Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

User talk:Lar/Archive 63

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 63

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.


This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 1 February 2010 through about 1 March 2010. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others.

An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex.

Talk Page Archives
My post 2012 archived talk
Archive 79 1 December 2012 through 1 December 2013
Archive 80 1 December 2013 through 1 December 2016
Archive 81 1 December 2016 through 1 December 2018
Archive 82 1 December 2018 through 1 January 2021
Archive 83 1 January 2021 through 1 January 2023
Archive 84 1 January 2023 through 1 January 2025 ??
RfA Thank Yous
RFA Archive Howcheng (27 Dec 2005) through present
All dates approximate, conversations organised by thread start date


A serious question

[edit]

OK, I get that the BLP situation has been festering for a long time, and I get the argument that we have an ethical responsibility to cut through the crap and actually do something about material with the potential to cause real-life harm. I was thinking through the implications, and I have a serious question.

Suppose that I've concluded that our medical articles contain a great deal of material that is incorrect, misleading, and promotional; that presents isolated preliminary studies as if they were conclusive truth; and that presents discredited or unproven treatments in an overly credulous fashion. Suppose I had concrete data indicating that regardless of our hidden disclaimer, Wikipedia is among the most prominent sources of medical information (e.g. PMID 19390105, PMID 19501017, etc).

A reasonable person could conclude that erroneous or misleading medical information on Wikipedia has at least as much, if not far more, potential for real-life harm than does biographical-article vandalism or the presence of neutral/positive but unsourced statements. Following this train of thought to its logical conclusion, would extreme measures (of the sort envisioned and carried out on BLPs) not be equally or more justified, on the same ethical grounds, in our medical articles? Again, this isn't a trick question - it's a serious train of thought sparked by the recent BLP flap. MastCell Talk 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a good question all right. A snap answer is that there isn't necessarily an equivalence between incorrect BLPs and incorrect material of other kinds. Incorrect medical information is a very serious problem but it's not causing harm in quite the same way.
If I (or my doctor acting as my agent) choose to use unverified information and it causes me harm, that's negligence. My negligence. It's information I actively sought out and then misapplied (or my agent did). ON the other hand if I'm detained by the TSA for days, or fired from my job, or my reputation is damaged, because of misleading information about me in a BLP, it's not my negligence that caused it. I'm the innocent victim.
A subtle distinction perhaps, and perhaps a meaningless one, but I don't think so. It thus argues that it is reasonable to ask for more responsibility for BLPs, because the BLP victim isn't the consumer and has no control over what others do with the information.
That in no way denigrates how important it is that all our information be as accurate as we can arrange. ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, Lar, I think from a purely legal perspective you are ignoring the fact that killing someone harms not only that person, but also the people who were otherwise positively impacted by their life - spouse, kids, parents, whatever. Those individuals did nothing wrong, but because our medical disclaimer is A. Buried and B. Never Enforced, they lost their sole breadwinner to the fact they believed colloidial silver could cure AIDS. Hipocrite (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a good point. But that is a knock on effect, and there is still someone (other than an anonymous and hard to track down editor) to hold responsible. Bears more thought. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just lurk here on occasion, but wanted to weigh in that Wikipedia is what wikipedia is, and really, as far as medical advice goes, there are plenty of fringe lunacy sites out on the web that look mainstream and have totally bogus information that lack even the editability of wikipedia. Anyone who takes medical advice (or any other kind of advice, legal, psychological,e tc...) off of the internet -- and not just wikipedia but also including WebMD or the Mayo clinic!-- without vetting it through a trusted licensed professional is sort of an idiot. (Anyone remember Laetrile -- and that scam predated the internet) That said, I noticed that there was a big BLP dump into WPEQ for us to fix, and it made me thing about how the notion of verifying sources and getting stickier about having references is not entirely a bad thing...maybe WP Medicine has the personnel to start a similar project to that of the push to verify the BLPs. Just food for thought. Back to lurker mode now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 January 2010
Sure, if some project wanted to do such a drive, frankly, it would be awesome. And for people who don't want to work on BLPs but still want to make things better in a meaningful way, it's a good project! I'm just worried about BLPs and have been for a while. ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about other topics that can cause harm?

[edit]

I wonder what the standard would be for medical articles, as another lurker around here. With BLPs, off the top of my head, we remove potentially damaging material that's poorly sourced. It's easy enough for most people to understand. Could something as simple be devised for medical articles? There may be intricate issues relating to pseudoscience and what weight to give it, but I get the feeling MastCell is talking more about direct statements about procedures or the medical benefits of certain treatments. So perhaps an analogous provision would say, for instance, "Poorly sourced statements about medical treatments should be removed immediately, not subject to 3RR." I am not following the current discussions about BLP, admittedly, so perhaps there are stronger protections like flagged revisions or whatnot that you have in mind. This would seem to sharpen the question of how an adequately narrow standard could be created (would it go so far as to cover all medical information?). The next question that pops into my mind is whether there are other fields or topics with similar risks. How to repair your circuit breaker, maybe. It's an interesting question, I agree. Mackan79 (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the problem is that you really can't idiot-proof anything. You make a good point: medicine can be dangerous, but so can electrical repairs, tree-trimming, truck driving, who knows where it will end? I suppose a distinction is that a poor BLP hurts a specific individual, while a poor article on medicine or home electronics hurts no one simply by existing, it is simply inviting people who don't use common sense to self-nominate for a Darwin Award! Montanabw(talk) 07:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we think of defamation as a harm that flows more directly from something being written, whereas other types of statements usually require someone else to cause the direct harm. And yet, people rarely die from being lied about. Do people neglect to go to the doctor because of bad advice on the internet? It seems plausible to me that removing potentially defamatory statements is just a much simpler problem to deal with than improving the quality of medical information on the internet, or at least that each may require a different approach. Mackan79 (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think fixing BLPs is (at least in terms of what needs to be done to fix them) easier than fixing the accuracy problem in general. But whether there is will in the community to fix them is a different question. The RfC seems to be losing steam, as they often do. We shall see. ++Lar: t/c 03:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC's civility probation

[edit]

Hi Lar, I am a bit flummoxed as to what to do, I know you were involved in the additional civility probation condition wording a couple of dayd ago, I have an issue with the way it is being administered by User 2over0 and I am just not getting a satisfactory reply from him. I reported the issue at the probation page this morning and User 2over0 closed the thread without discussion as no action I felt this was not correct and I moved my question to his talkpage, WMC replied there with what appeared to me to be more uncivil comments compounding the issue, Admin 2over0 has edited but has not replied to my question, I am at a loss as to what to do for the best, I hope you don't mind me asking you to have a look at my report and please comment or suggest how I can best deal with my report.

User 2over0 acting in his capacity as an Administrator has imo failed to act regards the requests asked of him in regards to Climate change, my specific complaint is his failure to act on a report I made to him in regards to William M Connelly incivility after a probation report in his name this morning , it is important imo that the issues around global warming probation are dealt with in a fair way, imo this report is a clear violation by WMC or his recent additional probation, in my opinion WMC has failed to take the new conditions on board and is continuing in the same manner. Here is the report that I feel has not been acted upon when imo it is a clear violation of WMC's additional civility probation.

(note from Lar: the above was posted by Off2RioRob at 16:11, 29 January 2010}

Demeaning names

[edit]

I would have thought that considering the only very recent additional civility conditions applied to WMC in reference to demeaning other editors that this edit on his talkpage from yesterday is a violation of those conditions, he clearly refers to editors as the idiots. Could you let me know your opinion as regards this edit, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in regard to these two parts of the recent closing report from yourself ... he (WMC) is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms and Please be careful when throwing around terms that might be interpreted to refer to your fellow volunteers - even if a subtle dig falls within the letter of WP:Civility, it can still sting and contribute to the level of dysfunction at those pages.... I would have thought that whilst in discussion with User Short Brigade Harvester Boris about the Skeptic editors on his talkpage that WMC referring to them as the idiots is a clear violation of the sections of the report that I have posted here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd just like to second these concerns. Admin:2/0 has edited numerous times since the questions were posed to him by multiple editors. He's only given a passing nod to the concerns about Gavin Collins' draconian 3 month article ban, while ignoring completely the concerns about his leniency toward WMC. This has to stop. UnitAnode 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third. I too have multiple open questions to 2/0 that he has simply ignored; meanwhile, he is more than willing to act with force on Gavin Collins. And I also echo the concerns of others about BozMo, who absolutely should NOT be acting as a neutral admin there. ATren (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Bozmo should be removed from enforcement, as he absolutely is not neutral in these matters. UnitAnode 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has commented on his talkpage to my question but he has not answered it, is makes me feel awful, I have made a request from the administrator that is claiming to be the overseer in this issue and I haven't even had the respect of a straightforward answer, awful. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking here: There are a lot of sharp elbows being swung in this area. It comes from all sides, but the "AGW defenders" as a group may have a bit of a bunker mentality. (1) And I agree that perhaps the reporting and enforcement may have been somewhat imbalanced at the sanctions page. But I think focusing on civility misses the crux. Civility is important, but what is more important is whether the articles are balanced properly, are written in a proper NPOV tone, and give the appropriate amount of coverage to the mainstream view without either overweighting or unfairly excluding other views. As an outsider looking in I think things are tilted a bit. That's concerning. Especially because that sort of thing tends to turn off those who share mainstream views but are disinclined to get involved because of the high levels of hostility. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 - see, for example the threads just above where it seems some members of that "group" seem intent on taking me to task while being unwilling to answer direct questions.

Thanks for commenting Lar, if your going to impose sanctions then good balanced management of them is important or they become of no help with the issues, but saying that I think that as the issue has been brought to peoples attention that it appears generally to be improving, as in that old motto, keep your head down or you'll get it shot off. Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, if a topic I cared deeply about was beset with >500 sockpuppets of a single agenda-driven editor, on top of the usual drive-through agenda accounts that beset every controversial corner of Wikipedia, not to mention being attacked in published opinion pieces which display an ignorance of Wikipedia's basic workings... I might develop a bunker mentality too. I can see why people are worked up about heavy-handedness on the "mainstream" side, but I think there's a corresponding lack of interest or empathy for the conditions that create the bunker mentality in the first place. The bunker mentality is real, but the dominant mentality on the other side is at least as toxic, if not more so. If you try to address one half of the problem in isolation, you're unlikely to succeed.

I'm curious where, specifically, you belive that climate-change articles are "tilted". The scientific and mainstream press, when it has noted these articles, has been quite positive about their presentation. A 2005 piece in Nature, aimed at encouraging experts to participate on Wikipedia, cited climate change articles as an area where "skeptical" editing threatened the project's scientific respectability ("In politically sensitive areas such as climate change, researchers have had to do battle with sceptics pushing an editorial line that is out of kilter with mainstream scientific thinking." Nature 2005 438(7070):890, PMID 16355169). A rather famous piece from the New Yorker also commented on the climate change articles:

For all its protocol, Wikipedia’s bureaucracy doesn’t necessarily favor truth. In March, 2005, William Connolley, a climate modeller at the British Antarctic Survey, in Cambridge, was briefly a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming, to which he had contributed. After a particularly nasty confrontation with a skeptic, who had repeatedly watered down language pertaining to the greenhouse effect, the case went into arbitration... It can still seem as though the user who spends the most time on the site—or who yells the loudest—wins. [1]

The climate-change article also received high praise from experts in the field in a 2006 Denver Post article ("a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia." [2]). I know it's fashionable at present to depict these articles as some sort of embarassment to Wikipedia, but the fact is that they are not perceived as such by reputable, mainstream observers. And when these observers comment on the associated conflicts, it is usually to say that "skepticism" is given excess prominence, rather than suppressed. That's not to say that there aren't real behavioral issues, and the editing atmosphere definitely needs work all around. But you argued that a focus on civility misses the point, and it's more important to assess whether we're achieving our goal of producing content worthy of a serious, respectable reference work. So you can breathe a bit easier in that regard. :) MastCell Talk 21:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly... You're citing stuff from 2005 and 2006. I think things have changed since then.
As for where things are tilted in article space, one area that comes to mind easily is all the churn about what to name the article on the email hacking incident. There are others. In userspace, one quick example would be the exchanges above where the "bunker inhabitants" seem to be trying to trip me up somehow, but won't say what they really mean, and won't answer questions. I think that sort of behavior alienates folk who might otherwise want to step in and try to hep keep the articles properly balanced. I know it turns me off. You take a sample of those folks views on dozens of fringe science questions and then of mine and you're going to find congruence. And yet I'm the enemy, apparently, because I don't care for their tactics. The ends don't justify the means. The articles have to be kept balanced but at what cost? This is not a new problem. We saw it with ID, with homeopathy, with cold fusion, you name it. It's not merely a focus on civility that's needed, it's a focus on overall editor behavior. ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Things have changed since 2006, but not in the way you're implying. The centralization of power and deference to "established" contributors was much more ingrained in 2006 (when I started editing) than it is now. The sort of policing that used to be practiced on the global-warming pages - and, I might add, which produced the work spoken of highly by Nature and the New Yorker - would never be possible today. Compared to the medical articles I worked on in 2006, where an editor could aggressively push nonsense more or less indefinitely, that sort of thing was stomped out quickly on climate-change pages. One checkuser used to run a huge number of queries on "skeptical" editors of climate-change articles, a practice which has since ceased due in large part to community uproar. I'm not saying we should go back to those days - in many ways, the current level of accountability is a huge improvement - but the bottom line is that any "suppression of minority viewpoints" was worse in 2005-2006, when these complimentary reviews were published.

I think we're in agreement with a lot of the "bunker mentality" stuff; certainly I see your point in your second paragraph. There's no question that people on the "mainstream" side are alienating the reasonable middle by overreacting. I would like that to change, but that's unlikely to happen if this is tackled solely as a problem of misbehaving "vested contributors". MastCell Talk 22:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, with respect to your last concern about it being "tackled solely as a problem of misbehaving vested contributors", I would suggest that the "other" problem is already being tackled, and has been for some years. Scibabies are efficiently rounded up (even without the omnipresent checkuser), and overly tendentious "skeptical" editors are usually dealt with using topic bans and blocks. The remaining problem, as I see it, is that similarly tendentious editors on the other side are not dealt with. This is in evidence on the probation page, where skeptic-leaning editors are banned much more quickly than proponent editors.

So, what may appear to be "solely dealing with vested contributors" may actually be leveling the playing field and treating both sides equally. ATren (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument assumes that, absent administrative bias, "skeptics" and people who accept the mainstream scientific view of climate change would be sanctioned at an equal pace. I don't know that I agree with that a priori assumption. The goal of our scientific coverage is to provide an outline of topics that accords with current mainstream scientific thought. When editors consistently move us away from that goal, then they may well be sanctioned at a greater clip than editors who don't, regardless of politeness. The playing field is level - everyone is being judged by whether their contributions help achieve the project's goals. But I suppose that's a philosophical question where we differ, as reasonable people sometimes do. MastCell Talk 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to hand out sanctions exactly equally. That misses the point. What we need to do is hand out sanctions in a balanced manner. Right now the playing field isn't level, that's my view. If everyone were in fact being judged by their contributions, I think things would be a bit different. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On playing fields and the levelness thereof

[edit]

(outdent)I'm not convinced the playing field is level. Again, I refer you to the threads above... for example User_talk:Lar#Comments_at_the_WP:GS.2FCC.2FRE_page. Those threads leave me queasy at best (is that the field tilting?). ++Lar: t/c 00:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, I think that many of the questions being debated (such as due weight for sourced claims) are sufficiently "gray" that it's not possible to make an objective judgement as to which editors in the debate are moving us closer to "the goal". It may be that no single editor is 100% correct in their analysis. For such situations, clarity is obtained only after respectful discussion between reasonable editors - but this is impossible in a hostile atmosphere, and that is why civility is important. Again, this assumes that the disruptive and tendentious elements are removed, including the "Scibabies". But we also must remove (or reform) long term editors who refuse to acknowledge and respect reasonable editors who happen to disagree on the fine points. ATren (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with pretty much everything in your post. I have a healthy respect for the subjectivity of most judgments about blocks and bans. The only thing I would add is that it's unreasonable to expect someone to treat you with more respect than you show them. To be clear, I don't think that banning a greater number of "skeptics" is the answer. I would like to see someone - anyone - commit to taking the high road. That means ignoring petty name-calling or insults directed at oneself, and ceasing to dish them out to others. If a few people on each "side" were willing to do this, the problem editors - on both sides - would find themselves effectively marginalized.

Lar, without trying to be difficult, I'm not sure what about the thread in question makes you queasy, nor what about it suggests an uneven playing field. MastCell Talk 04:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb here: William M. Connolley will never be "marginalized", no matter how bad his behavior becomes. He has far too many supporters who rationalize and justify the way he treats people, no matter how bad it is. UnitAnode 04:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell, I'm not sure why you don't get why I'm discomfited by the rhetorical approach in the thread ref I gave you. Read it again... Consider the part that starts here. A quick review: SBHB turns up to criticise my evenhandedness, and uses the term "the consensus perspective". I ask him what he means, exactly, and he answers (with a somewhat snappish/snarky edit summary " OK, I'll play along, though I may eventually regret it...") and when I ask for clarification by way of giving an example that I think cuts to the heart of the problem... a person who accepts pretty much everything the "bunker guys" do about how the world is, except who has some qualms about some things, his response is "I give up" with edit summary "indeed, yes, now I regret it"... no real attempt to engage. This goes on for pages and pages with several other members of the "bunker guys" participating, and I never do get a straight answer. Again, I thought my hypothetical was worthy of investigation, it was a great example of someone that is their ally in all but exact, slavish adherence to their tactics. But they displayed the very tactics that I'm concerned about in a conversation that I was trying to use to get at what the problem is. And you wonder why I'm queasy? Really? ++Lar: t/c
As one of the bunker guys, I'm happy to answer any question you might have. Apparently, your question was "What is "the consensus perspective"? Is that a POV of some sort? And who are "those editing against" it?"
  1. The "Consensus perspective" is the broad and basically unchallenged perspective held by the vast and overwhelming majority of informed experts regarding climatology that a human-driven increase in atmospheric CO2 has, is, and unless reversed, will lead to an overall increase in global surface temperature, and that that overall increase in global surface temperature will have negative effects of varying (but substantial) degrees on the quality of life of humans. There is a tiny minority of dissident scientists whose roundly ignored views are excluded from scientific articles, per "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority." Note that I am refering only to articles about the science of global warming. More to come.
  2. The "Consensus perspective" is not a POV of some sort. It is the only significant viewpoint that has been published by a reliable source with respect to the science.
  3. However settled the science might be, the politics are quite different. Because the creation of atmospheric CO2 is an externality, it creates rent seeking behavior in beneificiaries of the externality - specifically, CO2 producers. In this case, that rent-seeking behavior has been opposition to introduction of pigouvian taxation and coasean bargaining via political manuevering. Specifically, some of the future rents created by restrictionless generation of CO2 are allocated to individuals known as lobbyists whose job is to influence public opinion and the opinion of political figures. Part of this involves riling up less than fully-expert individuals about how a giant cabal of evil scientists is trying to take over the world and turn off their air conditioning units. Suitably riled up, those individuals are mad, and try to poke holes into the science, alledging all kinds of nefarious controversies - see global warming controversy and Climate change denial. Now, those riled up amatures and experts in the wrong fields have no effect on the science, but a great deal on the politics. The problem is that those riled up individuals sometimes show up at Wikipedia and try to edit the articles on the science to conform to their view. Is everything clear now? Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The question that has been dodged, is not the one you answered in detail. As a note I already knew everything you answered in detail, having been a Libertarian for years and knowing quite a bit about rent seeking, externalities, lobbyists, and the conceptual tragedy of the commons, but it's a good set of references nonetheless, thanks for typing it out.

Rather, the question that has been dodged was the one that was posed by me at 03:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC) That question is rather more specific to the situation here at WP, instead of the wider world. And thus subject to less moralization or regurgitation of already known things. ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having had the fortunate opportunity to participate in the Military History project early on in my Wikipedia sojourn, I know what effective and congenial collaboration looks like and feels like. I think all of us do. When it happens, we have a feeling that everyone involved is making an effort to build a balanced, complete, neutral article. We feel that their contributions are sincere, honest, and without guile.
Knowing how this feels, we can also tell when these attributes of effective collaboration are missing, such as when fellow participants use subtle but unmistakably condescending, insulting, and/or patronizing edit summaries, make demeaning or evasive comments, and/or use delaying tactics on discussion pages. Such tactics earned a number of editors long topic bans from the Palestine/Israel articles. I think Lar knows what I'm talking about. If anyone else is unsure of what I'm talking about, I'm sure I can find some examples of effective and honest collaboration which could be used to contrast with what we've been seeing in the GW articles for the past several years. Cla68 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's it exactly. This topic area is not collegial. Thank you, Cla68, for expressing this so clearly, and with such a cogent example... Milhist is disproportionately rich with Wikipedia's best work. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite: A swing

[edit]
I think I'll take a shot at the second question, which was "(1. OK. So what other "perspectives" are there?) (2. If I, for example, think that man's impact on climate and the environment is sharply negative, and is of serious concern, and that it's likely that it has caused warming, and will cause serious harm to us and the rest of the organisms on earth, and that something ought to be done about it, but I don't necessarily agree that all the data presented by certain parties (c.f. the email scandal for example) as supporting this view necessarily does support it, or has been collated appropriately, or necessarily agree with the relative emphasis given to certain articles here on Wikipedia, does that means I am "editing from the consensus perspective" or not?) (3. What exactly does this consensus cover?)"
  1. There are no other reliably sourced perspectives on the science. There is a reliably sourced other perspective on the politics, which is that the science is bunk, but, to be clear, that perspective is not at all related to the science, and such should be made clear in our articles.
  2. Your views on data are not relevent, as you are not an expert, nor are you published. If you want to discuss how climate science is somehow wrong, you'll need to find relevent reliable sources to back your views on data. There are not yet reliable soruces on the science that show that the emails have done anything to the science, because the emails have not done anything to the science. Reliable sources for science are not single primary papers, or the rantings of physics professors, or newspaper articles by journalists, but rather review articles and influential, multiply cited academic papers. Wikipedia is not the way to change science to reflect what you want it to look like, but rather reflects what the published literature reflects - which is that this email scandal has not made it's way into scientific literature. If you want to discuss what the emails have done with respect to public scandal, that's great, and I don't think anyone is stopping anyone from doing that - except to stop them from saying that the emails have totally discredited climate science.
  3. The consensus view covers the science of global warming, across all articles. It mandates that we not include the tiny-minority view that climate science is wrong. If you have a specific edit you'd like me to explain with respect to the consensus view, or a specific editor who you feel is being inapropriately lumped in with a group of people trying to edit science articles to reflect political opinion, I'm happy to do that, also. Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ferinstance, [3]. Hipocrite (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neener, neener, he said it first

[edit]
That's certainly true, but the first mention of "concentration camps" is from Lar, and it's from before I wrote "Holocaust." I'd hate for us to get caught up in this side issue, however. Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No you wouldn't, I suspect (although who knows for sure?). Side issues are exactly the ticket to distract folk from the main point. ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you are getting at, Lar? Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a side issue about a side issue, isn't it? The main point is several side issues away now. Maybe that was the point. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charitably, we should assume that Lar meant the Boer War and it's all a ghastly misunderstanding. Goes off to relieve Mafeking, dave souza, talk 18:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was wondering when you'd turn up. You're a canonical example of the problem, you know, since you so often indulge in snark to the exclusion of anything else in these bunfights, just like a good enforcer. With that as a preface, you know that wasn't what I meant. Didn't you? ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's quite civil, is it? It appears to me that DS was attempting to lighten the dour mood. Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree that was his likely intent, but YMMV. As for the first question, I calls them like I sees them, and I've never seen much snark free input from dave souza. We may just hang in the wrong places, I'm sure he's a charming dinner companion. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, I gave you an out, you prefer to confirm that Hipocrite was right in assuming that you'd started the Godwinning. If you read my sense of humour as snark, I find that regrettable, but I do hope you will find that I've made some snark free input here and there. . . dave souza, talk 18:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I gave you an out, you prefer to confirm that Hipocrite was right in assuming that you'd started the Godwinning."

False dichotomy. I neither thought we were talking about the Boer war nor was I Godwinning. I suspect you knew that already. But why let that stop you? ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I was going to go to Lar's talk page and tell him the first person to not respond to this thread would win the game, but then I looked and I was already at Lar's talk page, and I had just lost the game. Hipocrite (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a game I just can't win, since it's my page. And, oh, by the way, I've also just lost the game. Thanks a lot. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar steps up to the plate, and staggers from the tilt of the field

[edit]

Trying again, there are loads of controversial topics that Milhist has dealt with successfully and by and large they've remained collegial, produced more than their fair share of great articles, and are a lively, vibrant, non exclusionary community. The science cabal, (of course [[WP:TINC|it's just a turn of phrase) on the other hand, drives away people from whatever topics it touches. Are you lot just socially inept, or is it a deliberate control mechanism? ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm socially inept, quick to anger and mostly unwilling to suffer people I consider fools gladly. But, I'm trying to work on that. However, I think to play fair, you do need to note that the articles that you attribute to the "Science Cabal," are viewed by some of the participants in those articles as having real life higher-stakes, and both sides are far more motivated to "win," than in a typical millitary history dispute. I wonder what advice you would give to the "science cabal" that would help us make good articles that serve to inform the populace - that is, you know, the goal of scientists. At the same time, you should probably help the "anti-science cabal" to work with the science cabal, and accept that their fringe views can get airing in articles about their fringe views, but the consistant attempt to push relativity denialism in speed of light isn't helpful or productive. Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suffering fools gladly isn't one of my strong suits, either. :) If you really mean what you're asking, try WP:Writing for the enemy as I said above. It's really hard but it works really well. And if you do it, make sure you ask the other side to do it too (and if they won't be fair about it, just revert out your awesome prose). That's my best idea right now. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MilHist is by far the most successful WikiProject we've got. I would, however, be curious to be pointed examples where they had successfully improved an article or group of articles to high quality in a collegial environment in the face of active, bitter political controversy, where people involved in that controversy were recruited and egged on to edit Wikipedia by external partisan outlets, and where massive agenda-driven sockpuppetry was the rule of the day. I suspect that approaches which might be successful when collaborating on a biography of Admiral Nelson might fare less well at 2006 Lebanon War or 2008 South Ossetia war, for example.

I know that in the Medicine WikiProject, we have a much easier time getting acute myeloid leukemia or paracetamol to FA status than we do with Lyme disease, chiropractic, or autism (though the last is an FA, against all odds). I'm not trying to denigrate MilHist - like I said, they're the gold standard for WikiProjects. I would really like to see examples where topics with this degree of external political involvement have been handled collegially. I'm just not sure that you can extrapolate techniques that have worked on less controversial articles to this particular problem without acknowledging its particulars.

I also don't think you're being totally fair to people who work on science articles. After all, 95% of the work they (we) do is uncontroversial and collegial, and scientific coverage is one of the very, very few aspects of Wikipedia that has been singled out for external praise from serious, reputable sources. I don't think that science articles could reflect that kind of credit on Wikipedia if they were written and patrolled by an angry, insular, socially inept cabal. MastCell Talk 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite: and a miss

[edit]

I'm afraid that still missed the mark. Except perhaps to highlight the difficulty in working in this area. Answers like that are what chase like minded (as far as the science and the politics go) folk who are not keen on your methods away. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I wonder what the vaunted MilHist group would do if faced with a group of people desperate to say that the only reasons the Greeks won the Peloponnesian War was their utilization of advanced sword-wielding-skeleton technology. Wait, I do know what would happen - because I've seen it in action. They would do exactly the same thing that happened with Global Warming, and get the tiny-minority views right out of there|. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the best example you've got? The matter of exactly what the causes and impact of global warming are isn't quite as clear cut as that. Using strawman examples like that undercuts your argument and worse, makes you look more bunkerish. A more instructive example might be how Milhist dealt with controversy over the use of the atomic bomb. Or coverage of concentration camps. Those are both very controversial topics with significant minority views, and yet by and large that group of editors worked together, and remained collegial and non exclusionary. ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying our holocaust article should note the minority view that it didn't happen? Have you reviewed the treatment of Holocaust denial in the article about the Holocaust? I think that's an excellent analogy here. You alledge that editors "remained collegial and non exclusionary," but you seem to be forgetting all the people that got banned right out of there. Of course, denying the holocaust is more offensive than denying global warming, but it's certainly just as wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furter, I think you are giving short shrift to the revisionist stance on the atomic bomb by saying they have less evidence than the global warming deniers. At least they have all kinds of real academic historians getting published about it - including some who are not just a little bit respected. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this gets better and better. You raised a strawman argument about some completely ludicrous theory of animated skeletons used in an ancient war that maybe 3 people in the entire world even have heard of much less given credence to. I rebutted you with two examples that (I think) bracket this topic in their percentage of adherents and you go off on holocaust denial. Way to miss the point completely. Look, milhist does a far better job of dealing with reasonable disagreements about the amount of coverage to give something, in general, than you guys do. You can't worm away from that. And you especially can't get away with trying to twist the arguments around to try to cast aspersions on me ... not here, that just won't fly. Try again, or better, admit that there's a problem. Or go away. But whatever you do, stop being hypocritical. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny for a second that MilHist appears to have a better track record. Of course, they are entering from a far easier set of starting circumstances. Clearly we are talking past eachother - You stated "Or coverage of concentration camps." I responded to that. There are about as many qualified historians who deny the camps as there are qualified climatologists who deny AGW. The difference is that there are a lot of politicians and corporations and cranks who deny AGW, and no politicians and no corporations but a lot of cranks who deny the Holocaust. I certainly don't intend to cast aspersions on you - if you could point out where you see me doing that, I'd happily redact. I've admitted there's a problem multiple times, and I've admitted it's from both sides - diffs on request. The only difference I see, however, is that the badness from one side is at least moral. Of course, I'm certain the other side sees it that way also, but, of course, both you and I think they are wrong, per your earlier statements? And, for the record, let me further note that the incivility on this page didn't start with me, wasn't continued by me and was all directed at me. You ask that people start at home, I hope, by being civil and respectful. Please convince everyone here to do so. Hipocrite (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the vaunted MilHist group" vs. "I don't deny for a second that MilHist appears to have a better track record" ... so are they worthy of your scorn when you call them "vaunted" or do they actually have a better track record, one that you could learn from? When was the last time you tried WP:Writing for the opponent, for example? ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vaunted (adj) highly or widely praised or boasted about. I thought it was an appropriate moniker. I don't have any scorn for MilHist - none at all (well, some of the members use MilHist as a stepping stone to level up, but that's not the project's fault). I think I wrote for the other side about 15 minutes ago when I removed this per a request from the other side, which I suspect will be opposed by at least one on "my side." There's also the page where I suggested that WMC be given a real final civility warning - that was what, 5 minutes ago? But, if you can think of an article where it would be approprite for the "other side" to have a bit written for them, I'm happy to give it a go. Can you suggest a spot? How about something in economics where the Austrians are under-represented, because then I'll actually be speaking in my speciality. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thought that was a good edit. I think it's not just about reverting or quick changes, though. If you have time you might try writing something that really tries to redo areas where there has been contention. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd further ask that you review the articles I linked to in my first post in this subsection, as it was adressed to MillHist's passing the buck with respect to the atomic bomibings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>Do not compare disagreeing about AGW with holocaust denial. It's offensive and vulgar in the extreme, and a symptom of the problem at related pages. UnitAnode 17:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope you're not adressing that at me, given that Lar brought it up, and to my knowledge, the only gentile in the room is you. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To add my own tuppenceworth on the topic you seemed to be discussing, I have no expertise on the significance of AGW, but all I've seen is explicit that the majority scientific view is that it is of considerable significance. Our articles should give due weight to that, and if more editors accepted that policy we might see peace in our articles. . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't parse for me. Could you try again please? ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you ask, the scientific consensus is that human contributions to global warming are shown by scientific studies, and are a serious problem. Everyone should expect that due weight will be given to that position, and minority views shown in relation to that position. If newcomers are educated in that requirement, it could reduce talk page squabbles. Thus, we may show that the political majority view supports inaction, while still being clear about the scientific consensus. Hope that's clearer. dave souza, talk 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume that I know what the scientific consensus is about AGW, shall we, since so many people keep explaining it (when I have never said I didn't know what it was, or given any indication that I didn't). Still didn't logically parse your statement though, since it assumes the conclusion it's trying to show. It's not clear to me which articles in a general interest encyclopedia need to have their weight governed by the scientific consensus, other than ones that are purely concerned with the science (and completely omit any discussion of social, economic, or political aspects). Speculation on what the scientific consensus view of AGW implies for us (and I agree it's dire pretty much across the board, and something needs to be done, and soon) is OR, so all we can do is report on what others say. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to. The social implications, economics and politics of AGW, for example, inevitably involve acceptance or rejection of the science. The articles should be clear about the scientific consensus [as shown by rs's] wherever points about the science are made. The articles about the science of AGW should briefly mention the other aspects in summary style, with links. As you'll know, evolution is an example, and intelligent design makes the scientific consensus clear as well as describing the social and political phenomenon. Hope we agree on this, won't trouble you any more with going over what must be old ground for you. My optimistic opinion is that more acceptance of these principles would lead to less acrimonious argument, ymmv. . dave souza, talk 20:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the goal you outline but I suspect that we don't agree about which articles bin where. Nor about the methods you use to try to achieve the end results. The ends don't justify the means. And that's the real point, in my view, of the N kb of stuff in all these sections. ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how credible of a messenger I find you for that particular message. Compare to: "The ends don't often justify the means, but once in a while they do." It's a bit of a slippery slope. MastCell Talk 23:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. The difference though, is in whether it's exceptional action (a one time deletion run to sort a few BLPs) to deal with an extraordinary problem (the biggest problem facing the project) or routine everyday action (article control of the entire GW/climate topic area) to deal with ... what? Keeping a particular POV? Not the same thing at all. ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should discuss this with User:Ikip - either way the problem is building an encyclopedia with valid information. Hal peridol (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, sorry. The two situations are vastly different. ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this situation, you are decrying a lack of collegiality; in the other, stating that people should "lead, follow, or get out of the way". It is your opinion that the unsourced BLP issue is supremely important, and that the problem with the GW articles is that one group is trying to control them to keep out a particular POV. I am merely pointing out that not everyone agrees with you - I agree with you concerning BLPs for the same reason that I disagree with you concerning the GW articles, because I wish to see articles based on good information. On the one hand, any unreferenced article is not knowledge, merely a set of unverified statements, with the added detriment of being potentially damaging in the case of BLPs. On the other, an article that, for example, uncritically weights blogosphere reaction to a paper on the thermodynamic impossibility of the greenhouse effect equally with the enormous body of research that supports the accepted consensus on it, is also valueless as a source of knowledge. Hal peridol (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Response to Hipocrite

[edit]
  1. This sounds very suspiciously like SPOV, which is not policy.
  2. This is an appeal to authority, as it assumes that the science is untainted by the misbehavior brought to light in the email scandal, simply because the scientists behind the science say so.
  3. Treating those who disbelieve in some portion of the AGW theory as FRINGE instead of a significant minority does your position no favors.

--UnitAnode 17:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a significant minority, clearly a substantial number of trained climatologists would be dissenting from things. Where are they? Where are their articles? Why isn't there a scientific debate, if the science is so uncertain? Are you honestly telling me that there is some big lie out there that all of the trained climatologists are part of? Hipocrite (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that portions of the emails dealt specifically with your "where are they at" argument. They're actively shut out of most of the peer-reviewed journals. It creates a catch-22 for scientists who are skeptical: publish in non-peer-reviewed places and be derided; or submit to peer-reviewed journals and be shut out altogether. UnitAnode 17:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that there are a lot of academic climatologists who are publishing articles in non-reviewed journals sceptical of the scientific consensus on AGW? I'd love to read some of those articles - could you forward them to me? Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your uncivil condescension aside, I never said there were "a lot of academic climatologists", though your creation of a false requirement that appropriately skeptical scientists be "academic climatologists" is noted. With that, I'm disengaging, s conversing with you is pointless. UnitAnode 17:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not a climate change expert. I don't follow the literature. I thought you were saying there were people publishing outside of the typical peer review - and I wanted to get a look at it. Please don't assume that I was being snide or incivil. I'm not, I'm just not up to speed on the entire corpus of information. I'm also not making a false requirement that skeptical scientists be academic climatologists. I accept anyone in the dicipline they studied. However, I don't think there's a lot of value gleaned from looking at econometric analysis by mathematicians, nor from chemistry by anthropologists, nor from climate modeling by physicists. Further - to your deleted item - Lar said "concentration camps" before I said "Holocaust." Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so many sections. A problem with the topic is that a lot of publicity is given to retired amateurs and claims that their work overturns the academic consensus. Until such overturning becomes the scientific consensus our articles should give due weight to the current consensus as the majority view. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean excluding all dissent? Would that be the ideal in your view? And is scientific consensus the only valid way to determine the weight of articles on the political aspects of the overall topic? It is not Wikipedia's place to Reveal Truth, it's rather to report what other sources say ... and let the reader draw their own conclusions. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not - the political articles should be weighted based on the political debate as evidenced by reliable sources for politics, like newspapers. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you decide what is scientific and what is political? ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Denning, the Monfort Professor of Atmospheric Science, said he was pleasantly surprised how the main [global warming] articles 'stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy.' Students who want to study up on the controversy, however, find plenty of links if they want them." (Denver Post 2007). It can be done - in fact, according to reliable sources, it is being done. MastCell Talk 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you were answering the question I was asking. Further that is from 2007. Didn't we already talk about older sources? ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You asked how the science could be successfully separated from the political controversy. I'm suggesting that our existing article structure provides an answer to your question. Because I am a pseudonymous screen name, I don't expect a simple statement of my opinion to carry much weight; hence, I cited an expert in the field, as quoted by a major U.S. newspaper, making the same point. We did talk about older sources; since the article structure of global warming and its content forks is largely unchanged since 2007, I don't see the age of the article as negating its underlying observation. MastCell Talk 23:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the need to remind Dave (and Hipocrite), that we as a project are not controlled by WP:SPOV, as your continual issuance of decrees regarding what must happen in the articles based on "scientific consensus" implies. There is far more to this debate than just the science of one side of the issue -- even if that side currently claims "consensus." UnitAnode 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I don't deny for a second that there are other facets to the debate than the science. That's why the article on Global warming controversy exists. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "other facets" should be given some weight in the main articles, not forked out to their own backwater. UnitAnode 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally. That's why I added a see-also at the top of Global Warming, and note the existance of Global_warming#Debate_and_skepticism - but I'm not quite sure what we're disagreeing about, at this point. Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I understand that it is common practice to do this, as I see this form of maintenance performed every day. Well, I wanted to know if you were aware of any policy or guideline that instructs this to be done... is there such a thing? I ask because I've now entangled myself in a dispute with a person who is pretty unhappy about it and has tripped a 5RR as a result (see WP:AN3#User:AeronPeryton_reported_by_User:JBsupreme for details). I've left what I felt were calm and level headed comments on the editor's talk page but was greeted with a less than civil response in return. JBsupreme (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be bothering you with this shit, really... I took your earlier advice to heart and felt like it backfired. I'll continue to try and keep an open mind here. JBsupreme (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks are a source of growth for the encyclopedia, but only when it makes sense to have them. I don't know of a requirement that removals be done, but I agree with you it's common practice, and that it makes sense if it's not likely that the article would come back. I'm sorry that things went pearshaped. I've commented a bit up (at User_talk:Lar#Userify_request, very last section)... Dunno if that's helpful or not. And it's no bother, don't worry on that score. As for your comments on his talk, I thought they were pretty measured. But I can't find the other half of the conversation so I can't tell... was it on your talk? Best. ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was... [4] Eh, oh well. JBsupreme (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think Aer means well but may not be assuming enough good faith of others. He's working to fix things up, or so it seemed when I reviewed what he was doing before, which is why I was willing to userify things for him. But that talk page post wasn't very friendly, was it? ++Lar: t/c 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, see below. ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of Super Bowl players BLPs

[edit]

Please read and comment on my observation of extensive vandalism to Nate Kaeding's article two weeks ago, and on my request to semiprotect all the articles of players in Super Bowl XLIV for the next two weeks until a week after the game ends. Chutznik (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there as has at least one of my WP:TPW's ... Hope it helps. ++Lar: t/c 05:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amend recent WMC refactoring ban to explicitly exclude own usertalk?

[edit]

A user pointed out at my talk that after Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#William M. Connolley: on refactoring comments and civility (note that I changed the title of that section - it is the merged discussion that recently closed with a refactoring ban and a warning), User:William M. Connolley has removed whole comments from his own usertalk. Personally, I did not consider this when discussing the close, which omission I view as an oversight. Removing comments from one's own usertalk is generally given wide latitude, and given the purpose of that page I do not think that it violates the intention of the prohibition. Prodego already expressed here that they are okay with such removals. Would you mind if the refactoring ban is amended to specify that such removals are not included in the prohibition? I have also asked User:LessHeard vanU as the other admin commenting on that thread. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's given wide latitude in general, I'm not sure I agree in this case. Can we talk this through there for a bit first? ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Posilutely. I do not think that we should disinclude editing another editor's post to his own talkpage or misrepresenting what they have said, just straight removal with an edit summary that is not uncivil. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any case where an unblocked user has been prohibited from removing material from their own usertalk page (and certainly we've had much worse than WMC come through these parts). Are either of you aware of any case in which such a restriction has been placed? MastCell Talk 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A key feature of Wikipedia is that we constantly try new things out to see if they work. This restriction, were it to be placed, would be a new thing, I think. That is not, itself, an argument either for or against it. ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is if we are trying to persuade WMC to act according to the standards and practices expected of all editors, then we shouldn't be disallowing what other editors find commonplace. Hmm? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we seem to be talking it through here rather than there but you certainly have a point, I suppose. ++Lar: t/c 22:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LHvU. Even blocked users have editorial leeway on their own talk page. ATren (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to quibble but blocked users have less leeway than most editors, they can't remove material that the blocking admins left them, for example. But I'm ok with this. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked users are absolutely permitted to remove material left by the blocking admin, or by anyone else. If a blocked user wants to blank his entire talk page in a huff, that's fine, too. As long as the blocked editor isn't being abusive or disruptive, his privileges to edit and archive his talk page aren't suspended. (Merely deleting a block notice, for instance, doesn't qualify as 'disruptive'.) If you're not sure about this, feel free to confirm at WP:AN — but I'm surprised that you're not already aware. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked users who wish to be unblocked, are not. Hiding the circumstances of their blockage is not allowed. They can go off in a huff if they want, or wait their block out, but as long as they are dialoging about being unblocked, rugsweeping is disruptive. I'm surprised that you're not already aware. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean that they can't blank a rejected {unblock} template in order to place another one and pretend the first one never happened — yes, I agree. That would be deceptive, disruptive behaviour. In general, however, blocked users are welcome to remove content from their own talk pages while blocked, including notices from the blocking admin. I agree that an admin reviewing an {unblock} request would probably take a jaundiced view to any 'rugsweeping', but even then there are no hard and fast rules. In any case, I was concerned that you were espousing (and encouraging) the mistaken view that blocked editors are not permitted to delete material from their talk pages — full stop. Your comment didn't talk about best practices for a blocked editor filing an unblock request; it plainly stated that blocked users weren't permitted to remove the comments of the blocking admin. That flat, unqualified statement was not correct, which is something I think we both agree on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Policy at WP is descriptive. Not prescriptive. No flat, unqualified statement is ever correct. Including your last sentence, in fact. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not looking to start a fight here. I just don't want the already-heated situation surrounding WMC to get more inflamed through the introduction of incorrect information. Under the narrow circumstance of 'the blocked editor's {unblock} was turned down', the blocked editor can't remove the rejection. Otherwise, they have a pretty free hand to remove material from their talk pages as they see fit. I agree with you that it is often inadvisable for an editor seeking an unblock to remove the original block notice, but even that's not a hard rule. (Let's say an editor violated 3RR and was blocked. He had an otherwise clean record and history of good contributions, and blanked his talk page out of embarrassment. A few hours later, he posts an unblock request along the lines of "The blocking admin is right; I screwed up and shouldn't have been reverting like that; I'm sorry for the trouble, and I'll stay away from the article for the next couple of days until things cool down" I wouldn't be surprised if the {unblock} were granted.)
Your statement above, "blocked users...can't remove material that the blocking admins left them" just wasn't correct. I was concerned that you genuinely didn't realize that, because it's a mistake that a surprising number of admins seem to make — even some fairly experienced ones. It leads to the ugly situation where an admin starts edit warring with a blocked editor just to keep a scarlet letter on the blockee's talk page. I'd much rather correct that sort of misconception here and now, rather than have to deal with the fallout on AN/I after some future block. Since it seems you just misspoke, I'll not bother you further. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up regarding various parties at ANI

[edit]

Wikidemon is threatening me with ANI again. This time for my work stub-ifying poorly-sourced BLPs to only what the sources confirm. For background, just check my contribs -- and his reversions of a few of them. UnitAnode 19:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness. So much to try to keep an eye on. Why do all these pots boil at the same time? A piece of unrelated advice. Try to do your best to stay on the high road... or at least higher those you find arrayed against you, or it may trip you up. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you writing here of my BLP work, or my anger at the Holocaust comparisons above? UnitAnode 19:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General advice. Also you may want to check the history of this talk, I reverted your removal of some of your own words per User:Lar/Eeyore Policy... if you want, you may want to strike them... ++Lar: t/c 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I removed it because it was unresponded-to, but I have no problem with your restoral. UnitAnode 20:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now there is a "Proposed restriction"... Cirt (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a clarification

[edit]

If the proposed sanction mean I must have "consensus" before reverting then I'd like that clearly defined due to some people saying "no" all the time with inadequate and constantly changing excuses. Also, I'd like to apologize for the edit warring; from what I'd seen that seemed to be the way things are done on these articles and nobody has made much of a fuss about it before. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I agree that WMC should have to explain his reverstions in talk, regardless of whether he reverted first not. Otherwise, SBHB, SS or KDP will simply revert before him so he won't be bothered with it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something more than just standing athwart and saying "no" is needed to establish there isn't consensus. I'll mention it. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch, btw, I love your talk page, it's an interesting/funny read. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. As for my talk... I get that a lot! Over 348 TPWs served. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a lot, I didn't know you could do that. According to mine I have 32 people watching my talk page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No edit warring restriction for KDP?

[edit]

He edit wars quite frequently in the area of probation. Would 2rr be more acceptable to the other admins? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you didn't lobby me here. Asking for clarification is one thing. Lobbying maybe not so much? Lobby on the page itself. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Np, I wasn't sure how much of that mess upstairs was being read. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political candidates

[edit]

Hi there. I noticed you participated in the Articles for Deletion discussion for Graham Jones (politician). I have started a discussion regarding a consensus position for candidates in legislative elections (by way of amending WP:POLITICIAN, in case you are interested in putting forward your views there. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put my money where my mouth was - where's my change?

[edit]

I put my money where my mouth was - I crossed the bunker Here, and engaged in collaborative editing with editors who are on the other "side" here.

In response to all of this good faith and major attempts at civility on my part, here's what I got - and it's not even exaustive:

  1. My attempt to deescalate on a talk page was described as "talking in thinly veiled terms to antagonize his fellow editors."[5]
  2. The talk page where editors were almost working together to improve the article is just as worthless as ever thanks to 142.68.92.131 (talk · contribs) and 142.68.95.166 (talk · contribs), with reports about this going totally ignored at the enforcement page.

Of course, this is just one day of sampling. If you want to know why there's a bunker mentality and no civility at climate change? Because when people try to fix things by doing right they get shit on. Hipocrite (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to go look at this and say something? I think maybe changing the mentality will take more than just one person, just one or a few times. It may take multiple tries by multiple people working at the same time, together. Keep trying, please! ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please review the talk-page bombing by 142.68.0.0/16, and User:GoRight's continued access to his talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you review GoRight? Immediately after he launched two assaults on me, he is being unblocked. Hipocrite (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP activity is being dealt with I think, see the enforcement page, 2/0 has it I think... I ran a CU to determine collateral damage at 2's request. I'm sorry, I did not look at GoRight. I will try to, today. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping with the IP. The GoRight section that you should review was not the proposed unblock request, but rather the proposed unblock request in light of [6] Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on the request (perhaps not exactly as you might have wished) but also I told GoRight that his peanut gallery stuff was not at all helpful. Because it's not. Everyone needs to be building bridges, and at least trying to work with the more reasonable folk on the "other side" or we won't get anywhere. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempt with UA was appreciated but next time perhaps also encourage him to go straight to an editor if he has a problem with them rather than post on a talk page they might not see. --BozMo talk 18:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that an enforcement admin would most likely be watching the talkpage of that enforcement. And my comments "above the line" were being snowed under by other stuff, so I posted it there. It seemed (and seems) wholly appropriate that I did so. UnitAnode 19:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- And, lest it be seen I'm crapping on everything, it appears that Nightmote, who I think is on the other "side" and I made substantial positive changes to the article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On filibusters

[edit]

@Lar, you seem to take offense at something when I thought I was being matter of fact. Explain what and you win a free apology. --BozMo talk 18:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lar trying to introduce KDP into this looks to me like some kind of filibuster", "But it was certainly you, Lar, who picked out KDP from that discussion and introduced KDP below the line into the uninvolved admin discussion of results. I am not that bothered by what is unquestionably process dysfunctionality, life is short and we have to be pragmatic but it seems strange of you to dispute what you clearly did from the edit history." ... Actually, the edit history shows that someone else (UnitAnode) introduced evidence of who was edit warring on that page. I reviewed that evidence, saw many more names than you brought forward, and thought that KDP needed adding too. I raised that, but you seemed to dig in. I'm not offended, no, but I'm not particularly impressed either. Using terms like "filibuster" is not really quite collegial. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you are not offended but also surprised at your interpretation which seems a clear misreading of my comment. Equally therefore, sadly, not particularly impressed since my previous encounters of you had been positive. --BozMo talk 19:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is it possible to misread "filibuster" as anything other than disparagement? Feel free to explain. Or apologise, as you offered. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should do both: (1) My only knowledge of the word comes from Filibuster#United_Kingdom where it is not broadly disparaging but technical and tactical. People celebrate filibusters as essential for democracy, a triumph for democracy. In this instance my point was that you were forcing the debate wider than addressing the only issue actually raised. I had made it clear [7] that I was after a quick sanction for an offence on a narrow terrain and wanted comments from the floor only on whether the offence was correctly presented. Unitanode said involve KDP, Nutley said "no, he took it to talk unlike everyone else" etc etc but this was not within the question which I asked, and in strict terms those comments were out of order. I effectively asked the floor only whether I had those offences correct. Regardless of irrelevant comments we could have just nailed this quickly and moved on rather than using more time discussing the sanction than they spent discussing the page. But, clearly, by widening the debate to include not only KDP's edits on that page but (by the comment along the lines of if he is innocent it is only by luck) also including the rest of KDPs edits (which had been raised from the floor but procedurally you should have ignored) effectively you ensured that the origin motion for a quick and decisive rap on the knuckles for a clear offence could not proceed. Given my limited time frame, it meant the motion timed out on my available time. That, technically, is a filibuster, pretty much to a T. Now, I have not in all this said that it was a bad call. You have concerns about KDP which you want to deal with and bundling him into any nearby action may well be overall the best decision. But it was not the original issue or the original action. From my point of view (as the person who raised the issue) once we are not on a action for an issue I have to drop out, because I am very busy with Haiti and have no time to form a balanced judgement across probation space on who is being a bad person and who not. So I said, effectively, drop this motion, raise a more general one and deal with this as part of it. This motion has been filibusted. (2) I apologise if the term caused you offence because you took it as disparaging. It was intended to be technical. --BozMo talk 20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this isn't a parliament, nor is it a democracy, so we don't do filibusters here. That's what caused my raised eyebrows. The motion now is set to proceed I think. (2) Apology accepted. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way doesn't [8] contradict [9] or did I misunderstand "I can't sign off" to mean something other than "we can't"? Really, this is no big deal I am sure I got the wrong end of the stick somewhere but I suspect it was understandable to some degree. --BozMo talk 21:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't" != "We can't". It means I oppose the consensus, not that consensus can't be reached without my agreement. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Filibuster - "to impede legislation by irregular or obstructive tactics, esp. by making long speeches." Just thought I'd clarify for Bozmo just how pejorative his use of that word is when referring to another administrator. UnitAnode 20:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I look forward to your clarification when you get around to it. --BozMo talk 20:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being intentionally obtuse, here? By definition, you claimed that Lar was willfully "impeding" the process by using "irregular or obstructive tactics, esp. by making long speeches." How is it even possible to not understand how pejorative that is? UnitAnode 21:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>And, good grief Bozmo, it wasn't "nearby action", he was directly involved in the current edit war problem. That was clear from the evidence page I drew up. That his name failed to appear in the thread title was a mere oversight, and I think you know it. UnitAnode 21:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally lost my temper

[edit]

Fences&Windows accused me of being lazy in his support vote. I lost it a bit. I don't think I actually attacked F&W personally, but I went off more than a little bit. Where does he get off calling me lazy? UnitAnode 02:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just try to stay calm. I thought F&W was out of line there. But remember meatball:DefendEachOther... and try not to let people get to you. (it may be what they want) You're doing important work. As a note, though, if people ask you to slow down a bit because they can't keep up sourcing things, that's a reason to slow down... we want the articles fixed after all. Dunno if that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Lar. I haven't been working that quickly. And, not many of the people who have challenged me have actually been sourcing things. UnitAnode 02:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't worry about it. But on the other hand remember that you cannot solve this whole problem by yourself, and maybe the RfC will come up with a better process, with better automation. It might be worth waiting to see. ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually been keeping to the 242 articles I initially worked on last week. I'm trying to clean up the ones which were deprodded, and sorting them for usability. That's what makes me so crazy about this whole thing. I'm not even adding any more articles to the supposed "workload." I think some people just like to gripe. UnitAnode 02:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. Maybe invite GWH over here, or to your talk page, to talk about it. He can be reasonable from time to time. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted about the 242 thing there, and I was (I think) quite under control in my response to his "strongly urge" commentary. UnitAnode 03:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am so frustrated right now that I don't trust myself to talk to GWH right now. Can you perhaps ask him what the hell he means by "there is a 19:17:1 consensus to topic ban"? For one thing, I don't think he understands what the word "consensus" means. It doesn't mean, 50%+1. But right now, I'm just completely frustrated with this whole fucking process. I've already made it clear that I'm not working outside of those 242 articles. I've also made it clear that if people let me know they plan on sourcing the articles within a VERY brief period of time (minutes or, at the MOST, hours) I won't remove the material again. I'm also willing to use the {{tl:BLP unsourced}}, as was suggested to me. That's as far as I'm willing to go. I'm out for the night anyway, and I don't even know how much time I'll have tomorrow, but would you try to rein in Gwh's strange view of what constitutes "consensus" at least? UnitAnode 04:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will talk to him, I think he misspoke. But go re read the AN/I thread. I think a compromise here is achievable, close even!!! Wikidemon just agreed to something very very important. PLEASE accept the olive branch and reciprocate, it's very crucial. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lar barnstar

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
for a talk page history of crisis resolution that would send normal mortal fleeing in terror! Montanabw(talk) 03:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aw shucks. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby award you a tiger! For patient, controlled strength applied to a task. Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know tigers very well do you? :) Now where can we find some fresh meat for this kitty? ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"You want a pig," said Roger, "like in a real hunt."
"Or someone to pretend," said Jack. "You could get someone to dress up as a pig and then he could act — you know, pretend to knock me over and all that —"
"You want a real pig," said Robert, still caressing his rump, "because you've got to kill him."
"Use a littlun," said Jack, and everybody laughed.
04:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
File:Firm but fair.png
The firm but fair award, for providing simple justice instead of grabbing the taser!
The award-designer presented the award criteria, not I, and the apparently relaxing tiger is a form of potential energy...but if you prefer:
Montanabw(talk) 17:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since tigers kill by strangulation, I think this is Montanabw's way of saying you take her(?) breath away. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I hope that's not it! ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not MY breath snuffed! LOL! And grabbing prey by the throat kills by suffocation, not stragulation, actually. Grab by the throat and hang on until the prey stops kicking. THAT takes patience! (Immediate piercing of the jugular is far faster, but less opportunity for rectifying a mistake!) Montanabw(talk) 17:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

[edit]

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Talk:Cypripedium calceolus

[edit]

I have sent you an email regarding the above. It's to your milton email account. SilkTork *YES! 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think things are percolating along. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the $5 argument, please

[edit]

FYI. It really doesn't bother me, but I do understand why you make the comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editors making comments about my suitability, as regards some of my (non)actions, comments, and percieved viewpoints. Part of the remit, I feel. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about YOUR suitability? I'll go have stern words with them. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re Admins Noticeboard/Climate Change

[edit]

Hi. I would be grateful if you would run your eye over Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change#Initial conclusions, regarding a dispute over a section in the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. Can you see if there is any fault in my logic, and its application, or a misrepresentation of other editors actions or my understanding of policy? Although I would be grateful if you would note if you concur with my findings, at that page, I would understand if you didn't. I would also be grateful if you would note any dissent or disquiet in regard to my comments, again at that page. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed it. It's convoluted, isn't it. I suspect it will take some considerable thought. You know my attention wanders :) ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, the information I originally requested is now starting to come to light once I posted my initial findings.... My logic is impeccable, I submit, except the newly available data may or may not deprecate it entirely or in part! ;~/ LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite makes a request for action

[edit]
Lift assist

You wrote "PS, I do think mimicking a warning back to the editor who warned was unnecessarily snarky. An admonishment for that seems in order. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC) " The mimicking is still there. An apology has not arrived an admonishment has not happened? You want to know why I've hopped back in the bunker?

Because I got shat on and unprotected for trying to play fair, but an editor who has made zero attempt to comrpomise, but has an account since 2005 (though, of couse, his only edits are PoV pushing and BLP vandalism against people who don't like his policitcs) can make a copy-paste move of an article and then, as opposed to him getting smacked down HIS MOVE IS BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY Hipocrite (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That action isn't closed. I won't approve closure unless he's admonished. I'm just one voice. Yelling at me won't help, although it may make you feel better... Do you have a link for where the move is "being taken seriously" ? Ithought it had been pretty much roundly condemned. But I'm over voting on Meta and then I have to pack for my flight tomorrow... I may not get to this right away. ++Lar: t/c 01:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Lar, please see me comments [[10]] as to why I a feel an apology for my "snarky" warning is not appropriate. Just want to make sure you are seeing both sides of the issue. Sirwells (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing back exactly what someone else says is almost always going to come across as snarky. It has whenever I've done it (hey, none of us is perfect), in the past. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comment or two might be appropriate in re. SRQ and WHL

[edit]

Hi, as you are aware of the tensions between these two may you have the time to bring more light than heat with what is going on? Maybe I errored in commenting back but I am pretty sure I know how Wildhartlivie is going to react to this. I find it to be needless poking to gain a negative response and said so. Would appreciate it if you could stop this in it's tracks before things get out of control again. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments here. I have to admit that I am my wits end with all of this. I don't like being talked down to like this. She has continued battle behavior and I personally don't like it. We cannot edit and enjoy it when an editor picks fights like this. I hope that you will finally be able to take some control here before more editors get upset by all of this. Thanks, sorry to bring this back to you because I know you are busy with other things but you are the only one I know of that knows the history of this, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left an identical message at both their talks. We shall see. Because this needs to stop. I don't care who started it. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I've been following these ongoing issues with SRQ for several months, and have had my own run-ins with her in the past. While I've kept out of the current saga, I have been watching. I'm concerned over this message, which SRQ left on the talk page of an IP editor with whom WHL is currently involved in a dispute.[11] I'll ask the obvious question: Why does SRQ need off-wiki communication, to share "pertinent information" regarding a user with whom both editors are in dispute? -FeralDruid (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming much again, FD. If you want to know something about someone's motives, why would you ask a person who couldn't possibly know the answer? Why not ask the person whose motives you're questioning? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then answer the question. -FeralDruid (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That should happen on my talk page, not someone else's, FD. If you want to ask there, feel free. Otherwise... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SkagitRiverQueen

[edit]

Excuse me all to hell, here, but this is out of hand and I have done nothing to warrant the above post. (Made to my talk page by you). It is far past time for something to be done about this person. Ever since my block, she has made snarky, hateful talk page posts. Last night, she pushed an issue on Talk:Charles Manson, where an edit she had made was grammatically incorrect and made no sense, and continued to revert my changes. She has camped out on that article and insists on the talk page that any issues with her edits be brought up there before changing them. If you will please look at what was going on, she kept reverting to a poorly phrased and ingrammatical sentence, insisting in the edit summaries nothing was wrong with what she'd written and then came to template me for WP:3RR. Just after that, another administrator stepped in, reverted her changes as "clean up" and she shut up. I removed the template she pushed it to, and noted WP:DTTR. Her first action was to post this to my talk page. Please note, up to that point, I had made no posts to her talk page and there was no valid reason for her to leave that hateful post to my talk page. I have not tried to engage this person, as your post to me stated, and what I did do was notify her to stop posting commentary and that further posts would be considered harassment and would be reported as such. I begged you to do something about her long ago, and you put me off until "later", which never came even after I wrote to you and asked "when" later would be. Her response was to posted the above in reponse to my notice to stop posting to me. I do not engage this woman. Other editors did notify you about her behavior, and if you will look at Crohnie, other editors have tried to defuse this with her. I begged you, Crohnie has begged you, I am simply sick and tired of this treatment from her and I fully expect administrators here to step in and stop her. Am I supposed to sit back and let her post such crap to my talk page, mistreat me and other editors, all in the name of "being honest"? Well, excuse me, but that is just so much rhetoric in the face of outright attacks such as she launches. I'm supposed to take this from her? What is the remedy besides getting posts such as yours when I have not engaged her beyond a notification that further posts would be treated as harassment. This is harassment and it was my understanding that administrators here are supposed to deal with this sort of behavior. The complaints I made to you before, the complaints that others have made to you, are not fabrications or our imagination. When will something be done about her treatment of other editors? I was under the impression that once someone served their blocks, it was supposed to done and over with. How is that possible under these circumstances? Does this have to go to ArbCom? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's not to post to your talk page, you're not to post to hers. You're not to comment on her further, she's not to comment on you further. If I see it continueing, I'll take it to AN/I to get it formalized and if that fails then yes, ArbCom is a very real possibility. This is a big wiki. Find something else to do, ok? "She started it" won't fly with me. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I dare say you're keeping an eye on the situation, but I have to comment on this. Two days after telling both editors that they need to disengage and that Wikipedia is a big place, comes this edit by SkagitRiverQueen at Kate Winslet, which is an article Wildhartlivie recently nominated for WP:GA and of which she is the main contributor. It's only one edit, but every other conflict between these editors has started with one edit. I may be missing something in the article history, but I can't see that SRQ has edited this article before, and the sudden switch from serial killers to an article that WHL clearly holds dear, looks to me like an attempt to provoke a reaction from WHL. Even assuming the best of good faith, it's not in the spirit of "disengage". There are plenty of editors who can fix anything that needs fixing at Kate Winslet and over a million articles that SRQ could work on. Why suddenly this one? I know anyone can edit any article, but given the recent discussions and warnings, there must be a corner of Wikipedia that WHL can work in, without being followed. This is beyond ridiculous. Rossrs (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A response on this is needed. The editor in question has never edited that article before and insinuated herself in an editing question between another editor and myself, then posted a comment to the talk page. Rossrs and I recently took this through GA, which passed. I'm not permitted to respond to her. So now what? Followed to a new article, stuck herself in where it could conceivably call for a response to her post. How is one supposed to deal with this? How is one supposed to accept this? The issue was sorted between the other editor and myself, there was no need for a "reworked awkward syntax" edit nor a talk page post regarding it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict - I assumed WHL had seen the edits, and I assumed correctly). Also this edit at Talk:Kate Winslet, in which SRQ steps in uninvited to a discussion between WHL and another editor and offers them a compromise. I don't seriously believe SRQ is remotely interested in helping WHL, and at this point SRQ should be the last editor offering unsolicited advice to WHL. I assume WHL has seen this, and although she hasn't asked me to say anything for her, by meatball:DefendEachOther, she can't really say anything herself. I'm concerned that if she's baited, and takes the bait, and says too much, it will be WHL who ends up in hot water and I'd like to see that not happen. Rossrs (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no substantiation that Abie asked anyone a week ago what to do about the Kate Winslet article, nor find a reason why he would have asked, he was involved in discussion with Rossrs about something on that page. In email discussion with Abie, he did not mention discussion with anyone else, nor indicate any interaction on that level, although our discussion was about the edit made by SkagitRiverQueen to the Winslet article. I have sent him an email asking him this question specifically. I've been editing at the Manson page since November 2007, where SkagitRiverQueen followed me after a dispute at the Ted Bundy article in January 2010, as she did several others where she had not previously edited, and posting to that talk page is something I've done all along. Wikistalking my edits has been a long time complaint that I have had and has been the subject of discussion before. Please see here for a complaint about wikistalking that I began to compile soon after her first appearance at the Charles Manson article. My comment on the Manson talk page did not require a response, although it appeared to me that a veiled sock accusation was made about a new editor, which I questioned. I didn't say "SkagitRiverQueen, that sounds like a sock accusation. My comment was that the editor about whom it could conceivably sound wouldn't have posted that way. In any case, it was biting the newbie, who so far hasn't returned, not an invitation for discussion. The edits made at Kate Winslet were a direct result of a question in which I was involved. "Intervening" in a situation in which I was directly involved, where no edits had ever previously been made, is a direct actionWildhartlivie (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban?

[edit]

I've seen ChrisO (talk · contribs) being quite rude in many discussions. It looks like he and his friends can do what they want without any reactions at all. In the same page a lot of his opponents get topic banned for less dire comments than that (ex). Nsaa (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you post a self-published book by a couple of non-notable individuals, you can hardly complain when someone points out that it's a junk source. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's your form that is bad, not what you are making arguments. Why not just say that this is a self published (?) book, published by persons non notable and therefore is not relevant? Others seems to be topiuc banned for less than this. That was my question. Nsaa (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused...

[edit]

Exactly what do you want me to comment on? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read "A comment or two might be appropriate" (3 sections up) and especially "SkagitRiverQueen" (2 sections up) and comment. You have been told not to interact with WHL. It is alleged that you persist in doing so, and further, that you have been engaging WHL in areas where you previously were not active. What is your response to this? Please be specific. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't engaged nor interacted with her at all since you left the warning on my talk page. As far as the Winslet article, Abie asked my opinion through private email around a week ago about how to better edit the Winslet article, and that's when and why I put it on my watchlist. The edits I made there had nothing to do with WHL, they were about trying make work better what both editors were trying to accomplish. I never said anything to nor did I engage WHL once. My edits were about the article, and when discussed on the talk page, I discussed with Abie, not WHL. I never mentioned her nor did I even acknowledge her presence at the article. OTOH, WHL did attempt to engage me yesterday at the Charles Manson talk page. My response was to just repost what you had stated to both of us about disengaging as well as to her here on your talk page- but only as a reminder that she needed to stop trying to engage me. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Why were you at Charles Manson in the first place, though? That seems puzzling. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why it should be puzzling to you - I've been editing that article for a while. What's more, I've been editing crime articles in general for a while - the Manson article is just one in a list of several. I'm also on the Serial Killer Task Force and WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography task force, so... The article that brought WHL and I "together" (so to speak) was Ted Bundy - and I've been editing that article since 2006. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image movement to Commons and requests not to delete local copies

[edit]

Hi, I can't really chose whether or not to honor keeping the superfluous local duplicate since I'm not an admin, I can only mark images, so I'm not sure what you mean. I find the rationale for keeping in this case extremely unconvincing though. What does "YMMV" mean? Regards Hekerui (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YMMV == "Your mileage may vary" ... hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble a-brewin'

[edit]

Talk:Johnny_Behan#See_above, just in case you want to keep an eye out. Equazcion (talk) 05:35, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

LOL! There's no "trouble a-brewin'" at all. An editor chose to be nasty rather than civil, and I called him on it. That's all there is to it. As I stated at the Behan talk page, until there's a change in his attitude, I'm done with any discussion with him there. Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlivie and SkagitRiverQueen part deux

[edit]

Hi Lar, I've been asked to ask you to clarify some points regarding contact between these editors, per meatball:DefendEachOther. The only way I can think to clarify, is to ask you a few questions.

1. If one editor posts a comment at an article talk page, is the other editor permitted to respond in that discussion?
2. If yes - if the response is a neutral comment in reply to another person who comments, but not directly to the other "party" is that ok?
3. What if editor A disagrees with editor B, but instead of disagreeing directly, she posts her disagreement in reply to a comment made by a third editor? Could that be interpreted as a way of getting around the issue of not directly communicating, knowing full well that editor B will not fail to read the comment? If so, is this in violation of the specific instructions you gave to both editors?
4. How do the editors deal with an article that is of interest to both of them? Is it a case of who gets there first in a particular discussion? Or who has been editing the article for the longest or most consistently?

Example: Talk:John Wayne Gacy. User:Wildhartlivie started a discussion with this edit. User:SkagitRiverQueen commented in opposition with this edit which addresses the question originally posed by SRQ, and it is quite neutral in presenting an opinion without referencing WHL, but it is posted after this comment by User:Chowbok. Chowbok's comment is completely out of line and completely off-topic, and it's not necessarily the most logical edit to receive SRQ's comment. Could it be construed that by placing the comment after a comment that attacks WHL, there is some kind of "ganging up" taking place? There is no reason for Wildhartlivie to reply to SRQ because SRQ has done no more indicate a style preference. Is the way she's done it acceptable? If there was something that warranted a reply is it correct to say that WHL is not permitted to do that, and if so how would she deal with it? She's already got one editor (Chowbok) accusing her of canvassing, and yet there doesn't seem to be any way for her to respond to SRQ except through another editor. It would probably be helpful if these points could be clarified, as there are certain articles that both editors edit. Thank you for the time you've already spent in looking at this issue. Rossrs (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I really just would like these two to stay away from each other as much as possible. I didn't want to have to craft rules about who could say what where first. I'd say maybe they should divide up their areas of interest and until they can show they can get along, stay completely off talk pages or articles the other one has more contributons on. (who has been editing the longest or most consistently... or who gets there first).
If this can't be made to work, then I will just give it up as a bad idea, I guess. As for the thread on John Wayne Gacy you showed me, I must say WHL seems a bit combative in that thread. It's not what I'd hope to see from an editor who wants to be collegial. ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why you would think staying away from one another completely would be some sort of a solution, Lar. The problem with that solution is that WHL probably has hundreds of (if not more than a thousand) articles on her watchlist. I have a little more than 200. With that many articles on her watchlist, it's a very strong bet that she and I will end up at the same articles time and time again. My interests are not so much with celebrities as her are, but I do have some celebrities on my watchlist. I have a number of crime- and criminal-related articles on my watchlist; so does she (although on her talk page she states she has "retired" from editing crime-related articles). I don't think it's fair that I stop editing the articles on my watchlist that she also edits since my list is much smaller than hers. And, to be frank, asking me to do so seems almost as if you, as an administrator, are allowing her to take articles I may want to edit - and in a sense, any Wikipedia article on her watch list - hostage. That, to me, is not fair - especially since I'm not having any trouble dealing with her at all of late, and have moved on and away from dealing with her directly. If you look at WHL's sandbox, however, you can see that she has not moved on at all and continues to harbor anger/resentment/ill-feelings/whatever toward me by keeping a record of perceived wrongs with a "serious injury list". I'm not quite sure why she is compiling this "list", nor what she plans to do with it, but it does worry me somewhat that she has obviously not been able to let go of things - especially since she has already harassed me by email (which I could have made a much bigger stink about here in WP and with her ISP, and didn't, BTW).
Anyway, that's my .02 cents worth on the subject. The long and short of it being that if I see her working on an article that I already have on my watchlist or maybe would like to edit, I'm not going to allow myself to be dissuaded from editing just because she is there and/or was there first. That's not how Wikipedia works - and it should never be allowed to work that way. If it ever does, then the bullies have won and the rest of us poor schlubs will just have to take it? Nuh-uh. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sandbox page is a problem and I've notified WHL. Incidentally, how did you happen to come across it, SRQ? I'd also be interested to know how you happened to end up at Katherine Hepburn ([12]). Equazcion (talk) 01:17, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

SRQ and WHL: The problem is that you're both behaving badly. Each of you brings tales about the other's misbehavior here, and you're both correct at least some of the time. (I expect this is going to get a response from both ouf you saying that it's unfair of me to say that you are behaving badly, or that the other one is worse, or what have you) If you cannot figure out how to get along without micromanagement, then I guess I should just give up this idea as a bad job and let more conventional methods be used. Because I'm not your mom. I tried, but it wasn't going to work I guess. Either make honest proposals to each other on how to get along, or I give up. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see this is that you laid down specific parameters about behavior toward each other. Questions were brought to you in regard to whether or not specific instances violated the restrictions you laid down, since you clearly said "If I see it continueing, I'll take it to AN/I to get it formalized." Asking whether certain actions violate that should be expected in some cases and if you decide the posts violate your conditions, it be taken to AN/I and it become more formal. SRQ stating she hasn't had any trouble dealing with me at all is testimony to the fact that I have studiously avoided interacting with her, even when she commented in threads I started or were involved in. On the other hand, two instances of where SRQ has popped up where she had not been previous to conflict between us were presented for comment. One was the Kate Winslet article, which I had just taken through GA nomination, and which she claimed the other editor asked her for advice, and then changed that statement to claim that he emailed her. I would note, regarding that, that the email user page clearly says "A private log of this action will be retained for the purpose of preventing abuse, and can be viewed by certain privileged users. This log does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the e-mail. In cases of serious abuse, Wikimedia server administrators can verify the recipient account." In other words, whether or not Abie emailed SRQ is possibly obtainable and verifiable. The other, in which my conduct was characterized as "a bit combative" was the second time this issue had been addressed on John Wayne Gacy within a month which was a violation of WP:CITE and in my view, was rightly addressed. The other editor involved was reported to WP:WQA for comments made on that article and another and on talk pages. Personally, I think there is a clear difference between being "a bit combative" and being firm and clear in reasoning. That editor's snarky, aggressive behavior continues to be a problem. Basically, on both of those articles, the specific questions were about SRQ posting comments in threads that were either started by me or were ongoing issue that were being sorted out that included me. My question regarding the Gacy talk page was specifically that SRQ made statements with which I completely disagree and are unsupported and asked if it was a violation to address those points. I did not forge ahead to comment without clarification.
As for my watchlist, I do not have "probably [...] hundreds of (if not more than a thousand) articles" on the list. My watchlist has 503 pages on it. 357 articles of them are articles, 274 of which are actor/film/filmmaking/awards articles. The others fall in a variety of categories, including 70 articles that are related to the crime project and all of which are listed on my userpage as most frequently edited articles. When one watches 70 crime articles and notes that a specific editor has suddenly popped up for the first time on close to 30% of them since a given dispute that resulted in a restriction on interaction, one tends to notice. 90 are userpages, including 32 IPs that were templated for vandalism, 32 are Wikipedia project, etc. pages, 14 image pages, 8 template pages and 2 category pages. Based on a belief that a statement made by you here that "ArbCom is a very real possibility" was a real possibility, I am not aware of a restriction upon one beginning to compile evidence for a potential ArbCom filing, about which I have already had discussion with various individuals involved. Whether I can't let it go or not is debatable. That I keep seeing a certain user popping up where she had not previously gone before isn't just a play on the Star Trek intro, it keeps the issue highlighted, even if that editor has taken on new and fresh areas of combat. Topic bans and restrictions most certainly do apply as to what articles an editor is allowed to edit, which often are the outcomes of ArbCom and AN/I sanctions and even administrator decision.
I am concerned about one comment she made, though, that is quite disingenuous: "especially since she has already harassed me by email (which I could have made a much bigger stink about here in WP and with her ISP, and didn't, BTW)." That is a factual lie. I have been given information wherein she did directly contact an ISP about direct email, as I understand that has nothing to do with here or the user email system here, to which she replied and made legal threats. At this point, because of SRQ's continued comments regarding that, I will note that in the discussion between you and I was that I reserve the right to submit evidence at a future date that LaVidaLoca and I are not the same person and am I working on changing her mind about "outing" herself. SRQ's continued dragging that up and requesting that editors with whom I disagree contact her via email fosters no air of collegiality. And as I said to someone else, I served my block time, I do not expect it to be made a factor in every discussion in which I disagree with an action.
I'm truly sorry that you are tired of this, but then so am I. The questions raised here were not to tattle to mom, but instead to attempt to clarify your restrictions. If that is annoying, I apologize. They were asked in the interest of elucidating the situation and deterimining whether postings crossed the boundaries you set. It also isn't to whine "it's not fair". Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time for me to address a few things from above:

  • SRQ stating she hasn't had any trouble dealing with me at all is testimony to the fact that I have studiously avoided interacting with her, even when she commented in threads I started or were involved in. Actually, it's a testimony to both of us avoiding interacting with one another. This hasn't been a one-sided effort.
  • she claimed the other editor asked her for advice, and then changed that statement to claim that he emailed her. I changed it? No, I clarified so there would be no later accusation of obfuscation or lying. And, in fact, the other editor *did* ask me for advice.
  • I would note, regarding that, that the email user page clearly says "A private log of this action will be retained for the purpose of preventing abuse, and can be viewed by certain privileged users. This log does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the e-mail. In cases of serious abuse, Wikimedia server administrators can verify the recipient account." In other words, whether or not Abie emailed SRQ is possibly obtainable and verifiable. Yeah...and? I have never lied in Wikipedia. I didn't then, I'm not now, I never will. If necessary, verify away, Lar. You'll find a record of the email exchange between Abie and I. You see, I have nothing to hide.
  • As for my watchlist, I do not have "probably [...] hundreds of (if not more than a thousand) articles" on the list. My watchlist has 503 pages on it. 357 articles of them are articles, 274 of which are actor/film/filmmaking/awards articles. The others fall in a variety of categories My estimation was merely a guess based on the number of articles she works on in a week's time. I'd like to add that one of the things she obviously has on her watchlist is my talk page. Yet, she continues to complain that I am stalking her. Go figure.
  • I am concerned about one comment she made, though, that is quite disingenuous: "especially since she has already harassed me by email (which I could have made a much bigger stink about here in WP and with her ISP, and didn't, BTW)." That is a factual lie. It is? How is that a "factual lie"? I could have made a much bigger stink with her ISP - but didn't. I made one report to her ISP. I could have taken it further than that. I had every right (and actually every reason) to do so. I didn't. I could have made a stink with WP about her harassing me by email as well. I didn't. So...please tell me - exactly *what* did I lie about? If you can come up with nothing, here - you owe me an apology - and for more than just the accusation of lying, actually. I'm also owed an apology for the harassing emails you sent (which I was going to let go of until reading this latest accusation).
  • I have been given information wherein she did directly contact an ISP about direct email Really? And what "information" is that? That I contacted your ISP? Yep - as I said above - I sure did. And had every right to do it, too. Email harassment is not only a TOS violation, but it's illegal.
  • as I understand that has nothing to do with here or the user email system here, to which she replied and made legal threats. Uh...what??? Clarification, please.

That's all for now. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, as we have discussed, I am in process of working on getting cooperation to submit proof to you that LaVidaLoca and I are not the same person and I am quite tired of being told about posts being made around that both directly accuse me of being a user named SkagRiverKing and speculation about that. You have clearly stated on more than one occasion that you found no connection and it's extremely tiresome to see comments that suggest that. Please see this post which followed the issue you addressed here after that exchange, which was the third time that your admonition to desist replying to or about me or it would be taken to AN/I for further action has been violated. So I continue to maintain that I am not the same person and no apology from me will be forthcoming. The report I was given from the ISP, which also was forwarded to LaVidaLoca was a complaint but there is no process for a "bigger stink" and produced a request to desist in emailing that account and mentioned no sanctions which are suggested here. And yes, a legal threat was made in response to an email which said " If you attempt this form of harassment (or any other form of harassment) again, the next communication you get on my behalf will come to you via our lawyer. I guarantee you will not like what happens after that." I will be glad to forward to you the copy of that email I was sent. As for watchlisting talk pages, tit for tat. Why would someone be aware of how many articles I work on in a week's time anyway? Tired of this, extremely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made that post on the anon's page, not SRQ.—Chowbok ☠ 05:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am fascinated that WHL is still maintaining she was not using sock-puppets. And while she doesn't completely deny having sent me anonymous, private emails, she seems to be saying that "LaVidaLoca" actually sent them. The content of the email she quotes was, indeed, sent by me to the anonymous email harasser. I have no reason to deny it and there certainly is nothing wrong with what I wrote. I don't know if it is okay, however, for her to reveal what was in a personal email apart from WP here without my permission, though (isn't that kind of thing covered in a policy somewhere in WP?) But, back to the email - if you recall Lar, I forwarded that email (along with all of the others including the email headers) to you. So, that reply from me to WHL/the anonymous email harasser is no secret, nor is it anything I would, or have attempted to, deny. Now, maybe someone can answer this for me: if WHL *isn't* the anonymous person who harassed me both by email and here in WP on my talk page, how does she know what I wrote *back* to the email harasser? How, exactly, did she come across the exact email I sent to that harasser when the only others who had copies of the emails were you and another WP administrator (and the ArbCom people the emails were forwarded to for investigation)? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be fascinated all you want, when I convince her to "out" herself and the identification is submitted, it will support that I am not the same person as LaVidaLoca, which has been widely acknowledged by multiple editors that they have communicated with her individually and know she isn't the same person. I stated you made legal threats, you challenged that and the content was given as proof. Plus if you sent copies around, you apparently have no compunction about revealing it. No great secret about the emails, LaVidaLoca sent them to me after I insisted. Wow, great mystery there. She screwed up, yes, but I didn't write them and as for denial, well, other people consistently deny they did anything to warrant blocks, now don't they? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHL stated a few days ago, "I don't particularly think any dialogue between her and I would be productive". I guess she was right: "dialogue" (although, the above is really a monologue since I wasn't talking to her, but to you) would be unproductive, as the snide remarks from her above prove. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so much annoyed as I am frustrated, I guess. Let me take another look at the questions, ok? As for your block, I agree, you served your time, and we privately got to a resolution that met the stuff we outlined. It may not have been the one I personally would like to have seen but it was acceptable, and raising that block over and over isn't helpful. So I agree with you in part. But I think the question about why you're keeping a sandbox is a valid one... the explanation that you're archiving material because you may want to raise the matter later is fine, but why not keep it offline. Or make it much more dispassionate. Just list the diffs and a dry analysis. The way it reads now isn't that friendly. Anyway, let me try to provide guidance, if you wish it. I just had the sense you didn't. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I share your frustration and speaking for a few others, they do too. To be honest, the block outcome wasn't the one I would have chosen either, but the one I think you wanted and so did I takes cooperation, which I wasn't getting from the other party, to achieve the outcome I would have liked. As I said, I'm working on that. The sandbox content was started last month before the block issue arose, and was at that time slated for a RfC/U that would have been filed about the same time as the block. Since the first week of February, another thought has come to mind with issues that have arisen and examples I've seen. I told Equazcion I would gladly blank the paragraph part, but the rest is simply a list of articles and dates and I didn't see why that was objectionable. The way I see the current issue is that you laid down some clear lines about what can and can't be done, and some situations have arisen that don't fall within those lines, so yes, I think for my part, I need some clarification about those situations. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, given your very clear, unambiguous directive of "She's not to post to your talk page, you're not to post to hers. You're not to comment on her further, she's not to comment on you further. If I see it continueing, I'll take it to AN/I to get it formalized and if that fails then yes, ArbCom is a very real possibility. This is a big wiki. Find something else to do, ok? To both of you. You both need to disengage from each other. That means completely. No more accusations from either of you about the other.", how this conversation fits into not commenting on me. Is that not commenting on me? Please, by all means, run a checkuser on that account and any other ones either of those three want to accuse me of. Is it acceptable for a currently blocked editor to continue to violate unequivocable directives? I'm trying very hard to follow your instructions, is this the same? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it wasn't helpful. I said so there. By the way, if you guys want to try to work out your differences here, please feel free... just try to keep it confined to just here. Would that be helpful? If not never mind. ++Lar: t/c 00:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and thank you for the offer. I am sending you an email. I don't particularly think any dialogue between her and I would be productive and I just want her to not talk about me or stalk my edits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Margaretta Faugères

[edit]
Updated DYK query On February 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Margaretta Faugères, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Userifying a page

[edit]

I can't actually find a link to the deleted page, but at one time I worked on an article about the Romanian actor, Radu Amzulescu who was featured in the film Citizen X. Now it's gone and I was about to expand it. If it is lurking in the background somewhere, could I get it userified? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm happy to userify things (if somewhat slow at actually doing it, see the big list I have waiting for me above... :) ) on request. However, after a brief look I can't find it under that name either. Many Romanian names have diareetics or other non standard letters in them (áĕò etc.)... is it possible this name has some of those and that's why the unaccented name isn't coming up? Another way to find it is in your own contribs (perhaps in deleted contribs which you need an admin like me to check)... can you narrow down when it was? That would make digging a bit easier. I will look harder later. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered about that but hadn't come across a spelling like that. It's listed without marks in the film article. I'll take a look around and see if I can't find it. It's been a year or more since I worked on it. If I can't find something, I'll let you know, one way or another. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

[edit]

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *YES! 10:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I would have probably missed that if you hadn't pinged me, much appreciated. Seems a good idea to me, said so. However will it be well received? One can hope but I'm not hopeful. ++Lar: t/c 13:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drew R. Smith

[edit]

Hi. I think User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier is Drew; my first suspicion was that it was John254. See User talk:Tbsdy lives#My Userpage first, then my talk page and Red Hood's talk; the ANIs are at: wp:ani#Disruptive signature && wp:ani#user talk:Jack Merridew. The other aspect is that Grawp and the /b/tard crowd dipped into the drama for lulz by attacking both user talk pages. It should sort soon and I've let some others know: tbsdy, Durova, and Jonathan, so this is just an fyi a you were involved last summer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova's taken this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Drew R. Smith and you're the fellow who CU'd Drew last summer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can check to see if I have anything, but I won't run any new CUs for investigative purposes while I'm on the Ombudsman Commission. ++Lar: t/c 00:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Lar cannot help, try the CU mailing list. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do that; it's closed (been there, got the NAK-receipt in my inbox). Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I understand that; if you've logs, share them with the CU-list — whatever the usual procedure is. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

[edit]

Here we go again... As I said to 2/1, I really would like ideas upon lancing this particular boil. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read that a couple of times and my head's still spinning. I'm not sure what the argument is about exactly. ++Lar: t/c 00:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why contributors leave, a survey of former contributors

[edit]

My WP:TPWs that haven't seen this yet may be interested in the reporting of results of a survey of former contributors. It's on the Strategy Wiki. Strategy:Task force/Community Health/Former Contributors Survey Results ++Lar: t/c 00:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Comment

[edit]

Hi. I went to a birthday party for LaVidaLoca's grandson this evening and after a discussion between us, she has agreed to come over tomorrow to scan her driver's license to submit to you to prove she is who we said she was. She will send it to you with a mea culpa after we scan it. I'll send you a copy of my state identification card (I can't drive due to vision disabilities) from my email account. Is that satisfactory to you? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be very satisfactory indeed. The information will of course be kept strictly private to me. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tl;dr (??) about "Adding just one word"

[edit]

Hello, Lar, I have very little experience in Wikipedia, but I'm hoping you can advise me on how to start a "sockpuppet hearing" so I can defend myself against Wildhartlivie. I'm not trying to make a personal attack on her. I'm pointing out an irrationality in her reaction to my adding one word to the Dorothy Kilgallen article. It's a very necessary word: officially. It belongs in the section "Kilgallen and the Kennedy assassination." Without it, the article says Kilgallen made something available to readers of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Seattle Post Intelligencer and other newspapers in August 1964 (see footnotes #26 and 27), but that something "didn't become available to the public until the [Warren] commission released its 26 volumes in early 1965."

So, how can something be available to the public in 1964 but not available to the public until 1965? The article should say the portion of the Warren Commission report in question "didn't become officially available to the public until ... early 1965." In August 1964 Kilgallen made it available without the official stamp of approval from the government. I already brought this up on the talk page for Dorothy Kilgallen, and Wildhartlivie made a reply that dumbs down the issue to the issue of sockpuppets. If she thinks I'm causing trouble, I'm going to defend myself. Please check my history of contributions. I'm not a conspiracy theorist or a Kilgallen obsessive. I've contributed to Wikipedia articles on the Great Horned Owl, the hygrometer, Mark Geragos and the metaphysical poet John Donne. I use a computer at a college campus at a small town in California, and I should not be held responsible for postings made by other students over a long period of time. Because Wildhartlivie has contributed to this very page, I'm prepared for her to repeat her comment about "Dooyar," and I'm just going to defend myself.

The issue is an American government document being both available and not available to the American public in 1964. If somebody questions my integrity as a newbie Wikipedia editor, that belongs in a sockpuppet hearing, not with the Kilgallen issue. There is no hurry, Lar. Would one possible solution be for you to add that single word to "Kilgallen and the Kennedy assassination?" Maybe that would hurt fewer feelings of fewer people. I'm not making a personal attack on anyone. Quite the contrary, I'm suggesting how to proceed without any personal attacks. I'm looking forward to a reply from Lar whenever it is convenient -- Monday, Thursday, whenever. Earththings (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Lar, please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nyannrunning and these sock accounts of that editor, who has shown an interest in relatively obscure articles that are tangentially related in one way or another to the JFK assassination conspiracy theories and articles related to What's My Line?:

He also posted from the following IPs, many of which are connected to library connections in the greater Los Angeles area, including UCLA library, the Los Angeles public library and various satellite branches and the airport. How interesting that he would think to mention that aspect here too:

Please note the use of the term "user-driven website" which he frequently uses and was picked up from a dispute mediation case involving him as Dooyar and Pinkadelica and me and the use of citations to pages posted by John McAdams. He also tends to refer to articles as "our article" and uses the pronoun "we". Also citing WP:DUCK, when a person has interacted with this sock master long enough, one recognizes his writing style, even when he attempts to disguise it. His post to Talk:Laraine Newman used a familiar style of address: "Hello. How do people feel about adding..." His post to Talk:Corey Haim references a book by Julia Phillips that he's used before as other accounts and engages in the same sort of tangentialness that his earlier talk page posts had. After a year or so, administrators started blocking new accounts from this editor based on these similarities and basically, WP:DUCK sort of observations. Add to that his obvious knowledge of sock puppet issues and mentioning previous issues from the socks that mentioned issues abou "conspiracy theorist or a Kilgallen obsessive". The content addition was reverted as contributions by a banned user. If necessary, a new SPI can be launched, but as time goes on, preparing one of those and exploring the posts from associated accounts becomes repressive. Just sayin'. Not to mention that the previous addition of "officially" and the rationale for it is totally unsupported or referenced. Not to mention this editor has attempted to stir the fires by cross-posting a very similar post to SRQ's talk page [13]. That's also a familiar pattern that would not be common knowledge to an editor with little experience in Wikipedia, now would it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it wouldn't be common knowledge to me. The fact that I'm new to Wikipedia means I'm not smart enough to read the words "sock puppet issues," understand the meaning of "obsessive" or to know what a conspiracy theorist is. I'm also a tangential weirdo for using the word "hello" when I made the very first (and so far only) contribution to the talk page for a particular actress who is in her late 50's. I'm one of very few people who has read the book Driving Under the Affluence by Julia Phillips and who knows that it references many obscure actors. Surely, my spending five seconds cutting and pasting a message so two editors can read it warrants suspicion that I'm "stirring the fires." It never occurred to me that cutting and pasting causes a "very similar post" to appear in a second place!

Sarcasm aside, there is an excellent reference for Jack Ruby's testimony to the Warren Commission becoming "officially" available to the American people in early 1965: the Warren Commission report. If, according to Wildhartlivie, the "rationale" for adding the word officially to the Kilgallen article is "totally unsupported or referenced," then so are the other assertions about Kilgallen and the assassination that the article contains. For example, John McAdams' web site, which another editor has tagged as an "unreliable source," doesn't say two FBI agents visited her house to ask her who had given her the Ruby testimony. You can read the entire web site online. Lee Israel's biography says they did, and so do documents listed under "Dorothy Kilgallen" at the National Archives in Maryland. Want the page number for the Israel citation? Of course, the Archives documents don't qualify as Wikipedia sources, but the Israel book has been used in many other footnotes within the Kilgallen article.

As for my IP address, I reiterate that I use a computer belonging to my university campus in a small town in California. It isn't near Los Angeles, nor should every student and professor be held responsible for the behavior of other people in 2006 or 2007.

Finally, I'd like to request that Lar help start a new SPI even though it could become "repressive." I've dealt with repressive ordeals before. In my life and job history, I mean. I may be new to Wikipedia, but I have been living my life for a long time. As such, I know the difference between a professional disagreement and a personal attack, and nothing I have written constitutes a personal attack. Maybe claims that I'm stupid could be considered personal attacks, but I shall let them go for now. Earththings (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one called you stupid, and if you looked closely enough, you'd realize you cross-posted to an editor who by restriction cannot comment on your talk page post or on me, that is fanning the flames. Wonder why you picked that one? Sock puppet investigations are not fishing expeditions, so no, no one is going to start one at your request. As for the Lee Israel book, you spent a lot of time denigrating her work on another article, and this is yet another example of tangential commentary that you are prone to posting. Why would you single out someone "else's" behavior in 2006 or 2007 unless you know to what is being referred? Comparative evidence was actually posted on this page and Lar is a checkuser and a person who makes determinations at SPI. Don't obscure the facts presented here with tangential commentary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was difficult to tell whether you were being sarcastic when you listed several points that wouldn't be common knowledge to a newbie. It did seem to imply I'm stupid, but I'm going to let personal attacks slide until a SPI starts. I didn't investigate the restrictions that have been imposed on SagitRiverQueen, and I consider whatever they are to be none of my business and irrelevant to the Dorothy Kilgallen article. I picked "that one" because I noticed SagitRiverQueen (him? her?) listed in other exchanges on Lar's talk page, and I didn't have time to investigate how many other editors identified here would be receptive to a SPI. Rather than assume that "no one is going to start one at [my] request," I'm going to visit here whenever I have a chance until this thing gets settled. Wildhartlivie has twisted what I've said. I never claimed to know how others at my university campus behaved in 2006 or 2007. I referred to that after Wildhartlivie cited a whole bunch of IP addresses that presumably include the one at my university campus, where many thousands of people have come and gone since 2006. If anyone still thinks I'm being tangential, then here is my message to Lar: Please introduce an unbiased third party to this matter, and please allow me to vacate my computer temporarily should that become necessary. Thank you, Lar. Earththings (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually suggest you let personal attacks slide altogether, especially since that can lead to blocks, especially for users who have been blocked for personal attacks before. You kee mentioning that. Since I've presented comparative evidence to Lar already, he may make a decision based on what is already presented here. No idea what vacating your computer means or is about. If you've got to leave the computer, you've got to leave the computer. Continuing to argue back isn't going to advance your position much and I'd suggest that continuing to type only creates more prose to compare writing styles. I'm still lost as to why 2006 is so important here, unless it's a reference to how far back involvement goes in regard to one account or another. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I planned to communicate via email about this. I have received your material but I think you have overstated matters in this edit. It is at the very least premature to state that "Evidence was submitted to Lar today that clearly proves to his satisfaction that I am not LaVidaLoca and she is not me."... you may feel that will be the ultimate outcome, you may feel it's proven to YOUR satisfaction, but I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, because I've made no such statement. Further I think even though the MfD is closed, you should strike that particular wording. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 04:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the word "should". BTW, these two responses don't go in this section. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a satisfactory change, it's not sweeping enough. Further, I'm not sure what you mean about sections. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar: I believe she means that you appear to have inadvertantly put your response to her in the section #A tl;dr (??) about "Adding just one word" of your talk page, instead of in the section #A mischaracterization of what Lar said?, which is where it seems more germane. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment "After a year or so, administrators started blocking new accounts ..." is what inspired me to throw out the years 2006 and 2007 as possible milestones in the "sockpuppet history" of this person you seem to have investigated extensively. If Lar has made a decision without posting anything to where I can read it, then I admit there's a lot about Wikipedia I have yet to learn. I assume you can read my talk page where SkagitRiverQueen has spoken for himself/herself. I apologize if contacting him/her (out of maybe six or seven editors I can find) seemed sinister. Now that SkagitRiverQueen has backed out of helping, I won't be bothering him/her anymore. If personal attacks can lead to blocks, then my conscience is clear.

And Wildhartlivie is still ignoring Dorothy Kilgallen. The entire section about her and the Kennedy assassination is shaky as long as nobody reads the "unreliable" online source it cites many times. If you're going to leave the section as is, please consider that if something became available in several newspapers in 1964, then it was available prior to 1965, even though it wasn't officially available until 1965, and even that is an error. There are many, many published sources on "November 1964" being the time when the U.S. government released all 26 Warren volumes to the public, such as this one.

Associated Press on Warren

but the Kilgallen article says the 26 volumes became available in "early 1965." One need not be a conspiracy theorist to present these sources to an editor here. Maybe the article can say Kilgallen made the testimony available in August 1964 even though the Warren Commission didn't release it officially until three months later. Earththings (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you succinctly summarise what it is you are asking be done, and why? ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, Lar. I'll try not to be tangential.

I'm asking that this sentence in the Dorothy Kilgallen article

"Most of that testimony didn't become available to the public until the commission released its 26 volumes in early 1965."

be replaced with something along the lines of the following.

"That testimony was officially unavailable to the public until the Warren Commission released its 26 volumes of evidence later in 1964. One of the volumes contains the Ruby testimony."

You can footnote the following source after "... later in 1964."

Associated Press report of release of 26 Warren volumes

Maybe we should remove "Most of that testimony," replacing it with just "That testimony ... ." In order to go with "most," editors might have to footnote the fact that although Kilgallen published the entire testimony, a portion of it had been leaked by a Texas newspaper two months earlier. In my humble opinion, that would be too trivial for the Kilgallen article. I don't know exactly when the Texas paper did it, but I know they beat Kilgallen to it with a teaser.

Thanks very much for your time and attention, Lar. Earththings (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a content dispute, and one that I have no expertise (or interest) in. I'm sorry. ++Lar: t/c 21:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And my issue is that I highly suspect this is yet another new account of User:Nyannrunning, a blocked sockmaster with at least 10 blocked sock accounts, based on the evidence I posted above and edits by a sock account of a banned sockmaster are reverted on sight. Plus, I'm not convinced that news story supports inserting the word "official", if this is not a sock account. We need a source that supports stating the content was not officially released. But mostly, my issue is that this, based on behavioral evidence, meets all the WP:DUCK qualifications for Nyannrunning. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already have "a source that supports stating the content was not officially released." It's the Warren Commission report. The Jack Ruby testimony is in one of the 26 volumes. They were released to the public in November 1964 according to that Associated Press report that I have referenced here twice already. Footnotes # 26 and 27 of our article say Kilgallen published the testimony unofficially in August 1964. August is three months before November. I'm confused about Wildhartlivie's statement: "Plus, I'm not convinced that news story supports inserting the word 'official', if this is not a sock account." What does the news story have to do with a sock account? Also, as I've made clear, I have suggested rewording the sentence as opposed to simply inserting officially. I came to that conclusion after noticing that a previous Kilgallen editor had misjudged our sources. Earththings (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sock account is totally relevant because socks are not permitted to insert even valid sources. Note the use of the possessive wording "we" and "our article" and "our sources", a behavioral habit first shown from the sock puppet account Dooyar and all the other sock accounts and sock master. Warren Commission findings were discussed in the news well prior to the release of the Warren Report. There is no support to call earlier published reports, including Kilgallen's, as "official" vs. "unofficial". Your comments here are content related, mine are directed toward an account whose behavioral evidence quacks quite loudly as related to Nyannrunning. That's a huge issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be nice for Lar to comment on both of the issues at Lar's convenience. How is someone's use of the first person plural "a behavioral habit?" I said "our sources" in reference to the sources footnoted in the Kilgallen article. Economy of words can help a talk page.

The following by Wildhartlivie shows confusion: "Warren Commission findings were discussed in the news well prior to the release of the Warren Report. There is no support to call earlier published reports, including Kilgallen's, as 'official' vs. 'unofficial'." Dorothy's scoop in the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Seattle Post Intelligencer, which the article references, was not a discussion of the "Warren Commission findings," nor was it a "report." It was the entire conversation of Jack Ruby, Earl Warren, Gerald Ford and others present in a jail interrogation room.

Some months after Kilgallen let those people do the talking, (I am not in the least suggesting anyone nail down the precise time frame), the conversation in its entirety made its second and last public appearance, in one of the 26 volumes of evidence. The findings (Oswald acted alone, the secret service did a lousy job, etc.) were confined to one book that millions of people bought.

It would be nice if Wildhartlivie would learn the difference between two things:

-- #1 the commission's single book of findings/conclusions that was published in paperback by the New York Times becoming a bestseller, and ...

-- #2 the 26 volumes that were sold by the U.S. Government Printing Office for a price that was too high for people who didn't have the space to store them anyway, and never sold in paperback for reasons I hope people understand.

Dorothy's considerable achievement was giving people in several American cities and London their only chance to read everything Jack Ruby, Gerald Ford, etc. actually said to each other. That was their only chance not counting an investment of hundreds of dollars and space to put 26 volumes. It is this achievement that belongs in the article. In my humble opinion, if the obvious contrast between Kilgallen and Patsy Cline belongs in it, so does a three-hour conversation featuring a chief justice, a future president of the United States and a murderer and so does the fact that Dorothy made it available unofficially, without the government's prior knowledge that she would do it, much less its stamp of approval. When it got the stamp of approval some months later, who was going to pay hundreds of dollars and make a mess in their own home in order to read the conversation? Earththings (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be nice for you to learn is that your concerns were dismissed here as "That appears to be a content dispute, and one that I have no expertise (or interest) in. I'm sorry." But you know, keep on typing, Dooyar, you're adding proof to the WP:DUCK aspect of being a sock of Nyannrunning. All that tangential commentary, don't ya know? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dorothy Kilgallen article contains sources on the fact that she published -- to the consternation of U.S. government officials -- a three-hour conversation in some newspapers. Two of those newspapers constitute footnotes #26 and 27. I'm referring to #26 and 27 in the article we are discussing. The negative reaction of the officials is supported by several footnotes that follow 27, all tagged as "unreliable" (and you constantly evade that issue). Footnotes in a Wikipedia article aren't "tangential commentary." That's the article you insist on controlling. And you know what? Maybe you are being sarcastic, maybe not, but you are prolonging this discussion on the page of an administrator who, as long as [Lar] doesn't tell you or me to stop, might join us eventually. I'm not going to type at your command.Earththings (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarity with the topic at hand and the sources, which you've dealt with as various sock puppets and IPs for a couple years, more behavioral evidence. Your posts here are full of tangential commentary. And you've stopped denying you're a sock puppet. Don't you realize that when anyone tells you he's not interested in a topic, that basically means "stop bothering me"? Duck quacks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar didn't say (he?) is not interested, and I refuse to read too much into his statement. That would be tangential. Familiarity with the sources at hand? Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm the only person in the world who knows, for example, what the Seattle Post Intelligencer is. Earththings (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A mischaracterization of what Lar said?

[edit]

(moved from heading) " "Evidence was submitted to Lar today that clearly proves to his satisfaction that I am not LaVidaLoca and she is not me."

See here. Is that true? (That it proves it to your satisfaction, that is, not that it was submitted.)—Chowbok ☠ 22:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have received evidence. I am evaluating it. I will not be making a statement about it one way or the other until I have completed that evaluation. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good to have stark evidence that WHL out-and-out lies when it suits her purposes to do so, although with the charmed life she leads here probably nobody will care.—Chowbok ☠ 03:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should assume good faith, Chowbok... Doc9871 (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And my point is proven once again. Have you asked WHL to AGF, ever? If not, is this because you really believe she always does?—Chowbok ☠ 03:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me for advice in a recent email. I gave you some. Did you read it? If you did, and if you understood it, why would you say "Okay, good to have stark evidence that WHL out-and-out lies" in response to my statement that I have received evidence and am evaluating it? How exactly is that helpful? ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it isn't, but I am frustrated at the pattern here. To put it in a less contentious way, WHL, for whatever reason, made an argument that was simply not true. Nobody seems to care. My pointing it out is much more objectionable, apparently.—Chowbok ☠ 04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had not noticed when I wrote this that Lar did object to WHL's comment, above. So I do want to note that, to be fair.—Chowbok ☠ 04:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My very first encounter with WHL was not pleasant for either of us, but we quickly learned that we are working for the good of the project, and egos must be put aside. I don't always agree with WHL, or any other editor. You should assume good faith in other editors and the process in general... Doc9871 (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but unlike Lar, you don't strike me as a genuinely neutral party. You seem like a partisan. I don't see any evidence you are being even-handed here, so while your comments are prima facie indisputable, you'll forgive me for being a bit cynical.—Chowbok ☠ 04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no stake in you, WHL, SRQ: any of you. I edit articles that overlap with other editors, and I try to work with them, not against them. I've disputed with both SRQ and WHL on separate incidents that were respectfully resolved, and I can still edit harmoniously on the same articles. Policy is what's important, not anything else, really. So, while I am certainly no "angel", and my edit history is there for all to see, the evidence of my "even-handedness" hardly classifies me as a "partisan", does it? Doc9871 (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me about this is the lengths that Chowbok will go to try and discredit me, including posting what amounts to personal attacks. Over and over, on various talk pages across this project. It's sad that so much vehemence exists in someone to go to lengths like this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever asked yourself why?—Chowbok ☠ 06:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fairly obvious to most everyone who has seen it. You said it best when you said you were just waiting for me to self-destruct and get permanently banned. And the point is that each and every time you post a personal attack, you're violating a basic behavior policy tenet: WP:NPA, right down the list on that page. What is mystifying is your assertion of moral superiority in the face of that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you: If you want to work through differences here, I'm happy to host that. If you want to snipe at each other, I'd rather you didn't do that here, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at WP:BLPN

[edit]

Regarding your comment here[14], there's no way to solve this, correct? As far as I understand the situation, admins can only rule on conduct issues, not content. Unless Wikipedia undergoes major changes (which the community seems to oppose), content will not be determined by who's right, but simply by which side has the most tenacious editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways to at least ameliorate it, if not solve it. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not from where I sit. I tell my RL friends about my experiences at Wikipedia and they can't believe what goes on here. They die laughing when I tell them that we've spent 3 months arguing over the name of the article! And we still haven't decided yet! It's pathetic, really. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was sarcasm, right? You're referring to an opinion piece by Lawrence Solomon that was so full of errors that it can only be a positive embarrassment to anybody critical of Wikipedia. I'd be worried if committed climate skeptics like Solomon were not complaining, or if climate experts (who have said very nice things about our work on global warming) were putting forth legitimate complaints about errors in our work. We are, after all, supposed to be covering the science, and not fictions to sooth Solomon and his colleagues. --TS 03:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC) (I merged this with A Quest for Knowledge's comment above, on discovering that both of us are responding to the same comment). --TS 03:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

No, no sarcasm was intended. To be clear, I'm not referring to that opinion piece in isolation. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TS: What's so surprising? WMC's misconduct has been documented by other reliable sources. From the New Yorker, "For all its protocol, Wikipedia’s bureaucracy doesn’t necessarily favor truth. In March, 2005, William Connolley, a climate modeller at the British Antarctic Survey, in Cambridge, was briefly a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming, to which he had contributed. After a particularly nasty confrontation with a skeptic, who had repeatedly watered down language pertaining to the greenhouse effect, the case went into arbitration. “User William M. Connolley strongly pushes his POV with systematic removal of any POV which does not match his own,” his accuser charged in a written deposition. “His views on climate science are singular and narrow.” A decision from the arbitration committee was three months in coming, after which Connolley was placed on a humiliating one-revert-a-day parole. The punishment was later revoked, and Connolley is now an admin, with two thousand pages on his watchlist—a feature that enables users to compile a list of entries and to be notified when changes are made to them. He says that Wikipedia’s entry on global warming may be the best page on the subject anywhere on the Web. Nevertheless, Wales admits that in this case the system failed. It can still seem as though the user who spends the most time on the site—or who yells the loudest—wins." [15] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, if there are complaints by others, why are they not covered at Criticism of Wikipedia? You're not, by any chance, referring to James Delingpole's column which was largely a verbatim reproduction of part of Solomon's piece, complete with errors? A search on google news on "climate change" and wikipedia doesn't show much critical of Wikipedia. I noticed a letter to the editor of the Napa Valley Register. A search on wikipedia and "global warming" turns up similar lack of relevant results, and wikipedia and "climategate", which I was sure would show something, is even more disappointing. But if our coverage of global warming has attracted more criticism it should go into the appropriate article alongside Solomon's.
A Quest for Knowledge, do please read the piece you are citing. The New Yorker piece, very far from "[documenting] WMC's misconduct", expresses the opinion that a person making loud accusations against Connolley was successful in subverting Wikipedia's procedures resulting in an unfair remedy which was subsequently revoked. "It can still seem as though the user who spends the most time on the site—or who yells the loudest—wins," says the author, and she isn't referring to Connolley, with whom she clearly sympathizes. You could argue over whether her impression of the case is correct, but this would not alter the fact that you have badly misinterpreted her meaning. --TS 04:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, probably a case of confirmation bias. Nevertheless, the New Yorker's conclusion that "the user who spends the most time on the site—or who yells the loudest—wins" certainly applies to this situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. For all the energy he has expended and the time he has devoted, scibaby's overall effect on the articles is, at most, the occasional semiprotection. --TS 04:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard the name before, but I think scibaby was before my time. I only created my account a year ago. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some might contend that the response to Scibaby's trolling caused more disruption than the trolling itself. Cla68 (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a defensible statement, if you're referring to abuses of checkuser. --TS 05:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. ++Lar: t/c 06:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to scibaby either. ++Lar: t/c 06:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of bias?

[edit]
  • Could someone point me to the reputable, mainstream coverage of systemic bias in Wikipedia's climate articles which Lar and others are alluding to? I'm aware that several partisans in the political debate on climate change have written opinion pieces decrying a perceived underrepresentation of their faction's viewpoint. If one sets aside poorly fact-checked opinion pieces (probably a good general policy for an encyclopedia), the only reliable secondary sources I've found have been quite positive about the climate-change articles. Nature lamented that "In politically sensitive areas such as climate change, researchers have had to do battle with sceptics pushing an editorial line that is out of kilter with mainstream scientific thinking." (PMID 16355169). The New Yorker article, which has already been mentioned in this thread, was very sympathetic to William in his conflict with a "skeptic who had repeatedly watered down language pertaining to the greenhouse effect." In the Denver Post, an expert reviewer called the climate-change articles "a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia." ([16])

    I can see it's becoming the typical (and typically unvalidated) Wikipedia conventional wisdom that the climate change articles are some sort of international embarrassment to Wikipedia. Please, please tell me you can point me to some reputable, independent sources making that claim (like, say, Nature or the New Yorker). Please tell me it isn't just based on a couple of poorly fact-checked partisan op-eds. People who hold minoritarian views are often incensed to find that Wikipedia gives greater prominence to widely accepted viewpoints, but that's not a sign that we've failed (if anything, rather the opposite).

    I'll be the first to admit I don't follow media coverage of the climate-change debate very closely. If someone can point me to some independent, reliable sources decrying the bias in our climate-change articles, I'm happy to reassess my viewpoint. I hope that if the supposed "shame" reflected on Wikipedia by these articles is in fact based only a a handful of partisan and factually iffy opinion pieces, that others are willing to reassess their viewpoints as well. Either way, more sources and critical thinking would help inform the question. MastCell Talk 06:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is what made me think Lar must be using sarcasm. Although on the talk pages of the global warming articles one gets used to a lot of muttering about supposed bias and what an embarrassment Wikipedia's coverage of global warming is, there seems to be surprisingly little bad press about Wikipedia at all, and (excepting a few partisans who do not check their facts) almost nothing negative about Wikipedia's coverage of global warming. In fact one is more likely to find Wikipedia cited as a source, which suggests that we're very much in the press's good books, for whatever that is worth. I even noticed our own William M. Connolley consulted by the Guardian, alongside other more illustrious climate experts, on the question of how to reform or replace the creaky old seven-years-to-write-a-report IPCC. [17] --TS 06:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes we just got a $2M grant from Google! No wonder people are leaving Wikipedia. etc, etc, etc... --TS 06:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, don't try to whitewash things. I can tell you from my own experience what the atmosphere around the AGW articles is like. About six months after I started editing Wikipedia, I was having a good time. I had started editing the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal article and was really impressed with the helpful advice and freindly assistance I was getting from the MILHIST editors, including Kirill Lokshin. One day I decided to cruise on over to the global warming article and check it out. I made some edits (I think as an IP because I didn't bother always logging in at that time), but they were reverted immediately without comment by one of the regulars who is still around. I tried to ask why on the talk page and was stunned at the rude, condescending replies that I got, especially from Connolley. Besides my RfA, what I experienced on the GW talk page over those few weeks in 2006 when I tried to make some headway with the editors who were controlling that article is still the most unpleasant experience I've ever had in Wikipedia. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but I'm positive that I'm not the only one to say or think this. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not whitewashing. Far from it. The global warming articles are a magnet for people who appear to hold a genuine belief that whatever blog or news column they read last is the final nail in the coffin of global warming. Telling each one gently and firmly that we're not a blog or a forum and their edits have to conform to Wikipedia's policies takes patience and persistence. You should try that for a few weeks. This makes the global warming area a very nasty editing environment. The quality of the articles, however, is high, as is much of Wikipedia's science coverage. You should seriously consider the possibility that, if you cannot get your edits into the article, it's because they do not command consensus. I've had very few problems myself, even on very controversial climate change articles. --TS 07:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You did edit as logged in, by the way. Here's an example. [18] You were new at the time so could not really be expected to understand every nuance of policy. I think on this occasion at least, everybody seemed to be being terribly nice to you. But they didn't agree with your concept of how the neutral point of view policy applies to science. --TS 07:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Check this out Tony, especially Connolley's last comment. I think you hit the nail on the head. The regulars at those articles appear to have taken a side in the debate over whether AGW is true or not, deciding that it is stone cold science. Therein is the rub. We're not supposed to take a side. We're supposed to pretend that we don't care which view or side is right or wrong. If the regulars at those articles had that attitude, then the spirit of the talk page discussions would be, I'm sure, completely different, with more patient and congenial discussions of sources, opinions, and weight. The impression I got from that talk page in 2006 was that the four or so regulars on that article had gotten it phrased exactly the way they wanted and with the POV that they wanted, and brooked no suggestion of change or comments about NPOV issues. By any measure, that attitude is completely contrary to the spirit of a wiki, which requires collaboration, cooperation, and compromise, three things which are lacking, based on my experience, from the AGW articles. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You've completely misread what was going on. The scientific debate on global warming was done and dusted over ten years ago, and you didn't know that (and possibly still, even now, do not acknowledge it). Because of this, you had little success in persuading others. It's a pattern I've seen thousands of times on this and other science articles. When an overwhelming scientific consensus exists, somebody who is unaware of this fact will inevitably perceive bias in any neutral account of the state of the science. --TS 07:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you. :) On reviewing this the level of condescension there is breathtaking. I'm sorry if you can't see it, but it's there, and it's the sort of thing that in my view, drives folk away. Take a good long look at Strategy:Task force/Community Health/Former Contributors Survey Results and think about the implications of all those comments about controlling editors, POV pushing, and the like. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as notable scientists like Freeman Dyson are disputing the AGW "consensus", it is not established as fact. If you are convinced that the IPCC's stance on AGW is totally correct and the article's should reflect that POV, then you are taking a side and I don't see how you can comply with the NPOV policy. Cla68 (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't write about scientific matters as "established as fact". We write about the state of the science. The state of the science is that there is an overwhelming consensus (Dyson notwithstanding) the there is a recent warming trend, most of which is very likely caused by human activities. This is measured in the preponderance of the results of published, peer reviewed research. It's our job to examine the state of the science, not to second-guess it. We cannot appeal to scientific papers that have not been researched, written, reviewed, revised and published, We cannot appeal to the possibility that the overwhelming consensus may be wrong because Freeman Dyson doesn't wholly agree with it. We just describe that view, and (more briefly) note alternative views for which there is significant scientific support in the peer reviewed literature. --TS 07:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no problem at all with stating in the articles that what you just said above enjoys a preponderance of support in the global scientific and political community. The sources support that. The problem is that there are plenty of reliable sources reporting on significant dissenting opinions, both from scientists, politicians, and other observers, such as investigative journalists like Christopher Booker. Here's where the problem happens in Wikipedia. Certain editors try to keep this information out completely or minimize it as much as possible using various measures, such as being uncompromising and stubborn or using delay tactics in talk page discussions, attempting to discredit critical sources, adding negative information to the Wikipedia BLPs of critics (see Fred Singer or Michael Crichton while he was alive) while reverting negative information that is added to proponents BLPS, refusing to allow newspapers to be used as sources, and so on. In other words, taking a side. We can't do that. We're supposed to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise to report on what the reliable sources are saying. We then let the reader decide what is true. Cla68 (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What WP should cover?

[edit]
  • Everybody has an opinion. What matters in science is published research. We report on the research. An opinionated scientist isn't scientific evidence for anything. Nor,for that matter, an opinionated politician, pundit, media researcher or journalist. --TS 08:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TS: This matter isn't purely scientific. We should report what reliable sources say, without giving undue weight to viewpoints that don't merit it but without stifling them either. That means we should report on more than just research as we are a general interest encyclopedia, not a science compendium. Controversy and dissenting viewpoints are relevant and article control by the majority viewpoint is inappropriate. Even if I happen to personally agree with the majority viewpoint, and that scientific consensus in this matter is valid, it's nevertheless inappropriate. This perceived suppression of dissenting views is what brings us into disrepute. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, if there has been untowards meddling with the peer review process, as many sources now claim, it could take some time for citations drawn from scientific journals to catch up and readers should in the meantime be made aware that the science is not by any means settled. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lar, I don't argue that non-majority viewpoints should not be included and I don't argue that reports about the public controversy should focus solely on the majority viewpoint. This is what is so frustrating about this matter. Within days of the CRU hacking article being created we had a balanced article that included all the main accusations of the time and the responses of those accused, but some people reading the article didn't seem to see that because the arguments being made (which at that time were relatively poor--some serious concerns did arise later) were not being accepted by the scientific community and the article made that fact abundantly plain. These were the days of the easily debunked "Hide the decline" and "Mike's nature trick" canards which even the lay press quickly grasped were not the smoking guns the blog sites seemed to think they were.
  • The alternative of writing the article to give fringe viewpoints prominence, in an article that involved both important voices from within the scientific community and some highly technical arguments, would not have been acceptable, but I understand why a lot of editors thought it should, since the newspapers were doing a poor job of covering it in the first few days and the blogosphere was full of accusations. There was a strong minority feeling on the talk page that Wikipedia should go with the blog accusations, but as these had been easily disposed of by reliable scientific sources that wasn't an option. Playing up the conspiracy stuff would not have been good for Wikipedia--then or now.
  • One thing. by the way, that I strongly resent, is this recurring accusation of ownership and control, which you yourself repeat uncritically. I'm not interested in control and I voluntarily stopped editing the CRU hacking article when other editors said they thought I was taking too much interest. As far as I'm concerned if an editor thinks he's indispensible to an article's health, he should take a break, and that applies to small groups too. From what I can tell there is a steady stream of reasonably well informed individuals coming along and attempting to edit the articles with due concern for the state of the science and the public debate (always bearing in mind that, for instance, public acceptance of global warming science in Europe is much higher than in the United States). There are some very highly qualified writers, too, who do a great deal to improve the quality of the articles. I don't think it's plausible to assume that those people form an ownership cabal. The main problem I see here is a contrast between the uninformed rubbish people read on blogs and forums, and the scientifically literate material they encounter on Wikipedia. This inevitably creates friction, and historically editors in the science field on Wikipedia have handled this kind of friction badly.
  • Finally, you again repeat uncritically the notion that Wikipedia's global warming coverage brings us into disrepute, even after I've shown you the results of my own searches that find nothing of the sort. Would you care to examine your beliefs and see if they're supported by the facts? --TS 17:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen, it's one thing to say that the science isn't settled, quite another to find even a tiny bit of evidence that it is not. Believe me, I've looked, and continue to keep looking, for any evidence that a rethink of the science of global warming is under way. The accusations of manipulation of peer review will be looked at by the relevant organisations and we will in due course report on that. But we don't have a crystal ball and for now we write about the existing overwhelming consensus supported by thousands of peer reviewed papers. --TS 17:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will. My outlook is that the very narrow range of sources you're willing to give any heed, which now seem highly flawed, will either catch up or lose any meaningful bearing on the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you are saying that either peer reviewed studies will prove you right, or peer reviewed studies are irrelevent. Is there not a third option - that you are wrong? If such a third option exists, how can it be proven correct? Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite, I didn't say that, that's your take on what I said. My outlook can be shown as mistaken (falsified) if we find the science has not been corrupted through data meddling owing to highly selective, coercive state funding driven by political goals, which are already thoroughly documented and widely understood. Aside from this, there are two research topics here and neither is at all settled. Is there global warming and is it owing to an anthropomorphic cause? If sea levels do rise 82cm, the Himalayas lose their ice, cargo and cruise ships ply scheduled routes over the North Pole and through the Northwest Passage, crop yields in the northern hemisphere triple and wine grapes grow in Britain, as the Romans grew them in the first century and as Britons did in the 11th century during the medieval warming, none of which we can yet foresee, but may be able to foresee someday, it's not yet "settled" that this would have been brought forth by anthropomorphic means. Meanwhile there is much evidence that cap and trade is but another derivatives scheme flogged by Wall Street and the City (and no, that's not the free market, quite otherwise). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that your statement that what you call "thoroughly documented and widely understood," is not accurate, nor documented, nor widely understood, and I further suggest that your statement that there is an open scientific question as to "Is there global warming," is again not accurate. Further, I suggest that there is hardly an open scientific question as to "is it owing to an anthropomorphic cause." This is exactly the kind of thing that indiviudals who are scientifically literate in any dicipline have to deal with at this encyclopedia - the cult of the Amature. I don't pretend to dispute things about literature or poetry - why do I have to constantly try to deal with editors who tell me that all preferences are cardinal on economics pages? Hipocrite (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not get into why I think you're mistaken, since the sources will out in the end, but there is no guarantee en.Wikipedia will have this kind of traffic in five years, since readers could get bored with all these slanted core articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll patiently wait for evidence to accrue. On the narrow range of sources to which I give credence, well on accusations of widespread and systemic academic fraud that is true, but that's because extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. We'll see what the various inquiries manage to dig up, then we'll write about it. We won't write about massive academic fraud just because some guy on the internet has a theory. And that's not just me speaking for myself, as you'll know if you're aware of our verifiability and neutrality policies. But make no mistake, if proper evidence turns up we shall write about it. --TS 18:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony: You say "One thing. by the way, that I strongly resent, is this recurring accusation of ownership and control, which you yourself repeat uncritically. "... well I say in turn that if we are to go about "strongly resent"ing things I strongly resent you characterizing my views as repeating this uncritically. That gives me rather short shrift, I'm afraid, and I don't make this observation lightly. There is the appearance of ownership and control in this topic area. It actually doesn't matter if there actually IS ownership and control or not, because it's the appearance that is damaging. You can repeat that there isn't, as many times as you like, but that doesn't make the appearance go away. ++Lar: t/c 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that in the circumstances my only sensible alternative is to exclude myself from writing about the subject and rely on other Wikipedians to take up the slack (which they will do, make no mistake). As you're probably aware I've been umming and awing about this for most of February and you're the second admin to remark on how it is appearances that matter. I'll keep up the templating and other gnome work associated with the probation, and will probably try to work out how to do checkuser requests, but I don't think any informed, educated, intelligent Wikipedian can continue editing on climate change when more than one indepdendent admin explicitly states the suspension of the assume good faith guideline with respect to those editing global warming articles so as to give due prominence to the state of the science. --TS 18:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you miss my point. Appearances do matter. We judge on outcomes, not intents. If a (random) article is a horribly biased and poorly written, it doesn't matter whether the authors had the best of intentions or the worst, we need to fix it. It is not a violation of AGF to point out the issues. This is true of processes as much as it is of articles. If a process consistently produces results we find flawed, it doesn't matter whether the process developers had the best of intentions or the worst, we need to fix it. If the very process of editing in the CC/AGW area is difficult because of perceived issues of control, it needs fixing. I am willing to AGF and assume that those who are causing the problem in this don't intend to, and don't think that they are. But they have been told about this over and over. In fact this is a goodly aspect of why there is an enforcement regime in the first place. If after being told there is a perception problem, that editors shudder to interact with them, that they are perceived as condescending, and they are unwilling to change their approach, that is where we run out of AGF, for at that point, once the problem has been surfaced, they are no longer being collegial. Read the diff Cla gave again, carefully and see the condescension there. Read the survey I pointed you to, and evaluate the results. Slide 18 is very significant. It's not the UI that keeps editors from returning, it's the editing environment. That needs to change, or Wikipedia will enter a period of decline. If it hasn't already. NO amount of high profile funding will change it, if editors are gradulally drifting away and not being replaced at an adequate rate. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What suggestions are you prepared to offer that will deal with the "perceived issues of control," without at the same time making the articles reflect the most recent conservative-blog pushed meme, like, for instance, those presented in this very section about the settled nature of the science? I further note that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." Perhaps Wikipedia reflects that? I'd very much like to really review that survey - perhaps some of the responders will let us look at their editing history, and we can find out who is getting driven away by terrible bias, and who is getting driven away by shitty software. Hipocrite (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely the high profile funding has had something to do with bringing about these woes. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree. I think it's more the high profile of the site itself, and the realization that content here matters (if 60% percent of journos start here, it's going to be influential). The funding is a result of that. But perhaps you could elaborate? ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a feedback loop and not by happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Lar, I am having a terrible time following your point. You refer to "horribly biased and poorly written" articles, whereas the climate change articles are some of the best of our science coverage (not my doing, I've only really been editing them for the past couple of months). You refer to the responses of other editors towards Cla68 as condescending. I really don't see it. They were terribly nice to him, and not at all pointed about his lack of knowledge of how our neutral point of view policy works. He was let down gently. The most hurtful thing of all seems to have been that hardly anybody agreed with him.
You imply that the climate change probation was instituted because of such abuses, but a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change tells a very different story. Far from editors being told that there was a problem of ownership and being given a last chance before arbitration, I see that the term was only raised by a couple of editors who were broadly opposed to the probation and thought what they perceived as ownership would be worsened by a probation.
This is one good reason to get out. I just cannot agree with one of the most prominent admins in the probation, and his (your) perception of the situation is so difficult to reconcile with the facts as I am able to verify them (and of course I'm not just talking about your astonishing predictions of people leaving Wikipedia en masse and your unsupported assertions that the climate change articles give us a bad reputation) that communicating with you is well nigh impossible. As you're one of the people I've been relying on to keep a cool head, I can't stick around. Your attitude won't have any apocalyptic effects, but it will make for an editor environment considerably nastier than I, at least, am comfortable with. --TS 19:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm still failing to make my point very well. First and most importantly, I don't want you to walk away, I think you're one of the editors that is helping, rather than one that is hurting. I just think you're not seeing things clearly. Next, the "horribly biased and poorly written" was an example (to some random article that IS horribly biased and poorly written, pick it from whatever field you like), not a specific reference. I'll go on record: I don't think the CC/AGW articles, as they stand now, by and large, are horribly biased and poorly written. While there are issues, things that could be better and areas of bias, they are good. I just think the process to get articles to there is deficient. Further I just don't know how to get you to see what I saw in that diff, short of a word by word analysis of WMC's remarks in the diff cited, which I am not going to spend the time doing. Either you see the condescension there, or you don't. Finally, did you read the survey on why editors leave? Have you been following trends in WP usage? In admin population? There is a shift, we are out of the explosive growth phase and further, many numbers are showing a slow decline or worse. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former Contributors survey analysis

[edit]
Lar, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see in the results of that poll, but it looks very positive, although with the caveat that the response rate was only 12%. Many of these recent starters find Wikipedia addictive and even those who have left mostly seem to be highly motivated to come back. Those who had edited more frequently were much more likely to have encountered problems with other editors, and far more likely to feel that they had little or nothing more to contribute. Those frequent editors were also far more likely to deny that complexity figured in their the reason for leaving. Presumably they had invested more time and effort and so complexity was no longer a problem. A high proportion of recent starters (some 43-45%) said they hadn't stopped contributing. A far higher proportion of frequent editors were likely to cite interpersonal friction as the reason for leaving (rudeness or stubborness). Apparently the secret to Wikipedia happiness is to make less than 10 edits per month. Even so, fully 60% of those recent starters said they were highly likely or certain to resume editing. Only 16% said the memory of their time editing Wikipedia gave them unpleasant emotions. I wish I could hire a workforce as committed as this! --TS 19:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read Q10 (slide 9) again. 50%+ of those editing more than 10 edits a month left because they felt other editors were rude or too stubborn. ... read the worst experience (slide 4) again. "One or Two Editors that think they are God and make life uneasy even though I follow the rules of Wikipedia. Having edits reversed, or eliminated because other people feel territorial about certain topics, and refuse to accept the input from other people." Then read slide 18 and htink aobut it... Wikipedia? positive word association. Editors and community? Negative. That's damning. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to look a feces pile in the flowers, but are we sure we wanted the editors who left? Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the pile to which I refer is that some editors were driven away. Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This does indeed look like confirmation bias. Looking into the rosebushes and only seeing the turds. I've ignored the more subjective slides as they seem to actively contradict the numerical results and there is no explanation of how they were compiled. --TS 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave souza twists things around

[edit]

Lar, I'm assuming that in good faith you don't see that you're presenting the kind of appearance of ownership that you're accusing Tony of presenting. If you've driven him away, I'm disappointed as he seems to have been doing a good job of keeping both "sides" in check and encouraging cooperative editing. Good editors are driven away by encouraging persistent pov pushers promoting minority or fringe views, and firm adherence to content policies is needed to improve the editing environment. Civility is also important, but not when civil pov pushing is rewarded. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was sarcasm, right? Because as humorous parody, it flat out fails, and as serious discourse, it shows a breathtakingly high level of confusion and denialism. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your sarcastic response is disappointing. I am also disappointed by your talk of a "level playing field" to penalise a serious editor dealing in a responsible and reasonable way with obvious fringe pov pushing and misrepresentation of sources. Rewarding such fringe pov pushing is not the way to improve the editing environment. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want a serious response to what has to be a sarcastic opening? Ok, sure, why not? Well for starters, I never accused Tony of "presenting an appearance of ownership". I said there was an appearance there, but not that Tony was responsible... merely that he didn't see it'. One can deny the appearance while not being part of the problem, directly. Or, one can deny the appearance while being part of the problem as one of the editors who is a POV pusher. (remember, POV pushing isn't confined to only fringe views, it's entirely possible to push the majority POV). Tony is the former. In my encounters with you so far, I've never been given reason to believe you are not the latter, but you're welcome to convince me otherwise. As for your disappointment, I'll have to soldier on somehow. ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, is that topic heading intended to provoke? --TS 19:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. However, see User:Lar/Pooh Policy and User:Lar/Eeyore Policy. When people come HERE and say foolish things, I point out their foolishness. Dave souza is saying very foolish things, whether he realizes it or not. ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate that you feel secure in your wisdom, your approach to these difficulties appears to me to be very foolish. Hope I'm wrong. . . dave souza, talk 19:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time will tell, I suppose. At least one of us is acting foolishly, that much is clear. Perhaps it indeed is me for thinking that there's any merit whatever in discussing matters with you, as I see you've avoided trying to convince me that there isn't a perception of ownership and that you're not part of the problem. ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently it's foolish of me to keep chatting with you, but you raise some curious points. My assumption is that if you seriously think I'm part of a problem, you'll tell me, with diffs as appropriate. As for ownership, anyone contributing under the rules is welcome, as far as I'm concerned. It's more of a concern when experienced editors mislead people anxious to impose a minority view into misunderstanding the rules. Something to be resolved in talk page discussions. This post was aimed at discussing your proposal for imposing a "level playing field". In my view, that introduced an unnecessary argument about your suggestion that Stephan be sanctioned for making two reverts on 18 February and one revert on 20 February. In the discussion, Cla proposed that all editors be treated equally, unless they were violating Wikipedia's rules by revert warring and POV-pushing. As mark's edits didn't seem to have been assessed, I provided an analysis which showed pov pushing, clarified further after discussion. Perhaps it was for the best, but I'm disappointed that you apparently focussed on the behaviour of an editor dealing with the pov pushing rather than analysing the situation in enough depth to find that not all reverts are equal. That seemed to me to be you taking ownership with a focus on encouraging proponents of minority views. That's all, folks. Feel free to put a silly caption on this ;-) . . dave souza, talk 22:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an assumption of bad faith if not a personal attack on Dave and Lar should apologize or refactor immediately. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why A Nobody, how nice to see you on my talk page. But I must say you have some nerve making any observations whatever about me when you have an unanswered RfC/U with many clear cut findings about your astonishingly unacceptable behavior. ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite looks for help

[edit]

Perhaps I'll find someone here - I wrote elsewhere that it would be very interesting if one of the massive hordes of people reading this and commenting oh-so-negatively about the conduct of the "owners" of these articles but were aware of the state of the science (IE, that the so called "owners" were right), could provide suggestions as to how the "owners" could deal with the "agenda-driven single purpose accounts who just want the articles to reflect their political views." I'd be very interested in listening to a well-informed gadfly who thought the tactics at issue, not the result, were problematic. Certainly, one of those could be found, if there was a substantial and broad conduct problem amongst the regulars, right - someone out there would want to reform them so they could "win" even more handily. Perhaps that person can be found, and they could solve all of the problems from the side that is in sync with the content goals of an accurate encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here I am. ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I mean, elsewhere you wrote "It is a shame that there is apparently enough bias in our reporting of this matter that it has been covered in the media... and not just mentioned in passing, but covered to the point where it is notable enough to justify mention in our own articles." If you are actually the magical person I was looking for, I don't think you would have written that, would you? Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not sure. But... as I've said before: 1) I'm aware of the state of the science. 2) I don't share the view of some that the articles are massively off. (I think maybe perhaps some of the names could be better, some areas of emphasis could be changed, etc) 3) And yet I still don't like the way the articles got to where they are. The process is far too acrimonious. The 'so called "owners"' as you put it, are a large part of the problem here. Not all of it, the fringe POV pushers are as much or more. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I look forward to your concrete suggestions about what the "owners" can do to continue to make sure we have the highest quality content without at the same time having the lowest quality community. Let me give you an example that you could provide some assistance - at Medieval Warm Period a user is citing sources that some note contain statements that contradict how they were used as citions. There is an overabundance of blunteness on both sides - an overabundance to which I have not contributed - I suspect many feel that they have put up with agenda-driven PoV pushers misrepresenting sources too many times at this point, and the user in question is probably feeling very defensive about his position. How would you propose that the user be adressed? Hipocrite (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what will work for sure. The tactics employed so far may be driving good editors away even if they do seem to result in mostly good articles. But I didn't think that was what you were asking for. I thought you just wanted suggestions. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I want suggestions. I located a conflict that could use intervention, and am wondering what you would suggest I do. Hipocrite (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed it, so I may have missed the gist, but I think Mark Nutley et al need to be told that their sources to support changing the lead of MWP to say it was a global climate change/effect appear insufficient, and that they need better sources or they need to leave it as currently worded, talking about Northern Europe, the northern part of the Atlantic, and the eastern side of NA, only as that seems to be all that the sources support. ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite, the pith is, sources often don't quite match what's happening in the world, they never have, in many and sundry ways, so a tertiary reference encyclopedia built on the ebb and flow of published thought may always have flaws. This is not the same worry as smearing good faith editors who eagerly come to core articles with supportable outlooks as the PoV flogging, mushy headed SPAs, pranksters and worse who are bound to show up on any high traffic, open website like this. This said, I often remind editors, WP:Fringe is not policy, WP:Weight is policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat ironic that you write "sources often don't quite match what's happening in the world," and then go on to note that WP:WEIGHT is policy. I agree with the policy, and note that since you agree with me that the sources reflect the settled science on all climate issues (you agree with me because you believe the sources are bad, but the result remains the same), you should support the articles as reflecting the highest quality content - that reflects what published sources say. Hipocrite (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say and don't think "the sources reflect the settled science on all climate issues" but I do think we both want the "highest quality content" on en.Wikipedia, although in good faith we may not agree on what that may be, or how to get it. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, one of the signs that made my stomach lurch was the pointed silence you have maintained in the face of my honest requests for your to support this astonishing statement with something other than the error-filled opinion columns from Solomon, and Delingpole's slavish copying. Do you not see that honest editors become very worried when you make apparently wild statements and become coy when politely asked to support them? --TS 19:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, please don't slur editors who don't agree with your take on sources as being other than honest. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I'm not sure what you mean here. This is a user talk page. We're talking. All the modifiers in your phrasing make it hard to discern your true meaning. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I didn't make my meaning plain. You made what seemed to me a quite astonishing statement about media coverage, and have ignored polite requests that you elaborate, preferably with observations of where this negative media coverage can be found. This is very worrying. --TS 19:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which astonishing statement was that? You're astonished I find it sad that according to others, there are reliable sources alleging that Wikipedia has fallen into disrepute over this matter? ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There you go being coy again. "According to others?" That's unworthy of comment. You made the statement and now you're waving vaguely at "others" who conveniently aren't here to support or deny the claim that you won't support. --TS 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I read "It is a shame that there is apparently enough bias in our reporting of this matter that it has been covered in the media... and not just mentioned in passing, but covered to the point where it is notable enough to justify mention in our own articles." I understand now that apparently your "apparently" applied not to the bias in our reporting - which you don't believe exists to a substantial degree, or to the coverage in the media, which you weren't asserting existed. However, even having gone through this section here where you clarified your views that our articles were good and that you didn't actually verify our neutrality was questioned by the media at large, I have to admit that I find your first statement to be hard to read in the way you suggest I should have read it. Hipocrite (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on an essay from the other perspective, actually, of advice for those editing from a perceived fringe position. I was just thinking it would be interesting to work on an essay from the perspective you mention, of how to deal with troublesome fringe editors who just won't get it. I'd like to work on that, and I don't know when I will, but I think there is some advice that could be given. One of the major things, in my view, is the willingness to be systematic with editors, and not to insult them, but simply to lay out in as devastatingly simple terms as possible why someone is wrong. At that point, document exactly what they do if they refuse to listen. The difficult part may be that, to go fully above board, you really do have to listen and compromise where the editors have a legitimate complaint. So, if you just want them to go away there is probably no way to do it. But if you are willing to acknowledge the stray reasonable point, and be patient enough, then I think it can be done so that others will gladly boot the editors who still just cause trouble. Hipocrite might start an essay of his own if he liked, actually, and maybe others would contribute ideas, if it seemed like a real effort to grasp the problem. I guess that is what the "Civil POV pushers" essay was about, though I think the opinions there may have been so strong as to prevent the broad input that might produce something helpful. Mackan79 (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I left a reply but this page is very busy and now it's not here. Maybe I didn't. Anyway, Mackan79, you should write that essay. I'd read it with considerable anticipation. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstructing the stack

[edit]

Since I've caused confusion, let's see if I can sort it. Edits are taken from this region: [19] of edits to the BLP noticeboard, although that includes others. Any paraphrase errors are mine.

  1. TenOfAllTrades: (paraphrased) says he doesn't trust Lawrence Solomon's reliableness
  2. Off2riorob: (paraphrased) asserts that Solomon is more than a blogger, notable, has an article, and that he thinks "that all of this controversy surrounding the reports of wikipedia bias in Global warming articles is notable enough for its own article, such controversy has been reported at multiple locations"
  3. Gwen Gale: "Yes, the topic is notable in itself, sources abound"
  4. Lar: "And THAT is a shame."
  5. Gwen Gale: "How do you mean?"
  6. In the diff I think is of concern to T & H) Lar: "It is a shame that there is apparently enough bias in our reporting of this matter that it has been covered in the media... and not just mentioned in passing, but covered to the point where it is notable enough to justify mention in our own articles."

Breaking that down, in 2, O says there are sources (bolded), and in 3 GG says so too (bolded). In 4 I observe that's too bad, and when pressed I elaborate why in 6. If you want the actual sources, ask O and GG for them. I have every faith they in good faith have them, but I don't, not having said I had specific sources. Perhaps some day I will go find some but if I do I'd be tempted to write an article. All that said, I do recall having read stuff like this, just not where. ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made requests of the two individuals. One was met with some ill-will. I will report back. Hipocrite (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the other two editors whose good faith you have relied on are supporting their statements. One was phrasing his statement as a question, the other is unrelenting in her unwillingness to deign to respond to my request. As such, I'm going to ask that you consider updating your position on the reporting regarding our climate articles to reflect what reliable sources have stated. Hipocrite (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite, you can skirt neither WP:NPOV nor WP:RS so easily. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not skirting anything. Lar said he took you at your word that there were sources. I asked you for some - I asked civilly, and you responded with an assumption of bad faith, and then a dose of rudeness. I don't see how I've violated anything about article space, as I haven't edited an article, suggested an edit to an article or even really taken a position on a hypothetical article, I've just informed Lar that his reliance on your statement that the sources stating our coverage was bad exist might be wrong, especially given that I'm stating, and I've cited sources saying our coverage was good. Hipocrite (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't said you've done anything in bad faith, either. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I totally support my comment. There are reports of bias in our global warming articles, no one could dispute that, personally I have read a few things lately and had the feeling that this was becoming notable, I still have that feeling and think the reporting of this issue is growing, but my comment was more of a question than a statement. If that added weight to cause any of this, I am sorry about that, I will be more careful to frame my comments more clearly, this Internet typing can convey a message that was not intended. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I asked you at your talk, where are these reports of bias that you said you saw? I thought I've seen some but I can't remember exactly where. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have very recently seen the two reports that have been posted here, if needed I will search them tomorrow, but these links have been posted on the climate change article talkpages recently so plenty of editors have also read them, its not a secret. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides Solomon's newspaper blog, there's this one, also a newspaper blog. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was the other blog mentioned at the page (referenced at thread start, several subsections up), yes. I think many folk may not consider that blog particularly reliable. ++Lar: t/c 23:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Via NewsStand, I found another source, an opinion piece in the Washington Times:
  • "Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat", Matthew Sheffield. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Aug 21, 2008. pg. A.4. "In addition, Wikipedia articles on so-called "climate change" similarly tend to leave out information that contradicts conventional liberal views. Journalist Lawrence Solomon uncovered similar levels of dedication among extreme environmentalists when he tried to correct an entry that incorrectly stated that global warming skeptic Benny Peiser had endorsed an alarmist study." Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Here is a link to the opinion article(Abstract (in context)full) you quote. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a related (and interesting) one:
  • "Hitwise: UKSearches for "global warming" up 22% in 2 years; Google sends traffic to US sites, posing challenges for UK policy makers", M2 Presswire. Coventry: Jun 25, 2007. pg. 1- "The top website receiving UK traffic from the term "global warming" in the week ending 23rd June is Wikipedia, with the online encyclopaedia receiving over one quarter of visits from searches for "global warming". This poses a serious challenge to UK organisations and government agencies seeking to influence public opinion." Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is this article: [20] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source that gently recommends Brittanica over Wikipedia for Global Warming information:
  • "Tips help you get warmer"; [1 Edition], Townsville Bulletin. Townsville, Qld.: Mar 5, 2007. pg. 27.- "In a search on `global warming' Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) came up high in the hit list. The `.org' (organisation) in its address indicates that it is a not-for-profit website. The Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia constructed out of the contributions of anyone who has an interest. It is a great source for popular or highly topical information. But if you are looking for authoritative information on an important topic, you can't go past Encyclopedia Britannica Online." Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one may be a letter to the editor recommending a Wikipedia article about climate change:
  • Burgis, John, "Scientific measurement as well as debate"; [Final Edition] The Herald. Glasgow (UK): Feb 7, 2007. pg. 14. - "I would recommend to those of your readers, who want to be more fully informed on this matter, and who do not want to put cash into the pocket of someone who is a well-known denialist, that they should instead trawl the internet for background scientific information. A good starting point for such a search, would be the article they will find at http: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Global _warming_controversy/ I would also urge them, in making that search, not to be content with press reports, but to trace information back to source, to the articles and press releases coming from the scientific institutions which have made the climatological measurements on which their stated opinions are based." Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its a letter to the Herald - Link: [21] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a letter to an editor referencing Wikipedia:
  • Hanes, Scott, "Climate change is inevitable"; [Final Edition]. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Apr 13, 2006. pg. A.13. "The turning point came after viewing a graph of 650,000 years of ice core samples. This graph appears in the global-warming article on the Wikipedia website, using well- documented data from the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA). A clear correlation between rising temperatures and rising carbon dioxide levels is evident." Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an editorial disparaging Wikipedia's coverage of politicians, but includes a global warming reference:
  • Cornwell, Rupert, "Out of America: Those oversized egos on Capitol Hill, and why I was rooting for George Galloway ; What Washington really needs is a racy, gossipy tabloid or a local 'Private Eye'"; [First Edition]. The Independent on Sunday. London (UK): Feb 12, 2006. pg. 45. "Consider the bizarre little affair of Wikipedia. [lists a number of vandalims done to political figures]. Someone got hold of the entry on Oklahoma's Republican Senator Tom Coburn (who is said to have described global warming as "a load of crap" and homosexuality as "the greatest threat to America") and inserted in his bio the claim that colleagues had once voted him "most annoying senator". Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is this: [22] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article somwehat disparaging Wikipedia:
  • Harris, Mark, "EMAIL FROM AMERICA." Sunday Times [London, England] 17 May 2009: 21. "Is the climate change website you're visiting funded by an oil company? And can you trust the Wikipedia page for a politician you're interested in? Search engines that prioritise popularity over accuracy hardly help, giving you millions of websites to choose from and no idea of which you can trust." Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is this [23] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And finally:
  • "EDITORIAL: Methane could be made to work for, not against, us." Herald-Times [Bloomington, IN] 27 June 2009. "IN AUSTRALIA -- at least according to Wikipedia -- cattle are immunized to reduce flatulence. The Australians have figured out that half their country's global warming gases are produced by cattle and other ruminants during the digestion process, sent into the atmosphere as methane after dining."

Thanks. Cla68. I found very isolated letters to editors, blogs, opinion columns and the like. Some of your sources are a bit scary in the way they hype Wikipedia's good points. I've read some of Britannica's global warming stuff recently and in my opinion it is at least as good as Wikipedia's. I think we should look carefully at the Benny Peisner article and seriously investigate the claims that it is inaccurate. I note that most of your citations seem to be from 2006 or 2007. Nothing much recent, then? --TS 00:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Kim for locating links to some of them. Going to check out Peisner's BLP was the next thing I was going to do. Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, is this Solomon trying to correct the information, and is this him being reverted by Kim? Kim, could you explain why you did that? Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, is this edit by Raymond arritt the one that is being talked about in the editorial? Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also see Kim removing negative information from the BLP and some questionable edits by red-linked accounts. So, so far I'm not sure what the editorial is referring to. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check the front of my user-profile page, where you can find Solomon's articles, with my responses in the commentary sections for them. (the debacle was over Solomon inserting unsourced content, that contradicted sourced content on Naomi Oreskes) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) The Solomon edits begin at [24]. They are to the biography of someone he and his compatriots are in a dispute with. They are unsourced, and they are negative. Hipocrite (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some random guy makes a weird an unexplained edit, somebody who doesn't understand the edit reverts it and makes a snotty comment. Less than ideal. I really must go through my own first few hundred edits and try to work out what it was that made me want to stay. Actually, I do remember: everybody was so incredibly nice. Even people who disagreed with me were nice. Wikipedia is just so much nicer than everywhere else. --TS 01:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was similar for me. These were the first two messages I ever received on my user talk page as a Wikipedian ([25], [26]). I don't know how many recent-change patrollers take the time to compliment new editors, but it made a big impression on me. MastCell Talk 06:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mine were all rather boring. But I had different reasons for being here, namely I was tired of being discounted in AfD discussions. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, based on the three sources (Solomon, the Telegraph blog, and the Washington Times editorial), that a sentence about the criticism of Wikipedia's AGW articles can be added to the Criticism of Wikipedia article, but without mentioning any Wikipedia editor names. I'll try to get this done this morning. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the climate change discussion but my tiny telephone won't let me edit big sections

[edit]

I think the media thing was a bit of a misunderstanding. You meant one thing, some people read it as something else, and then we all started talking past one another.

I don't, by and large, think it's going to be that hard to fix things, and I was probably overly pessimistic before. I have some sympathy for Gwen's view. Although of course I don't share her apparent vision of the entire scientific community conspiring to misrepresent the state of the science, given that assumption her frustration follows.

David Gerard, to whom I owe much of my insight into Wikipedia, said we have no option but to work with people we regard as idiots--he's about two metres tall and half Australian so nobody can tell him that the word idiot is uncivil. He means that we don't get to set up our own little echo chamber where we only hear what we want to hear. For the scientifically literate, particularly the expert, contributing to Wikipedia carrier heavy obligations. The CRU fuss shows us that the alternative doesn't mix with free information. John Brunner's vision in Shock Wave Rider has come true, and the scientist who doesn't have an eye for the effect his words may have will encounter problems like those encountered by Phil Jones.

Hey, he's a bright guy, a spell of education at Tarnover and playing the boards he could hack the computers to get a new identity, maybe make a fortune as a preacher in an inflatable megachurch.... nope, a lot of the vision worked but other bits didn't, no chance of a benign computer worm. Phil Jones is indeed an anachronism, thinking he could have such as thing as private conversations by email. Not that the denialists' emails are being exposed. Maybe he'll find asylum with the tribes, or in that utopian village – was it infinite loop? . . dave souza, talk 23:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "the entire scientific community conspiring to misrepresent the state of the science," not even close. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. I should have known you'd get the reference and spot the holes. --TS 23:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Gwen hears about global warming, how the effects could be serious, and how politicians are proposing changes that will affect everybody. She asks questions and gets unsatisfactory answers. She keeps asking, and eventually forms the opinion that it's a conspiracy based on false science. On Wikipedia she finds that scientific sources are highly regarded and so, from her point of view, Wikipedia is vulnerable to the conspiracy. Yes, I see that. So the question is: now can she and I work on the same articles when each regards the other as having been terribly misled?

Now my provisional answer to this is that I have no problem reporting on articles about the public debate that public confidence in the science has been shaken. on the other hand, I also think that we must not buy into the idea that the science has changed (unless, of course, it does.) does that make sense, Lar? Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 22:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But where does that get reported by us? GW is a much larger topic than just the science. The lead article is almost all about science. 15:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a lot of science. It's primarily science, in fact. That doesn't mean it doesn't have strong social implications. The computers we're using to communicate with rely on much of the physics of the past century and a half being right, but we don't find a discussion of Wikipedia policy, Internet 2.0, and whatnot, in the quantum mechanics article. Similarly the article on human reproduction contains no discussion of overpopulation. although one has strong implications for the other. If you're saying that the term "global warming" has some other meaning I was unaware of, that does not refer to the warming trend and its probable causes, then you'll have to explain. --TS 16:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the beginning was the herd

[edit]

That little tale has nothing to do with my thoughts on the topic, or with how I got to them, nor did I ever post anything like that. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sorry I misrepresented you. I was going from your statements during the discussion. How would you have put it? You seem to be disenchanted with the science. --TS 03:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all keep asking me questions by first posing them with highly mistaken outlines of what I've said. This wastes time and makes me less than thrilled about talking with you. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the best way to fix that is to mention it and refuse to answer any questions or clarify anything, or just to correct the mistaken impressions generated when you wrote "readers should in the meantime be made aware that the science is not by any means settled," and "the very narrow range of sources you're willing to give any heed, which now seem highly flawed," and "highly selective, coercive state funding driven by political goals, which are already thoroughly documented and widely understood," and "readers could get bored with all these slanted core articles," and "I didn't say and don't think 'the sources reflect the settled science on all climate issues'." Hipocrite (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been straightforward. Put it this way though, the cited, published sources themselves are flawed (or worse). I'm not saying core notions of scientific research or the scientific method are flawed in themselves, although these could grow and keen as time goes on. Meanwhile, flawed sources understandably stir up many and sundry woes for a tertiary reference source like en.Wikipedia. We do what we can and meanwhile, sometimes we recall that old saying from the British foreign office, that the most helpful thing to do may be nothing at all. I believe there is some likelihood the sources will overwhelmingly out on their own sooner or later. Meanwhile, as an editor I spend my volunteer time on topics where the sources to be had indeed carry their little flaws here and there, but citing them is at least of some help to readers. Other editors may come along with new sources, or some I haven't seen. Sometimes I'm startled, sometimes thrilled, by what shows up, then I try to help by blending it into the text, or rewriting altogether. Sometimes I learn, all kinds of things. Sometimes I can teach a little. I find it all kind of fun, most of the time. Somewhere in these threads Tony said folks here are nice. He may have meant it a bit wistfully but I think it's true enough. Most editors and admins here are nice, from my outlook anyway. Some of my best online friends here are folks with whom I disagree on all kinds of stuff. I think all that's rather cool, meed even. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I read what you wrote, I try to distill it down to a clear point - and what I get, over and over, is that you doubt the accuracy of all of the published scientific sources on climate change. Is that not accurate? If it is accurate, then what exactly do you propose should happen to our articles? Hipocrite (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say all the published scientific sources, but no worries. I think the allowable swath of sources has been more or less narrowed to the flawed ones, to bring the hoped-for, flawed editorial outcome. This is not to say I think this always happens in bad faith, I think lots of editors have been misled. GW is often marketed as a religion and this is echoed starkly by the en.WP articles on the topic. Hence I don't think the articles have much to do with science. Rather, they carry citations which make hollow claims to science, whilst flogging other ends. Some might call those ends political, but even this can be misleading. As for proposals, I think that for en.Wikipedia editors this is all going to be mighty daunting for awhile yet. I do understand that some editors don't think it's daunting at all, other than the need to swat down those "scientifically illiterate" editors. I think that's a mistaken outlook, since the cited sources themselves make claims to science, but aren't science. Rather, they're sales content, marketed as science but having much more to do with folks' anthropological bent towards the appeal of religion. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, aware that you're far out on the fringe here, calling an entire body of peer reviewed science "marketed as a religion," right? Could you please provide just one reliable source that has been "narrowed" out by these religious editors? Could you provide just one peer-reviewed natural science source that is "sales content?" Could you provide just one peer-reviewed scientific source on climate change that is accurate, in your mind? Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the editors were religious, nor did I say "an entire body of peer reviewed science [is] 'marketed as a religion.'" I find the way you frame your questions mistaken. I won't get near talking about sources with you until you stop that. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, aware that you're far out on the fringe here, calling an extremely well supported scientific theory "often marketed as a religion," right? Could you please provide just one reliable source that has been "narrowed" out? Could you provide just one peer-reviewed natural science source that is "sales content?" Could you provide just one peer-reviewed scientific source on climate change that is accurate, in your mind? Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the outset, elsewhere, you only give heed to sources you agree with. Hence if I sourced that, you'd say the source was (in so many words) codswallop. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease assuming bad faith. I do not base my evaluation of sources on the facts the sources present. Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I haven't said you're posting in bad faith and I find it very easy to assume your good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look - you're saying I only accept sources that say what I want them to say. That's an accusation of bad faith. You're either going to stop it, or I'm just going to accept that you are unwilling or unable to discuss that. No need to respond to this unless you intend to retract your statement that I am biased in my acceptance of sources and you are going to answer my questions and stop dodging them. I'm quite frusterated with you. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we don't even agree on that. I think someone can disallow a reliable source in good faith, however mistakenly or otherwise. Given the short swatches of time I have to spend on en.Wikipedia throughout the day, I'd rather you and I don't gobble up our volunteer time on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too think that someone can disallow a reliable source in good faith. Not deliberately, but it happens. We are all influenced by our own beliefs, regardless of how hard we try. No slight against anyone is intended by that observation. ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, at what point can someone who says "what source is excluded, exactly," expect to get a response that dosen't denigrate them as blind or an ass, or just plain dodge the question? Have you retracted your comment about it being a shame how our GW article is seen in the popular press, yet? Hipocrite (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't what I said, so no I haven't. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On phones and identities

[edit]

Hmmm.... at least you can edit with your phone. My BB won't even allow me to display this page in the first place (which I guess is a good thing, else I'd never get anything done at all). Do you want me to move this up at some point? Or you can, I guess. ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can. The thought was of the moment, and one that I wanted to capture. I think it can stand on its own. I'm so psyched that Dave Souza got my Brunner reference! --TS 23:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


What is a BB? Sorry Lar, but you know how hopeless I am at guessing what random bits of alphabet mean. --TS 00:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess he means BlackBerry, Tony. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense. --TS 01:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Yes, that's what I meant, sorry. I use my BlackBerry both as an internet device and as a tethered cellular modem. ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but do you know how to use it to program yourself a new identity? The inflatable church awaits, Reverend Lazarus. --TS 03:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My hair isn't even red. And I certainly harbor no lust for my mother. Oh wait, wrong Lazarus. Sorry. It's a Long story. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brunner and Heinlein references in one short thread? Throw in some Zelazny and Vinge and it will be like my high school prom all over again. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bit

[edit]

So, I'm not sure where this is going, but:

  • that there might be media crit of the wiki articles on GW seems entirely unsurprising (though the only ref anyone has found so far appears to be LS). And to me, uninteresting. But I don't mind if others are.
  • that LS is unreliable: I can tell he is unreliable for GW. You may not be able to. But you will be able to tell that he is unreliable on wikipedia: [27] is my response (ignore the snarks, if you can; Im obliged to snark in blog entries) to [28].
  • I'm unable to understand GG's position. the cited, published sources themselves are flawed (or worse) makes it seem like she thinks the entire GW edifice (IPCC, scientific reports, etc) is wrong. I disagree, but I'm not sure it matters: if that is what the science says, it is what we report. If GG was saying that we *misreported* the science, there would be something to discuss. OTOH she also says the allowable swath of sources has been more or less narrowed to the flawed ones... GW is often marketed as a religion and this is echoed starkly by the en.WP articles on the topic. Hence I don't think the articles have much to do with science. GG is welcome to that opinion, but it is hard to fit her opinion in the context of global warming. Perhaps she means some other articles. since the cited sources themselves make claims to science, but aren't science. Rather, they're sales content... - again, this is very hard to understand. To take this seriously, we'd have to know which articles and which refs she means.
  • Oh, and as for LS trying to "correct" Peiser, this [29] is clearly wrong and was correctly reverted.

William M. Connolley (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few random observations: (this being my talk page, I get to do that :), even if it's currently being used kind of as a salon, which is great!)
  • First, it's not true that anyone is "obliged to snark in blog entries". Snark distracts from message.
  • Second, I get what GG means when she says "GW is often marketed as a religion". I think you may be too close to see it, but it's a valid observation about the whole topic. It's not the only current topic this is true for, either, but it's certainly an important one.
++Lar: t/c 15:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think evolution is "marketed as a religion", too? Quantum physics? Relativity? Do you think people are fooling themselves when they say they would change their minds if the science were all proven to be incorrect? Or is there some subtle meaning to "marketed as" that also means "not really"? Do you see a necessary distinction between evidence and prayer, scientific observations and holy relics, scientific prediction and prophecy? --TS 15:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really (or certainly not nearly as much since it's less important (except for the negative second order effect of eroding the rational viewpoint when ID nonsense is given equal credence, or much of any credence at all)), no, no, no, no, and very much yes (of course! and I'm disappointed you have to ask), in that exact order. ++Lar: t/c
As a note, that you even ask these questions as your starting point suggests you're already off on the wrong foot. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm on the wrong foot. I'm simply unable to see why you defend an apparently false statement. And not just a "nearly right" kind of false, but a "howlingly wrong" kind of false. --TS 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you can state that global warming is marketed as a religion but evolution is not. The same exact statements are made by the same exact kinds of individuals regarding both evolution and global warming. Could you explain the distinction, please? Sources would be helpful. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(PS) and that HIV causes AIDS ... that 9-11 was a terrorist act carried out by Al Queda. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Are those also religions, Lar? Is the HIV theory religious in nature? Do we all worship at the altar of the terrorist theory of September 11th, 2001? --TS 16:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said I agreed it was "marketed as", not that it "is", a religion. You guys are a bit off in the weeds, I think. Fascinating discourse, but I may not be able to devote much time to this today, extramuros related matters call. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did ask whether perhaps the term "is marketed as" carried the meaning "is not." I can see why people who want to ignore global warming want to represent it as a religion, but as to whether anybody who accepts it treats it as a religion rather than science, I don't see why they would. You also don't think people are deluding themselves when they say they think its happening because of the scientific evidence, but that seems to contradict the notion that it's being "marketed as a religion." Surely there would be some characteristic to which you could point and say "that's religious marketing, not argument based on the preponderance of scientific evidence." --TS 17:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to reboot this so we can get a reasonable discussion instead of us all playing guessing games about what Gwen and Lar mean when they say global warming is religious in nature.

Lar, you read Gwen's comments and said you understood her when she said that global warming "is often marketed as a religion", and thought it was "a valid observation about the whole topic." I and Hipocrite obviously don't agree because we think the statement is obviously false, and that it appears to be akin to the accusations used by the religious, to the effect that science is simply another religion. Obviously you don't think that, and in fact you've confirmed subsequently that you see a clear distinction, as do we, between science and religion.

So far so good. But in that case, could you try to explain the way in which global warming can be said to be religious? --TS 17:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to adhere to your reboot. Please provide some sort of background to your claim that "global warming 'is often marketed as a religion.'" Key background would include what, exactly the "marketing" of global warming is, what features of that marketing share those of religion, and how exactly this is reflected in our coverage of global warming. Then, having laid that out, we can proceed. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it, I wonder, related to the context of Gwen's original statement? "I think the allowable swath of sources has been more or less narrowed to the flawed ones, to bring the hoped-for, flawed editorial outcome. This is not to say I think this always happens in bad faith, I think lots of editors have been misled. GW is often marketed as a religion and this is echoed starkly by the en.WP articles on the topic. Hence I don't think the articles have much to do with science. Rather, they carry citations which make hollow claims to science, whilst flogging other ends."
Here Gwen paints a picture of Wikipedians, consciously or unconsciously, ignoring a vast body of countervailing science and only including the papers, which she says are flawed, that support global warming. I've already remarked elsewhere that in fact there exists nowhere such a vast body of contradictory science. Nor for that matter does there exist a middle-sized or even a quite modest body of contradictory science. But it would be nice to see if Lar endorses this argument in full, or it merely strikes a chord with him for different reasons. --TS 17:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes a chord for different reasons. My take on AGW: I am not sure we have all the details exactly right, and I'm not competent to judge them for myself without spending the time to read all the peer reviewed material, if then, but something major clearly is afoot, and it's highly likely we did it. It's alarming, and it's perhaps the biggest issue facing us this century, it at the least will result in massive turmoil if not much much worse. Even if some of the data is wrong (or not), even if some of the data was cooked (or not), even if people are using this for political ends (THAT's not debatable, some folk are), it's still significant, alarming, important, etc etc. and we all need to be gravely concerned about it. That doesn't mean I endorse what we need to DO about it, or how. I've said it before I think. Or at least hinted at it (trying to not say exactly what my POV was). Now I really MUST go but this seemed key to get out there. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That GW is a religion is a common enough idea. I don't think it is helpful, but that's me. I assure you that I can see the concept. *However* the point at issue is wiki; GG appears to think that (pretty well all?) of even the science-based wiki pages suffer from this. So, to take one concrete example, do you think global warming suffers from this? If so, in what way? Which important science papers are omitted? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again. I'm not saying GW is a religion. It's not. The question of whether GW is happening or not is a scientific question, not a religious one, as are the questions of what are the causes, and what the likely climactic and geographic/orthographic/oceaongraphic/environmental/biological impacts will be. The questions of what impact that will have on society and what ought to be done about it are social/economic/political, not religious. Religion has nothing to do with it. That said, I still think that it's a valid observation that "GW is often marketed as a religion" Perhaps because of how important these questions are, there are aspects of orthodoxy, adherents, heresy, and so forth in how the media covers the topic. And further, I'm not sure that you're even asking the right questions when you ask what important science papers are omitted. The question ought to be what should the primary focus of the lead article be? Science alone? Or the larger matter which is not just science. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subheadered

[edit]
WMC, what about when you tried to denigrate Fred Singer with the "believes in martians" allegation? LS was certainly right about that. ATren (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except of course that no one at any point "denigrated" Singer with a "believes in martians" allegation. It is a fact though, that Singer, in the 60's, just like many other scientists, did entertain the possibility that Phobos could be an artificial satellite. (see Fred Singer#Satellites and space exploration). Do note btw. that this isn't an allegation, its a verifiable fact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is this section, subheadered by me, even remotely related to what we are discussing? Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you could take it to one or other user talk page since it appears to be a discussion of an edit made a long time ago and the original complaint seems to have been a misstatement. --TS 16:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't. You can remove it if you want. But an false allegation such as the one ATren's made shouldn't stand without a reply. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: Please review User:Lar/Pooh Policy and User:Lar/Eeyore Policy. Once posted here, it is my policy that nothing is removed. It can be lined out, copied elsewhere, or whatever but not removed. There are very rare exceptions. This topic is not one of them. Now I really must go away for a bit. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is the credibility of LS. I raised an example where LS got it right. That's relevant. ATren (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, ATren, if LS got that "right", then i would expect that you immediately move to BLP/N and afterwards to AN/I or ARBCOM... LS's claim is that WMC (in specific) is "smearing" Singer. That certainly isn't allowed by our BLP policy, and such behaviour is subject to severe consequences for WMC, and it is the duty of WP editors to make sure that such "smear" is immediately taken hand of. So i'm expecting that you do so immediately - or that you strike out your insinuation/allegation (since that is a personal attack on an editor). So do "Put up or Shut up", i think is the term. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kim has demolished the premise of the implied argument, but we should also appreciate the incredible leap of logic. 1+2=3. Now I got that right, hooray, I'm reliable. In two weeks time a giant space goat will eat earth - you better sell me all your securities for pennies on the dollar to enjoy life while you can.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, KDP hasn't demolished anything. The fact that the material in question can be argued to technically meet the criteria for inclusion doesn't mean that it isn't a smear. The fact that it currently remains in the article is more a testament to the number of editors cooperating to keep it there than it is to its encyclopedic value. This is a fine example of what's wrong with the GW articles, and especially the BLPs of the GW skeptics. --GoRight (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A giant space goat eh? Quick, to the B-Ark! And Stephan, I'd watch out for dirty telephones. --TS 18:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (Every discussion on Lar's talk page must eventually converge on the subject of telephones in science fiction)[reply]
On Singer, you're simply repeating yourself and I've already stated my opinion on that. On the others, I don't know, but the two examples you provide don't raise any alarm bells. On your POV remark, I suggest you read up on Energy & Environment. Pielke certainly regrets publishing there, saying in a Nature blog discussion in May, 2007: "[H]ad we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.)" [33]. The second edit, I can only describe as excellent, praisworthy, well researched, and a very successful effort to remove a most extraordinarily poorly researched attack on Oreskes' credibility. Cla68, I don't doubt your good intentions, but you appear to be well out of your depth when discussing climate change. --TS 01:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does knowledge of climate change science have to do with someone repeatedly adding negative information to the intro of a BLP on a climate change skeptic? Are you going to say that only a climate change scientist understands BLPs, the Wikipedia policies about BLPs, and how to follow them? That's what it sounds like you're saying. Also, the only thing that appears to be "wrong" with E&E is that they have some climate change skeptics on their staff. Tony, are you sure that your personal feelings on climate change aren't inhibiting you from complying with the NPOV policy? Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I do think it would help your edits (and those of all editing in this area) if you made efforts to understand the science, that is not what I am saying here. My comment isn't about the science, but about your seeming inability to handle sourcing and reliability problems. The very lax standards you adopt seem to have stood you in good stead in military history but in climate change they stick out like a sore thumb.
On Singer, whilst I could be convinced that Connolley was simply trying to push negative information into the article, you haven't made your case and are simply repeating yourself. Come up with new evidence and I'll consider it.
On E&E, you seem to have ignored, presumably because you did not understand, Pielke's comment to Nature on that journal. If you don't understand the specifics of Pielke's description of its evolution since 1999, ask. Pielke isn't commenting on the presence of skeptics, but on the poor quality of the publication.
You refer to what you presume are my feelings about climate change. Now I'll tell you my feelings. If climate change turns out to have been a big scientific error I'll be overwhelmingly pleased that my children will not have to worry about that particular problem, and if it turns out to be a scientific fraud I'll also be very angry at those who conducted the fraud. But mostly I'll be very relieved.
There being no commensurate evidence that the science is in error or fraudulent I am simply doing what most of us are: sticking my head in the sand and hoping it won't be too bad. As a Wikipedian I do not have the option of ignoring the overwhelming scientific consensus that there is a warming trend that most likely is caused by human activities--that's how I interpret the NPOV policy and it's an interpretation that has been backed by successive arbitration rulings. It takes more than a few skeptical blog postings to change a scientific consensus based on a huge body of real measurements. And I really don't think you understand this, and that is why your edits, and your arguments, fail. It isn't because there is a cabal of POV pushers, it's because your fellow Wikipedians observe in you a tendency, probably due to ignorance, to give undue weight to fringe points of view. --TS 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC reinserted a trivial, insignificant, 40-year-old factoid into the intro of Singer's bio four times [34][35][36][37], and when others moved it out of the intro, he basically admitted he wanted to keep it in the intro because it was embarrassing. How much more obvious can it get? If Singer came onto Wikipedia and dug up an insignificant fact from WMC's own past and edit-warred to put it into the intro of his article with the stated intent to embarrass him, he'd be quickly and permanently banned from the topic and probably Wikipedia itself. Yet the same old apologists are defending it here.

And yes, Kim, I'm preparing the arbcom case, and it encompasses more than just WMC. ATren (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a "trivial factoid" why is it still in the article nearly two years later? That doesn't make sense. You also seem to be repeating Cla68's interpretation of Connolley's comments. I've given a plausible alternative interpretation. --TS 01:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply a matter of the number of editors who are cooperating to keep it in. That's not an argument in support of its encyclopedic value, it's just a testament to the willingness of some to edit war to keep it in vs. the lack of willingness to edit war to keep it out. --GoRight (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because skeptic articles are littered with such non-notable facts, and the AGW proponent editors will edit-war to keep it that way. In my view it doesn't belong there at all (it's a 40-year-old claim which was quickly made moot by subsequent orbital measurements, and which appears much worse when viewed through a 21st century lens), but I and others have given up on trying to correct skeptic BLPs -- WMC and others own those articles.
And, TS, you didn't answer my hypothetical question: what if Singer came to Wikipedia and dug up an unflattering fact about WMC from 20 years ago, then repeatedly added it to WMC's article intro with the statement that it should be kept because it's embarrassing -- how would you react? ATren (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're simply going around in circles now. You're also presuming that I agree with you (and Lawrence Solomon, presumably) that the piece about Singer's 1960s support for the hypothesis that Phobos (then believed by some scientists to be hollow) was an artificial satellite is embarrassing. As it happens I find it completely neutral, and I think the frantic attempts to remove it amounted to a storm in a teacup. That it's still there years later establishes the absurdity of attempts to remove it. You can now deduce why I didn't answer your hypothetical question. If you can support your claim that Connolley said it should be kept because it was embarrassing, that will put a rather different complexion on the affair. Can you? The closest comment I can see is one that says that stuff shouldn't be buried just because it is embarrassing. I think you're probably putting words into Connolley's mouth. --TS 02:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, WMC himself called it embarrassing while he was restoring it! What you think about it today is completely irrelevant; he clearly wanted it prominent, by virtue of his 4 reverts, and he clearly thought it was embarrassing. This was an open-and-shut case of a partisan editor warring to emphasize an embarrassing factoid about his ideological opponent, and the same behavior by a skeptic editor would get them quickly banned (and rightly so). Your defense of it is perplexing. ATren (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Connolley is entitled to his opinion that this fact is embarrassing. Wikipedia does contain embarrassing facts. You claimed he said he put it there because it was embarrassing. But he didn't. You still don't seem to be admitting that the piece is still there, even having its own section, nearly two years later. This strongly suggests to me that it merits coverage. --TS 02:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Tony, WMC placed it in the intro unqualified, to make it appear that Singer believed in Martians. Other editors later moved it to the section on space exploration and qualified it to indicate that the claim was based on faulty data and was retracted when better data was available. But again, as I said above, I don't thing it belongs anywhere in the article -- it's a non-notable moot claim from 40 years ago. But such irrelevant unflattering facts are common in GW skeptic bios. Those BLPs are largely owned by the pro-AGW editors and they don't allow unflattering content to be removed, no matter how insignificant. Meanwhile, much more notable criticism is suppressed from pro-AGW BLPs. ATren (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is Connolley's original wording (which was adapted from original wording by a previous editor):
In 1960 Singer supported the suggestion of Russian astrophysicist Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky that the Martian moon Phobos was of artificial origin.
I fail to see any attempt to heap derision on the notion, which was not at all extraordinary in the context of the state of astronomy at the time. This "make Singer look stupid because he believed in Martians" idea seems to have been concocted on this very page in order to attack Connolley. I see no evidence that the notion originates from Connolley himself. Now you may think that the piece doesn't belong on the article, but your opinion doesn't seem to command consensus. Thus you're extrapolating from a faulty assumption about Wikipedia norms. Similarly your comments about other biographies of global warming skeptics may also be off the mark. The assertion that there is article ownership in operation should be supported fully and adequately. Repeatedly stating it without following dispute resolution probably isn't helpful. An alternative that should be considered is that your opinion on the appropriate content of biographies in the field does not often command consensus.
Singer was expressing support for an idea of Shklovsky's that had apparently caught the public imagination. Together with Carl Sagan, another famous astronomer who considered the notion of extraterrestrial life having developed in the solar system at some time in the past to be plausible (which of course it very much was, and remains) Shklovsky later wrote a book entitled "Intelligent Life in the Universe". Apparently Shklovsky and Sagan went further, and proposed that human folklore should be examined for evidence of extraterrestrial contact in the past. In saying this do I sound like I'm deriding two illustrious astronomers? I assure you I am not.
I think you're seeing this as an attempt to deride Singer when a plausible alternative is that it's simply filling out a picture of his early interests. --TS 02:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, you're still evading the point: why did WMC himself call it embarrassing if he didn't think it was? ATren (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already said at 02:32, less than two hours ago, that Connolley was entitled to his opinion. At no time have I claimed, as you imply above, that Connolley thought it wasn't embarrassing. Connolley correctly argues in one edit summary that embarrassment isn't a reason for removal, and you have mangled that somehow into a statement that embarrassment was his reason for inclusion. I'm not evading any point, and you are certainly turning this, through your inattention, into a very repetitious discussion.
You do seem to have moved in a more modest direction. I challenged your statement that Connolley said he wanted to include the material to cause embarrassment, and in response you have concentrated on defending what we both already agree--that Connolley perceived it as embarrassing. You have made no attempt to defend your claim, in other words, and have settled for attacking a man of straw.--TS 04:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, nobody used the word "embarrassing" before WMC, so how can it possibly be that WMC was arguing the negative of a claim which nobody previously made? He's the one who first raised "embarrassment", in an edit summary where he promoted it to the lead for the 3rd time! And once again, you evade my question: what if Fred Singer registered account and cited a 30-year-old source to claim that Connolley believed in martians, then edit-warred to keep it in the intro, even admitting it was embarrassing? Would you say that Singer's motives were good? Come on. In fact, you don't have to answer: we already know how you feel about openly skeptic editors: [38]. In that section, Tony, you express concern about the "damage to Wikipedia" because Richard Tol was providing sources for criticism on the talk page of an article. How do you mesh your concern about Tol's talk page discussion with your apparent complete lack of concern about WMC's promotion of embarrassing material in a BLP of someone he clearly disagrees with, an incident which drew significant external media coverage? Your position is inconsistent to say the least. ATren (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You were doing okay until...well actually until the first sentence, in which you made an assertion that you must know is misleading. The edit immediately preceding Connolley's first, clearly visible in the diff, was Fred Bauder removing an earlier version made by another editor on the grounds "Inappropriate in that context, tend to protray him as a nut case." [39] Connolley did not introduce the notion that this was embarrassing.
And once again you accuse me of not responding to a question when I have repeatedly indicate that I do not accept the premise of that question. Here you have simply modified the question so as to remove your earlier implication that Connolley said he wanted to embarrass Singer. I won't play that game.
Finally you introduce yet another straw man. My expressed concern about Richard Tol is that he openly abused Wikipedia to promote his public call for Rajendra Pachauri to resign, doing so on the talk page of the man's own biography. You think that compares with an argument over whether Singer's early interest in possible remnants of extraterrestrial life in the solar system should be included in the article. And you must know that you have grossly misrepresented my reasons for concern about Tol's conduct. I was pretty vocal about those reasons.[40] That you substitute false reasons for them instead of using my own, and then proceed to attack me for those false reasons, does you no credit. --TS 04:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, with all due respect, your debate style is reminiscent of Irwin Mainway. There's no point in further debate with someone who thinks promoting frivolous claims to embarrass opponents is fine, while discussing sources on talk pages is "abuse". I'll let others decide for themselves. ATren (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again. Attack and misrepresent me, and then get in another unsupported claim that Connolley was out to embarrass Singer.
  • Your claim that Connolley said he wanted to embarrass Singer: unsupported and evidently a "creative interpretation" of Connolley saying something completely different
  • Your claim about my motives for concern about Tol: disproven in my last comment in which I provide a helpful diff for my expression of concern.
  • Your claim that Connolley was the first to introduce the notion of embarrassment: disproven in my last comment in which I provide a diff showing Bauder's concern that an earlier version by another editor "tend[s] to protray him as a nut case"
Raising the ante like this every time, piling falsehood upon falsehood instead of apologising for getting your facts wrong, is inflammatory and really not an honest way to behave. You've been attacking other editors, and been shown to have misrepresented what they said and the circumstances in which they said it. Consider, instead of continuing to attack, that apologies for not doing adequate research, and for forgetting the "No personal attacks" policy, would be appropriate at this point. --TS 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. At all. But regardless, ATen has a point about your debate style, I think... it could stand to be a bit less confrontational. Here on my talk it's fine, but elsewhere it does raise eyebrows from time to time. ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Martian stuff should not be added unless there are significant secondary sources (preferably current) describing its importance in relation to Singer. One has to keep in mind the context of such speculation, and in 1960, we didn't know squat. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good argument. Take it to talk:Fred Singer. --TS 04:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, this was not a brief flirtation with the topic. Singer has been interested in this topic for more than three decades, and there are enough sources about the topic to justify inclusion. However, the wording must closely follow the primary sources in use, and the current material and sources in use do not explicitly reflect the sources. Using informative footnotes may solve the problem, otherwise the material should be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The piece has been rewritten since Connolley edit warred over it, and I daresay it will bear more rewrites. The link to a colleague of Sagan (with whom Singer was later to clash over likely effects of Gulf War oil well fires on the regional climate) intrigues me enough to wonder whether the American astronomer and the climatologist knew one another professionally. --TS 04:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly retaliatory (??) AN/I topic raised by A Nobody

[edit]

Your incivil section headings are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lar.27s_less_than_civil_section_headings_on_his_talk_page. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's "allegedly incivil", colleague. I found it interesting how, after no interaction whatever with you for some time, you start an AN/I thread about my talk page after I suggest that you've been excessively starting AN/I threads. Why was that? ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate being ridiculed by anyone who also needlessly antagonizes others rather than seek to decrease tensions. Anyway, if you say nothing about me, I will gladly say nothing about you. Time to alternate between 24 and "ice dancing." Have a nice night! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate those who needlessly antagonize others either. Such as by needlessly starting AN/I threads, or needlessly repeating the same tired acronym laden arguments at AfDs, or needlessly copymerging stuff to make it harder for people to edit or correct later. Almost all of which was pointed out during your RfC/U and which you've never satisfactorily answered. Go watch lots of TV, please. The more the better. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't lose it later

[edit]

And this, dear WP:TPWs, is why I prefer discussing things on my own page. I almost never sweep things away, I let them get archived in due course. I didn't think A Nobody would want to answer that question, but I was rather surprised that Tony was willing to abet that. ++Lar: t/c 23:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another diff in the wall. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was Mr Nobody being dumb and other people being annoying. ANI is for admins, not people who want to make a silly song and dance about somebody's talk page. --TS

I have no issue with the AN/I thread either way (his opening it makes him look more ridiculous than usual), and especially not with your closure... merely that you archived off a question to A Nobody on your talk, who is notoriously apparently loth to answer questions, even when they are left dangling. You swept it away for him which I'm sure he's quite pleased about he has no opinion about one way or the other. That's all I was driving at. ++Lar: t/c 23:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I think? I don't know this Nobody chap, I know nothing aout his editing history, and if he or anybody starts a pointless thread on ANI I'll do what I always do: shut it down. It's a public service. Nothing he has said to me or that I have said to him indicates that our discussions are likely to do anything but harm to Wikipedia. --TS 00:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not talking about the AN/I thread. I've struck a subordinate clause, above. Maybe it will help. Maybe not. ++Lar: t/c 00:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking across purposes. My unspoken question is: why do you care what this guy says, where and when? What good does this activity do to Wikipedia? Why should I tolerate the abuse of my talk page to perpetuate an apparently pointless dispute about which I know nothing but that it is a waste of my time? --TS 00:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a larger picture. You'd have to read the RfC/U to really understand just why, I think. But no matter. ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest

[edit]

Hi, the contest has been revamped since you last commented on the talkpage. Your input and participation would be welcomed. J04n(talk page) 02:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony and Gwen

[edit]

In my long ramble yesterday, I suppose I should now clarify, I picked Gwen as an example because she has recently made statements of fact about the state of the science that we may see expressed on blogs but never in the mainstream. The science, according to this reading, has been brought into question. I don't recognise that as a remotely tenable statement and I know of no scientifically literate person who would interpret recent events as challenging the science. So we represent extremes, in that limited sense. My normal response to this difference would be that "we are entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts," and that Wikipedia must continue to rely on the science until and unless the blog-predicted crumbling of the science should ever actually materialize. I'm not sure why that wouldn't be a satisfactory position, but I suspect that some editors, if not Gwen herself, would reject anything that did not depict climate science itself as in crisis, a position I think would require a level of verification for which the sources simply are not available. So it should in principle be easy for up to establish that this viewpoint of scientific meltdown is not plausible, and move on. But in my experience this never happens. So at every point we find ourselves in a battle to establish what, according to all the sources available to us, is firmly established and has no serious scientific challenges since the mid-1990s. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 12:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typing with one's thumbs whilst looking at a small screen field can be clutzy! Our outlooks on the sources in this topic area aren't the same, moreover our takes on a "scientifically literate person who would intersppdu [interpret]..." them. I'm open to talking about it more now and then, but not under the mistaken cloud that there is any meaningful need to the project that either of us "fix" our outlooks any time soon. Speaking for myself, I never edit or do admin stuff at GW articles and only drop off sources on a talk page now and then. There are millions of other articles here, I can't even think of how many lifetimes it would take me to get into all of the ones I'd like to edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think people who disagree can often expand their respective outlooks, without modifying their positions, so that if not agreement they at least understand the points of disagreement.
On the subject of scientific literacy, I would expect a scientifically literate person to understand that the science of global warming is supported by several independent global records of temperature, by scientific processes that have been understood for over 100 years, and by other observations such as the changes in seasonal behavior of animals and plants. I would expect a scientifically literate person to understand that the science of global warming is broad and deep, and does not depend on any one or few scientific papers. I'm prepared to defend those statements, but I don't think it would be much of a challenge. The problem is that, no matter how many times I go through this "easy" victory, it proves hollow because the scientifically illiterate come here with their nonsense from blogs and it starts all over again.
I've not really analyzed why the editors (not you) who hang around the global warming articles, but are obviously not equipped in any way to edit them because their understanding is so very poor, do so, and what they get out of it, and whether what they do is in some way good or bad for Wikipedia. On the latter question, I think I agree with some people who say that they at least keep the rest of us on our toes, by challenging sources. But it would be nice if, along the way, they showed signs of improving their knowledge of the field. --TS 12:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand what you mean but it runs deeper than that and skeinishly so. Taking only the SPAs who show up at GW, this is another reason why I stay away. Some are so stirred up by the time they get here, they don't bother to learn the policies and culture of en.Wikipedia and come off looking daft, to experienced editors. Worse, their outlooks on GW may be spot on, but built on all the wrong, mushy headed reasons, rendering their input hopeless from the outset (lots of those who agree with the notion of anthropomorphic GW can be mushy headed, too). I won't have anything to do with them, there is too much other stuff I can do here without wading into kerfluffle. Some who do show up are much more level headed and fit for editing, but woe to them, they had the bad luck to stumble into GW as their first topic area and get unfairly smeared straight off. Most leave, if they don't get blocked first, having been clueless about the policies having to do with edit warring, BLP and personal attacks. The narrowing of allowable sources is a big help in making this happen. Moreover, there's a lot more going on than this. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we have two completely different views of the problem. I'm seeing the problem of people without much scientific knowledge hanging around on the global warming articles and never seeming to improve their grasp of the science to the level where their edits would make much sense, and you're seeing editors being driven away by being "unfairly smeared" or falling afoul of, amongst other things, the "narrowing of allowable sources." Interesting.
What kind of sources do you think should be permitted in, say, global warming, that cannot be included? --TS 13:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think both worries are there, which makes the muddle worse. I could put it this way, if there ever is a conensensus at GW that the topic is political/social along with scientific, moreover given if one thinks much of the cited peer review is scientifically flawed, which is to say, not science at all (never mind the disagreement over that), any talk about widening the sourcing will be highly daunting. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that errors are found out and corrected is what makes the scientific process work. You don't see anyone correcting errors in religious literature, political constitutions, or even in the legal process in the very short amount of time that scientists find errors and publish those errors as corrections in journal articles. That's the scientific process, and it appears to be working. We should be celebrating the fact that errors were found and corrected. Clearly, science has won the day yet again. Unfortunately, most people don't understand it, and criticize the very process that makes it work. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I would say folks tend to criticize the corruption of the process, more than the scientific method. Moreover, experimental outcomes can easily be mistaken as carrying meanings which aren't there. Any weakness or flaw in design, methodology, control, review, publication and/or replication can skew everything into a worthless consensus as to outcome. When conflicts of interest as to funding come into the mix (as with either state or corporate subsidies, grants and the like), moral and other hazards abound. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already cover the political and social aspects very well, though the main article is about the science. You've also imported this notion that the peer reviewed science is not, in fact, science at all, a subject at which you've expanded at more length in discussion elsewhere on this page. I think that's a misunderstanding. The science really is, in the sense that science can be said to exist at all, science. To say that we're narrowing the allowable science to include only the flawed data is to presume that there is a preponderance of scientific papers out there that contradict global warming, but we're just not allowing them in the article. And that's simply untrue.

But recall that I asked you what kind of sources should be permitted in global warming but aren't. Were you referring to specific scientific papers, or to non-scientific sources? --TS 14:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with any of those assertions, so we're getting stumped here. I think we can agree that the main article says what you want it to say. Banishing other sources to sub articles is a slice of what's gone wrong. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The global warming article is 97 kilobytes of fairly dense prose which covers the bare bones of the science. Would you have it larger, and if so, what content do you think is missing? What am I excluding so as to tell "what [I] want it to say?" Again you mention "other sources" but you're not responding to my request that you be more specific. I think that's why we're stumped. If you could name sources then we might be able to move on. --TS 15:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Global warming, as a topic, is more than just the science. Far more. The lead article needs to cover all aspects, and needs to include all views, to the proper level (keeping undue weight considerations in mind), not just the science, and what to include needs to be evaluated using more than just "is this from a peer reviewed journal" as a metric. If anything, perhaps the place to use that metric is in a fork, science of global warming, not the lead. This is one of the primary bones of contention, I think, what gets forked and what stays in the main. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be proposing some sort of change to an existing article. Perhaps you could propose that change clearly, as opposed to hinting at it. What specifically is excluded from global warming that should be reincorporated from splits. What specificially is included in global warming that should be farmed out to sub articles? Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're already discussing this on another section so I won't respond to Lar's suggestion here. I'd like Gwen to get back to me and elaborate what she meant about "narrowing of allowable sources." --TS 16:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Lar said, "The lead article needs to cover all aspects, and needs to include all views, to the proper level (keeping undue weight considerations in mind), not just the science, and what to include needs to be evaluated using more than just 'is this from a peer reviewed journal' as a metric," shows the way to a very helpfully widening. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it already does fill a substantial part of the article... we have sections on the scientific basis, effects, responses (and strategies for responses) [almost entirely political], controversy (debate and scepticism). So be a bit more specific - what section needs expansion, and which needs trimming (we're at the limits for an article in size). Please also give your rationale for this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead article, in my view, is primarily concerned with the science, and covers other topics tangentially, giving fair numbers of See Alsos. That choice of emphasis is itself a point of view, is it not? ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The neutral point of view shows views proportionately, and the same approach has been taken on other science articles. I am most familiar with evolution, perhaps you know of other lead science articles that are primarily concerned with social, political or economic opposition to the findings of the science. . . dave souza, talk 18:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would it take to convince you that Global Warming isn't primarily a science topic? Perhaps it once was but no longer. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Global warming isn't primarily a science topic, since when? I know it's also become very political but it's always been based on science or should be. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm puzzled as to how it could be a topic without the science. Perhaps if it does occur and is accepted by everyone as a present problem irrespective of the science, but that's highly unlikely this winter. Until it's settled that there is or isn't global warming, the controversy and social arguments refer to the science. . . dave souza, talk 18:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it can't be a topic without the science. But that doesn't mean it's primarily a science topic. A lesser example, nuclear power, the topic, would be remiss if it didn't include the science behind it, but it's not primarily a science topic either. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my background, but I'd expect nuclear power to be an engineering, or applied science, subset of nuclear fission. Just guessing, it'll be interesting to see where these links go. . dave souza, talk 18:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly ought to be a science topic, but it's quite clear that it isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't parse for me, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that the "Scientific POV" is only one of many points of view on the topic of global warming. Part of "the problem", IMHO, is that the editors who tend to regularly patrol and to some level "control" the content on these pages take the view that the "Scientific POV" is the 99% view and everything else gets dumped out based on what they consider to be due weight arguments. Not to pick on Count Iblis, but note his quote that I have enshrined on my user page here. I consider this to be a profound quote and I put it on my user page because I believe that it encapsulates one of the main biases I see on these pages.

Yes, the scientific POV is an important POV in this topic but the discussions on these pages almost invariably argues as though this is the ONLY POV that matters, and it isn't. I mostly haven't involved myself in the scientific aspects of these pages because there are lots of well qualified people already making sure that the Scientific POV for GW is accurately represented. I have no problem with that. But when I want to introduce content that comes from a political POV the argument is frequently put forth that only peer reviewed sources are allowed on these articles (diff provided on request) which is a form of evading WP:V and WP:RS from the political perspective. Or they argue that since my points are not about the science they are undue weight. Or if they can't do that then they argue that it belongs someplace else, not here on the main pages (where someone might actually see it). All of this material gets shunted off, and unfairly so IMHO, to various forks which are difficult to find even for people familiar with the topic and these pages in particular and therefore they not really doing a service to our readers IMHO.

Here's a proposal, make the main GW article and index page that is used to help people find all these other points of view that people are arguing already exist. Let the science POV be one of the shunted off articles like everything else. --GoRight (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, the science and disagreements within science are at the basis of the other issues, and due weight is required in related articles like the political articles . dave souza, talk 18:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reputable Fred Pearce on politics. . . dave souza, talk 19:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, i do not agree. Global warming is primarily a scientific concept and topic. From that topic springs a whole range of political and economic dimensions. Do we mitigate? Adapt? What is the best balance between these? (cost/benefit) How do we do it? Do we do it? Etc. These are political questions - not scientific ones (even though science is asked to answer many of them.. Ie. if we do this - what can/will happen). Without the scientific basis, there are no political or economic aspects. There is a definitive answer to the chicken or egg riddle in this topic area. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This assumes that the whole topic of GW investigation sprang forth out of nothing. Politically speaking, this is non-sense. Without the funding provided and directed from the political sphere none of this GW science would even exist. Someone, somewhere made a fundamentally political argument in order to justify the funding to start this giant snowball rolling. The primary organization who seeks push all of this, the UN, is a fundamentally political organization. There is a fundamental reason that the IPCC reports must be signed off by all of the governments, which are political institutions, before they are accepted. Sorry, but the political egg came before the climate science chicken (littles). --GoRight (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I couldn't resist the chicken little reference. It's a joke, people.[reply]
GoRight, First there was a scientific assessment that humans could and probably did influence climate (global warming), that has been known since the late 19th century, but really got going in the mid-20th, that made the politicians request more specific information (and create the IPCC), which confirmed the original assessment, and expanded upon it. Politicians didn't suddenly sit down and say "I wonder if we are having an effect on climate, lets pour some money into some research and see if there isn't something there" (from some bloggers perspective "perhaps there is tax-revenue there"). Its btw. rather interesting to read your "funding" argument... How much do you think the IPCC's budget is (and how much has it used since inception?)? Do a rough guess before opening thisthis. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta right. It kinda started with a notorious Darwinist, and was picked up by a couple of Swedes. Probably Illuminati, but that's OR. Then, rather ironically, it got funded as part of the Cold War... read on.... . . dave souza, talk 23:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGW enforcement request

[edit]

Here. I've left a note on the other involved admin's talks also. Cla68 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More AN shennanigans

[edit]

It seems that A Nobody has chosen to irregularly (since his talk page already has a set of normal archives that are linked on the main talk page) "archive" his talk page by moving the page to User talk:A Nobody1, then recreating the page by pasting the former content without the offending thread (and one other post) and with no link to the new "archive". As an inept method of avoiding scrutiny and making something he doesn't like go away, this doesn't particularly bother me; but since there is no User:A Nobody1 to connect to User talk:A Nobody1, that page is probably technically subject to deletion, and if some inattentive admin deletes it, the thread really will disappear. Any ideas on how to handle this? Deor (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a mail to an uninvolved admin asking for a move back. I think this indeed ought to be brought up somewhere. Maybe it's a matter for the requested page moves, we request that the page be moved back out of another user's space to somewhere within A Nobody's own space . I did link to the diff already over on the WQA. (Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Pablo_X) It is just possible that this was a typo rather than malicious. Just. ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's mostly sorted. However while the material got moved back to the main talk page, the stuff Flatscan posted, and our concerns, is now all gone. It doesn't appear to be archived anywhere except in history. This is, per policy, an acceptable practice (contrast it with mine, but no matter). However it also demonstrates clearly a continuing pattern of ignoring legitimate concerns from other editors. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary focus

[edit]

I think I know what the primary focus of an article on a scientific subject should be--the science. Without that there would be nothing else to discuss--think it through, without an instrumental temperature record, measured by scientific means, we would simply be talking about occasional freak weather events--and without scientific recording methods there would be no way to spot any trends. Without science we would not have a way of identifying possible effects of human activities on the climate anyway. We'd be in a pre-scientific state, observing but with no organized effort to understand, relying on folklore. So you bet your life the primary focus of our main article will be the science. The politics and everything else follows on from the science. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be more a political topic than a scientific one. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The politics could not exist without all those pesky measurements, those irritating facts, that most inconvenient mountain of facts. You might as well describe the new synthesis as political--the Soviets under Stalin did, or so I was taught, reject the mendelian element on political grounds, going instead with the more ideologically pure but scientifically worthless notions of Lysenko. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the peer review has been corrupted, there is no science. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you hang onto that straw as hard as you can. Meanwhile this last decade was the hottest since records began. --TS 23:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So says the peer review, which may be corrupted. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen, do you favour the science party or the anti-science party? Or, the hell with it, let's just ignore it and have a party? . . dave souza, talk 22:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of taunting is highly unhelpful and moreover, framing a question to me in that way is wholly mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen, it was intended as a gentle jest, with the serious point that "politics" covers a multitude of things. John Tyndall was part of Huxley's Nature party, rather Whiggish if I recall correctly. Interesting that the U.S. Office of Naval Research also seem to be implicated.[41] .. . . dave souza, talk 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From that wider outlook, that kind of "science" is indeed politics. The state funding of science is straightforwardly political, hence a moral hazard wherein outcomes are wont to be so too. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, the science wouldn't exist without the politically provided funding to conduct it. --GoRight (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Informed discussion is so much nicer. . . dave souza, talk 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One can find 100-year-old predictions from academics (and others) for almost anything. The earth is not Venus. AIP is state funded, thereby awash in COI. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature record and rhetorical devices

[edit]

The instrumental temperature record of some 150 years? All those trees planted hundreds of years ago? Think for a moment about what you are saying. --TS 23:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting here has become quite jumbled, to whom were you directing your point about trees? Why are you going on about trees? No one is suggesting that the trees were political plants, you are the one being absurd by even suggesting such a thing. And the trees are NOT the science, BTW. The trees are just the trees. The science to study those tress wasn't conducted until AFTER it was funded by some political organization. Having been paid once to look at some old trees, it should not be surprising that the results came out in such a way that there was a need to be paid again to look at more old trees. Now apply induction ad infinitum and you will find some well lined pockets. --GoRight (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to you, though my argument also applies to Gwen's related points. In essence, unless one argues that the trees and the thermometers have all been "bought off" at some point by a political organization and are secretly in cahoots with a vast political and scientific conspiracy, there is no significant political component to these metrics. I don't think the trees are lying, nor the thermometers, nor the satellites. That's crazy talk. --TS 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A classic strawman argument. Where has anyone said that the trees, or the thermometers, or the satellites are lying? The humans being paid to collate and interpret what those things purportedly show us? Well, that's a much more unreliable link in the chain from tree, or thermometer, or satellite to scientific report which is being used to promote political agendas. And when the humans producing those reports refuse to explain how they arrived at their conclusions in sufficient detail, and they evade legal requirements to provide the information to independently confirm their results, well then a reasonable person begins to take those reports with a multi-million or multi-billion dollar grain of salt. --GoRight (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of anyone saying a thermometer or a tree was bought off. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem a rather odd argument to make. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a rhetorical response to a ridiculous conspiracy theory. The intention is to refuse to grant serious attention to somebody who is making nonsensical claims about hypothetical vast political conspiracies or cartels driving scientific research to reach a conclusion, irrespective of the evidence. In a face-to-face discussion we'd laugh this kind of nonsense away with a joke. Perhaps you don't want the same rules that apply to real life discussion to apply here? --TS 18:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already know what you would do. You do it here too. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to use whatever rhetorical devices you like, Tony and all. Just be willing to explain when they confuse, that's all. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Age of the earth

[edit]

Last I heard, it's likely the earth is way over 4 billion years old. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you know the trees only go back to the 15th century, other proxies to around 900. Good summary in AR4, including hotter times in past geological ages. . . dave souza, talk 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that those trees weren't planted by any political force currently operating, unless you (generic you, "one", if you like) think the Vatican secretly runs the world and all the forests. --TS 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
150 years is hardly a meaningful sample. Meanwhile smears like that are nothing more than personal attacks. Please stop now. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, it's difficult to show how absurd your position is without employing reductio ad absurdum, which of course is going to give offence because it shows you that your ideas are absurd. Or you could accept that the trees were not put there by agents of the United Nations or Smersh or whoever it is, and that the first maximum-and-minimum thermometers were not designed by opponents of a then non-existent petrochemical industry. --TS 23:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With that post, you're the one ranting from the gutter. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree, I tend to be rather lax about how things go here (part and parcel of never removing things either, if you say something rash, it'll stay in the archives forever, so keep that in mind) but that does seem a bit rhetorically much, TS. Although, GG, calling it "ranting from the gutter" might not be the best approach either. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Lar "leveling the playing field"?

[edit]

I think I can see what you're doing Lar. You're making efforts to implement your suggestion to "level the playing field", in the microcosm of this talk page. The pitfalls are that conspiracy theorists like Gwen and GoRight can spout nonsense but we have to act as if their rubbish were worthy of serious consideration. Wikipedia in general used to adopt that rather lax approach, and when I first came here in late 2004 and during the following years there was a lot of tolerance of nonsense and quackery in talk pages and articles, simply because it was how we interpreted the neutral point of view in those days. Recall those articles on scientific and other subjects that always read like a dialog between scientists and people who were innocent of any aquaintance with the scientific method? A common formula in those days was "Some scientists claim X/On the other hand some say Y." Casting doubt on science from ignorance and suspicion was the order of the day.

A series of strong arbitration committee rulings put an end to that, and we now have a better encyclopedia where reliable content is not interspersed with dippy, fanciful nonsense. I happen to like it that way, but of course it's up to you what rules you apply on your talk page. I don't think your rules oblige me to take wild claims seriously, but your approach may cause me and others to take our scientifically literate, non-conspiracy pushing, rational views off the page, and you will then be left with an echo chamber of anti-science rubbish. I don't think it is sensible to apply equal credence to nonsense and reason. --TS 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to rethread) @TS: In the interests of being pithy, let me just observe that when someone has to resort to Strawman and Ad hominem arguments the debate is pretty much over and the proper conclusion is fairly obvious to all reasonable observers. --GoRight (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(moved to rethread) TS: This is a talk page. Not article space. Moreover, it's my talk page. All opinions are welcome here, because what I expect to be presented is just that, opinion. As long as people don't drone on endlessly and stay within the very lax boundaries I've established, they are welcome. I do not agree with your characterization of my motives in organizing this talk page this way (as I have, more or less, since 2006). You are under no obligation to take anyone's opinion as anything more than just that, or to participate here if you don't wish. But I do hope you choose to stay. Feel free to not rebut or briefly say "fiddlesticks" if that is more effective than point by point rebuttal, especially if you feel you are repeating yourself or whatever. I'm not sure it's useful to characterize others as conspiracy theorists unless you're prepared to show they are. You and I are on the same side of the science, remember. We merely differ about the appropriate emphasis of the main article (GW is not primarily a science topic any longer, although it certainly started that way) and about the appropriate methods for editing in this space. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


More on polisocial vs. science topic

[edit]

The notion that editorially, AGW is as much a political/social topic as it is scientific is not quackery but rather, is wholly supported by the sources and has aught to do with conspiracy theory. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable third party secondary sources for that opinion? If so, please put them up on the main article talk page for consideration. . . dave souza, talk 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These abound. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read it but didn't find any statement that AGW is as much a political/social topic as it is scientific. Could you could point it out? Also, given the magnitude of the proposed change, a more academic source than a newspaper which now features "sceptic" campaigning would seem appropriate. Perhaps best dealt with on the article talk page. . . dave souza, talk 19:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take that as the same old wikilawyering meant to disallow all but those sources which will support the hoped for outcome (I believe you're doing it in good faith, though). The worries here systemic, both within and without en.Wikipedia. Being what we call here an eventualist (soft wlink, that), I'm happy enough to give my input now and then. Thanks Lar, for opening your talk page to my posts on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept that I looked at the article reasonably carefully and just didn't see what you suggested was in it. The judge describes Gore's film as political, but seems to me to accept the IPCC as a valid source of the science forming a basis for discussion. I could have missed something. Good link to eventualism, like you I think patience is worthwhile. We may have more perspective once the current dispute has died down a little. . . dave souza, talk 19:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On asking for sourcing

[edit]

The issue here is one that seems to come up more often than I'd care for... sources are asked for, a source is provided, but then that source is for some reason inadequate. Sure, that's sometimes a legitimate thing (as it may well be in this case) but it's such a common tactic that it sets some folks teeth on edge. So then, what sort of source would be adequate here to establish what the nature of a topic is? (I find my eyes rolling even typing that question out, frankly, but ok) ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, the cited source was supposed to support Gwen's claim that "The notion that editorially, AGW is as much a political/social topic as it is scientific is not quackery but rather, is wholly supported by the sources and has aught to do with conspiracy theory." What we got was an account of a court case in which a judge referred to a film by Al Gore and judged it on grounds of scientific accuracy. This seems to underline the counter-argument that it's primarily a scientific issue, because this film was being judged, not on grounds of whether it was culturally important (which this particular film certainly is) but on whether it conformed to what is known of the science as determined by those scientists Gwen insists are so reliable and so tangential to the political context. Gwen, perhaps through inattentive reading or simple incomprehension, chose an example that contradicts her point. --TS 21:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the judge nor Mr Gore are scientists. The last bits are nothing but rhetorical personal attacks, as you know. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources? Britannica's view?

[edit]

Lar, do you have reliable third party secondary sources for your opinion that GW is not primarily a science topic any longer, or indeed that it started that way? If so, it would be helpful if you could put them up on the main article talk page for consideration. As for your rules and way of running your talk page, it seems to me to contravene civility policy and make it difficult to communicate with you. Thus rather undermining your emphasis on civility over content policy issues in discussing sanctions. I'm rather thick-skinned about incivility, and if you accuse me of twisting things, showing confusion, denialism and foolishness, I think that you're making a foolish statement and say so. However, I'm concerned that shyer souls could be put off. Improved civility all round is a worthwhile objective, and leading by example is recommended. . . dave souza, talk 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave souza: I don't need sources to hold an opinion. Further, the main emphasis of an article is an editorial judgment. That said, I was pointed at Nuclear power as an article whose editorial emphasis might have bearing. That struck me as a worthy exercise, although the correspondence is imperfect, it's close enough to be a useful guide. And guess what, unlike Nuclear fission which was primarily scientific in emphasis, it is not so emphasized. It has aspects of engineering (which the main GW article would not since we don't have an engineering solution to apply if we ever will, but hey, no analogy/guide is perfect) and aspects of political, social, and economic analysis (which the main GW article should have). That's my opinion, as an editor and lay person who has an idea of what to expect on reading a main topic article. Yours may differ. But it's not, I don't think, a matter that sources will resolve. I think the tactic of calling for sources is sometimes overused by some folk. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My interest was piqued and I decided to see how Encyclopedia Britannica covered this. I have a "community" subscription, so I can link to their article from within my blog, although not quote or directly link I don't think. Go see for yourself, you should be able to see the full text if you start from there. I may have been looking at the wrong article, their structure is very hard to understand, there is a welter of different versions and interrelationships... I think their lead is actually called "Global Warming (earth science)" near as I can tell. So I guess I'm not too surprised that it seems to lead off with a lot of the science in the matter. But even though badged as a science article, it has a fair bit of non science emphasis. More than ours? less? Hard to say. But interesting, I think. And not what I expected. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, Lar. In my opinion the primary focus should remain on the fundamental science, which would include proportionate mention of scientific minority views with peer reviewed support. There should also be concise coverage of the less scientific areas of impact assessment, mitigation proposals including disputes about them, and political issues including disputes. I'd be happy to see improved coverage of these aspects, ideally based on third party sources which aren't part of the various campaigns. Unfortunately, the public disputes increase demands to publicise fringe claims rather than looking objectively at such claims. Addition of mainstream views on controversy issues tends to be hotly disputed, slowing progress, but hope it will get there eventually. . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The interface seems to be very different from Wikipedia--what I see when I go to that link is a series of brief excerpts from articles that relate to global warming. If this is the correct interpretation, then Britannica has much less about the public debate than Wikipedia does, and nothing about global warming skepticism appears in the excerpts displayed If we used a similar interface (showing exceprts from everything under a relevant category and its subcategories on a single page) I think the amount of discussion of the public debate and alternative views would be larger. though still not disproportionately so. --TS 19:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories and the primary focus

[edit]

Seriously enough, there do seem to be genuine conspiracy theories about this world government plot to make us give up our SUVs. Not that I actually have a motor at present. Yes, Huxley and Tyndall were blatantly political, Haeckel even more so, and the timeline is interesting for the various political inputs. For example, the boost given by that rabid environmentalist commie Margaret Thatcher. Science has political funding, but aims to have a self correcting mechanism. Anti-science has even more political funding, take the DI as an example. Choose your pols. . . dave souza, talk 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those roads to hell are paved with good intentions. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Today's Guardian has an interview with a chap who is very normal in his range of scientific acceptance--evolution, global warming, no problem--except for one thing: he believes the evidence of his eyes when they tell him that the world is flat, and he thinks science must make a strong case that the earth is round, and as this hasn't happened he assumes that it is flat, and last year he revived the Flat Earth Society. He's got his limits, though. If someone took him into space and showed him a round earth, he would accept it, as long as he was sure it wasn't some kind of trickery. Fascinating. --TS 00:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of a bloke I once spoke with in a café. He gave a very fit, if short, rundown on quantum mechanics, even overcame my wariness about anyone who dares, outside of a classroom or alikened meeting of degreed wonks to (wontedly mis)cite Richard Feynman. Then he launched into telling me how most military aircraft designs are drawn from alien spacecraft. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony, an amusing read. You both might be interested in an artist's view on AGW. Apparently part of a series. A rather longer read, but very informative on the context of these arguments. . . dave souza, talk 09:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He winds up that article with a link to state-funded, politically-driven essays and art about the topic of climate change. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Horrors! What an absolute cad! --TS 14:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know him, so I couldn't say, though he's likely not a cad. However, it does strongly hint at conflict of interest and moral hazard, no more or less than if those essays and art were funded by a private interest with an outlook, any outlook, to flog. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me a shame to see a thoughtful essay by an artist whose work I rather like viewed through the lens of suspected hints of conflict of interest and moral hazard. Perhaps balance will be restored by ExxonMobil offering funds for artists to comment on the same issue. . . dave souza, talk 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above about both those roads to hell, COI and moral hazard cut their harmful swaths along each. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This particular kind of anti-statism, wherein all government-funded or sponsored actions are viewed with extreme suspicion, has a few adherents, but it shouldn't be mistaken for an acceptable argument on conflict of interest. Viewed through that lens, nobody's interests are pure, and the very real conflicts that we want to identify and attenuate would be swamped by the much broader, but only marginally defensible, claims of conspiracy theorists. Adherents of such extreme points of view rightly have an uphill struggle getting their claims taken seriously. --TS 16:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you talk to me about straws, Tony? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems a colourless world where we assume that anyone submitting their thoughts to something sponsored by Government is being dishonest or morally compromised. Gormley expresses the views of many people vaguely concerned about projections of climate change, but not doing very much about it. An artist driving a Hummer to annoy environmentalists would have a different view, not sure if it would be as eloquently or as cautiously expressed. If anyone finds a link to the views of an artist who thinks the science is morally compromised and should be disregarded, that will be an interesting read. . . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

editorial note

[edit]

This section is horrifically jumbled right now. I tried to introduce subheads but I'm not quite sure where to cut. So watch out for that. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done. Feel free to rethread if I got things 'orridly wrong. ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The operation was a success but the patient did not survive. After my surgery there hasn't been a single post to any of these sections so I guess I killed off a lively discussion. Way to go, Lar. ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo!

[edit]
The Pug Barnstar
Bravo Captain! Just a little barnstar to congratulate your very reasonable remarks on the recent ANI thread about BLP and porn performers. My wife thinks you are very noble. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why thanks! My regards to your lovely wife, and I hope your new pug brings you pleasure. I have to confess his pulsations here might be a bit distracting, though. You'd think I had a cookie or something! ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spinrad

[edit]

For a day or two now my brain has been nudging me to mention Bug Jack Barron, but I read Spinrad's novel just once over thirty years ago and if it had any significant phones in it I've completely forgotten. So I'll mention it just once and maybe the nagging will go away. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 04:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it mentioned, then. Goodness it's been a long while since I read that. I can't even recall (without looking it up) what exactly the plot line was. While we are on the topic of SF, your "anticipation..., the" userid inspired me to read a couple of Banks novels, with more stacked up waiting. So thanks for that. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they might have had video phones, but I might just be remembering the description of the feed splicer toggling to different camera angles. As an aficionado of the history of the future, I think the most interesting bit was the emphasis on harvesting youthful glands for immortality - not a telomere or nanobot or neural net trained to imitate you so closely that not even you can tell the difference to be seen.
On an unrelated note - could you or somebody let me know if the board management discussion reaches consensus? Personally for all but simple cases I prefer letting discussion run to consensus and allowing presentation of closely related issues, but right now I need to go help a pretty lady with her corset. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean the comment refactoring one? It seems to have. Or did you mean something else? ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, it was a phone-in show. A TV version of talk radio. This was in the 1960s and I'm not clear whether network TV had any show of the kind at the time--even talk radio as known in America today, with its opinionated hosts who command a sizable following within political minorities, might have been a thing of the future. --TS 22:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting an example

[edit]

Did I really see you and Jehochman edit-warring over a close at WP:GS/CC/RE? Do either of you feel at all compelled to set a good example (or, at least, not to set an actively harmful one)? I'll ask here, since I assume Jonathan also has this page watchlisted and I'm too depressed to repeat myself at User Talk:Jehochman. MastCell Talk 06:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that others characterize reversion of a premature close there as edit warring, but I don't agree with that appellation. See User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy which I would hope Jehochman subscribes to just as I do. (In this case I was the reversing admin, not the reversed.) I found the second close (again without prior discussion) particularly troublesome since the first close had been contested... he again came in and unilaterally imposed his view that a process which was burbling along successfully needed to be closed. That's not really appropriate. So did I set an example? Yes, a good one, in my view. You may not agree. ++Lar: t/c 13:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...that sounds suspiciously like "I wasn't edit warring, because I was RIGHT". Can you discuss this in the context of our ongoing (?) debate at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Response_to_Lar.27s_1RR_confusion? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. See User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy. As for the "debate", I thought we were done there. You and I disagree on whether your edits constituted edit warring. I can see how from your perspective you felt they did not. ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lar,

  1. You reversed my admin action without consulting me at all. You could have dropped a message on my talk page, "Jonathan, I wish you hadn't closed that thread because I still had objectives A, B and C in mind. Can we reopen the discussion?" That would have received a much warmer reception. I'm online nearly constantly during the day; the delay you'd have suffered would have been far less than what you actually got. Such a comment also would have conveyed information to me so I'd have understood your agenda.
  2. After you reopened the first time, I waited for multiple additional comments to be added to the thread. These further reinforced the consensus that WMC did not need to be sanctioned. Thus, I closed the thread a second time. It is not edit warring to wait for further comments and then take action based on a strengthening consensus. It is stressful for a user to be put in the stocks. We don't leave people in that state needlessly while we have a discussion about how best to refactor rude remarks in general. The thread should have remained closed, and you could have forked off the productive discussion about refactoring methods to an appropriate talk page.
  3. If you find yourself in disagreement with me, ask me why. Unlike many editors, I am quite prepared to compromise. Jehochman Brrr 13:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jehochman:
  1. You are correct. In hindsight, I erred in not contacting you first. Twice. One mistake is bad. Two is worse, and I apologize for that unreservedly.
  2. I'm not sure I agree that the discussion could have been forked off, not all of it was about refactoring. But moreover, you could have yourself first posted a "I think we should close this soon because of reason R, and will if I don't hear differently in X hours" instead of unilaterally closing. Twice. One mistake is bad. Two is worse.
  3. I'm glad that you welcome neutrally worded comments such as this one by me with warm, collegial responses such as this one (note especially the charming edit summary... I felt pretty welcome on your page after that... then follow the next few edits to see how you warmly welcomed others commenting on the topic as well). That aside, I will in future try to open discussion first rather than after the fact, and my sincere apologies for not doing so this time. As to a compromise, are you willing to, in future, announce intent to close first before doing so, and wait a short but reasonable period first to see if there are objections? That seems a good compromise to me, what do you think? ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I too am old and curmudgeonly. No hard feelings, I hope. Jehochman Brrr 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! But you're interfering with my curmudgeony rep, you know. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_63&oldid=1143128356"