular discussion as yet, and my involvement in terms of edits is well known to all. As I say, my edits are limited to BLPs and I would have to look back to find the last article edit (which was probably in Dec last year). --BozMo talk 20:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

BM, I don't know what the climate probation says that would make it okay for admins editing in the area to wear their admin hats sometimes and their editor hats at other times. It just doesn't work. There have been very limited areas in which the ArbCom has allowed this in the past, and it's still allowed in BLP emergencies, but in general it's not a good idea, because even when we genuinely feel we're being neutral, if we're involved in editing that area, POV creeps in without us realizing. You were saying you were desperate for a break from adminning the dispute anyway. SlimVirgin 20:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It says "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute)." Perhaps we should review the wording, but as written both you and I are uninvolved in most of the topic area. --BozMo talk 21:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then as an uninvolved admin, I'm saying I feel you're involved. :) Seriously, you commented yesterday on me indirectly, in the section for uninvolved admins, when you said that users should be warned that posting RfCs might be seen as gaming the system. That position is exactly the opposite of what's required. We want more RfCs, more eyes, more input—the more, the better. For an admin to regard dispute resolution as gaming the system is really quite worrying. And today you turn up on the talk page of a CC article I'm editing, but this time as an editor. And then you go back to commenting in the uninvolved admin section here. It looks odd, and I don't feel comfortable with it. SlimVirgin 21:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that my impression with regard to the other sysop's adminning this area is that we generally work really well together, that the few disagreements we have are respectfully made and concluded, and are quite effective. I think that there is an understanding that the differing admins are "unbiased to a differing viewpoint", but that provides us with a breadth of options when dealing with these matters. I, for one, would be reluctant to see BozMo's input withdrawn. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We have around 1,500 admins now. There's therefore no need for anyone editing in this area to be adminning too, LH. If you look at BM's uninvolved comment yesterday, it included users who bring RfCs to be regarded as gaming the system when there are other editors involved already (even when those editors are behaving entirely predictably?); that you were too involved and another admin should take over the Bishop Hill page; and that admins shouldn't use revert and protect against editors in good standing (no matter what those editors do?). Those views, combined with my seeing BM arrive as an editor on a CC talk page today, make me uncomfortable with his approach, and I am asking him to withdraw. SlimVirgin 21:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We may have ~1500 admins (is this counting the inactive ones?), but I would guess that a large number of them, probably somewhere around 1,490, are afraid to go anywhere near climate change articles or the disputes that take place in that topic. With good reason, too. It seems that getting involved in this area is the fast track to having your own conduct put under a microscope and people constantly calling for your tools. It is a good thing that LHVU, BozMo, myself and the other admins here aren't afraid of that sort of thing. The Wordsmith 02:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Seeing unactioned items languish here for many days does not encourage withdrawl. Also my comment on the talk page (which was finding a reference to support whether Professor Emeritus was an enduring position) was on a talk page and pretty innocuous. I don't even think I disagreed with anyone (but I would on a BLP). I think if anything a stronger grounds for uninvolvement might have been previous disagreement with you about an (unnecessary I thought) RFC but that was a long time ago, can you even remember it? Aside that and being completely over you voting against my adminship three years four months 23 days 3 hours and 20 minutes ago which I am completely over honest and do not obsess about at all, really, I do think I have even been on differing sides of an argument with you either? --BozMo talk 06:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I share SV's concern in general -- admins must be mostly uninvolved in order to participate here -- but not regarding BozMo specifically. I don't particularly agree with many of BozMo's opinions on enforcement, but he does not act rashly and he respects consensus, so a small level of involvement on talk pages does not overly concern me. My greater concern is with 2/0, who is much more quick to act unilaterally (e.g. his recent block of FellGleaming) and who seems to enforce unevenly. ATren (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think we can escape having admins who are humans and who privately have opinions on some of these issues and the value of different editors (although to be honest I don't have time to keep up with much of the content here) but I do think that there is a good mix of courteous and respectful disagreement amongst the admins here which is as good as it gets frankly. This thread is a bit off topic, can we collapse or better continue on talk? --BozMo talk 06:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think The Wordsmith has vocalised the perception of CC articles and adminning of same within the sysop community - and I can honestly say I feel the same way about BLP; I won't touch them until flagged revisions and BLP AfD's default to delete are in place. It may be that this issue with CC articles was recognised when the wording of "uninvolved" was made, since it clearly indicates that the prime requirement is not to have recent article interaction with the individuals named in an enforcement request. I would also note that I was recruited - I did not volunteer or come across this area and decide to lend a hand - to assist in handling Probation enforcement. There are too few admins currently working this area for us to get too choosy in deciding who should withdraw or recuse. I think we should allow the sysops to decide that themselves, on a case to case basis - which may also be the situation where someone feels there is too much previous recent history for an admin to comment as an uninvolved party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wordsmith is a useful demo of how not having a clue can be a waste of time; see the mediation request William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Some parties (on both sides of the science issue) would love if there were too few admins to police this area, so that they could run unchecked. It is a good thing that a few of us have the testicular fortitude to stay and help where we can, and the integrity to not respond to the personal attacks (such as the one immediately above). The Wordsmith 16:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You just *have* responded. To those wondering what this is about, (almost) the full debacle is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-08/Global Warming William M. Connolley (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And how is a months-old mediation case that never happened relevant to anything, whatsoever? Are you saying that I am involved? The Wordsmith 16:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying you got badly burned by that mediation case. You opened a pointless case and wasted various people's time, including mine. You are not here as the history-free noob you're pretending to be William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider that case to have burned me. I apologize for the five minutes of your time that were wasted, but its really no different than any of the hundreds of medcab cases that were filed but for which other parties declined mediation. I also never claimed to be a "history-free noob." I am a junior admin, sure, but i'm here as an administrator who wants to help, like the others here. The Wordsmith 16:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment (2) by Polargeo

• Let us have a look at the facts.

1. My only edit to the article was the redirect my edit summary was The RfC can keep running for 30 days. It does not override current consensus for a merger in any way
2. Before making this edit I noted on the talkpage that the RfC (belatedly initiated) could continue running quite happily and if it came to a different conclusion then that was fine.
3. At the time I did the merge it had the backing of 10 editors (opposition was that two wanted the merge the other way and three said there was no need for a merge).
4. I did a full merge of all contentious content with no attempt to remove any content whatsoever.
5. LessHeard immediately reverted my action, fully protected the article and then banned me from editing it .
6. I thought his actions were so utterly wrong that I immediately undid his protection (look at my edit summary) but not his edit. When he explaind to me that he was just reinstating an earlier protection and the protection was not against me (which would have been very silly) I immediately reinstated the protection on his request. I disagreed with his protection but was not prepared to disrupt wikipedia over the matter.
7. LessHeard is still trying to prevent a merge . He seems to think he has a monopoly on consensus judgement. He also seems to think that someone can slap an RfC on something to delay a minor decision for 30 days. Polargeo (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on proposed closure wording

NW has written The edits of William M. Conolley and Polargeo, who had both only edited Bishop Hill (blog) once This is incorrect, please check the article history, WMC has edited it 11 times that i see in the article history mark nutley (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are indeed correct; I have clarified my wording to better indicate what I meant. NW (Talk) 11:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

Until we get Jell-O Instant Consensus, we are stuck with the existing rules - the 30 day rule is one of them. And, last I checked, there is always WP:DEADLINE as an essay. Moreover admins who opine here should also note if they routinely agree or disagree with any participants, to be sure. Collect (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that *any* decision can suddenly be paralysed for 30 days by one editor slapping an RFC on it? That is ridiculous William M. Connolley (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wken in doubt, deride those who adhere to reasonable processes arrived at by consensus, and considered to be WP rules and policies. Boojums are rife. Collect (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That was almost as good as one of ZP5s! William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WTH is "ZP5"? I have held the same position re: WP:IAR and procedures on WP, on WV, on Commons and Meta, as well as in Strategy now. Collect (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

An excellent question. I can't help you, I'm afraid William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

ZP5 is User:ZuluPapa5 I think. ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I rather gathered as much - more to the point is WMC's use of boojums here. Collect (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if WMC, who turned the phrase, can't help clarify what he meant by it (as you requested he do), I would say I certainly can't. I could certainly speculate as to what he was trying to do, but I'll pass. It is unfortunate that WMC apparently doesn't have time for clarifying what he means by things even when directly asked. I ran into it too and it's frustrating, if you let it be frustrating. So don't. But there you are. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I said I really can't help; see previous reports. What are these boojums, though? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by dave souza

WP:PREFER policy is that admins normally protect to the current version, but "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Under this policy, LessHeard vanU's reversion is clearly justifiable. However, it's arguable if there was such a clear point, and there's a sound tradition of protecting The Wrong Version. There was an emerging consensus, or at least a clear majority view, which made the merge and redirect (without any loss of information) justifiable. The RfC itself was valid, and could have continued whether or not the article was at present a redirect. On reviewing the circumstances, NW's proposed closure gives sound guidance for any similar situation in the future.
The statement "The edits of William M. Conolley and Polargeo, who had both only edited Bishop Hill (blog) once, did not merit reverting and fully protecting the page." is technically incorrect as WMC had edited the page some time previously, but only once in the dispute in question. I'd suggest that it should be struck, or modified to cover that point and make it clear that this is an opinion in retrospect which does not invalidate LessHeard vanU's reasonable judgement call while focussed on stopping edit warring. . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Modified. NW (Talk) 11:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Move stuff by ATren

Commenting here because the above is a mess and I would like to make two points before closing. Admins, feel free to remove when you've read it

• The second bullet item is inappropriate in that it implies that the RFC itself was bad. Seeking more uninvolved input is never a bad idea. Perhaps a case could be made that LHvU acted too strongly by revert/blocking, but it can also be said that WMC/Polargeo were subverting a process by reverting while the RFC continued. A better approach would have been to suggest an early close on talk before reverting. So there was strong action on all sides here, but the RFC itself was not improper.
• Shouldn't there be an admonishment against Polargeo for wheel warring? That's more serious than LHvU's revert/prot, and even though he reversed it (after some coaxing) I think it merits a warning in this close. ATren (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I strongly disagree with RFC's always being a good thing. There is a track record of abuse of RFCs on Climate Change articles (was it Gavin somebody who was blocked for this, I don't remember) and I think a reminder than procedure is not king is appropriate. --BozMo talk 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course RFC can be gamed, but there's no evidence of that here, and the wording implies that filing an RFC is inappropriate even when done in good faith. Or is bad faith being assumed here? ATren (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Good faith does not make a bad decision good, whereas a warning here might induce more thought and deflect a bad decision on an RFC. --BozMo talk 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning LessHeard vanU

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above.

This looks genuinely marginal to me. The irony that WMC is complaining when LHvU does appear to care about content is inescapable. So anyway here is my view (1) Revert and protect should really be reserved for vandalism and a request would have been better than using tools (especially against an admin where it invites wheel warring). (2) Polargeo and WMC do seem to be being rather impatient. (3) At the same time starting an RFC should not "gamed" by a minority against the consensus: RFCs are not very credible processes when there are already many editors on a topic (although SV and a few others are obvious fans of them) and the RFC process is not intended to give a right to filibuster. My suggestion is (1) for another uninvolved admin to take over the closer supervision which this page seems to need (2) that we give a general warning that starting an RFC on Probation pages where a sufficient pool of editors are involved is something we look at from a gaming aspect (3) that we clarify uninvolved admins using revert and protect against editors of good standing is undesirable. What do others think? --BozMo talk 10:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and we might add something about Polargeo and WMC eating less red meat and drinking less coffee. --BozMo talk 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think, viewed standalone, this is one of the more ridiculous enforcement requests in a long time, and one would wonder what WMC was actually thinking. Viewed in a larger context, though, his starting it here and now actually makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately. (insert comment about me being "delusional" here) Close with a commendation to LHvU and 10 trouts to WMC, Guettarda, et al. With an admonishment not to do it again and this time we really mean it. No, really, we do. And we're going to be very very cross next time. So cross we may actually say we really REALLY mean it. Alternatively, some sort of sanction against WMC for mucking around could be proposed. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed closure (see below where I discuss with NW):

• That SlimVirgin be encouraged to work the discussion process at the talk page a bit longer before moving to an RfC.
• That all editors who are considering filing requests for probation enforcement are encouraged to first speak with an uninvolved administrator.
• That those objecting to an RfC make the case against it rather than revert warring to remove it
• That LHvU be absolved of any wrongdoing in this matter, his actions be endorsed, and he be commended for his efforts to resolve the matter.
• That no further action be taken.

That's what I've got now, after further reflection and review of material. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see anything sanctionable here, certainly not the sanction that WMC has proposed. Protection policy seems to permit reverting to the version of the page immediately before the controversy, and then protecting it. While RFC cannot be used to filibuster, it also appears to fall outside the domain of WP:SNOW, so going ahead with the merge anyway was certainly a bad idea. I suggest trouts all around and a word of caution to those who file frivolous RFCscomplaints. The Wordsmith 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, as I implied I did not think it was sanctionable. But agreeing principles for next time would be good too. --BozMo talk 17:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing all the evidence, I cannot find fault with Polargeo's edits, and as such, I don't believe that LHvU's action was necessary. I fear that the administrator tools have been employed a bit too much on this article. Blocks and page protection were handed out a bit too liberally for my taste, and I would prefer that the use of them be scaled back. I generally agree with Bozmo's views (especially numbers 1 and 3) and his conclusions, and feel that several general reminders do need to be issued. At this time however, I cannot support the involuntary removal of LHvU from the probation process. Perhaps he has made some marginal calls (at least, ones I would have not made), but I don't believe that he is sufficiently biased enough at this time to need to recuse himself. NW (Talk) 19:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree to close this case with a result of trouts all around? The Wordsmith 00:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty vague closing summary. I'd prefer something a bit more concrete. NW (Talk) 01:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please propose one, then? ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Proposed closure below:

• All administrators are encouraged to only revert and fully protect a page only in cases of obvious vandalism or BLP violations.
• When a number of editors have already commented on an issue, starting an RFC and insisting that it run the full thirty days before any action on a page can be taken is unnecessary. The edits of William M. Conolley and Polargeo, who had both only edited Bishop Hill (blog) once in relation to the current dispute, did not merit reverting and fully protecting the page.
• All editors who are considering filing requests for probation enforcement are encouraged to first speak with an uninvolved administrator.

• LessHeard vanU is understood to have only been trying to resolve the dispute to the best of his abilities. This is an close done with the benefits of hindsight, and should not be taken to construe as any harsh criticism of LHvU's attempts to resolve the matter.

NW (Talk) 21:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll have to propose a different one, I guess, as I am not seeing consensus for that view. It is sharply different than mine, I'm afraid. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine with me. NW (Talk) 00:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See above. I adopted one of your points. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think on balance I would go with NW's close. --BozMo talk 15:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have updated my proposed closure slightly NW (Talk) 11:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you could go further and remove "harsh". No one doubts that Lvuh was acting in good faith and that a case could be made for it being appropriate decisive action, but my own view was that it was slightly over the line and we should call is as "out" for future guidance more than anything else. --BozMo talk 11:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would ask that admins, before closing, give "more stuff by ATren" above, a read. He makes some good points. I am completely uncomfortable with a result that admonishes LHvU in any way. He was right to do what he did. I recognise that consensus may go against me but I strenuously object. Further, I suggest that going forward we not allow Polargeo to comment in any uninvolved admin section of any future enforcement request, as by edit warring (and wheel warring) in the topic area he has completely scotched any notion that he is uninvolved. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have answered one of ATrens points above though: no way do RFCs deserve a "Get out of jail free card". There have been other abusive ones in the past and we should discourage inappropriate RFCs. On LHvU I am happy not admonishing LHvU as long as we agreed he shouldn't do it again. On Polargeo, if you want to raise a request for enforcement on him then do but please do not try to shoehorn him in here. As the probation terms are written he may be uninvolved but perhaps those need review. --BozMo talk 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have several concerns. First, my review of this led me to a far different conclusion, that an RfC was an appropriate thing to initiate in this case. SV and I do not often see eye to eye but this is one of those times. Second, that same review led me to conclude that LHvU is not only not admonishable, but actually to be commended for his actions in this matter in disallowing gaming and brinksmanship by those trying to thwart discussion. Finally, as to PG, well, no worries, he will be dealt with soon enough I expect, see the talk of this page just now. But on the first two points, what exactly would convince you that the view I and others espouse fits the facts better? I'm willing to try to convince you but I'm not sure why exactly you don't see things this way, so some place to start might help. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As a general observation: we shouldn't try to act like a mini-arbcom of sort. Admins here should determine if enforcement actions are needed and that's it. I don't think that reviewing the administrative actions which took place in the objective to issue a closure statement about them is worthy; they have not been particularly abusive and parties have been counseled, there's not much more we can do and it doesn't seem needed. Commending users or absolving them of wrongdoings is also not what admins have been asked to do here, it's not enforcement. Cenarium (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

PoV tag and Fred Singer

William M. Connolley

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning William M. Connolley

User requesting enforcement

SlimVirgin 20:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

{{{Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so}}}

• - WMC edited the article to say that Singer is a global warming skeptic
• - WMC added (restored?) a POV tag

This section needs to be expanded if this request is not to be declined without further action. As per the rules, it needs an explanation how these (or other yet to be added) diffs constitute "disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith". Ben Aveling 06:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

{{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

That he be topic banned from editing Fred Singer

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Would one of the admins who oversee the climate change probation please topic-ban William M. Connolley from editing Fred Singer? Singer is a very distinguished American physicist, 85 years old. He argues that there's no evidence that the increase in carbon dioxide produced by human beings causes global warming. As such he has become a target of WMC, who has been editing his article very poorly for years. WMC has made the most edits (103 since 2004), followed by me (101 since a few days ago), and then KimDabelsteinPetersen (98 since 2006).

Singer complained about the poor editing of the article in The American Thinker in February 2010, writing "In my own case, my Wiki bio also carried additional malicious accusations; the most bizarre one was that I believed in the existence of Martians." Canadian writer Lawrence Solomon has written about Connolley's editing of Singer's bio several times, alleging that WMC was trying to smear Singer—in The National Post in April 2008, again in May 2008 and in the National Review in July 2008.

I recently found the article in very poor shape. Singer has had a long and very varied career, yet a great deal of it isn't even mentioned in the article, so I've been working since May 13 to try to fix it. This was how I found it; this is how I left it before Connolley arrived again today.

WMC now wants the article to say that Singer is a global warming skeptic before we even say he is a physicist. When I reverted and left a note on talk, he added the POV tag and six citation-needed tags to the lead, all for material that is already sourced after the paragraph, and which he anyway knows is correct. He also removed material that was sourced to The New York Times. If a new editor had done this, we'd have little hesitation in calling it vandalism.

Bear in mind that this is a BLP; that WMC has been criticized in the mainstream press for his editing of it; and that the article is under climate change probation. And yet still he behaves this way. I find that very arrogant and aggressive, and I don't think it's fair to the subject of the bio that an editor with that attitude is allowed to have anything to do with the page after so many complaints about it. SlimVirgin 20:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In case admins are willing to consider topic banning WMC from all climate-change BLPs, please consider this sequence of events.

WMC and some others were engaged for a long time in shoddy editing of Fred Singer. Lawrence Solomon, a fairly well-known Canadian writer, first pointed this out in two articles in The National Post, one of Canada's two national newspapers, in April and May 2008; the second article names Connolley. In the first one Solomon wrote:

The page that Misplaced Pages devotes to what is ostensibly Fred Singer’s biography is designed to trivialize his long and outstanding scientific career ... Honest accounts of Fred Singer and his accomplishments have been available on Misplaced Pages, and on hundreds of occasions. Those occasions don’t last long, however — often just minutes — before the honest accounts are discovered and reverted by Wikipedians who troll the site.

Solomon's BLP then became a target too. WMC's first edit to Lawrence Solomon was in June 2008. And there WMC engaged in exactly the same editing as he engaged in today at Fred Singer—moving into the first sentence that Solomon is best known as a denier of global warming, and adding several citation-needed tags to the lead. Here for comparison's sake are WMC's edits today to Singer's article.

It's worth pointing out that Solomon's criticism of WMC has not been allowed to appear in William Connolley's biography (which has no secondary source material showing why he might be notable), where WMC's wikifriends have made sure it stays out on BLP grounds. Would that they were so considerate of others. SlimVirgin 01:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your implied statement that User:Reddi, User:ChildofMidnight, User:Nsaa, and User:UBeR are "wikifriends" of WMC is puzzling. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

I don't see that SlimVirgin says anything like that (and my edits on this page is mainly technical like fixing references and so on), but "It's worth pointing out that Solomon's criticism of WMC has not been allowed to appear in William Connolley's biography". And I'm not a friend of him, but iff I go to Britain we can off course go out and drink a beer :-). If you have differences nothing is better :-). Looking at the history is quit interesting removes blog, Vsmith removes a sourced paragraph, Atmoz removes blog (ok), Removed a fact, but the sourcing is questionable, spectator.org removed as source etc. Nsaa (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply to 2/0

I did go to the talk page, but when I saw WMC add six citation tags to the lead for Singer's career description—which was sourced and has been in the article for a long time—I felt he was playing games, and I have no desire to get involved in it. He baits, he insults, he harries, he feigns surprise, he tries to make people look and feel foolish. It's not honest debate and there's just no point in it. This is a BLP issue that's been going on for years. It needs to be sorted out, and I can't do that alone, so I came here. SlimVirgin 02:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem continues

Even as this is being discussed, WMC continues with the same kind of editing at Fred Singer. SlimVirgin 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A request

For the admins looking at this, a decision fairly soon would be appreciated. WMC has now taken to, in effect, vandalizing the article by removing the entire further reading section and the categories. He posted on talk that the articles in FR looked like spam. But they were just regular articles from the NYT, Guardian etc, some by Singer, some about him.

This was shortly after he removed material in the lead from The New York Times that he think is "rubbish," added his own unsourced opinion to the lead about Singer's early research, and accused me of "writing lies" in edit summaries.

There's no point in trying to improve the article with this kind of thing going on. SlimVirgin 07:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To avoid splintering this over 20 articles, see Talk:Fred_Singer#Stopping_for_now and Talk:Fred_Singer#Further_Reading. As for "no point" - is this an improvement or not? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This really would be better discussed on the article talk page, instead of spewing allegations of vandalism.

For the further reading, there is even section for it Talk:Fred_Singer#Further_Reading - SV could join in instead of throwing her toys out of the pram. The objection, as given there, is that the FR section was vast, and apparently pointless, and SV appeared to be using it as a workspace.

As to the NYT: yes, it is rubbish. We don't have to add junk to articles merely because someone says it. I've already covoered this in my statement, above: He also removed material that was sourced to The New York Times. Indeed I did. Here is the diff . I removed what looked like hyperbole to me. Shall we google it to see if it is true? . 1,120 hits, looks good doesn't it? But actually there seem to be only 11, and they are *all* reprints of the NYT article. Which is to say that *no-one* calls him the DoCC, except Revkin, once. Is SV not bothering to read any of this stuff?

Lies in edit summaries? Most certainly: SV persistently reverts under deceptive edit summaries, for example

William M. Connolley (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The rule is WP:V and not WP:IKNOWWHATSTRUE. The NYT is generally RS per the founding policies of WP, and calling it "rubbish" does not help any discussion. Collect (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Even usually reliable sources make errors. We are in no way obligated to repeat them, especially in such a irrelevant matter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@C: so you really are arguing that we should not only insert a known false statement into a BLP, but that removing that false statement should be a sanctionable offence? If so, you are lost. Policy should not get in the way of sanity. But, if you are interested in this issue, why not discuss it in the correct place: Talk:Fred_Singer#Dean_of... William M. Connolley (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:V It is not up tp edotprs tp use "truth" as a rationale for rejecting what a RS says. Nor is suggesting the NYT is somehow insane going to help much. Ever.

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Seems quite clear as WP policy. Not "If WMC knows something then it is usable, and if he knows it is false it may not be used." Collect (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That specifies a lower threshold. We do not include everything that can be reliably sourced - that's editorial discretion. And including something, if printed in a RS or not, that is verifiably false harms the encyclopedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Or if Stephan Schulz knows something is wrong then it can not be used" is also not in any WP policy I found. See also WP:NPOV wherein it states that the solution for disagreeing with a claim is to add claims from other RSs. It does not say "If something is false according to an editor, it can not be in the article." This is, indeed, a core policy of WP. WP:Josh Billings Collect (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning William M. Connolley

Statement by William M. Connolley

This is the state of the FS talk page when SV filed this request. Notice how little attempt SV has made to discuss these problems. Notice the attempt by me to discuss the issues. This request is premature and should be dismissed as such.

But the usual suspects won't, so let us look at SV's complaints.

The main one appears to be that I edited the article to say that Singer is a global warming skeptic before we even say he is a physicist. To anyone at all familiar with FS, this is a very odd complaint indeed. Indeed, SEPP's own tagline is Founded by atmospheric physicist and global-warming skeptic S. Fred Singer; press releases, news articles, scientific studies and other materials available. - so even Singer admits that AP and GWS belong on the first line, and all we disagree about is the order of terms. SV insists that even mentionning GWS is bad. Does anyone really think that Singer is better know for his atmospheric physics? Try looking at what-links-to-Singer and see what wiki uses him for.

SV notes that this is a BLP, yet she has added a large number of claims that are sourced to nothing but Singer's self-publsihed biog. These are all dubious; they may well be correct, but who knows. SV asserts that which he anyway knows is correct - I'm sorry, but mid-reading is not a RS, and in this case SV's mind-reading is wrong, anyway. I don't know those things to be correct.

Let us take one of SV's claims: He was later the founding dean of the University of Miami's School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences. This appears to be sourced only so FS's selfpub bio . I'm very doubtful that is a good enough source, ince contested. I could be wrong of course - in which case, the correct course of action is a polite discussion on the article talk page, rather than "going nuclear" so quickly.

He also removed material that was sourced to The New York Times. Indeed I did. Here is the diff . I removed what looked like hyperbole to me. Shall we google it to see if it is true? . 1,120 hits, looks good doesn't it? But actually there seem to be only 11, and they are *all* reprints of the NYT article. Which is to say that *no-one* calls him the DoCC, except Revkin, once.

This looks to me like a clear case of SV fouling up this article with junk. I ask that *she* be topic banned for polluting a BLP with wrongness William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and can someone revert the sock and maybe semi the page? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Done in the course of reviewing background to this RE. Proxycheck or CU might not go amiss. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I object to the assertion of "only partial defence". The indictment section contains 2 diffs:

• - WMC edited the article to say that Singer is a global warming skeptic
• - WMC added (restored?) a POV tag

Of those, the second is absurd - the assertion that adding a POV tag is sanctionable is manifest nonsense. The first is also absurd: the current version of the article, as protected by Bozmo, also includes this text, so it really can't be so terrible. The rest is just mud-flinging. And your consenus is what: you, Lar, LHVU? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley

Sorry, but the claim that Solomon's column's represent "the mainstream press" already shows that this complaint has no basis in fact. This has been to WP:COIN when Solomon's misrepresentations (to be generous) were fresh, and no problem was found. Singer has, for the last 20 years, been best known for SEPP and his stance against the scientific consensus on global warming. This is a significant source of his notability, and it has to be covered adequately in the article. The way to achieve that is to work with, not against, knowledgeable editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

While The American Thinker is a blog, so not acceptable as a source, it is hardly a fringe site. One should never over-react to any criticism of Misplaced Pages in outside venues, but neither should it be dismissed simply because it isn't the NYT. Similarly, the National Review, while not the favorite reading of some, is a well-respected journal, and comments therein should not be cavalierly dismissed. The reputation of WP should be important to all of us, and it is my view that the state of climate change articles does not represent the best of WP by a long shot.--SPhilbrickT 21:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

When someone can show us the 8000 climate change articles that WMC edited, and the 200 editors (or whatever the number is) he blocked because of their edits to climate change pages, we might consider taking Solomon seriously. And arguing that saying Singer is better known as a physicist than a "skeptic" is ban-worthy is just plain silly. Singer is better known as a "skeptic". Guettarda (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Solomon wrote: "When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Misplaced Pages contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions." For what it may be worth, I notice that Solomon has edited Misplaced Pages and in April 2008 he complained about WMC. Cardamon (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: What Solomon did was copying misleading numbers from the EditCounter without any understanding. 2000 (if even that number is correct) is the total number of all blocks WMCs ever imposed. Nearly all of them were standard short-term WP:3RR enforcement blocks following the then-standard policy (24 hours for a first violation). There are essentially no long-term blocks, and there are essentially no blocks related to climate change articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point in that Solomon seems to not understand or exaggerate on some minor statements. Not many outside journalist understands Misplaced Pages well as have been shown over and over again. But his main point is seems to be extremely valid unhappily. Nsaa (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Solomon did not get anything factual right in that article except maybe the spelling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not about Solomon, it's about Singer and WMC. Two years ago I gave up on the Singer BLP because there was no room for debate with editors like WMC and Raul654, who insisted on emphasizing "embarrassing" (WMC's own words) claims that Singer believed in life on Mars (among other smear tactics). Raul has long since left this topic area, but WMC is still here fighting any efforts to fix Singer's bio. WMC's history on Singer's bio is there for all to examine, regardless of what Solomon says, and continued emphasis on Solomon distracts from the real issue here. WMC should be banned from Singer. In fact, WMC should be banned from all BLPs in this topic area because he's written extensively (and often derisively) about many of these people on his blog, and he seems incapable of putting aside his antipathy towards them in his activities here. Some recent examples: he recently fought to add the unqualified "Plimer is wrong" to Ian Plimer's BLP based on opinion pieces, even though others (including ChrisO ) argued for more encyclopedic wording and better sourcing; he also added an association with Lyndon LaRouche in a skeptic's BLP, sourced to his friend Tim Lambert's climate blog . I can find more if necessary. As SV says, these are the kinds of activities that get other editors banned, yet WMC gets away with it. ATren (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Looking over the article history for the last few months, I don't see any edits by WMC that stand out as obviously and blatantly improper. He obviously brings a certain point of view to BLPs in the climate change space, but he's hardly alone in that. There may be the appearance of a conflict of interest here, and WMC might consider voluntarily withdrawing from editing the article for the sake of appearances, but I don't believe anyone can point to any edit of the article and say "There, that one. That's where he demonstrates his conflict of interest." Thparkth (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I looked it up and I believe that ATren is referring to this edit where WMC moves a sentence about the Martian moon Phobos out of the Space and Exploration section into the lede, apparently because WMC thinks it's embarrassing to Singer. I don't think that should be a goal when writing a biography of a living person. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is a revert of someone else removing it - and WMC wasn't even the first to revert its removal from the lead. It looks like that text has been floating about in different positions in the article for a very long time. I can't find the edit that initially placed it in the lead, but FWIW it wasn't that one. Thparkth (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he added it a total of five times. Two of them were reversions of Fred Bauder, who was an arbitrator at the time. One of them actually used the loaded words "built by Martians" which sounds ridiculous and was added to the lead. At around the same time, he was removing text about Singer being an advisor to president Eisenhower, a fact MUCH more notable than the ridiculous "martian" stuff. Diffs:

• rv 1, restores "embarrassing" material
• rv2, reverts Fred Bauder
• rv 3, again reverts Fred Bauder
• rv 4
• rv 5, calls removal "whitewashing"
• removes text about Singer being advisor to Eisenhower ATren (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Would one of the admins who oversee the climate change probation please topic-ban William M. Connolley from editing any article connected in any way with climate change? Please cut the Gordian knot. Thanks so much. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Bozmo: Biographies are not the best place for his talents anyway Indeed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If anyone is under the illusion that JWB is acting in good faith, should cure them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
      • That sort of response (in essence, "I think I'll go work on something else where I don't have to struggle with WMC") seems to be a fairly common one, though... How is that actually a sign of not acting in good faith? ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So then: ATren, Bozmo, Lar, JWB, AQFK, SP, LHVU all you lot: do *any* of you think FS is better known as a physicist than a GW skeptic? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In specific reply to this point there are a number of examples of people who become better well known (famous or infamous) for a second attribute only because of their position from a first attribute. Obvious examples are Bob Geldof, Sebastian Coe, Gene Robinson and others. In general we do them the courtesy of explaining their primary claim to notability first. Not to the exclusion of the second string in the first sentence. It is a subjective matter but one in which having a strong opinion on the merits of the article subject doesn't help... --BozMo talk 20:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In specific reply to this point it appears that I am being asked a content question. WMC: You cannot have it both ways. You cannot fault me for having opinions about the subject area, to the point of trying to have me removed from enforcement, and then turn around and ask me about content. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am frankly puzzled by the rationale for this complaint. The only diffs cited in favour of it are that (1) "WMC edited the article to say that Singer is a global warming skeptic" and (2) that he added/restored a POV tag. I can't see that either edit is actionable. If Singer himself says he's a GW sceptic, that's simply a matter of fact. If WMC thinks there's a POV problem with the article, he's as entitled as any other editor to add a tag to that effect. How is either issue actionable? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not about Solomon, it's about Singer and WMC. - well, no, it's not. SV started editing Singer, didn't get her way automatically, and on the first resistance to her edits, while the opposing party is trying to resolve this on talk, she comes here citing not on-wiki behaviour, but (bad) off-wiki articles. Unless you (and she) are willing to remove any reliance on these articles, they are very much up for discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Potentially related COI/N threads

There follows a list of the threads raised at WP:COI/N regarding User:William M. Connolley. I do this in the interest of not duplicating concluded discussions or reinventing the wheel. As of this writing, I have not read WMC's response and am offering no opinion at present. I only searched using the correct spelling of his name, omitted threads where he was not of primary concern, and made no attempt to track down any more general threads that may exist. If anyone finds additional relevant threads, please add them with the date and a brief, neutral summary and note that you have done so. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• 2007-04 - related to Real Climate (where WMC no longer contributes), Michael Mann, and an AfD that today would probably be WP:CSD#A10; dismissed with advice to several other users to be mindful of policy and WMC to bear in mind that most editors do not have a technical background.
• 2007-05 - raised by the same user as above on much the same issue, and quickly dismissed (potentially bad faith or WP:POINT, but I would not care to offer an opinion without analyzing a three year old situation, which activity carries no interest for me)
• 2008-10 - external link to Real Climate; dismissed/moved to BLP/N
• 2009-12 - related to Lawrence Solomon; dismissed, noting inaccuracies in the article (note sockpuppetry)
• 2010-04 - dealt with at this board not so long ago.

The 2009-12 thread looks relevant enough that I recommend reading it before commenting. The one from last month should still be fresh in everyone's mind, but re-reading it as well might not go amiss. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Observation by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

However the admins decide on this case, I suggest that you explain your rationale carefully (not merely "per complainant" as one admin has declared). To establish a precedent that a partisan commentator can knock out a Misplaced Pages editor by objecting to their actions, as the complainant argues here, may not necessarily be in the best interest of the project. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, would it necessarily be in the best interest of the project if a partisan Misplaced Pages editor knocked out a commentator? Just askin'. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe either outcome would be desirable. We have policies regarding the second but the admins here are treading new ground with regard to the first, hence my remarks about establishing a precedent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea of restricting an editor based on what partisan commentators say should be firmly rejected. SlimVirgin of all people should know that being attacked by partisan commentators isn't grounds for getting rid of Misplaced Pages editors. If that was the criterion she'd have been booted long ago. Quite rightly, she hasn't been, because her conduct - like that of any other editor - is judged by whether it conforms with Misplaced Pages's standards, not by what partisan outsiders might claim. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I object to the analogy, Chris. If I had articles from a serious writer in a mainstream newspaper accusing me of using WP to smear a living person (note: not just editing that someone disagreed with, but smearing), and the subject himself had written about it, I would certainly back off, of course I would. SlimVirgin 01:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ZP5*

Taking the side of precautionary safety here would be appropriate given the external complaints and many COIN issues raised on WMC. BLPs have greater rights than any editor who has a POV bias. I've seen others get disciplined for simple and fixable copyright issues, however this seems to be a persistent issue here, which should not be ignored. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I checked again about what would be sanctioned here with WMC since others seem to blind to it. As per Misplaced Pages:DISRUPT then "Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of: disrupting progress toward improving an article, or disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." No wonder there is a perception of a lynch mob, the editor has extended disruptions over a considerable period of time. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by BozMo

• (moved from uninvolved because I do follow that page rather closely and do have a content interest on BLPS). Basically FWIW I agree we should topic ban WMC from Singer. Biographies are not the best place for his talents anyway and I think he should walk away from this one. There are plenty of other people to do this. But as SV has pointed out I edited Singer five months ago and have commented on the talk page there twice since so you are welcome to discount my view in forming a consensus. --BozMo talk 21:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

To add, just Singer. In general on Climate Change pages I think WMC is a massive net contributer who does a great deal to sort out misunderstandings etc and whose curtness I personally can easily forgive. But biographies do not require quite as much technical skills and on this particular one I have had misgivings for some time about edit summaries refering to embarrassing bits etc. which do not meet my criteria for appropriateness. This call is really more though about the best interests of the project rather than punititive or anything else. WMC is highest added value on the science articles. --BozMo talk 05:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not introduce any material to embarass Singer, nor do the edit summaries say that. I object to material being removed just to avoid embarassing him. Do you understand the distinction? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Biographies are not the best place for his talents anyway - if we start using that as a criterion, I can suggest some editors who should be restricted to editing Kindergarten on Simple. Editors are volunteers - they choose how and where to work. We only restrict them if the net contribution in an area is negative, not if we fell that their effort would be better spent somewhere else. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of administrators saying that WMC isn't using his talents the best at this article. What I would like to know is this, what breach or breaches of policies has he done worthy of being banned from the article? I see that he put tags up, a revert and went to the talk page. Shouldn't this still be at the talk page? What other issues are everyone else talking about? I read one of the COI board complaints about this when it was happening and it was closed as not actionable because the editors there didn't see anything to bring any sanctions. The dif is already on this so I'm not repeating. I think others watching this is also interested in hearing exactly what edits that has the administrators so ready to lay down a sanction. I think the talk page should be tried first and that this is premature. I'm not seeing it, sorry. --CrohnieGal 18:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a reasonable point. In this specific case WMC is no worse than aggressively wrong. But whereas on scientific subjects his forceful desire for any intuitive disagreement to be rationalised poses no problem on BLPs where people are just voicing concerns it is not helpful to have him putting in a statement and defending it as robustly. --BozMo talk 20:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that phrasing, I was trying to be polite and agreeable. Would it be better to say "in view of the repeated incidents of problematic behavior in editing the BLPs of various folk, it would be best if WMC stayed completely away from all BLPs, or at least all GW BLPs, but certainly from this one" and skip the polite phrasing? ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ben Aveling

• I remind people that this is about WMC's alleged behaviour, and whether it violates the climate change probation. It does not matter if WMC's edits are good or bad, only whether they have been conduced with civility. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure where you got that idea? The complaint is about such things as conflict of interest and difficult editing, and not entirely about civility. And these probations are specifically to guard against "disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.". So this request board, and this request, are related to both the quality and manner of editing. It really does matter if an individual editors edits are "good or bad", as you would know if you looked at some of the older requests regarding misinterpretation of sources and other inappropriate editing practices. That way you would also see the recent discussion about civility, and how the consensus did not match up with the views you express here. Weakopedia (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Then let me rephrase myself. This should only be about whether the cited edits violate the climate change probation, that is, whether the cited edits are disruptive. I cannot and will not try to stop people talking about whether WilliamMConnelly/SlimVirgin/FredSinger are good or bad people, or about what they may have done elsewhere on the wiki or in past lives, all I can do is point out that investing in an unbounded discussion is unhelpful to the objective of creating a Fred Singer encyclopedia page - once we start discussing those things, how will we ever know where to stop? Better to focus on the immediate issue, resolve it, then get back to work. And to that end, the cited edits are not, to my eyes, examples of difficult editing. Pending further evidence, I now intend to go and do something useful. Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Thparkth

A few pedantic points.

• WMC's possible conflict of interest with regard to Fred Singer following the Solomon articles has been considered and dismissed multiple times in the past. Let's not re-try that here.
• Fred Singer's criticism of Misplaced Pages in this recent article is very minor and doesn't mention WMC at all. It only complains briefly, in passing, about his biography mentioning his one-time belief in Martians. This material was not added by WMC or originally moved to the lead by WMC. Therefore Singer has not complained about WMC in any sense.

• Fred Singer is more prominent today as a global warming skeptic than as a physicist, in my opinion. At least, a good-faith argument can be made that this is the case.

• Citations are often appropriate in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, there is not "an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.... controversial subjects may require many citations". There is no reason to assume bad faith in WMC's "citations needed" edits, and it's certainly not vandalism.

Given all this, I can't see any real substance to the enforcement request.

Thparkth (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tiger Woods is better know as a philanderer than as a golfer—should we edit the lede to place that first?--SPhilbrickT 14:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns about multiple trials;however, Double jeopardy would only seem to apply if a fair due process hearing occurred before. There appears to be recurring issues raised with WMC and Fred Singer and to me that is substantive in and of itself for prophylaxis. If only a goof-faith abstention pledge from WMC. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk

Straw man. There is a vastly greater corpus of sources talking about Tiger Woods as a golfer than as a philanderer. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ratel

I suggest WMC withdraws voluntarily from this BLP, as LHvU suggests. It may not be a BLP for too long anyway. A lot of these sceptics are superannuated, retired academics finding the spotlight again by taking the contrary position to mainstream scientific thought, often for a price (this does not refer to FS). We get that. Bigger fish to fry, William. ► RATEL ◄ 15:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC adding "RealClimate" as a source for criticism to Singer's BLP

• Singer "dishonest" -
• Disputing Singer's argument -

Note that WMC has a long association with RealClimate, and though he quit several years ago, he still appears in their contributor list (page 2), and Gavin Schmidt still referred to Connolley as one of them as recently as mid-2009 ("...and our own William Connolley"). ATren (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Q Science

I agree with many of the comments with respect to WMC's editing, but I don't think that a ban is appropriate. I find SV's claim that WMC should be banned partly because he made over 103 edits since 2004 amusing. Based on experience, it is likely that 30% of those were simply to revert vandalism. On the other hand, SV has made over 160 edits is just 4 days (from 05-13-2010 to 05-17-2010). Over 100 edits in 6 years verses 160 edits in 4 days. It is pretty clear which is more disruptive. Don't get me wrong, I agree with many (maybe even most) of SV's edits (no, I have not read them all), but this is not the way to make a better article. More than 5 edits a day (not counting vandalism repair) by a single editor is just too many. Not even SciBaby is this disruptive.

At any rate, since WMC is no longer an administrator, I don't see how banning him will make this article better. In fact, now that SV has obviously taken over this page, I strongly feel that WMC should be encouraged to monitor the changes, not banned. Q Science (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by dave souza

The basic reason given for this request is a dispute over article content, where SlimVirgin went to extraordinary lengths to avoid mentioning Singer's AGW skepticism in the first paragraph of the lead, and came here rather than presenting a reasoned argument on the article talk page. I'm uninvolved, having not edited the article or the talk page, but would note the following. Singer's testimony of 2000 gives his self description as "the founder and president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).... We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of the National Assessment". His views remain the same in his December 2009 article published by Reuters, Climate skeptic: We are winning the science battle | Analysis & Opinion where he is described as "the President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia", and describes himself as a lead author in the first NIPCC report. In view of these statements, SlimVirgin seems to be attempting to whitewash Singer on the unwarranted assumption that due mention of his climate skepticism is a slur. All of which should be resolved by presenting evidence on the article talk page with the aim of improving the article rather than using the sanctions to win a dispute over content. . . dave souza, talk 09:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz is NOT Uninvolved

I tried to put a note to that effect, but Vsmith removed it. I will take this to arbcom if Stephan's obviously inappropriate comment as "uninvolved" is not removed. ATren (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't "remove" it -- just moved it up and out of the "Results" section. Now you have removed it. The results section is for admin use. The arbcom threat ... seems someone else tried that a while back and didn't get far. I'd suggest further "dispute resolution" first. Vsmith (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Vsmith, you freely admit Stephan is not uninvolved, yet you leave his comment in the uninvolved section while moving mine. Why is that? If you're going to police that section, and if you're going to freely admit that Stephan is involved (which is obvious) how do you justify moving mine and not his? ATren (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that section is for uninvolved administrators, and however uninvolved Stephan may be he is still an admin. And you aren't. Vsmith already told you so, when they said "The results section is for admin use." Weakopedia (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope one of the admins will remove Stephan Schulz's post from the "involved admin" section. He's clearly deeply involved in this situation as a whole, but he's also involved in the Fred Singer article in particular. Here are some of his recent comments on the talk page, dated May 15, where he objected to me posting articles by or about Singer from The New York Times in Further reading. Overall he's made 26 edits to the article between 2007 and 2010, and 33 posts to talk during the same period. SlimVirgin 21:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Will you please stop misrepresenting what I wrote? I did not object to anything about Singer, and I did not complain about you "posting" anything - in fact, I wasn't even aware that you added them. I am unhappy with a large number of links to texts by Singer in the Further Reading section, yes. I don't think they fit in with WP:EL, and I don't think they serve a useful encyclopaedic purpose. I note that William has not, so far, made any comment on that issue, so what does that have to do with anything? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it. Stephan Schulz is not uninvolved in this matter, and to claim otherwise in view of all the edits to the article talk is inappropriate. I gave it a subheading all its own but he is free to move it somewhere or retitle it or whatever, just not move it back into the uninvolved admin section. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Will you now move your own comments, given that many editors feel that you are involved with WMC in particular at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Lar? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, since I am not involved. Nice try though. ++Lar: t/c 21:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• This request is about WMCs editing. Stephan has edited the article, but the complaint doesn't really cover Stephans involvment. You have been mentioned by several admins as being potentially too close to the subject of WMC to be subjective, but you haven't edited the article. So to be honest it seems like you are both either involved or uninvolved. Weakopedia (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Because you say so? Where do I apply for that inherent "I'm right" medal you seem to be wearing? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan you wrote above I note that William has not now either WMC is about to comae along and demand you redact your PA or he considers you a friend per his naming of cats thingy. If your his mate then you can`t really be uninvolved can you? mark nutley (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Read User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats and WP:NPA again, and please for understanding. In other words, Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I read this: If you are on personal terms with me, you can use my first name, William. So actually Mark has a point. But Stephan's comment has been moved, making this section moot, so I suggest we just drop it now. ATren (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your quote has no substantial connection to Mark's claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

View by Stephan Schulz

(in response to LHvU's view on how to proceed)

• Strongly dedorse. This just repeats SlimVirgin's empty complaint without any fact-checking or insight. If Singer is primarily a sceptic is a point open for debate - Singer himself certainly gives that aspect of his work top billing. If you want to help find a consensus on that point, discuss it on talk: Fred Singer. Trying to impose your viewpoint by banning editors is not remotely appropriate. The notices "in media of some standing" are generic and do not mention WMC - the only one who does is Solomon, who has been noted, on and off-wiki, as completely unreliable and outright wrong. That leaves nothing of a WMC-specific complaint. The fact that other editors can also edit the article is a complete straw man - that's true of all articles on Misplaced Pages and all editors. By that argument we can ban anybody from any article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(in response to Lar's comment that he could represent WMC's views adequately)

• ...because I've edited it so very often in the last year? Or two? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(in response to I'm not sure what (he can fix it if he wants) ++Lar)

To help obviously badly biased and heavily involved editor Lar out:

Copied plainly misleading comment by involved editor Lar that as of 20:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC) can still be found below:

Cenarium is not "entirely uninvolved" as they do have edits in article space in this topic area (however minor). But, be that as it may, new perspectives are always good. As to the proposed action, we've tried 1RR for WMC already, topic wide. And the requirement to respect V, OR and BLP already applies to all editors. No, I think in view of all the evidence presented, The Wordsmith's close is a better one. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)'

As Lar seems to have acknowledged on his talk page but apparently sees not reason to point out here, the claim that Cenarium is involved is entirely without merit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeating your assertion that I'm involved over and over won't work. Try stamping your foot too, perhaps? It never worked for my kids but hey, maybe. Still, this is your section, so have at it, and with your mischaracterizations of what I said as well. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ChrisO

Frankly, I'm getting the feeling that this is more of an anti-WMC witch-hunt than anything else. It looks very much like yet another case of "throw mud against the wall and hope that it sticks". I've criticised WMC's editing in the past but I can't see any substantive scope for sanctions in this particular case. I'm dismayed by the fact that SlimVirgin has (it would seem) made little or no effort to pursue dispute resolution but has jumped straight over to here in an attempt to obtain an instant ban. When these sanctions were enacted, they were meant to deal with egregious conduct or issues where dispute resolution had broken down. I don't see anything particularly egregious here and dispute resolution doesn't even appear to have been tried.

Admins, if you impose sanctions in this case, you will be setting a very bad precedent - you will be telling everyone involved that there is no point in going through dispute resolution. You will have turned this process into an alternative to DR and you will encourage editors to think that you will ban their "opponents" rather than getting them to resolve their differences. The only sensible way to resolve this is to instruct all concerned to pursue dispute resolution and stick to the rules of BLP. If that breaks down, then it might be appropriate to consider the issue here, but surely not before DR has been pursued. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution would be prefered; however, SV's appeal seems to include a great deal of past issue evidence which shows cause for concern. I'll remind you that witch hunts were generaly based on spectral evidence. It seems to me folks are looking to see if WMC will volunteer self-restraint, for the better of all, before taking official means. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is part of dispute resolution, and I'm using it because it became clear that trying to negotiate with WMC on my own would have led nowhere. SlimVirgin 05:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that you've made much effort at dispute resolution beyond a few comments on the talk page. You seem to have escalated it without pursuing elementary dispute resolution. Where is the RfC? Where is the mediation? Where are the requests for outside input? If you had taken this complaint to the ArbCom they'd have told you to go away and take these basic steps before bringing it to them. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't the last request that SV was involved in include an RfC that she initiated in an attempt to gather wider input? One that was edit warred out rather than addressed? You can't have it both ways. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Alex Harvey

I have withdrawn from BLPs for a while, largely from burnout, but I've had a look at this dispute. I think a topic ban of WMC from the Fred Singer article would definitely send the right message -- i.e. that BLP abuse in Misplaced Pages is not tolerated (although it usually is...), and that WMC is not above the rules and untouchable. It would also give WMC a chance, I suppose, to contribute constructively to other articles in the AGW space, even save some of his own time. I think it's fair to say that Fred Singer is not an area that WMC is interested in or especially knowledgeable. Frankly, I think it is a shame WMC doesn't spend more time writing his blog, and less time defacing Misplaced Pages & causing controversy here. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

not an area that WMC is interested in or especially knowledgeable - events are proving you wrong. It appears I know rather more about Singer than SV et al. William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not concur, looking at the edit history. SV has contributed a great deal; the fact you can correct bits of it makes you a lowly proof-reader which is not better than an almighty contributer. --BozMo talk 07:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

After two days I'm still not sure what you were trying to say. Could you elaborate? ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Polargeo

(moved from uninvolved admin section by Lar as Polargeo is not an uninvolved admin under our definition)

• I am commenting here through gritted teeth. Technically I am as uninvolved as Lar is. There is absolutely no action here that should be sanctioned under this enforcement request. If the anti WMC admins such as Lar and the wordsmith had not turned up I would not be here either. Polargeo (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If WMC had made this request against SlimVirgin I feel it in my very bones that those same admins would be calling for WMC to be banned for making frivolous enforcement requests. Polargeo (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Check out the google books search . It is certainly not libel to call Fred Singer a skeptic. Polargeo (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So this request is based on two things the fact that WMC called Fred Singer a global warming skeptic (in line with general interpretation of the sources presented and along with several hundred books on the subject) and the fact the he restored a POV tag. Ban him, ban the antichrist how dare he, how dare he. BLP BLP BLP BLP!!!!!!! You cannot go against BLP!!!! I call this whole thing a farce and a storm in a tea cup. Polargeo (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I will not call for action against SlimVirgin based on my own principles, not previously evident in other admins' comments. Polargeo (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I dispute your assertion that I am anti-WMC. While Dr. Connolley may have an issue with me, I have none with him. If any other name were attached to the pattern of diffs presented, I would advocate for banning them from the article as well. If you believe that I am anti-WMC, I counter that your belief may be due to not having a large enough sample size of interactions between us. I have had several negative interactions with Lar as well (I even opposed his Steward reconfirmation and he opposed my RFA), perhaps I am anti-Lar? I rather dislike a number of things that SlimVirgin does, including her habit of inserting herself into a discussion at the last minute and attempting to change everything (see WT:BLPPROD). I suppose I am biased against her as well. I supported views opposite to yours on Lar's RFC/U, so I am clearly anti-Polarego as well. I should probably withdraw from this entire area, since it is becoming increasingly obvious that I hate everybody. The Wordsmith 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466

I believe SlimVirgin's request is justified. To be fair, WMC has on occasion deleted unsourced allegations against Singer, e.g. , . However, this edit by WMC appears to add a self-published source (now defunct) to Singer's BLP, in direct contravention of BLP policy, which WMC is well aware of. This edit reinserts a ref to a site WMC is personally involved in, to contradict an opinion voiced by the article subject. None of the articles presented at the cited site actually discuss Singer, so this appears to be a case of using this BLP as a coatrack for conducting a scientific argument (as well as WP:SYN), rather than a reflection of Singer's reception. This appears to be WP:OR commentary. This edit as well as this is designed to diminish the subject, who continues to be described as an atmospheric physicist in the press.

That's not how we write BLPs. These are simply random edits by WMC from the edit history; their nature, together with the above press cited by SlimVirgin, leads me to the conclusion that a topic ban is in order. --JN466 14:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(Feel free to strike this request for clarification once clarified): Are you calling for a topic ban or a ban from this particular article? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I meant a ban from this particular BLP. --JN466 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

At least regarding the "atmospheric physicist" thing, which of Singer's 70-odd publications since 1990 in ISI-indexed journals do you consider "atmospheric physics"? The goal of both Misplaced Pages in general and BLPs in particular is to get it right. Singer has not held a position in a physical sciences department in decades, and he hasn't published in that field in decades. He also describes himself as an "emeritus" (= "retired") professor. Sure, a handful of newspaper stories repeat "atmospheric physicist". But someone who has retired from the army is a retired general, even if he is still a consultant for a cable news network where he talks about military matters. Someone who retired after working construction is a "retired construction worker", even if he now writes books about the construction industry. And a person with a PhD in a given scientific field who has retired from their last academic position a decade ago and who hasn't published in a given field for even longer, simply isn't a scientist any more - they're a retired scientist. "Scientist" isn't a title, it's a career. And as a scientist you do research, you publish, you participate in the intellectual community of your discipline, and you teach. You may be able to call yourself a scientist if you don't do all of them, but certainly you need to do some of them. Reliable sources call Singer retired. And there's no evidence he still works in the field of atmospheric physics. Calling him a retired atmospheric physicist isn't "diminishing" him any more than is calling Colin Powell a retired general. Have a look - that's the way Powell is described. And no one is fighting over calling that either. Guettarda (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda.

• , .
• , .

According to these searches, there is not a single source that has called Singer a "retired atmospheric physicist". --JN466 07:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

He's an emeritus (="retired") professor (of environmental science). Thus he has retired from his academic position. Which he says is atmospheric physics. And what about my latter point - how is pointing out that someone is retired "diminishing"? Guettarda (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If sources are united in calling him "an atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus at university X" (which they are), then that is what we should be calling him. Everything else is OR. Very simple. --JN466 13:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference between a military rank and an academic title is quite subtle, one has to do with the ability to actively command while the other is a record of achievement that remains regardless whether it is practiced. Colin Powell may correctly be referred to as "General (retired)" but Professor Singer remains a Professor, until and beyond death. I think he might be denoted as no longer practicing (another charming vagary of language, you'd have thought he would have not needed to practice after at 5 or 10 years - being rather good at it by then) but his professorship cannot (I believe) be retired. Emeritus is rather an archaic title, anyway, from a period where only a privileged few were permitted to remain at a place of education after years of service - a type of pension - and is now mainly a courtesy title (a bit like all those Commodores at yacht clubs) conferred much like honour doctorates are bestowed upon persons for reasons of publicity and reward. It is quite obvious the Professor Emeritus Singer has not retired from public life, only the pursuit of that particular branch of academia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all vert well, but it belongs on t:FS, not here. If we're down to this level of subtlety, then it becomes obvious that calling him "retired", whilst it may well be quibbled (personally I think it is still accurate, but as I say that discussion belongs on t:FS) doesn't rise close to the level of a sanctionable offence William M. Connolley (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and on the off chance that a clearly RS stating directly that Singer is retired will make you change your mind: William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you would disregard what appears to be unanimous agreement across all reliable sources available in google news and google books to write something in the lead sentence of this BLP that not a single source has written is why you should not in my opinion edit this article. --JN466 17:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting confused here. This is about whether he is retired or not, yes? And we have a direct statement from U Virginia that he *is* retired. And you're still claiming we have no RS for this? See ? The heading is "Retired Faculty". Singer is listed. Are you still arguing? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

He is retired from the university's faculty. He is not "a retired atmospheric physicist". He continues to work and publish as such. You are still arguing for an unsourced statement that is contradicted by every single published source to remain in a BLP. (You can call him a "retired professor emeritus", if you like, but that would be rather tautological, would it not?) --JN466 18:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard discussion here. Since talk page consensus on this issue seems impossible, and the process on this page is pitifully incapable of dealing with the problem, it appears necessary to get even more eyes on this situation. --JN466 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hans Adler

This complaint is a farce. There may be some valid core, somewhere. Actually, I consider it quite likely given how abrasive WMC has been against myself in the past. But this valid core, if any, is impossible to see behind the thick mixture of fog, smoke, snow, sand, and locusts. I don't have the time to respond to anything that was said against WMC that was wrong, so I will just address one point.

SlimVirgin quotes Singer's complaint: "In my own case, my Wiki bio also carried additional malicious accusations; the most bizarre one was that I believed in the existence of Martians."

• According to others who have checked the edits, WMC didn't introduce the claims, he just reverted their removal. Also, WMC is not mentioned by Singer.
• Also, whether true or not, the claim regarding Martians is certainly not original to Misplaced Pages. With Google I found no less than 17 sites that mirror the following text: "March 1960: The Martian moon Phobos, generally accepted as a celestial body, actually may be an artificial satellite launched long ago by an advanced Martian race, according to Dr. S. Fred Singer, special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments. 'I would be very disappointed if it turns out to be solid,' said the white House advisor. If the figures were correct, he stated, then Phobos undoubtedly is a hollow, artificial satellite. If it is, he said, its purpose would probably be to sweep up radiation in the Mars' atmosphere, so that Martians could safely operate around their planet. Dr. Singer also pointed out that Phobos would make an ideal space base, both for Martians and earthlings." It appears this may be the original source of the claim, although according to Phobos (moon) it was "Singer, S. F.; Astronautics, February 1960", a letter to the editor.
• It's a bit odd that Singer complains about being connected to belief in Martians, but doesn't say clearly what's wrong with the source used for the connection. This has been around on the web since at least March 2002, so surely he has heard about it before.
• Let's look at the paragraph preceding Singer's complaint. Here we find conspiracy theory talk: " machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a 'warming' by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them " – This is seriously distorted, and unless he gets good money for saying such things in public there is reason to doubt his sanity, or at least that he has looked at the emails in question in context.
• Now the paragraph following the complaint against Misplaced Pages: "We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" by applying what they termed as 'tricks,' " – Again, transparently totally false, as has been well known for a long time. In fact, the real meaning of "hide the decline" is so well known by now that I am not going to repeat it here.

Hans Adler 21:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I will refrain from expressing any opinion on whether a sanction is warranted on the basis of William's editing, but I will express my extreme disappointment in any admin who attaches weight to Solomon's essays, or Singer's, for the purpose of deciding on an appropriate response to this request. MastCell  21:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I seldom find myself disagreeing with either of you two. But the diffs I posted in the preceding section above are not indicative of good BLP editing. --JN466 02:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I also consider most of the diffs you presented as problematic. I wasn't fully aware of them when I started writing and should have made it clearer when I finished. Sorry for that. However, I don't consider SlimVirgin's original two diffs convincing at all, and most of the discussion so far was not convincing. (That excludes your contribution.) It's not absurd to say in the first sentence that Fred Singer is a global warming skeptic, because that's what he is most notable for nowadays. An atmospheric physicist is someone who does actual research as supposed to someone who merely takes part in a political debate, the kind of distinction that newspapers are notoriously bad at, so "retired", while it may not be justifiable based on the sources, was probably correct. There are many examples of scientists who get whimsical in their later years, and where we can't completely suppress the details of that it's hard to get the balance of a biography right so that it adequately describes the overall accomplishments without giving credence to any fringe theories they support later. SV currently makes the impression that she might tend to the opposite extreme compared to WMC, although this may simply be due to the fact that addressing a one-sided problem always looks like a one-sided activity, even if it is completely fair and neutral. Hans Adler 13:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning William M. Connolley

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above.

(Remarks by BozMo moved to above and since partly struck through Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Comment_by_BozMo --BozMo talk 09:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

• Agree with BozMo that topic banning WMC from Singer seems prudent. BLPs are indeed not the best place for WMC's not inconsiderable talents. I see no need to discount BozMo's view in this. ++Lar: t/c 00:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• I concur that a topic ban from this one article is probably necessary. I'm not sure whether a ban from all Climate-related BLPs would be helpful or harmful, but I do believe that it should be looked at more closely to see if it would be a good idea. The Wordsmith 00:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it greatly if one of you could expand upon your rationale for banning WMC from this article please. Thank you, NW (Talk) 01:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Per the material presented by the complainant, SlimVirgin" ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I would appreciate it if you could expand upon that. Thank you, NW (Talk) 02:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I would appreciate your explaining why further expansion is necessary. SV seems to have laid out a very thorough explanation. All you have to do is read it, it's all there. I note that, below, LHvU has given the same reasoning, but in his own words. If you want me to write up a paragraph or two saying the same thing, yet again, I can. But I think SV adequately explained this. It will be in the record if we close this the way that onsensus seems to be leaning. I endorse SV's reasons for requesting a topic ban. I endorse BozMo and tWS's endorsement of SV's reasons for requesting a topic ban as well. Finally, I endorse LHvU's explanation of why he endorses SV's reasons for requesting a topic ban as well. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: BozMo has struck the part of his statement supporting an article ban. He certainly can change his mind but my endorsement was of his view prior to that strike. He was right the first time. ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• I am with NW on this - I would like to see a serious elaboration on why an article ban would be the best step to take at this point in time. I am not seeing even the need for full protection at this time, though that may change. I would also once again (nothing personal on you, SV) like to urge far more diligence in pursuing honest dispute resolution at the talkpage before filing a request. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I am afraid I don't see things this way at this time. WMC has been brought here time and time again and every time another warning is given. This is a ban from a single article, not a ban from all GW related BLPs (which might well be a good idea, but that's not what is being advocated) much less a ban from the entire GW area (which might well be a good idea, but, again, that's not what is being advocated).

Note: I suppose we could issue WMC yet another admonishment to be a better editor, and state that this time we really, Really, REALLY mean it, and that if we are once again ignored we are going to be very, Very cross, so much so that we may actually admonish him again and state that this time we really, Really, REALLY, REALLY mean it. Honest! No fooling. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be preferable if Dr Connolley were to withdraw from editing the article, and it to be enforced if not done voluntarily. My rationale is that there is another slow edit/revert war, where the possibility of Dr Connolley and another editor of differing viewpoint having a meeting of minds resulting in a consensus is really rather remote. Furthermore, the article is a BLP being edited by Dr Connolley to a Climate Change viewpoint - where a distinguished and notable physicist is being primarily recorded as a CC skeptic, which views would not be be so notrworthy if not for the subjects prominence as a scientist - rather than as a review of the individuals most notable achievements in his field, which I feel is inappropriate. Also, the editing of the article has previously been noted outside of WP, in media of some standing, as being biased toward a certain aspect of the subject's published work, in a manner not regarded as neutral, with Dr Connolley being named as one of those whose contributions have given cause to raise these concerns. There are many good editors who are able to contribute toward providing a balanced article on the subject, noting their recent contributions to the discussion relating to Climate Change, who have similar stances regarding AGW as Dr Connolley, but without his history and consequent "reputation" in editing this subject, or his rather combative manner when faced with edits he does not care for. Dr Connolley's withdrawal from editing the article would not, I feel, detract as much from it as his continuing presence would. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked to expand upon my viewpoint by NuclearWarfare above, so I will do so here. My original comment is the second in this section. Anyway, I find the diffs presented by SlimVirgin and others to be highly disturbing. The fact that they come from three consecutive years turns it into a pattern. In 2008, there was the Mars nonsense in the lede. In late 2009, diffs have been presented by ATren of WMC sourcing content to RealClimate, which is wrong on several different levels. SlimVirgin's diffs come from 2010. When looked at together, they seem to demonstrate a persistent inability to comply with our policies while editing this article. Therefore, a ban from this particular article appears necessary to prevent further harm. The Wordsmith 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree in part with much of what you have said. The issue that I have is that I'm not seeing perfect behavior on all parties in the dispute, not just with WMC. Topic banning WMC to me would seem a lot like pushing one party out so that the other side can write the article how they want it. NW (Talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Who else do you have issue with from a behavior aspect? Raise them and they can be dealt with too. However, this request is about WMC, so that is where we should start. I don't think removing him from this one BLP is going to mean the BLP has no representation from "his" side (since you refer to the "other" side...), in particular I suspect that Stephan Schulz will do a perfectly adequate job of representing WMC's views in this matter. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I seem to be seeing a consensus that WMC should not be editing this article. WMC himself has offered at best only a partial defense of his action (instead, his statement seems to take a page out of L Ron Hubbard's philosophy of "Don't ever defend. Always attack."). With that in mind, I propose the following closure:
  • William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing the article Fred Singer or its associated Talkpage. The Wordsmith 17:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Make it so. (I wasn't going to suggest talk, only article, but sure) We've sunk enough time into this already, it ought to be pretty cut and dried given the evidence. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Seeing how AE at CC has turned into, I am going to step in as uninvolved admin. I'm entirely uninvolved in this area and have no intent or interest other than to help with this process. With respect to this request, first off I think outside media should not be taken into account when considering a sanction, with a few exceptions, but it's not one of them. The reason is more or less WP:NPOV which could be affected if we sanctioned or altered content, the first weighing on the second, based on external pressure. Therefore in those cases, and as usual, we should consider diffs and make our own analysis of them. It has also been pointed out that we should be wary when applying sanctions not to unduly unbalance the different views in a content dispute. This principle is at the base of our dispute-resolution mechanisms, and this can be detected in the ArbCom principle to look at all sides of a dispute. Now the specifics. Of the diffs provided in the complaint, (1) removing material even if properly sourced is acceptable editing and indeed an editorial matter (and necessary part of ensuring NPOV, encyclopedic writing, etc). WMC provided reasons for removal, it's not vandalism, I also note that the very sentence caused a multi-party edit-war . (2) The description (or lack thereof) to give of a group is an editorial matter as well, and discussion should happen to find a NPOV one, it worked in the article on the group and can work here too. (3) The weight to give to the person's different aspects is also an editorial matter - it should of course be given special attention because of BLP issues but I note that WMC didn't attempt to reinsert skeptic in first place after SV removed it, and the assertion is largely supported by RS, so it's not a BLP violation. It isn't obvious in those edits that WMC intended to tarnish the subject, and we shouldn't sanction based on that without being certain. (4) The removal of the categories while removing the further readings section was probably accidental, and it may be too bold an edit but not sanctionable. (5) This use of 'rubbish' was not against policy, and as seen again recently the community tolerates this kind of uses.
  Thus I do not believe that there are grounds for sanctions in those edits, nor in adding a POV tag, which WMC explained on talk. This is a content dispute, it's frequent for major changes in a controversial article to cause such and is normal. Editors should discuss to resolve disagreements and we can't sanction based on an editor's position in a content dispute. With regards to the cited external media, as I said I do not view them as relevant to this request, as others do, thus I won't comment on that. The material about martians was not inserted by WMC, also it did not say that Singer believed in martians; he did reverted some removals of those, although it was in 2008 long before the probation. The power extended to admins here is for actions within the scope of this probation. I can see that there has been some problematic edits in the past, such as using sources which are not reliable enough and opinionated editing. However in the last few weeks, from what has been provided, there's been no characterized disruptive editing or edit-warring. A ban from the talk page would require severe disruption or violation of restrictions which I'm not aware of, so I don't see this as justified and thus it would unjustifiably unbalance a content dispute. I don't see here material enough to warrant an indefinite article ban either, in light of precedents or accepted standards. Now concerning a temporary ban or restriction on editing this article, I am not entirely decided, mostly because the above is heavily convoluted and unclear, again there has been some problematic editing by WMC on this article, but from what I can see of recent, it's not to the level where ban is needed, although WMC is too often on the edge. So not a ban, but something more moderate seems appropriate, considering the 'history'. I would propose actions as follows: on this article, for the next 2-3 months, WMC is restricted to 1RR and warned to scrupulously respect content policies especially WP:V, WP:OR and WP:BLP, to source each added claim, use only reliable sources, and when uncertain or disputed to submit them to talk; violations may result in an article ban. Cenarium (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Should not the requirement to scrupulously apply the noted policies also extend to when removing content, noting the relevant policy within the edit summary, equally? Otherwise, a very comprehensive and considered proposal - much like those I made when I first commented here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium is not "entirely uninvolved" as they do have edits in article space in this topic area (however minor). But, be that as it may, new perspectives are always good. As to the proposed action, we've tried 1RR for WMC already, topic wide. And the requirement to respect V, OR and BLP already applies to all editors. No, I think in view of all the evidence presented, The Wordsmith's close is a better one. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember having made any edits or had interactions which could make me involved in any way, I see it's been brought up on your talk page; of course I'm open to reconsider. I'll clarify the sanction I proposed, yes I noted WMC has been 1RR-restricted on CC articles previously, though we can do it again and on a specific article. All users should respect content policies, and even more so on articles on probation, and refrain from edit-warring. I have considered the diffs, and those which happened since the beginning of this probation are in my view insufficient to justify an indefinite ban, the probation requires disruptive edits, and I don't think that threshold is met. This probation is not retroactive, we can't impose sanctions such as bans primarily based on editing which happened prior to its enactment. We should consider prior history but to a certain point. Therefore it seems to me that a 1RR restriction on this article and requirement to strictly abide to content policies at the risk of an article ban, submit edits to the talk page when not clearly within policy or disputed, as well as sources wrt reliability, is the most appropriate action.

The Wordsmith has imposed and logged a ban, without further discussing or announcing it here. Under the circumstances, it doesn't seem proper to me and we should discuss on modifying the sanction. I'm aware consensus is needed to change it. Cenarium (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I perhaps should have used "technically" rather than "not entirely un-". In case it wasn't clear from context,(as I thought it was when I discussed your proposed close instead of moving your comment out of the section) I do not have any issue whatever with your participation, as an uninvolved admin, in this enforcement board, and consider you, for the purpose and under the definition we used, uninvolved. I hope that clarifies matter. Stephan Schulz is apparently engaged in provocative baiting/pot-stirring using my comment, and you, as chesspieces.

That said, I don't think your proposed close is strong enough. He's already been under 1RR not just on this article but topic wide and it did no good. I'm entirely convinced by the evidence presented that his edits to Singer are problematic. What would it take to convince you? That is, why was the evidence lacking? That might be a good thing to explore. Alternatively, is there some compromise that might be reached? A time limited ban instead of indefinite? ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions, especially bans or blocks, should not be based on edits made before the beginning of this probation, as implied by the probation terms requiring prior warning before sanction. Therefore to justify a block or ban, according to the probation terms, there should be evidence of disruptive edits made to this article or its talk page since January (or violations of specific restrictions, but there were none). I have reviewed the edits posted by The Wordsmith as evidence to justify the ban; they were from 2008 or 2009, with one exception from this year, two edits adding that Fred Singer was 'retired' and a 'global warming skeptic' to the lead. The discussions about those (on the talk page and elsewhere) didn't show that they violated content policies, therefore they're not actionable. Likewise for the rest of WMC's edits to this article starting May, 13 (anterior edits by WMC this year are , , ), exceptions being the addition to the lead of an unsourced claim about the book 'The Changing Global Environment' which violates WP:V/WP:OR, he later agreed to remove it , and the likely excessive cn tagging, but those are not sufficient for an indefinite article ban in my view, with no pattern of edit-warring. The interactions with other editors are often not good, but not excessively so for standards and precedents in CC articles. I think it's sufficient to justify the sanction I proposed, though. As for a temporary ban, I couldn't envisage more than a month or a talk page ban, but I'm not comfortable applying one in the middle of a content dispute with no solid evidence of disruptive editing. And such has not been demonstrated to exist. Cenarium (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar, NuclearWarfare, The Wordsmith, Polargeo

The admin section of the templated sanctions request is not for threaded discussion. While I'm content to allow Lar to stagnate the above request with his reversion, in the future if any of you disregard the purpose of the admin section and engage in threaded discussion amongst yourselves, I will seek to have the lot of you prevented from using your tools in this area - admins do not have magic discussion powers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh? The way we've gotten to results in the past is by discussion, amongst the uninvolved admins, of what a good approach would be. Your moving the threads was unwarranted, which is why I reverted it. I suggest we take this to the talk page and hash it out further. Feel free to move this entire section there. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The uninvolved admins should feel free to discuss with the plebians. This will resolve the problem of you lot deciding which of you lot is involved vs. uninvolved. It will also resolve the problem of you lot thinking you have magic discussion powers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The current section intro indeed says "Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above". On basic Misplaced Pages principles (adminship is no big deal), Hipocrite's action is actually well founded. Of course, for "getting results" it may be inconvenient to actually interact with more editors. Ceterum censeo, Lar has not been involved in any discussion among uninvolved admin during this probation, although he probably has been involved in a discussion with uninvolved admins. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no magic discussion powers. I would sooner chew my own foot off than comment on sanctions. However, I just cannot stand by and watch biased admins wade in to level the playing field in their own image. Polargeo (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please respect WP:NPA and WP:AGF. The RfC you opened on this topic has so far not favored your interpretation of Lar's behavior. It would probably help if you stopped plastering this page with slanderlibel. It doesn't come across well, contrary to your best intentions.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole (e.g., "slander") isn't helpful either. and besides, it would be libel because it's in a fixed medium instead of spoken. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Slander'Libel' is not hyperbole. Sorry, I occasionally confuse project pages with talkpages. --Heyitspeter (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Stephan and Hipocrite, that section says it is not for discussion. Admins should be reacting to consensus, not establishing it amongst themselves. Weakopedia (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The admin only section should not even exist. Nor should CC sanctions. Polargeo (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit iffy with this, as I have seen both methods used at WP:AE. On the one hand, Hipocrite is indeed correct that administrators should not have any "magic discussion powers" on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, the reason that probation and discretionary sanction boards were implemented in the first place was to allow for arbitration in areas where it is not possible to establish an agreement between all parties. I shall think on this further, and refrain from commenting in the admin-only section in the meantime. NW (Talk) 18:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How are the admins supposed to reach a group decision if they don't discuss it amongst themselves? Would you rather they did it by email? If we want to comment on something they say in the admin-only area, we can leave a comment on each admin's respective user talk page. This is the format that we have chosen and if we respect the rules (yes Polargeo and Stephan Schulz, I'm talking to you) things should continue to operate effectively with this enforcement board. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since "the rules" explicitly state that the admin response section is not to be used to conduct discusson or debate it's not altogether cleaer what point you are making. The wording of the no-discussion-and-debate proviso is meant to apply to admins because the next section says Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above, i.e., it calls out "discussion and debate" separately from "comments by non-admins" (emphasis added for clarity). You can argue that the rules should be changed, and I can see some merit in doing that. But to chide other editors about "respecting rules" when you appear to misunderstand those rules yourself is inappropriate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The rules I'm referring to relate to involved/uninvolved admins participating in the admin-only area. I think we're interpreting the rules differently. I interpret those rules to mean that the area is not for discussion or debate among non-admins or involved admins like Stephan or Polargeo. Again, the system that has evolved seems to be working fine so far. Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the key sentence (from Weakopedia) is Admins should be reacting to consensus, not establishing it amongst themselves. Your interpretation, to put it bluntly, is not compatible with the text. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys are rules lawyering. Policy is what we do (at a page), not what it says. What we do is we have a section where uninvolved admins discuss amongst themselves. They are influenced by the discussion in other sections, or should be. If the writing of how things are done here doesn't quite match what we do, we fix it. That's how things work here. Stop rules lawyering, it's not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Given your insistence on a narrow, technical definition of "uninvolved" I see more than a little irony in your objecting to rules lawyering. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My insistence is merely to go with what the other uninvolved admins have said, that I'm not involved. Regardless of how much you spin it, you can't avoid that. You're involved. I'm not. Deal. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I take that that you sanction my posting in the admin section now, since that's "how we do things"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Your attempts to post in various uninvolved admin sections have been reverted, multiple times, and no uninvolved admin has undone that reversion. So it's not "how we do things". How we do things is to remove your postings there. Because you are not uninvolved. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It seems that everyone is very focused on the wording of the intro sentence. In order to avoid "wining" this debate unfairly, it should be noted that I changed that wording without objection on May 6 perWikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation#Note_re_template. Individuals whose arguments are based only on the revised wording in the template should strongly consider if they support the revised wording - I based my revision on the fact that admins lack magic discussing powers, and that the constant back-and-forth in the admin section has hobbled this page (in the case directly above that has led to my ire, if not for grandstanding about who could type what where, a sanction against WMC would have already have been passed by almost unanamous consent - consent which I would have joined, even if the twin evils of Polargeo and Steven were permitted to write in the admins only section) Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just changed the wording, again, to clarify how things are actually done, which should sort this. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Intresting. Do you think that editing a template that stood for almost 14 days after an edit and a talk page announcement about that to win a debate here is really a deal-ender? I would argue it's not. See, unlike my edit, which was well publicized and apparently non-controvercial, your edit was done by what one might term an "involved" party - in that it's your name up at the top of this section, but, hey, I'm just a plebian - perhaps you should full-protect the template in the version you think is right, just to shove it in our plebian faces. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your rhetoric is noted. However, as I said, we change policy writings to match what we actually do. Do you dispute that in the many enforcement requests to date there has been considerable back and forth discussion between uninvolved admins in the uninvolved admin section on the way to arriving at consensus? If you don't dispute it, it was a good edit. If you do, then please provide some proof. Because you're ruleslawyering and that's not helpful. I am at a loss as to why you do this. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that local "consensus" (which obviously dosen't exist, given the above) that admins have magic discussion powers does not override policy that admins don't have magic discussion powers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you figure? The uninvolved admins have been doing things this way for some time. If you want to change it, this isn't the way. Convince the rest of us. You're not an uninvolved admin, and no one else commenting here, save NW and myself, are either. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As the subjects of the requests, niether you nor NW are uninvolved. Further, admins do not have magic powers of discussion, and I alledge other than the frequent violators, I have convinced everyone else. Find me someone who thinks the admin-only back-and-forth is valuable, as opposed to convincing some of you to grow a pair and start actually closing things. Go on, I'll wait. Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"As the subjects of the requests, niether you nor NW are uninvolved" ... oh that makes my head spin, it's so sophistic. Yes, technically, since we are discussing uninvolved admins, no uninvolved admin is uninvolved when the topic is uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins are those who do not engage in admin-only segregated discussion. Off the top of my head, I can think of 1,700 of them. Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A novel definition, but an incorrect one. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How so, exactly? The question on the table is "enagaging in admin-only segregated discussion - unwiki?" You're asking that the question be decided only by people engaging in admin-only segregated discussion, as opposed to everyone? Why do you think admins have special powers to decide that they can engage in admin-only segregated discussion? When the probation was created by community (not admin-only) consensus, was there a discussion about having admin-only segregated discussion that I missed? Perhaps you could point it out to me. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense. How do you expect us to decide on a sanction (or lack thereof) if we can't discuss it without the conversation being polluted by mountains of crap? It has been this way for a long time, which makes it a de facto consensus (see WP:SILENCE). The Wordsmith 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You can discuss anything you want to, including the proposed sanctions, up in the plebian sections. You can write your proposed sanctions in the admin only section. Another thing that was this way for a long time which makes it a de facto consensus is that admins do not have any special abilities other than buttons - that broader consensus overrides the local false "consensus," that obviously dosen't exist here - from the essay you just linked it seems pretty obvious to me that there is not even a majority of users who support admin-only discussion sections. Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems entirely appropriate - discussion in the discussion section, only proposed sanctions or results in the admin section. If the probation can't get everyone talking and making consensus decisions then they were ill founded. Admins should be participating in that, not trying to limit it or holding themselves aloof from it. Weakopedia (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to distract from this section, but I am unsure why I am named in this section. I do not appear to have engaged in threaded discussion in the above complaint. The Wordsmith 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you concurred with another uninvolved admin (which is a response, apparently) and then had the audacity to actually respond to a request by yet another uninvolved admin... what's more, you responded by elaborating the reasons for why you concurred!!! CLEARLY that was way out of line. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You engaged in threaded discussion above - "I was asked to expand upon my viewpoint by NuclearWarfare above, so I will do so here..." You could have expanded in your initial comment (acceptable), or in the plebian section (preferred). Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated use of hyperbole is noted. Barring a serious time travel accident, I doubt there are many Roman citizens editing Misplaced Pages, and certainly not enough that we need an entire section for them. Therefore, we should eliminate the "Plebian" section entirely. In addition, your assertion that we believe that we have "magic discussion powers" is faulty. The ability with which we have our conversation is well-grounded in science, particularly the fields of computer mechanics and software programming. I request that you cease using these inaccurate phrases. The Wordsmith 17:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith here, but you should be aware that I have a substantial case of dyslexia that makes it very difficult for me to imagine that plebeian and plebian are different, let alone write one when I want to write the other, or vice-versa. I try to remember to put substantial effort into my main page postings to make sure that the spelling is correct - I will not do so on talk pages. Sorry that my poor spelling distracted you. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that they are actually alternate spellings of the same thing, that the both refer to the Roman citizens whom were not of the nobility (both redirect to the same article on WP). It wasn't meant to be a jab at your spelling. The Wordsmith 17:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

- "Of or pertaining to the common people; vulgar; common; as plebeian sports." Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I was unaware that it was in current usage. I know it comes from the Roman citizenry, of whom many could actually become prestigious. I guess I learn something new every day. The Wordsmith 17:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See Plebs#Modern_usage. MastCell  18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What a lot of silly nonsense. As I was asked to comment, my opinion is this: the section should be for discussion between uninvolved editors. Non-administrators permitted; threaded discussion and direct replies permitted; those with a vested interest or a prior involvement prohibited; and bickering or pointless comments prohibited. In my experience that is how things are done, and the template should of course reflect the status quo. AGK 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, silly nonsense is incorrect. There is already a section for discussion between uninvolved editors. This is about the section that is being used for discussion between administrators. Changing that section to allow discussion between editors would mean having two identical sections, repetitive and not needed. Silly nonsense, to coin a phrase. Weakopedia (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What I find silly nonsense is the ferocity with which debate on this topic is being pursued. Some perspective and cooling down is needed. AGK 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"the section that is being used for discussion between administrators" – Do you mean the 'result concerning ' section? Oh, well that really shouldn't be used for discussion unless it is a formal proposal by one administrator of one course of action or another. For instance, I usually give my preliminary thoughts in the main discussion section (for uninvolved editors), and solicit the input of other uninvolved people. When the parties' statements are all in, I'll propose, for example, "Topic ban X for 3 months; topic ban Y for 1 month; and place Z on final warning" in the 'results' section. If there are no objections from the other uninvolved parties, I'll action the request in that way.

I don't think there is a need for much rigidity with respect to which sections uninvolved editors and administrators can comment in. I think excluding involved people from the "results" and "uninvolved editor discussion" sections is wise to simply avoid too much heat and noise; if they have a comment to make, they can do so in the section devoted to their statement. But otherwise I don't care much either way. Ultimately we should manipulate the layout of the discussion in whatever way produces the best results. AGK 11:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely on how that section should be used, thanks for the clarification. Weakopedia (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have been asked to comment on this entry, but I have no opinions hereon. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• I too have been asked to comment, and like AGK find this debate silly. Please keep in mind that the purpose of this board (like AE) is to request action from uninvolved administrators. That action is discretionary, and therefore requires no consensus. The purpose of this board, then, is not to generate community consensus, but only to convince one single person that they should act. Consequently, there is no need to provide for a framework for threaded discussion at all. Everybody who thinks they have something useful to say should make a single statement and then shut the hell up. Uninvolved admins will read all statements, and will then decide whether to act on the request or not. Moreover, uninvolved admins, as the people at who these requests are directed, should take all steps necessary to keep the request manageable for themselves, e.g. by removing unhelpful comments or, if need be, unhelpful editors, from the page. If there is any disagreement about the uninvolved status of an admin so acting, that should be made the subject of an appeal to WP:ANI, as I believe is provided for in the community sanction.  Sandstein  21:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It evolved, necessarily. Since this is off topic, I shall take it to talk. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

ATren

Post result discussion

(moved from Lar's note "enacted" )

Undone. That was indecent haste. Please allow other admins to comment William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, but you are not permitted to undo a close. Closes can be appealed at WP:ANI. If you would like to appeal, do so, but be aware that I'll certainly be opposing such. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are both out of line. Only uninvolved admins can close, and only uninvolved admins can un-close. Further, WMC's comment was in the uninvolved admin section, and he is neither uninvolved nor an admin. 50 lashes with a wet noodle to the both of you for edit warring and general mopery and dopery of the spaceways. THAT said, if some other uninvolved admin wants to reopen I have no objection. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar, my edit was not out of line at all. Please explain, now, or I will have to seek redress. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC was out of line to un-close, not being an uninvolved admin. You were out of line (although arguably less so, under IAR undoing a wrong action) to re-close, not being an uninvolved admin. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(moved from Lar's "you can't have it both ways" remark to H)

How about sticking to the case at hand Lar? Otherwise we may think that you bear a grudge for the RfC, and thus really are involved, despite your statements to the opposite. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out a logical inconsistency isn't "bear(ing) a grudge". Which I suspect you know already. That inconsistency *is* relevant since it was a response to H. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no logical "inconsistency" to see - other than that you creating a red herring by hasty generalization. The RfC is not relevant here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is a hasty generalization. Much less a red herring. If you don't see the inconsistency in "I want you not to act in this area at all, but I insist you take this specific action in this area" I can't help you.++Lar: t/c 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this - "I don't want you to act in this area at all, but if you're going to do it, at least do it right?" Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The inconsistency that you think is there, isn't. Let me make a rather apt analogy: While i (or anyone else) may oppose a specific president/prime minister, and want him to be deposed, that i can still want the pres/pm. to act within his office - in fact i rather expect that he must. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

marknutley