Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lar

SBHB's outside view

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar#Outside view by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Lar can be banned from acting as an uninvoled admin altogether based on Disruption

• The diffs show that instead of commenting on cases as an uninvolved admin Lar is being rude and dissmissive to a large group of very dedicated editors.
• Lar is regularly taking the oportunity to push his view rather than acting as a neutral arbiter and evaluating the cases based on merit.

His presence as an enforcement admin is highly disruptive. Polargeo (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think those diffs show what you think they show. I think while you may well have legitimate criticism of me to offer, some of which I have acknowledged, you are overreaching when you characterize my presence as an enforcement admin as "highly disruptive". ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it was highly disruptive if I didn't think you were letting what I see as your prejudices and misconceptions manifest themselves as extreme bias, which I think is a very worrying characteristic for an "uninvolved" admin. Polargeo (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Two weeks into this and you're still just as confused as ever, I see. Perhaps there is no hope that the light of reason will help you see. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I find SBHB's statement ludicrous. Lar's comment that there should be a level playing field is evidence of improper bias?. Someone call George Orwell. Mackan79 (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Several more offwiki comments by Lar have come to light since if you follow the talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My comment was about SBHB's statement. Regarding your own, I'm sorry, but after reading many of your accusations, and following retractions such as this I'm of the fairly strong opinion that your accusations should be treated with extreme skepticism (and ideally that you should take a big step back and reevaluate the kind of discretion that a person should show in making accusations). Mackan79 (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A "level playing field" between presentation of mainstream science and of pseudoscience would promote undue weight, against core policy. Agree that Polargeo should take a more cool and disinterested approach showing increased discretion, and overheated accusations are counter-productive. The same applies to others, particularly those such as Lar who are presenting themselves as uninvolved administrators deciding on sanctions in the topic area. . . dave souza, talk 14:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I believe you are misinterpreting Lar's words. By "level the playing field" I do not believe he is referring to article balance, but rather, level enforcement of editing conduct, which is obviously skewed if you look at the record. When one editor gets away with constantly belittling and insulting others, adding unsourced claims, adding blog-sourced content to BLPs, etc, with little or no sanction, while others are much more heavily sanctioned for the same or less, that's not a level playing field. I don't want to put words in Lar's mouth so he may chime in to confirm or clarify, but I'm pretty sure he's talking about conduct not content. ATren (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to get away with making up fantasy complaints all the time William M. Connolley (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar will no doubt speak for himself, but an emphasis on "conduct not content" can damage content. ATren's apparent argument that only civility should be taken into account, ignoring quality of contributions and effect on article content, promotes a fertile environment for civil POV pushing. I don't condone incivility, but don't see politeness as the primary aim of Wikipedia. . . dave souza, talk 15:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Both are important. Just as content creation does not grant a free pass for conduct issues, nor too do we tolerate civil wikilawyering with no content creation. Also, from your first remark above, I think you are indeed misinterpreting what I mean about playing fields, and ATren has it far closer. But even so it's a problem of conduct not in a vaccuum, but conduct that interferes with content production by chasing folk away. I'm not going to elaborate much further on this, though, I think my views are plain enough now and don't need restating. (see the bottom of the page in my response to 2/0's view. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have the clarification of your intended meaning about playing fields, I accept that correction. I share your concern about conduct that interferes with content production by chasing folk away, we may differ about who's being chased away. . . dave souza, talk 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dave, it doesn't matter who is chased away -- good faith contributors should not feel like they are unwelcome, period. How many times have you heard good editors say something like "oh, climate change? I'm not getting involved in that mess..." and it's not about Scibaby (who seems to be pretty well marginalized at this point). Leveling the playing field is about removing long-term disruptive elements regardless of their status or knowledge or stance on the issue, and this is vitally important because content cannot be addressed properly as long as the conduct is out of control. So it's not about ignoring content, it's about dealing with conduct first so that content can be addressed without every debate turning into a battlefield. So while we shoot Scibabies on sight, there are certain editors who continue to bait and mock and bully anyone who disagrees with them, and that needs to be addressed. ATren (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you have been actively trying to bully me out of climate change editing with several threats because I complained about an admin who you back your words have the weight of a feather, maybe not even that. Polargeo (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Your group (Cla, Lar, ATren, Locust, Collect, FellGleeming, now SlimVirgin) occasionslly backed by LHvU would not have a leg to stand on by normal wikipedia rules. your gaming of sanctions is immense. Oh yes Lar is certainly leveling the playing field, exactly to the level you want and you not only back him but consistently seem to know exactly what he is thinking. Polargeo (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, Polargeo, do you think this sort of rhetoric is bolstering your case? I think it's bolstering a case against you, should one ever be started. You ought to try dialing down the invective. ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Admins are here to enforce consensus, not to go on a personal crusade to "level the playing field". My suggestion of groups/cabals etc. simply holds up a mirror to the theory you have made up to justify your actions. Polargeo (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What you haven't figured out yet is that "levelling the playing field" and "enforcing consensus", and upholding our pillars, are all different ways of stating the same fundamental principle. I'm not on a "personal" crusade, I'm on a crusade to uphold the values that we all supposedly embrace. I'm true to the wiki to the best of my ability. It may be a quixotic crusade, to be sure, and going along with matters as they are in this area instead of trying to ensure a collegial editing environment for all might be more pragmatic, but I sleep better. I recommend adherence to our principles to you. Instead of whatever it is you think you are doing. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, I'm speaking here as someone who has not followed this subject area, but is familiar with disputes at others. I'm rather surprised to see you saying that Lar and SlimVirgin are part of the same group. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

On whether a "whatchamacallit" exists

Here, Enric Naval states "Lar really seems to believe that a cadre exists, and that WMC is leading it" and characterises this belief as a "delusion".

So let's examine this more closely. (note, to avoid unwieldy wording I will have to use a short term here, and I will use "AGW cadre". I have struggled with what a neutral short form would be for some time now, and welcome better suggestions)

First, is it even possible that such a group exists? If we had never seen any such group before, it would be a good argument that existence is improbable.

But we have seen such groups before. In the findings of fact of the EEML case, ArbCom found that there was a group of editors who were

commenting in process along "party lines", supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them

and that they were using tactics including

baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating.

So clearly we have examples of the existence of groups. Is the "AGW cadre" such a group?

The EEML group was a highly coordinated group. They used sophisticated techniques to carry out activities that subverted consensus and poisoned the editing atmosphere. While others have alleged that the "AGW cadre" have coordinated activities using emails or using Facebook. I have made no such claims, and I repudiate any such allegations until and unless evidence is introduced to substantiate them.

Making such claims is not likely to be helpful either.

But it is not necessary to use a mailing list or IRC or FB or whatever. Merely watching the activities of folk is sufficient to determine what's going on, and what "hot spots" might exist. I watch my wife's contribs and she watches mine, for this very reason. Perfectly legitimate and we all do it all the time, as there's nothing inherently wrong with it and often it can be quite helpful. (the contributions page is a tool, and like any tool, has no intent of its own, the intent is with the user)

If editors have overlapping areas of interest, watching contributions can be quite effective. Consider this wikistalk result focusing on the overlap in mainspace contributions of WMC and 5 other editors that many folk, including folk other than myself, consider among those that are candidate members of the "AGW cadre". Note the areas of overlap. Almost every mainspace article that at least three of these editors have edited is an AGW article. (the few that are not are in other areas that have had some challenges in the past... fringe science such as Cold Fusion, and creationism/ID)

That demonstrates only that these editors all have an interest in AGW, and that it overlaps with each other. Running similar analysis on other groups of editors (for example those who many could consider members of the "denier cadre") would probably show similar results. Nevertheless, it DOES show an interest in AGW (which I think none of them would deny, but it's necessary to show it if we wish to be rigorous)

Let's look at who edits the enforcement request pages: This tool: [1] when we put "Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement" in as the page to review, shows that these editors do frequent the enforcement page.

So too do others. My contributions to that page are pretty high too. So this shows only that this group of editors, with a clear interest in AGW articles, also has an interest in the enforcement page.

However, that by itself is sufficient to show that there is an "AGW cadre". But not that there is a problem that we need to act on, that is, that the editors who are statistically correlated to this cadre have malign intent, or that their activities are overall harmful. Remember, that we encourage the existence of "groups of related editors"... we call them "WikiProjects".

I'm out of time for right now. Others have put forward information around some of those points. I may follow up later, but for right now, do we have general acceptance that such a cadre does exist (regardless of anything else about it such as who might be its leader (if such exists... I've not directly made such a claim) or what have you)? Or is there a need to demonstrate this existence in more detail? ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your wikistalk result purports to show, but I suggest that if you ran the same whatever on Cla68, Heyitspeter, GoRight, MarkNutley and Atren, you'd find a far, far stronger whatever the tested variable is. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is the link he meant to do. And here is your suggested comparison. Of course, if you included Short Brigade Harvertor Boris' previous account then the correlation would be even stronger. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know what those things purport to mean. Could someone describe what the column "No." and "Similarity" are, and what the rank order of the various pages are? Hipocrite (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't use that tool often but "No" appears to be the arbitrarily defined number used to identify the area of overlap . It appears to be buggy as well since it doesn't increment sequentially correctly (nor does it seem to put them all in reverse alphabetical order as apparently intended). You'll notice in the first example that after the number 16 it jumps up a huge number and then continues incrementing++ until later on when it jumps up again unexpectedly.

The "similarity," as far as I can tell, shows two things; first, it shows how many of the group have participated in that article (e.g. 2 of 6, 6 of 6), and the 2nd column identifies those individuals by their previously assigned number. The limitations of this are obviously that it doesn't show the quantity of activity overlap, simply the areas of overlap, and, as previously mentioned, it doesn't show the overlap from previous accounts (a concern in this case). TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The odd jumps in sequence appear to occur when it starts displaying the next person's edits. This may be intentional, but it certainly is ugly from a UI perspective. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's accurate, there are fourteen-hundred plus items that only person 1 edited, 11 hundred plus that only person 5 edited, 150 that only person 4 edited, and a massive four thousand that only person 3 edited. This seems to be evidence that if you have people with ten of thousands of edits, they overlap. I wonder how many std. devs away from random chance these results are. Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you are misreading it, I said the numbers don't increment sequentially correctly and should mostly be ignored. Every single article mentioned shows overlap between at least two people - every one. Also, you are incorrectly assuming that these count edits that overlap (which would be difficult to do) - these counts areas of overlap. You can't compare apples to oranges (edits to areas).

From my count the article overlap, and keep in mind this is just articles, not talk and other areas, includes approx. 520 articles (not counting SBHH's previous account). The overlap is considerable if you consider the fact that they make thousands of edits (usually reverting others?) in these articles. For comparison, the group you suggested we compare edited in 33 of the same articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis... ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dividing that by median articles edited might show something. Which group would you say has greater coorelation? Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the best thing to do would be to look at the # of edits they make to each of those overlapping articles. I recall several of these editors making hundreds or even thousands of edits in several of those overlapping articles. I have neither the time nor the tools to make a proper analysis (and my statistics is quite rusty). Cheers though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear: So far, due to time reasons, all I think I've established is that there is a (at least one) group of editors that have an interest in this topic area, as evidenced by the number of articles in the topic area (and, oddly, in related topic areas such as ID, creationism, fringe science, ect) that at least two of these editors have edited. Although I haven't done a statistical analysis, I'd say that the overlap between these 6 editors (there are others I feel that are in this group, I just picked those six as a starting point) is several standard deviations away from the overlap we'd see among 6 editors of comparable edit counts picked randomly. Hipocrite, did you seriously want to debate that point? I really didn't think that it was debatable, actually. I was just trying to be rigorous.

Note that we could well find other groups of 6 editors that have similar overlap in this area. I make no claims that we can't. Just that I found this one group. That's all, so far. ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, as someone who does work in a similar-esque kind of area, yes, I'd make the argument that if you picked six editor who all edited one article extensively that the "pattern" you alledge is hardly interesting. IE, pick six editors who edited Al-Qaeda extensively but also have massive edit counts, and you'll find an identical overlap. What is interesting is that there are editors who overlap with these editors, and eachother only in this topic area. IE - there are gadflies just here to fuck things up, and they are on both sides. Why are Atren and WMC showing up at The Hockey Stick Illusion to throw a wrench into things? Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My concern isn't whether you personally find the pattern interesting or not, just that you (and everyone else for that matter) acknowledge that the pattern exists. You may want to ask the 6 editors I used whether they want to deny that they have an interest in this area and edit in it extensively. So far that's all I'm trying to show. Gotta fly. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems that what you're saying is so trivial as to be irrelevent. Probably next time you want to enter a trivial fact into evidence, you should just state it clearly, like you did here. I'll cop to having an interest in the area, and I edit it, for various definitions, "extensively." Here's a list of other people who have to cop to that also - Cla68, marknutley, Atren, heyitspeter, and so on and so forth. Big "sowhat" here, to be honest. Hipocrite (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I compared 6 editors who stood out in the Al Qaeda history and here are the results. They overlap 58 times and the only article that they've all edited was Al Qaeda itself (far less overlap when you look at the details). TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) you didn't correct for edit count. Hipocrite (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nor am I going to go through every single Al Qaeda editor and look at their edit counts. Each of those editors have a good # of edits and I doubt you'll find many (any?) editors to that article with as many edits as the AGW group (it is much easier to push up the edit count when reverting). TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Note:

Group 1 (ATren et al.) - 5.7% of the articles on their list are edited by all members of the group (average 513 unique pages per group member edited in Wikipedia)

Group 2 (WMC et al.) - 0.8% of the articles are edited by all members of the group (average 5950 unique pages per group member edited in Wikipedia)

Assuming a simple linear model between editing and coincidence , it seems to me that you'd expect the proportion of coincidence in the latter group to be an order of magnitude higher. Now add to the fact that the latter group has 37% of its edits in mainspace (unweighted average per person), while the former group has 23% of its edits in mainspace (unweighted average), you'll see that the likelihood of the people in Group 2 editing the same articles is much higher than the likelihood of the people in Group 1 and the appearance of conspiracy should be much higher for the first group. Unless, of course, you approach the issue with a strong confirmation bias. Then you'll see what you expect to see. Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you correct for the number of users? You might need to add in another editor to group 1. Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Group 1 has 4, Group 2 has 6. I didn't pick the people. But the point is that Group 1 has an order of magnitude higher coincidence with an order of magnitude fewer pages edited. Which suggests that anyone looking at these pages and saying "Group 2 is a whatchamacallit", but not saying that about Group 1 has misinterpreted the numbers. Guettarda (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the group with fewer people will have a greater % of complete interesections if based on random chance (and also since their sample size (4 articles) is smaller). Also, I looked at both of SBHB's accounts and compared them with WMC's and together they have 173 articles in common (I didn't count repeats). I'm just pointing that out since his older account adds quite a bit more overlap as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The simplest comparison would be to compare groups of two - get rid of some of that noise. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we should stop using the tool, as it's been declared "busted" by it's creator. So right, all of this was a waste of brain. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe he was referring to the broken enumeration, which I'd already pointed out was broken, but which doesn't really matter in any substanitive way. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

But deleting Dave and me destroys all of Lar's conspiracy theories, since we're now talking about 4 people with advanced degrees in (pretty much) the same field. Not to mention that with an order or magnitude more edits, you'd expect an order of magnitude more intersections. So again, these are entirely innocuous numbers. Guettarda (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting you and Dave means the groups can be compared more accurately. Also, I compared the % of complete intersections between the two groups, something which you brought up and which, if edits were random, would decrease as edit counts rose - instead over 10% (likely far higher w/ Boris' old account included) of their shared articles (35+ articles - which they edit a LOT) were edited by every single one of them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and since you decided to look up %'s for group of 4 vs a group of 6, I turned the group of 6 into a group of 4 (SBHB, WMC, KDP, and SS) and found that 10.8% of their overlaps were complete (they all edited in those articles), which is a much stronger figure since that was based on 35+ samples of complete overlap while your 5% figure was based upon 2 articles of complete overap. Also, I didn't take into account SBHB's previous account, which, as I showed, adds a significant amount of overlap. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more edits = more overlap. That's my basic thesis. And yet group 1, with a fraction the number of edits, has similar or greater proportion of overlap. So it undermines Lar's conclusion that there's some sort of evidence here against Group 2. Against Group 1 - maybe. After all, nearly all of their similarities are in climate change articles, while the rest of us overlap in all sorts of random places (Buju Banton, Great Pyramids...) Guettarda (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

More overlap, but less complete overlap (something you brought up). Also, the other group, which has far fewer edits, isn't nearly as statistically robust (e.g. when you said 5%, but based that off a mere 2 articles of complete overlap). As I previously stated, if we could compare the number of edits in the overlapping areas it would look far worse for WMC et all. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for fun I included SBHB's old account and discovered the articles of complete overlap, where they all participate, goes up to 55. I'd be curious if there is any other group that has that much complete articlespace overlap. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Plenty. Here's a group with 62. Guettarda (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

55. Guettarda (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I meant another group of 4 - you seem quite taken with comparing different sized groups, but then we all know what they say about statistics. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I picked all the active editors in one small WikiProject, and got 66, which I strongly suspect would be more than you'd get with your cherrypicked editors. I also picked a couple active editors off the edit history of "cricket". In that case, I had no idea if they'd editted ANY articles in common except that one. None of these people share a professional background as far as I know. It's not like I looked for especially linked groups. Just random groups. And I think it's pretty clear that there's nothing unusual here at all. And regardless, wre talking about Lar's accusations - and there were 5 articles in common.

We had 6 people that you picked. That's fine. But once you start throwing out data because it doesn't fit your preconceptions it's no longer the data that's speaking. Guettarda (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That block of text doesn't change the fact that you compared a group of 3 with a group of 4 when any smaller group would be exponentially more likely to have areas of complete overlap - this is really basic mathematics here and I have trouble believing you don't understand this. Add to the fact that several of the editors in your group have more edits, as individuals, than WMC, KDP, SS and SBHB have combined and the amusement factor nearly causes injury to my abdomen.TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Complete overlap for all spaces on wikipedia goes up to 160 pages for that group. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Shared interests lead to overlap on editing. End of story. If I edit, for example, the article Fern, it would not be a surprise to find me also at Plants and Leptosporangiate fern, or at Roses and Floristry, depending on whether my interest is biology or gardening or floral arrangements - but you will also find others editing the same spread of articles, with more or less overlap depending upon how much they share my interests and areas of expertise. There is no need to seek a Sekret Kabal - like minds edit like articles. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

And do "like minds" tend to insert/reinsert blog posts of other like minds? Including blog posts which quote their own blog posts? I'm curious where the credulity boundry ends. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

When there are so many articles on every detail of the topic, sometimes there really aren't many sources in the world that cover the points raised. I know nothing of floristry or botany, but, extending the example above, I'm sure that whole articles on the number of thorns on a rose stem or the average length of a fern frond would depend on very few citable sources. Of course all world-class experts in the field would know of them all and may even have contributed to a few or been mentioned there. --Nigelj (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The above example had nothing to do with science (it rarely does, but this defense seems to come up all the time though). It had to do with associating a climate skeptic with Lyndon Larouche, which is probably a BLP violation - the only sources were a blog one wikipedia member created which quoted the blog of another wikipedia member (and reinserted by that wikipedia member and his friends when it was removed). TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, my ears were burning - here is 3 of us sharing 121 fungal articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And 4 of us sharing 123 bird articles Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And 4 of us with 66 shared dinosaur articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Impressive! And yet WMC, KDP and both of Boris' accounts come in at 115 fully shared articles (that's what you get when you decrease the size of the group), but unlike you three, who collectively have 167,859 edits, the AGW group only has 76,598 (less than half!). So much for Guettarda's theory that it is simply a matter of edit count. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that I could split myself into four users and still have whopping overlaps- note there are 4 separate groups (fungal, bird, dino and banksia cabals :)) there'd also be a smaller overlap group with Dungeons and Dragons, Astronomy and some general plant ones as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the body of work is impressive, and, as I previously said, I think these tools are imperfect since they don't show the degree of apparent cooperation and reversions via article specific edit counts. I would not be surprised to find that people who contribute to stubs of specific species would have more articles of overlap simply because there are far more animal and plant species than there are wikipedia pages on climate change. Cheers anyway though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Which suggests that the overlap on the 9000-odd bird articles is more significant than the small number of climate change pages (agree banksias are pretty specialised and a small palying field, fungi, we-ell there are loads of 'em but not many have pages yet). Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it suggests that species specific projects are more capable of article overlap. :) And, as I said, since KDP/WMC/etc have a tremendous # of edits focused on a few articles, the article overlap comparison gives some info, but certainly doesn't give a complete picture.

In fact, if I were to analyze it then I'd go by edit count and here are two of their top articles and the # of edits:

Global Warming - WMC(1,065), SBHB(800), KDP (171), StS(511) Global Warming Controversy - WMC(344), SBHB(367) KDP(263), StS(140)

In contrast, despite having far more edits than all of them combined you don't seem to edit specific articles with as much devotion and your interests are far more varied (Have you tried fly agaric?). Keep in mind that I only posted two of their top articles - nearly all of the top articles are in this subject and they have thousands more edits in their associated talk pages (often more than actual article edits).TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

GIGO

The tool itself is impressive, as I understand it the outcome clearly shows that editors who edit in a subject area and comment in the probation pages related to that area do exactly that. Where the garbage comes in is the selection of a group of such editors with the presumption that these editors form an "AGW cadre", and the assumption that these results somehow justify that labelling. On a technical level, I've not tried it but would anticipate that MarkNutley would also be shown by the tool to be part of the "AGW cadre". On a civility level, such labelling is uncivil and the sort of action that promotes battleground behaviour between perceived "sides". Particularly bad practice when acting as an "uninvolved admin" determining penalties for alleged incivility. I had hoped that Lar would respond to my invitation to discuss how he could improve his self control when helping with administration of these sanctions, his response above appeared to be an effective and explicit rejection of my attempt at reconciliation but as he seems to have been too busy at the time to give my proposal any attention, I'm willing to review my comments on the main page in the light of further discussions. . . dave souza, talk 14:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to let the big convo (above) wind down on its own before moving on to the next step. (People wanted to take it all sorts of places that were very interesting but not where I was going. This happens and you often can learn a lot and there's no big rush here)

If everyone is now ready to agree that there exists various groupings of editors who have common interests (which is all my first step is trying to establish) we can move on to the next step, which is to examine behaviors to see if there are any groupings that exhibit problematic behaviors related to the groupings themselves. Because if such behaviors exist, and are correlatable to a particular group, then the labeling is valid, is useful, and is not uncivil.

If you've attempted a reconciliation, I've missed it. Merely opining that you are right and I am wrong may not be the best way to achieve reconciliation though. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar has freely admitted that cadre may not be the right word. I think "core group of vested contributors" sounds better and is more in line with what Lar believes, since I have not seen any evidence for off-wiki collaboration, especially nothing on the scale of EEML. If nobody objects, can we stop using the inaccurate word please? The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest "editors" is an appropriate word? In my view, starting off by trying to put editors into boxes is itself a bad idea, and making vague accusations about some "core group of vested contributors" is a diversion into another argument rather than a way of progressing the normal business of considering requests for sanctions in a neutral way. Of course Lar is free to opine that his approach is right and I am wrong, but his approach looks divisive and unprofessional to me. Categorising editors into groups in this way appears rather close to using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. . . dave souza, talk 16:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Suppose the data did show the problematic patterns though, not just correlation of interests but the actual patterns? What then? ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Before you request others to work, do your own homework. How could the data possibly show "problematic patterns"? What would you consider such a pattern? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My question was directed to dave souza (if you were looking for questions to answer, you have one on my talk you can attend to) and perhaps it could stand rephrasing, so it's clear that there's no work involved. Dave seems to be suggesting that only "editors" is a suitable descriptor, which seems to be part of denying that there might be any pattern present that is worthy of notice. My question, repeated, is... suppose there is such a pattern. Is "editors" still the only correct appellation? Or is it useful and appropriate to use something that narrows things a bit? You can answer that with very little actual hard work. Only a bit of thought is required. ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The far more interesting intersection result is the number of user talk page overlaps -- I did a whole bunch of tests on major editors (300K edits - and about 200 comparisons) -- and the large number of 6/6 overlaps (13) is far more than random chance - and does not have the claim "same topics" as a rationale. The Atren "group of four", by the way, overlaps on 12 ut pages (4/4). In fact, I had once proposed such a count to Lar as being a far more accurate measure of whether interactions between editors could be "random." For reference, the typical random number of ut overlaps for substantial editors (300K edits) is around 10 for 2/2. For article talk pages, the "group of four" has one and only one 4/4 hit. For the sextet - there are 8 6/6 matches (far outside any random chance). This sort of comparison reduces the "well we are all interested in the same thing" numbers game concerning 8K articles on birds or the like.

Since you've already run this, I wonder what the numbers are like for all possible combinations of 4 drawn from that set of 6? That might be an interesting metric as well. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You're measuring quantities not qualities, and hinting at a conspiracy theory. What if editors of various views and persuasions might work together to improve articles by communicating on-wiki, both on article talk pages and user talk pages? Erm, isn't that what these talk pages are for? . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You're jumping ahead of the derivation. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You've answered your own "what if" question, don't jump ahead. More to the point, you seem to be getting involved in preparing a case against other editors, rather than acting as an uninvolved admin. You give the impression of wanting to be prosecution and judge wrapped up in one, not a good way of creating a cooperative editing environment. . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. You and others accuse me of being "delusional". That's a pretty serious charge, wouldn't you say? I am rebutting that. With some difficulty because of your dogged defense in detail. The best way to answer a charge that something is a "delusion" is to show it is real. I can see why you might not want such a demonstration to succeed. Myself, I reserve judgment on whether the patterns are there or not. I merely ask, what if they are? What would that say about the cooperative editing environment? ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm - it took a few hours to run the "random active editors" (20 editors at about 300K edits which I considered to be a point where minor differences in edit count were irrelevant. Counted all overlaps, and the only real clear constant was the ut overlap being uniformly small for that universe. 6/6 is far enough away from "random" to be clear to the most casual observer.) and I ran 2 at a time (did not have this neat one to work with). It shows EEML problems without requiring the emails, etc. though. Also some ARS cases. Also lots of "hidden" co-operation between editors. It also appears to work on IRC combinations, by the way. For Ds - this is a matter of statistical analysis, and meets pretty rigourous standards as such. Collect (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Do please translate for one who doesn't follow the maths or the jargon – you seem to have found that some experienced editors are pretty good at working co-operatively in topic areas such as this one, with the aim of improving articles. Isn't that the general idea here? . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Compare the seven endorsers of the cupcake for UT overlaps: Zero overlaps for 7/7. Zero overlaps for 6/6. One overlap for 5/7 (and that one is on Lar's page, of all things.) I suggest that this is clear? BTW, I have been online for 28 years now, and was a contract holder for a major computer service, and was responsible for reading more than 4 million messages, etc., managing 200 sysops etc. I also wrote more than 100K messages, which means that I do consider myself "experienced." I have participated on several areas of the Wiki family. There is no need for "experienced" editors to go around in unison on the ut pages of other editors that I can find. Collect (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Give over. What have the 7 endorsers of the cupcake got to do with the price of elephants? It only takes a couple of editors to turn up like SutoSuro and MZMcBride. Thegoodlocust has a very small amount of edits and is currently topic banned anyway. Your suggestion of "It is clear" is rubbish. I think the only real difference here is that there have been over time a lot of trolls making sceptic edits. Experienced editors often have to show up in numbers greater than one in order to protect wikipedia. This is a good thing. Polargeo (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Experienced editors often have to show up in numbers greater than one in order to protect wikipedia. This is a good thing. As a group, it specifically violates WP policies. Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If several experienced editors have an article on their watchlist. See that some troll is adding crap and turn up and revert it. Several experienced editors may do this. It does not violate any policies, maybe in your imagination. Polargeo (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

People watch articles in case you hadn't noticed, they watch the activities of trolls. They follow the trolls around and deal with any crap being added. They report the trolls for policy violations. Because several experienced editors are doing this over some time in this area of wikipedia all of a sudden they find Lar accusing them of being a cadre, a cabal etc etc (as DS has said Lar's attitude is bordering on an attack) this is just the most ridiculous pile of rubbish. Polargeo (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And a consistent specific group is thus validly guarding WP against the depradations if non-co-ordinated individual editors? Might you show me which policy encourages such? Would not the exact same arguemnt apply on behalf of the EEML group? Other groups? Collect (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You only have a case if those editors were specifically following each other around and backing each other up without any thought. Just acting en masse. I don't see this. I see several independently minded individuals. Polargeo (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And... what if the data DID show that to be the case? What then? ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see many instances where there are disagreements between these editors and even in agreements many subtle differences in their stances on various issues. Of course as science literate editors they generally come from the same viewpoint but there are many differences within that viewpoint. Do you see SBHB endorsing my summary here for example? Polargeo (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest am I part of the secret cabal? Have you run me in your statistics? I initiated this RfC, you'd think I would be part of your analysis. Polargeo (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC) If you find that I am part of the cabal, great you can dismiss all of my views based on me being a "policy violation" very convenient indeed :)Polargeo (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's a secret cabal, it's gonna be hard to determine membership. If a group of editors are acting like a faction, then their "subtle differences" are, indeed, going to be very subtle (and usually minor, not having much practical effect), and their agreements are going to be wide, long lasting, deep and very unsubtle, and they will stick together when it really counts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Science literate people who stick together on unsubtle things like the mainstream scientific consensus on global warming. Scary, wide, long lasting and deep, I'd ban the lot of them. Polargeo (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, they stick together on far, far more than simply science. And you know it. That's a very moldy old party line you're peddling. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, I consider myself to be a sceptical scientist but people like FellGleeming come along. I find myself agreeing with some of his POV but I end up reverting him along with WMC just because his edits are so poor. So I would say yes experienced editors also stick together against poor quality edits. When there are so many poor quality edits this is going to make any group of editors who oppose them look like a cabal to Collect. Polargeo (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Kindly note that I never used the "c word" and I would ask you redact any implication that I did use it or imply it. I would note that "acting en masse" could very well be interpreted in a manner which you would not like. Collect (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In my limited involvement with AGW articles (and no involvement whatever in the science questions), I don't remember any of your edits or comments, so I have no criticism of them. But it isn't difficult to find loads of edits that have nothing whatever to do with the science (my own opinions on AGW are pretty much mainstream too, I think, and Lar, as I recall, has said the same). These diffs from early in the CRU controversy article history, have nothing to do with science: [2] [3] and especially this [4] Personally, I find that last discussion very, very telling. Science is nowhere in it. "Poor quality" cannot be said of the proposed addition. The editors opposing that very relevant information have similar opinions on AGW articles. Nobody believes it's all about the science. Nobody at all. -- -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What, you are now trying to use a content debate that you had with KDP as evidence of a cabal? They disagree with me so therefore there is a conspiracy? Polargeo (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is illogical. I said precisely what I meant: The areas of agreement among this group of editors go far beyond science, so you can't chalk up all the behavior to scientific knowledge. And the diffs show quite clearly that these editors took a position contrary to evidence. It's not that they disagreed with me, it's that they agreed together to oppose a passage and do so in the face of evidence, logic and policy. What held them together in that was not evident from the reasoning they gave. And yet they held together. I don't care whether or not that amounts to a "secret cabal". I care that it amounts to a party spirit contrary to Wikipedia's best interests and its policy. It isn't a rare example, either, but it's a pretty clear one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My statement means everything. You had a content debate with KDP. I don't see WMC involved at all in that thread, I don't see Stephan Schulz involved in that thread. I see a single comment from SBHB which basically says lets wait a couple of days for more sources (this was breaking news). I see HW, a complete outsider but passionate about BLP (he almost trashed my RfA with his strong BLP questioning) taking issue with you on that. Your diffs show nothing more than a common content dispute with BLP relevence on a breaking news item. Polargeo (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

lets wait a couple of days for more sources The history shows that it was never allowed back in the article. HW didn't stubbornly hold on to his position after I answered it, so don't go looking for cover there. It is irrelevant to my point that it was a content dispute with me. It's irrelevant that not every editor in this group participated in that particular episode. It is relevant that it's an example contrary to your position that a bunch of editors just happen to agree because they know science, or know policy, or are acting logically or according to evidence. Because they -- several editors in this faction -- had none of that. So try not to make that tired point again, because I've just proven it's false in that case, and we all know that many other examples can be found. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You have proven nothing to do with a cabal. I am sorry that your addition wasn't given the respect it may have deserved. Polargeo (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC) By the way you only realy had a content debate with ChirsO and KDP. I have disagreed with KDP several times, particularly on the talkpage of List of scientists against... I have even undone his revisions a couple of times before (although once the article was deleted so you won't see this). Polargeo (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Now we're going around in circles because you're repeating that I haven't proven something I've (repeatedly) said I didn't intend to prove. It isn't necessary for there to be a "secret cabal" in order for others to object to this uniform behavior. It doesn't even have to be totally uniform. The group's behavior just needs to be outside of Wikipedia's purpose and good order. You asserted that science was what this Curious Collection of Concerted Contributions by Conspicuously Comparable Confreres had in common. I showed a case to the contrary. I'm certain that other editors can come up with many more cases. What actually is the scientific basis for the way various editors continually support William Connolley in behavioral questions on the sanctions complaints page? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've got a new one, the CC enforcement admin cabal. A very small group of admins who have set themselves the task of policing climate change probation as a group. They seem to act together a lot and end up agreeing with each other on most things. Polargeo (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But we're at least FAKING the disagreement from time to time on substantive matters part... ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are a pro. I would expect nothing less. Polargeo (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a joke, son!!!... however your continued sniping isn't funny in the least, you ought to up your game. Because you reflect badly on yourself when you do it. ++Lar: t/c 03:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sniping? I am just trying to stop you from abusing your position as an admin. Sniping is another good putdown, though. Polargeo (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh and giving me "pro:tips" is very condescending [5] and your foghorn leghorn son thing is as well. Not that I really mind but it is just that you are acting like butter wouldn't melt in your mouth and the truth is very different. Polargeo (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So are you actually claiming that I and other admins are faking disagreement on the enforcement pages? I never said I was perfect, mind, but that really takes the cake. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a joke son :) Polargeo (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way I am 35 years old and married with children. I have a PhD in geophysics and several reasonably well cited publications (as does my wife). What I know about you is that you are into lego and your wife is into horses and yet you call me son. Polargeo (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I happen to be 63. MIT degree in Physics. And so what? I find talking down to a person (Lar) who likes Lego(tm) to be a teensy bit irrelevant here. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S., Lar and I met when we were both engineering students at Michigan Technological University back in the very late 70's. I see no reason for you to mention me, especially in such a condescending way. - Josette (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, here's another tip for you: You can (verbally) mess with me all you want, but if you mess with my wife too much, she's going to (verbally) mess you up. Just leave her out of this. Besides, from what I've seen so far of you as a debater, she can run rings around you. Just a word to the wise, you'll thank me later when you come to your senses. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, although I have no way to validate any of it, since you remain anonymous. I'm 50, by the way, and my identity is a matter of public record. What's that got to do with anything? Your animus is making you jump at shadows, because "That's a joke, son" is a pretty famous quote and carries no implications about anyone's age. I'm sorry if you think it does, no slight was intended. Apparently the use of self deprecating humor gives you reason to claim it's true, and then later claim it was a joke to say that. The difference here is my humor was directed at me. Which is OK. I get to make jokes at my expense. YOURS was directed at me too. Which is not. You do not get to make jokes at my expense. At least not if you want people to take you seriously when you're engaged in chastizing me. ++Lar: t/c 10:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You just keep on pretending to engage with people and keep pretending you are being civil with people whilst everyone else is obviously making jokes against you. Polargeo (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What tool are you using to do this analysis, exactly, Collect? Hipocrite (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The MzM "wikistalker tool" noted above. [6] Allows you to find overlaps on up to 12 editors, in any given namespace or all namespaces. I woukld also note that having read some millions of messages, and using special tools, I could identify alternate personae, co-operative posters etc. at 20 leagues <g>. Collect (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

See, I'm confused. First of all, that tool has been called "busted" by it's author. Secondly, you said

it took a few hours to run the "random active editors"

Who are you quoting? What is "random active editors?" What tool did you use to select them? Wait, don't answer, I've figured it out - this is pseudoscience, right - where you use the trappings of science, but then just say what you think is true? Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the list of editors by number of edits - chose those at 300K edits. Hence "random" as to who they were, although not random as to number of total edits. Choosing a section of a list is not "pseudoscience" and I would trust you will redact that snark. Collect (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As soon as you selected by hand, you turned statistical analysis into pseudoscience. There are actual professional mathematicians and statisticians reading this. The way you do a study is to create a hypothesis, design a test, execute the test, report the results and draw conclusions. You didn't follow this model, but you did use the trappings of a study. Look, if you want to say "I futzed with a tool for a bit and it seems to me (conclusion)" go crazy, but please don't dress it up in the trappings of science. Hipocrite (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not "select by hand", indeed I did no "selecting" at all -- I took the sequence of 20 editors with 300K+ edits as shown in a list in which I had no part in ordering. Such a list should show no systemic bias in who was chosen, hence the group is mathematically "random" with regard to any topics or interests of the editors. Have you taken Advanced Statistics? Collect (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. "I didn't order them, therefore they are random"? Where on Earth did you take your advanced classes? Consider {1, 2, 3, 4,...}. I did not order them. Are they random? Moreover, with all those advanced classes, you should really be able to formulate the hypothesis you want to test for upfront, and define what outcome of your experience confirms or refutes your hypothesis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear which list was used. You state that you looked at "20 editors with 300K+ edits." But at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, I see only 5 editors with >300,000 edits, one of whom is anonymous and therefore cannot be included in your analysis. Moreover, at very high edit counts, you will likely see a preponderance of editors using automated tools and making largely "routine" edits such as vandalism reverts. Could you point me in the right direction toward the list you used? MastCell ^Talk 20:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mea maxima culpa -- 30K. Been almost a year since I did it. I would trust, moreover, that most of those editors are still alive on WP. The test is the distribution of UT overlaps as a measure of overlapping interests, rather than using article overlap counts, as different areas of interest have vastly different numbers of articles. The article count, indeed, did vary greatly, while the UT overlap was uniformly small. And since the object was to use a set of randomly chosen editors, using them sequentially from the list ordered only by number of edits is, in fact, random (that is, not introducing any sort of systematic error,) Collect (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not acceptably random to select editors by edit count, as you are ignoring the fact that every editor that is currently active is currently active, while editors with high edit counts may or may not be active. What is the hypothesis you would like to test, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Shocking News

Guess who is in a Cabal?

• [7]
• But oh no, it's spreading: [8]
• ...and spreading: [9]

We are all DOOMED! DOOMED, I say! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Since none of the examples you give comes close to matching the sextet in question as to unanimous UT overlaps, I thank you most kindly for proving the point. And MzM has not made any claim that the tool gives wrong results, by the way.

Didn't you see the Cabal of 7 8/8 matches, including two editors with less than 5000 edits each? That must mean something! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Compared with 6/6 for the sextet hitting 13 matches? Thank you most kindly -- now run the example on the EEML folks and tell us the results. Collect (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

By what statistics is 7 8/8 matches less significant than 13 6/6 matches? Can you calculate the relative significance, properly mathematically accounting for number of edits of each editor etc.. I very much doubt it, that is why this is pseudoscience. Polargeo (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Empirically, since the 8 were not chosen at random, your cavil fails. If you show me any case where 8 arbitrarily chosen editors have such an overlap, I would be astonished. Meanhile, the 13 is an extraordinarily high number since a majority of the overlaps are not UT pages of the members of the group, while a majority of the ones for the 8 were for UT pages within the group. As for asserting that statistics is "pseudoscience" - isn't that exactly the sort of reasoning which leads you to post on WMC's page [10] They made an error in sending it to wikiquette alerts. If they had sent it to enforcement you might have been in for a 1 year topic ban. and the like. Collect (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Empirical results tell us nothing without an analysis of the statistical significance. Polargeo (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Empirical data suggest that the overlap is far beyond a 99% chance of being non-random. That is, in a fairly large study of examination of all overlaps between a group of 20 active editors (190 cases), in only three cases did two editors overlap by this degree, while the average overlap was vastly smaller for any two edotors than for a putative group of 6 editors. I made no study of more than two editors at a time, though clearly the numbers should decline. At 6-sigma, you would end up at nearly astronomical significance. Collect (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

One major problem is that the six editors chosen as the "cabal" all edit in the same subject area. So what is the significance of the overlap now? Or do the overlaps cease to be significant? Polargeo (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Or have you indeed managed to prove that editors who edit in a particulr subject area tend to have higher overlap. And you still haven't compared the significance of the 8/8 vs. the 6/6 Polargeo (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a valid point for measurement of overlaps on articles. It is, moreover, less valid in saying that the UT overlap is not significant. (ec) WRT the 6/6 -- the group was "self-selected" by making a comment on a particular statement. The 8/8 were selected in some other manner, but certainly not random. Collect (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The 8/8 were selected as an odd group of bedfellows to show how silly this is. Polargeo (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed this, what statement did they jointly comment on? And who selected the particular statement? Polargeo (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Did they all turn up as an exclusive group of 6 somewhere and say "There is no cabal?" Polargeo (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)"Selected" is the key word. Not "random." WRT your new comment - the statement by SBHB on the project page here. Collect (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Untill Collect deigns to provide us with a hypothesis, a test, results and a conclusion, in that order I suggest that further responding is unhelpful. Hipocrite (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Empirical data suggest that the overlap is far beyond a 99% chance of being non-random. - that's not a useful or even meaningful statement, Mr. Advanced Statistics. What's your claim? What is your Omega? You seem to suggest something like this: "Let Omega be the set of 6-subsets of Wikipdia editors. Let C be the subset of Omega with fewer than 13 6/6 overlaps on user talk pages. Then |C|/|Omega| >> 99%". If that is it, it seems to be a particularly unsurprising statement. If it isn't, what exactly is your claim? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Also is KDP part of the group still? Polargeo (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I am in the room, and "deigns" is a trifle low. The hypothesis is that UT overlaps are a better measure of "connectedness" of a group of editors that are article overlaps, as the size of the topic universe varies from topic to topic on WP, while the UT universe is the same, hence no problems with scaling. Further that an empirical study was made wusing over 190 measurements, and that this study of editors taken "two at a time" had exceeding few examples of significant UT overlap, even where the article overlap was several hundred articles. Is this quite sufficiently clear to even a casual observer? WRT new note, KDP was not one of the 6 endorsers of that statement at the time, so :part of the group still" is errant as a claim. Collect (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So who were the 6 exclusive endorsers at the time? And surely I should be one of them. Stirkes me you are still fixing your own definition of the set. Polargeo (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You have presented a hypothesis with a word that does not have meaning. What is "connectedness?" Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's easy! Two editors are connected, if they have edited the same user talk page! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Connectedness   pablo_hablo. 12:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the mathematical term. Since the mathematical term is a property of a set, it either "is" or "isn't" connected, so the above dosen't seem to be using that. Hipocrite (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And degrees of connectedness should also not be a "word that does not have nmeaning." [11], [12], and Six degrees of separation American psychologist Stanley Milgram continued Gurevich's experiments in acquaintanceship networks at Harvard University in Cambridge, U.S. Kochen and de Sola Pool's manuscript, Contacts and Influences,[6] was conceived while both were working at the University of Paris in the early 1950s, during a time when Milgram visited and collaborated in their research. Their unpublished manuscript circulated among academics for over 20 years before publication in 1978. It formally articulated the mechanics of social networks, and explored the mathematical consequences of these (including the degree of connectedness.) And a few thousand other cites, of course. Common term, used in its common usage. Collect (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• 12 UT overlaps [13] if you take the first 6 endorsers of Cla68 view. Discount TGL because he has a very low edit count and replace him with Lessheard as a "stand in" user who edits in the general area. Seems to be as good a system as you used to select the 6. Doesn't really tell me anything. Are they a cabal? Polargeo (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• Are you serious about [14]? It seems to be indeed about as operational as your use ("we are connected by our Sacred Mission to serve the common good" - really?). And in [15], the degree of connectedness is a property of a pair of vertexes in an undirected weighted graph. I assume that editors can be modelled vertexes, but what are the edges, what are their weights, and what is the "common usage" of this applied to groups of cardinality greater than 2? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It might - but several are "no brainer" overlaps which should be discounted (as noted earlier) - I am going to try the "multiple random editor" overlap test shortly - using the new (April) list of editors. And, indeed, some might feel "sacred mission"hood about CC articles. StS did not seem to address the WP article cited. Collect (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You claim "degrees of connectedness" is a "common term" with a "common usage". Two of the three sources you gave do not agree on usage, and the one that is sufficiently precise to be useful is not obviously applicable to the situation. The last one, six degrees of separation, only seems to use "degrees of connectedness" as a synonym for "degree of separation", whmathematicalich is yet another concept (applying to pairs), and again requires a graph with defined vertexes. Apparently you have simply typed the phrase "degrees of connectedness" into Google and presented the first three hits [16] - that's not only lazy bluffing, but outright misrepresentation. So far, you have neither clearly defined the graph-theoretical nor the stochastic concepts you need to apply formal maths. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) You keep misunderstanding. You use "connectedness" as a mathematic term as if it has meaning. But that's not what you mean - you are using a psycological term and trying to use statistics to demonstrate something. To show coorelation between "UT page edit overlaps" and "social connectedness," you need a scale for "social connectedness," then, what you do is you see if there's coorelation between the two. Instead, what you have appeared to done is assume that social connectedness leads to UT page overlaps, then you have stated that these people have UT page overlaps so they are likley socially connected. You've assumed the conclusion. This is why we have experimental design inbetween stats and advanced stats where I took my econometrics classes. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies. I have been trying to figure out if this thread could lead anywhere productive, and I really do not think so. Feel free to continue discussing, obviously, but I think this is a side issue at best. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)(later elided by third party - reposted for completemness in the discussion) Whether two or more editors have a "connectedness" with regard to either an editor or a topic on an editors talk page (in layman;s terms, a "unity" of interest). To StS above -- using the old Poisson distribution, the random number of UT page overlaps for a group of 8 is less than 1. See also Connectedness for the mathematical term. 13 is about 12 standard deviations out from there. (Using RMS, the "standard deviation" for overlap was about 10, with an average value of, IIRC, about 7. Taking 4 at a time, the numbers for editors are likely to be at least an order of magnitude lower, and I shall make some tests on that.) So let's use "1" as an initial likely value for random overlap, and so we go out about 12 sigma from there ... wanna see the math? As noted -- more than 99%. This tyoe of distributuon is not well-suited for Students t-Distribution, however. Append to StS -- when it is 13 user talk pages for the same group of 6, the level of "connectedness" is clearly higher than for two who edit the same UT page. Collect (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• This will be my final say here, as it's become clear that you're not listening. What you want to do is present your Hypothesis, then present a test of your Hypothesis, then report the results of that test, then draw conclusions. If you use words that are not clear and plain in meaning, you'll want to explain their meaning - typically accomnplished by saying "WordIMadeUp means (blah)." - you'll see how that's different than whatever you wrote directly above, which at no point defines "connectedness." Finally, after designing the test, you'll want to wait for comments from others, as they might help you see weakness in your test design. Now, I grant you the lastword. Hipocrite (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• Sigh. Yes, I know what connectedness in some areas of mathematics means. Since we are all discrete, I assume you talk about connectedness in a graph-theoretical sense. In that case, as I pointed out repeatedly, specify what the vertexes and the edges of that graph are. Or, if you are not talking about any of the terms (not plural) described in connectedness (in which case all your pointing at the article is just a distraction), give an operational definition of your notion. And, if you are at it, what is your random variable and why do you think it should be Poisson-distributed. As far as I can make out, what you are currently saying is "there are more 6/6 user talk pages overlaps for a certain group of editors than we would expect under some unstated assumptions". Again, if you have taken courses in advances statistics (or even if not), clarify your experiment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The variable is "number of full intersections for a given set of editors within a given set of projectspace". I just did a major bubble-sort taking 20 editors (the 20 who were 30K or avove in the April report, not using the one whose name is not given) and came up with: For 20 editors taken 10 at a time, there was a maximum of 1 10/10 match (which was Jimbo's UT page), 1 maximum match of 8/10 (that means, of all the possible permutations of those editors, 1 was the maximum number where 9 of them posted to the same UT page), and 3 matches for 6/9. This means that for a random sample (that is one where no systematic error should be found) that the odds of having a group of 6 have 5 6/6 matches in UT space are worse than 1 in about 1 in 8,000 against. Odds of getting a higher rate of matches randomly approaches astronomical odds against. The limiting factor here was the tool only handling 10 at a time - meaning I had to do a big batch to find the highest overlaps (using a sample of 20 taken 10 at a time - but since I could see who was not going to match the others, I could remove them as a bubble sort for matches). Collect (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For that random variable I can give you an example of 1,967 full intersections of "a given set of editors" (me) in within "a given set of projectspace" (although I'm not quite sure what that means). Wow, I'm a Cabal of One and always agree with me! Obviously, I'm fully connected (or, synonymously, awesomely together). And your sample is still not random - just because you don't recognize the bias does not mean there is none. The simple fact that all those editors "were 30K or avove in the April report" (is that all-time edits as of April? Or edits in April? Any link to that list, maybe?) means they are not a random sample. On the other hand, if the chance of any 6 editors having 5 6/6 matches is so low, does that mean that all the Cabals I listed at the start of this section are real? On the third hand, there are currently 12,267,675 named accounts, which means there are 4734133976380685548421575656869045457450 6-sets of named editors, or, with the 1/8000 ratio, 6*10³⁵ 6-Cabals (modulo stupid arithmetic errors). Interestingly, that means that on average every editor is in roughly 2 Cabals for each molecule of his body! We are overrun by Cabals! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

All-time edits -- I do not know of any list showing edits by monthly edits of that ilk. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits in fact. I know of no systematic bias in the compilation of that list. As for your claim as to potential number of overlaps -- that is akin to the simple fact that in any group of 26 people, 2 people are likely to have the same birthday. Or the fact that no two people have sufficiently similar fingerprints to be confused (IPOF, that old claim is untrue.) There are, moreover, fewer than 10,000 editors sufficiently active to show up on the tool comparison -- the figure you cite is absent any real basis for determining likelihood of overlaps. Heck, most of them have under 100 edits total. So can we deal with the facts here - not hyperbole? Collect (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Take the first 5 endorsers of Cla's viewpoint (minus TGL because he is banned/low edits) and the two people they are most complaining about and the result is astonishing (Cla, ATren, JohnWB, Lar, MN, SBHB and WMC) [17] 7/7 for 13 User talkpages. What are the chances of that happening ;-)? Polargeo (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I broke your pattern. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at all because I broke the pattern Collect was using. Polargeo (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The question was raised as to whether the editors in the sample are "active". 19 of the 20 have edited within the past 3 weeks (most within the past 3 days) and one has been gone for 7 months. In short, the sample was of active edtors. Collect (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

rfc/u?

Should this not be posted here [18] ? mark nutley (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks Mark Polargeo (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Should this be in the admins section? Not sure because it is not a complaint against use of admin tools but is a complaint regarding admin privileges. Any comments welcome. Polargeo (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd assumed you hadn't posted it to the appropriate area because this was some sort of elaborate joke and that you couldn't possibly be serious in your request. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This RfCU needs to be in the admin/candidate section, not the user/certified section, since it relates to admin actions, (ArbCom enforcement activities are actually given as an example) and since it's not certified. I'm not sure it's actually certifiable as it stands... for one thing, I'd like to see some diffs for WMC's attempts to resolve the dispute... to the best of my knowledge WMC has never engaged me in a way that would be conductive to resolving anything and certainly not regarding this matter. Once that's acknowledged, I'm happy to waive any need for certification, but it's nevertheless an important point. ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding a few more diffs would be appropriate to ensure adherence to the letter of policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't my point, at least not exactly, although it's a fair point. Rather, I don't think diffs exist to show any meaningful attempt by WMC to resolve anything. Resolution here often (especially when it is between people presumably acting in good faith and who have been around a while so just lecturing them about the way things are isn't the collegial way to get things changed) requires introspection, acknowledgement of issues, and often requires change on both sides. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But the fact that you are unwilling to listen to what he has to say, the fact that you seem unwilling to assume good faith on his part is the reason for this rfc. Your attitude here just emphasises this point. Guettarda (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC has highlighted his belief in Lar's bias several times. Lar's response on many occasions has been to flatly deny any bias and continue calling for lengthy bans of WMC. I see this as Lar not willing to budge one inch and he is amusingly saying this about WMC. WMC is obviously well aware Lar is tring to get him banned for any reason and is sensible enough to not try to waste too much of his time trying to reason with Lar particularly as Lar has no concept of reason here. Polargeo (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a reasonable person, evaluating WMC's interactions with me and others, would not find himself in agreement with you, Polargeo, or with Guettarda either. But if you can find diffs that show WMC trying to resolve a dispute (not just highlighting a belief, but actually working to resolve a dispute) using our customs of listening to the other side, responding calmly, and seeking compromise, I would be interested to see them. I listen and I compromise, as many editors have testified. Repeating the assertion that I do not without substantiation, does not further your case. ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, one of the reasons I thought this was actually a joke was under the "Evidence of trying to resolve dispute" section there was this gem of a diff, which starts off with, "When the hell are we going to stop Lar...," and reads far more like a rant or call to arms than any attempt at dispute resolution. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe Lar has increased his recommendations as issues with WMC have come up - in the belief that if sanctions increased to a level that WMC found meaningful then he would alter his behavior. I do look forward to your upcoming RfC in defense of me though Polargeo since I was topic banned without any discussion at all and certainly not without the warnings and latitude that WMC has been shown for years. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the case of Thegoodlocust, but the automatic assumption I am on one side or the other is wrong. Recently I argued against an enforcement request against FellGleeming because I felt there was a major fault in the process in that it was outside the enforcement area. In the case of WMC I think Lar's inclusion as uninvolved is the fault in the process. Polargeo (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, well that is exactly how it is in my case, which is also at least partially outside the enforcement area. Again, I look forward to your spirited defense of me! TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Guetterda: Assumes facts not in evidence. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Handled in the sanctions page, see "Request concerning Thegoodlocust". --Enric Naval (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just watching all of this but I did notice the comment about an editor being banned from this discussion here. Shouldn't the comments be removed and the editor told to stop, at least this should be the minimum request. When banned from something that should mean no comments, period. I did bring this to the notification of the banning administrator, 2/0 in case he wants to comment or do anything about this. Things here are, well, weird enough without having an editor who is banned from discussing things here or anywhere for that matter. Thoughts? --CrohnieGalTalk 12:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I for one am not clear on what you are asking, sorry. When you say "the discussion" do you mean this RfC? ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry Lar, I was about to self delete this since it's being discussed on the sanction page. TGL is banned from discussing CC from my understanding and it's being discussed whether his comments made on this rfc and your talk page is in breach of the ban that 2/0 put into affect. Check out the CC sanction page for what I'm talkling about. They're waiting for you anyways. :) I have no comments about this RFC at all, for the record. Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Ah. I independently saw that request and have opined. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by MZMcBride

How juvenile can some of these views get? Can we try to plumb even lower depths? That includes the very silly support statement "High five" :). I was once a school teacher and this brings me right back to the group of kids sitting at the back of the room, the ones who you knew were likely to be unemployed in a year or two. Polargeo (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Glass houses and stones. You're going to lecture others on juvenile behavior? Go away. And no cupcakes for you. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are right. It gets better such as outside view by ATren and view by Cla68. Particularly where Cla presents a load of diffs of people moaning about Lar's actions as evidence of baiting. In fact I would like to encourage Cla to continue finding diffs of people moaning about Lar's actions to help show what a major problem Lar's actions are. Polargeo (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that was baiting :) Polargeo (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

High five to myself Polargeo (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep acting like an ass. Go on. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Polargeo will be blue before long. I have no idea why you view yourself as above reproach, here or anywhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am approachable. If you find my edits a problem I will modify my behavior. I thought I was being funny. If I wasn't then I am sorry. however, I am not acting as an admin who is trying to get you blocked. So I don't see why we cannot exchange a few jokes on a talkpage. Sorry to hurt any feelings. Polargeo (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I find MZMcBride's view succinct and well stated, (sorry if a true observation hurts...) and your chafing at it to be a somewhat juvenile response. Given that trying to engage with you in dialog hasn't proven fruitful for me, despite effort, I'm not sure that "I'm approachable" is an accurate description of your overall approach to matters. I remain as baffled as ever at your apparent animus. Let the views fall out as they will. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The views will fall out as they will. I am just amused by them. If you had a problem with my editing then you would find me approachable. However, I have a major issue with your position that I really cannot see being resolved whilst you continue to act as an uninvolved admin and generally continue to deny the fundamental issues exist. If you find me unapproachable it is simply because of the position you hold. I could have tried to deal with it at a low level but seeing as you ignore the fact that there is a problem I felt this needed to be dealt with more formally. Polargeo (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Also seeing as you have just stated that the Outside view by MZMcBride is a "true observation" I am confused as to why you haven't endorsed it. Is it because if you did endorse it this would show your true feelings which are at the very heart of the problem. Polargeo (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe I'm wrong you haven't endorsed any views. As it is about your conduct that is admirable I don't know the wikiquette here. Polargeo (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It was my understanding that customarily the responder didn't endorse other views. But if I'm incorrect there are a number that need my endorsement (and a number that sorely need rebutting) ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Lar endorsing or not endorsing anything is a matter of supreme irrelevancy. Nor do I see a whole lot of relevancy in this entire section. Collect (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic, Collect's quote is KJV's translation of Matthew 6.34

Where is that quote from and what does it mean? Polargeo (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Matthew 6.34 if i remember rightly mark nutley (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC) It's from the KJV translation of the Gospel of Matthew. A more contemporary paraphrase would be something like "Let tomorrow worry about itself. Today has enough trouble of it's own." Thparkth (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I never went to sunday school. I thought it meant something like 'it is bad enough as it is without Lar putting his foot in it' but I wasn't sure. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC) wikt:sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. I think it's from Sermon on the Mound ;-) dave souza, talk 13:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Dave i think you meant Sermon on the Mount :-) mark nutley (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Nope, follow the link. As I recall, part of the lesson was the parable of the good Samaritan, "blessed are the rich because they can afford to pay for inn accommodation for strangers if they feel so inclinded", . . . dave souza, talk 14:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC) No dave, the sermon on the mound was a speech by Lady Thatcher, you must mean the sermon on the mount. And i was educated by Jesuits mate, trust me i know a little bit about the bible :) mark nutley (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Try also "Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor." For classicists. Collect (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC) It is not your duty to complete the work, neither are you free to desist from it mark nutley (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by ATren

It's not a vote. And if it were, what would be a vote "against" Lar? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an innate problem with RfCs - as there is generally no oppose section, one cannot tell or differentiate between (invisible) neutrals, don't cares and opposes, but only make yet another Comment by user Y - sorta like two (or more) folks all shouting past each other. However, this is the venue that is and so it is worked with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of how RfCs work. And I find the format quite useful - it does not force a polarization, but allows many viewpoints to be expressed. However, ATren seems to operate under the assumption that there are "votes against Lar" - I'd like him to clarify what he considers such a "vote". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me, anyone who endorses the view that I'm not uninvolved is involved as well under the defintions those who suggest I am involved are using. That's what a vote "against" means to me. ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

outside view by Cla

Present one side of the conversation and ignore the other. Context not important. I see Cla as providing evidence for why this RfC is necessary. WMC has had a long running disagreement with Lar and yet Lar is still acting as an uninvolved admin who is trying to get WMC banned. Polargeo (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Just took me a couple of minutes to put these together.

• “WMC has issues that need addressing”, edit summary “issues” [19]
• ”Do I disagree with what, exactly? That seems to be lost on all the verbiage. I think your use of the term "septic" is derisive”

[20]

• ”The rest of your statement doesn't make any sense either. Perhaps you're not clear on what writing from the neutral point of view actually means” [21]

oh and the classic

• "What is WMC afraid of" [22]

I don't have the time Cla seems to have so I will leave it there but this was pretty easy. Polargeo (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you think those diffs show? I have concerns about WMC's behavior. Lots of people do. That doesn't make me involved... I think brushing things off one's talk page shows a certain unwillingness to face criticism. I think you do too, or so you opined once on my talk page. That doesn't make either of us involved. Cla68's diffs show that WMC and his allies have been playing rough for some time. Sorry, but it's the truth. ++Lar: t/c 03:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

PS, this is a cheap shot: "I don't have the time Cla seems to have". Perhaps he's just more concerned about your quixotic campaign doing needless damage than you were. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, why don't you reserve judgement? If you have already decided that one "side" consists of the "good guys" and the other side the "bad guys", I think you may get increasingly frustrated as evidence is presented that may conflict with that view, and believe me, there is plenty of evidence. Whether or not anyone has "the time" to find it all is missing the big picture, which is that there has been some seriously problematic behavior by a few editors associated with the AGW articles for several years. I hope that, after seeing some evidence you will, like me, advocate for Wikipedia's administration to take some action to correct the behavior in question, which, as the diffs I'm presenting show, is unfortunately still going on. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but it is you who is presenting a load of diffs without context and who is then interpreting them in a one sided way, not me. I am more than pleased for anyone to really look into those diffs that you present and I believe they will see this as indicative of the problem WMC has with Lar. Polargeo (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact I think your diffs show how extreme this situation has become and how critical it is for neutrality that Lar steps down as an uninvolved admin in the case of WMC. I wouldn't be saying this if Lar was remaining neutral and wasn't standing out as a lone voice amongst admins in calling for lengthy bans against WMC. He appears to have gotten personally involved and for the sake of the project should withdraw from comments as an uninvolved party. Polargeo (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please add some diffs of me complaining about Lar. There are loads and loads of them. Polargeo (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll help you out

Polargeo

[23], [24], [25] and that is just a fraction of the complaints I have on this talkpage alone. Polargeo (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Polargeo, do you think that biting newbies is wrong? Would you like to see some examples of biting newcomers involving one or two of the editors listed in my view? It won't take me long to find a few. To find representative diffs I can basically pick a month at random from the Global Warming talk page and have a few within a few minutes. Or, would you like to see examples of AGW editors adding negative information, much of it sourced to blogs, to the BLPs of climate change sceptics? That won't take me long to find either. Just click on the article history of just about any BLP for a climate change sceptic and start looking for familiar names among the editors listed. Since it isn't very time-consuming to find such diffs, I can provide a few if you like. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Biting newbies should be avoided but we have all done it at some time and it is not evidence of a cabal. I also think that you will find that when an editor has had to deal with the 100th crap POV addition to an article the occassional bite of a newbie or even a suspected sock is not that strange across wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that biting newbies is or should be justified. I expect that I could find controversial articles where the "regulars" don't lash out at newcomers who propose changes. In my four years of editing Wikipedia, the Global Warming talk page has probably contained the worst and most consistently bitey behavior that I've seen anywhere in the project. Worse, at least two of the editors doing most of the biting are/were admins. Not good. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As requested, Polargeo diffs

Cla, feel free to move these into your view. These are all from the last week.

• [26] "borders into crazy land"
• [27] "Lar is right as you know :)" - sarcasm
• [28] - POINTy RFE against himself, apparently to make a point about Lar's involvement.
• [29] - admits he refused to engage Lar directly, on the advice of WMC.
• [30] - long, rambling, non-specific complaint about Lar (there are MANY of these from Polargeo). Refers to CC probation as a "totalitarian regime" even though Lar has never taken an action.
• [31] "The rather crazy criteria of having to have never edited an AGW article is a load of crap."
• [32] "Lar's extremism"
• [33] Lar "go(es) off the rails"
• [34] accuses Lar of having an "agenda"
• [35] accuses Lar of having an "agenda"
• [36] accuses Lar of "disruption and provocation"
• [37] lar is "blowing a lot of hot air"
• [38] accuses Lar of "appeasing" new editors
• [39] "I am boycotting this ridiculous Lar policed enforcement and will continue to use usual wikipedia methods of negotiation with blocks as a 'last resort' to deal with problems. Unlike this silly Gung-ho admin policed attitude to wikipedia enforced by these sanctions."
• [40] accuses Lar of baiting
• [41] "When the hell are we going to stop Lar making such biased and ridiculous attempts to get maximum sanctions against editors such as WMC... Lar you lost the last little tiny tiny micro shred of credibility you ever had on this matter some time ago and you just keep on reinforcing your ludicrous bias time and again."
• [42] "...just follow the thread and weep at how over the top Lar is there. Lar is weighing in with all of his might in a rather shockingly biased way in this area..."

Good job. Come on there must be some more. I am surprised Lar has never been rude to me. Polargeo (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please add these to the other diffs on the rfc as I feel that my view is unimportant left on the talkpage. You don't need to add your personal interpretations though, the diffs can speak for themselves. Polargeo (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, why not just add them to your view, if you feel so strongly about it? ATren (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla is the one collecting them and putting them under his view. I was trying to keep the RfC concise and as neutral as I could and a load of out of context diffs does not help anyone. Also an editor (such as myself) who started an RfC about Lar's conduct has a problem with the editor he started the RfC on. Stop the press. Polargeo (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not this RFC or your opinion, it's the stream of attacks on Lar's integrity that came from at least 4 editors, you being the most prominent. And this despite Lar never having used his tools in the enforcement area, and despite Lar always abiding by consensus even when it didn't go his way. In those diffs, you accuse Lar of having an agenda, of baiting, ofof running a "totalitarian regime" (even though he never took a unilateral action, pretty piss poor for a dictator ;-)), of being "shockingly biased", of having "lost the last little tiny tiny micro shred of credibility", of "blowing hot air", of "going off the rails", of "disruption and provocation"... there is an incredible amount of bad faith from you just in the last week. Combine it with the same treatment he received from WMC himself, SBHB, and Stephan Schulz, and is it any wonder he's talking about a cadre? You've actually gone a long way toward proving his point. ATren (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla still hasn't added my diffs to his viewpoint. Polargeo (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla's continual rewording of his statement

Cla keeps rewording his statement after several editors have already agreed with it. I'm not talking about adding the diffs I'm talking about the statement itself. this is dishonest because the editors would then have to agree with it again. The statement should be returned to its original form or else all editors should have to agree with the present statement or else it is invalid. Polargeo (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I made it clear that my statement wasn't finished. If you like I can go to each editor's talk page and tell them that the statatement has been modified. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your original statement implied that more diffs would come. You didn't say you would actually change your statement several times. If you wish to go canvassing though then be my guest. Polargeo (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you either change your statement back to its original form or that all supporters are removed. If everyone else was playing by your game we could all carry on adding more and more evidence to our statements Polargeo (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

[43] [44] [45] [46]. Done. Cla68 (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I must say that on this evidence of your modus operandi I am not surprised that WMC has possibly had to revert you several times. Polargeo (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please Polargeo, attack the message, not the messenger. Videlicet, I asked you a question in the section above. Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't pull that personal attack nonsense on me. I am commenting on your modus operandi as indicative of a problem and not on you personally. I am getting rather tired of people taking the "not the messanger" completely out of context and am losing patience with it. Polargeo (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, as you requested, I collected diffs from your editing. Just in the last week I collected more than a dozen aggressive diffs directed at Lar. Now you are attacking Cla for presenting diffs. This has to stop. Please take a break and come back when you are less confrontational. ATren (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@ATren. I am not trying to get anyone banned from editing such as Lar is. I am not at all happy with Cla's conduct and as far as the diffs go they are presented in a shockingly onesided way, as I am sure the ones you have collected against me will be. If anyone needs to take a break it is not me. Polargeo (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You should add that last diff to your list (and this one) Polargeo (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you are a party asking another (Lar) to step back from this, let me ask you to do the same. You owe me nothing, but I believe it would be beneficial. Arkon (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am an editor in this dispute not an admin. No other editor is stepping back. I don't act as an admin on CC articles. So I am asking Lar to step back from something I don't do anyway. Polargeo (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you as an admin, but don't worry about it. It was just my opinion. Arkon (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You know what. I will step back, thanks. Polargeo (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(e.c. x 3!!) OK, then if you disagree with the diffs, defend them. Don't criticize Cla for presenting diffs to support his view when you can just as easily present diffs to support your own. That's how it works, you should know that by now Polargeo. ATren (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just put on your neutral hat, follow the diffs and look at the whole thread ATren. See the absolute frustration with Lar evident in those comments. Polargeo (talk) 06:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This will be all I've got input-wise on this: There are a whole lot of editors that need to step back in this area. This sample size encompasses the entirety of wikipedia. Good luck fellas. Arkon (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(somebody outdent please) It will be interesting to see the reaction if people actually read the diffs, as opposed to simply glancing at the large number of them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I did. Collect (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What % of the diffs presented show "attempts to provoke Lar," and what percent show "attempts to engage with Lar," exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don`t need to read the diff`s. I have followed all of this from the start. Lar has been fair and even handed, never gone against consensus and is actually trying to help stop the constant disputes. If there is frustration from some as Polegro says perhaps the reason for it is due to the fact that instead of just topic banning and sanctioning sceptics he actually had the cheek to be critical of those on the other side of the fence? The simple truth of the matter is the AGW cabal (or whatever they are being called now) is so used to having it`s own way in the CC related articles they can`t tolerate the fact that someone stood up and said "Enough" mark nutley (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How can you certify the diffs demonstrate provokation if you haven't read them? Isn't that irresponsible of you? Hipocrite (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless my memory is rapidly fading with increased age then no, i do not need to read them all. I have seen first hand the attacks on lar, i do have his page on my watchlist so it`s not hard to see it happening mark nutley (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

One of those diffs goes to a user reverting vandalism. Or perhaps it dosen't. Shouldn't you read the statements you endorse? Hipocrite (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

By Cla's definition posting this RfC would be listed as an attempt to provoke Lar. Polargeo (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Nobody can criticise Lar or his actions because that is obviously provocation. This very statement could find itself amoungst Cla's diffs. Polargeo (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@Hipocrite, to answer your question, yes I have read every single diff and I believe all were provocative to some extent. Note that the context needs to be considered: some comments might be borderline OK when taken in isolation, but not in the context of some of the more aggressive comments that those editors have been made. But there are also many which are unquestionably provocative. For example, take the over-the-top "milliLar" unit of bias measure discussion, where a "Lar" of bias was compared to the density of a black hole -- can there any non-provocative interpretation to that statement? ATren (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No that statement is provocative but is also indicative of the frustration felt towards Lar's handling of several situations. For example Lar went completely over the top in his reaction to Stephan Schulz posting a comment as an uninvolved admin in the same way as he went completely over the top when WMC was reported for reverting a BLP transgression. He displays clear bias in his actions and then claims he isn't biased because he has never edited the articles. But as his bias suits your purposes you are supporting him. Polargeo (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that you reviewed each and every diff, could you examine the provocation in [47], listed as 53 currently, and explain how it interacts with the provication in [48] and [49], listed as 55 and 56 currently? Don't worry - I've got more where that came from! Hipocrite (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed this... what are you trying to say, that there is a duplicate diff? Both Cla and I collected diffs so we obviously overlapped on one. When you're merging a large set of diffs collected from different people, it's easy to miss a dup (especially since my diffs are formatted by a diff-collecting application which uses page IDs rather than page titles). If that's your issue, just let him know so he can remove the dup. ATren (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't you have noticed this obvious error when you were reviewing every diff? Are you certain there's not another obvious error? Hipocrite (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Shouldn't you have noticed this obvious error when you were reviewing every diff?" See my explanation above. "Are you certain there's not another obvious error?" No, I'm not, but I'm certain that the diffs presented represent the view well, even if a few out of dozens happen to be accidentally duplicated. Feel free to point out any more dups so we can correct them. ATren (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

colloquy on what an "endorsement" entails

(copied from main page with no intent to imply that the posts were initially made to the talk page)

Sorry, are all of you endorsers stating that you believe every one of the longlistof diffs shows "provication?" Hipocrite (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no i endorse that lar has been attacked and attempts made to bully him. Why are you talking about provocation? mark nutley (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(Noting that I am not an "endorser") - endorsement of a summary does not mean endorsement of every single element leading to that summary. I would say that the attempts to provoke Lar reflects much more poorly on those editors doing so than on Lar's responses. is the salient part which the endorsers are agreeing with. Is that now a tad more clear? Collect (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I guess. Perhaps you should write a new statement that says what you believe, as opposed to signing a statement that says what you don't believe. Hipocrite (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(response now placed here)

Where the bulk of the statement is one I concur in, it seems odd to write all of it over again when the intent is to gain an idea of how many concur with the statement. Where only one sentence is subject to a caveat, it sems easonable to limit the aded words to where I have the disagreement. We are not supposed to be writing dissertations about our own positions when we endorse someone's statement, as far as I cn tell. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Circular reasoning by MZMcBride

Flies cemetery all round!

[[

A bunch of you have lean and hungry looks. Everybody, have a cannoli (or have you seen Godfather Part III?) You know, RfC's are a lot like cannolis: They've got a hard shell which crumbles, and a gooey interior which makes quite a mess (cannolis have the excuse that they generally have powdered sugar sprinkled on them, RfCs don't). The larger ones are pretty difficult to get through in a dignified way (never have either cannolis or RfCs at the opera). The main difference is that cannoli's are sweet; RfC's, bitter. One should always strive to have as high a cannoli-to-RfC ratio as possible. Here, have another cannoli. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"This RFC is a farce. Pro-tip for the "cadre": don't all show up to the same discussions, support each other unconditionally, and then expect nobody to notice. Have a cupcake, Lar."

RFC's do seem to tend to farce, or at least black comedy, so no objection to that. From the use of the statistical tool, the "cadre": is essentially defined as experienced editors who show up to the same discussions, so it's circular reasoning to say "don't". Is MZMcBride proposing a new wikirule banning co-operation in subject areas, or indeed editors showing up at discussions? Looks ludicrous to me. Where did the "support each other unconditionally" come in? In this instance, those accused of being a "cadre" have given diverse views, with support being conditional and based on policies. Indeed, those accusing seem to have also supported each other. Not an issue. As for the cupcakes, fully support. . . dave souza, talk 09:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how one could not show up for a discussion and yet unconditionally support each other. I was sure I liked the idea of cupcakes, but I wasn't offered one.  :-(--~TPW 13:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I just want a cupcake. :-( --MZMcBride (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So go to a shop and buy one (I highly suspect there are a few bakeries and convenience stores that you can avail yourself of a real (rather than virtual) one.). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, have posted the pic above to virtually feed the multitudes! (non fattening, may have no effect at all). . . dave souza, talk 07:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of Lar leading a sceptic cabal

After doing the wikistalk (see above [50]) it got me to thinking. Maybe there is a cabal acting for Lar against WMC. But the wikistalk shows nothing really just that several of the Cla viewpoint endorsers have a huge talkpage crossover with the people they are attacking (primarily attacking WMC and SBHB). So I looked to see if there was any evidence that cabalish activities have been going on in the timeframe of this RfC (I started drafting it on 28 April). I was amazed. Lar does appear to regularly encourage members of his cabal. There is also strong evidence of coordination to reach a goal (united design), WP:Meatpuppetrycoordination of activities and encouragement of offwiki contact. I suspect that this sort of dialogue has been carrying on for most of the time Lar has been acting as an uninvolved enforcement admin.

This RfC

• “thank you very much for taking the effort” (Lar to Cla) [51]
• “Cla continues to do good work” [52] (Lar's encouragement)

Lar’s talkpage

• “Don’t let him [WMC] rattle you” [53] (Lar's encouragement to Thegoodlocust – keep it up TGL)
• "We are trying to change this, level the playing field as Lar has put it, but until that point, you have to perfect. (ATren to Mark nutley), this was followed closely by Lar’s response “What he [ATren] said … Pick your battles” [54] (This is utterly shocking stuff)
• ”Yes, I probably shouldn't point this out, especially now, but I've never been good at shutting up.” [55] (Thegoodlocust provides Lar with some ammunition to try and have a go at WMC whilst the RfC is ongoing – which if you follow the thread Lar does take up this rather tenuous line of counter attack)
• ”Just wanted to let you know that I modified my statement since you signed it.” (Cla) “Thanks for letting me know. Don't stop work, you're doing great stuff and I appreciate it.” [56] (More encouragement from Lar to Cla)

Cla’s talkpage

• ”Recuse from unblocking, but I think that there is a good case to be made that reverting blanking isn't edit warring, and that the edits were justified.” [57] (Lar realizes he cannot use his admin tools to unblock Cla because Cla is doing so much good work for him. Instead he still can’t leave it alone and pops up on Cla’s talkpage as a non-admin and does what he can to encourage that Cla be unblocked - looks like he may be involved with Cla because this isn't admin contact)
• User talk:Cla68#Something to perhaps add to your section in the Lar RFC (A whole section where ATren is helping Cla to expand his viewpoint on Lar’s RfC) Then Cla's response is astonishing “I will be putting these and any others you find in the RfC. I don't necessarily agree that this needs to go to ArbCom [no they may be neutral - PG]. I have confidence that the team of admins [including Lar] currently involved with the climate change probation will act and put a stop to all of this nonsense which the diffs above show is going on “ [58] (Cla agrees to put in the diffs for ATren and expresses his confidence that the enforcement admins will deal with things) With this comment Cla appears to beis acting as a WP:Meatpuppet in collaboration with ATren on his viewpoint in this RfC

Mark nutley’s talkpage

• “I'd be happy to chat with you about it sometime if you use any sort of messaging... I primarily use gmail and IRC.” [59] (Lar encourages Mark to sort out his reverting issues by communicating offwiki whilst Mark is supporting Lar in the RfC)

I have only looked at the timeframe of this RfC. There is much more communication between the parties but I am only outlining some of the cabalish activities. Polargeo (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

THere is a whole pile of stuff with Lar advising MN how to frame probabtion requests etc, if you look William M. Connolley (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am just sticking to the timeframe of this RfC to avoid this getting excessive. Polargeo (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I note that after starting this thread Stifle has quickly add a belated endorse to Cla68 [60] coming to Lar's defence now makes no difference, the first six people endorsing Cla's viewpoint are the interesting ones who have been communicating with each other on user talkpages extensively. Polargeo (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell us all exactly what all of this group are sceptical about? Absent examples of each of them being sceptical about something in particular, you have sharpened a pencil which has no graphite in it at all. )Bolding quite deliberate here) Collect (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That is the mother of red herring arguments Collect. The cabal is against WMC and SBHB, sceptic cabal was just a convenient title. You haven't addressed any of the content of my argument. I also notice significant offwiki contact between Lar and Cla on wikipeida review. Polargeo (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

An Anti-two specific editors group then? Nothing to do with "sceptic" then. Might you show me where this is evidenced other than in this RFC? And what is the precise nature of the "offwiki contact" that you know of? Inquiring minds want to know. Collect (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Red herring alert !! Polargeo (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Should have been at the very top of this section. No proof of any improper activity of any sort, allegations of "offwiki contact" sans any factual statement as to how you "know" such to have occurred, and slurs on Lar and Cla to boot. Perhaps you wish to redact your claims? Collect (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Err!! Concrete evidence of Cla acting as a WP:Meatpuppet is a slur? I like Cla but I cannot sit back and watch this rubbish unfold without commenting. Polargeo (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

So, to summarize:

1. Evidence of Lar interacting with editors in a polite manner.
2. Evidence of Lar advising editors on good editing practice and how to comply with Wikipedia standards and procedures.
3. Evidence of Lar trying to persuade editors not to be drawn into personal conflicts.
4. Evidence of Lar recusing himself from an issue that he feels he is too close to.
5. Evidence of Lar having personal opinions and expressing them off-wiki.

Thparkth (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice summary. I really only posted this because of Lar's continuing diatribe about a science cabal on AGW. I think this shows greater evidence that Lar is part of an opposing group against WMC than any evidence that there is some sort of science cabal lead by WMC. But you go on believing what you wish to and the truth will out. Polargeo (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, are you accusing Cla and me of meatpuppetry because we collaborated on diff collection? Really? ATren (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You gave Cla material to put into his viewpoint. This was after he had already made it and people had already endorsed it. He duly added it for you. I only made this statement because I do not see similar actions from those who Lar is calling the cabal. I only see this sort of practice from those who are sitting back and criticising others for being part of a cabal. Polargeo (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

group! Cadre, cabal, group, whatever you want to call it, it's there - as you might say, but don't trouble about the evidence of course. Actually, FWIW, I don't think Lar is leading a cabal William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not meat puppetry. I didn't recruit him to the RFC, I simply suggested evidence which may support his view after he'd already posted his view with "more to come" explicitly indicating he was still researching diffs. Meat puppetry is a serious charge, and is unsupported here, so please strike that out. ATren (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You gave him information for him to post in a section where you could not post it and he duly did this for you. If that is not meatpuppetry it is certainly disruptive cabal behaviour and no amount of diversion should detract from this. Polargeo (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC) As with all cabals I have no idea what communication has gone on before but the stuff I have seen is pretty poor. Polargeo (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That is absolutely NOT meatpuppetry; reread the meatpuppetry section again Polargeo - meatpuppetry is defined as recruitment of editors in order to build consensus. Cla had already posted a view, which I agreed with, and I supplied him with more potential diffs which he could evaluate and add if he saw fit. This is a completely unfounded accusation and I'm asking you politely again to strike it. ATren (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay done. Please also recognise that your coordination with Cla on his viewpoint is not something those who are being accused (by Lar) of being a cabal (or cadre) are doing. Lar is way too involved in coordinated activities and encouragement of certain editors to act as an uninvolved admin on Climate change enforcement. Polargeo (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

CABAL!!!!!!!!! --MZMcBride (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC) There is no cabal Polargeo (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Of course Lar is part of a cabal. But it's not a secret one. It's quite open about its interests and intentions. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a cadre or cabal we can all subscribe to! Indeed, the alleged AGW editors Lar seems to want to group together have been more scrupulous in following that party line than many (though not all) of those opposing them on various issues. Do we want to start calling everyone "the 5P cadre"? . . dave souza, talk 07:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

" more scrupulous in following that party line " may not be a view universally subscribed to. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, while I'll agree that several editors of all viewpoints really should improve their adherence to "Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", Lar is unique in that he's making his divisive remarks in the position of an "uninvolved administrator" administrering requests for sanctions. To return to my original approach, I'd like to see Lar behaving impartially and professionally while administering the sanctions, commenting in a way that promotes cooperation and recusing himself when he has an obvious personal involvement. Lar can act as an editor and as an involved admin if he wants to promote particular article content and make his own case about alleged "cadres", but that's inappropriate for an uninvolved admin. . . dave souza, talk 09:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't promote my views on article content, merely provide them for reference. As for the rest, I think you can strenuously deny it, and try to trip up the statistical analysis and the like, but you're not fooling most people. I don't see how you have any basis for arguing that my view that there are problematic editors, that they act in certain ways, and exhibit certain interests, is somehow an indicator that I'm involved. That allegation just doesn't hold water. Regardless of how many signatures it got. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This looked like forceful promotion of the view that the content of a central article should be changed – something you're welcome to present on the article talk page, but inappropriate for an uninvolved admin administering sanctions. A link posted by a couple of editors on the RfC page has reminded me of this exchange where you showed prejudgement of other editors rather than assuming good faith and taking comments on their merits. Since we evidently don't share a sense of humour, I've reduced the chance of such unpleasant interactions recurring by removing your talk page from my watchlist. . . dave souza, talk 19:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This whole section borders on absurd. For example, the suggestion that because I responded to KDP's pleas, and the pleas of others that Mark be given some guidance about reliable sources and about not calling things vandalism inappropriately he's somehow part of a cabal with me... beggars belief. I think this RfC has degenerated into a farce (if it ever wasn't one, although I treated it seriously as we always should do with RfCs), with Polargeo acting out his animus with one wild allegation after another. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The attempt to provide statistical proof of "cadre" behaviour is itself absurd, and this whole section mirrors that absurdity. Hope you can accept that. . dave souza, talk 19:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Stifle (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

I contend that nothing productive is going to come of this RFC. It has now degenerated into petty mudslinging, and all hope of a peaceful resolution has been lost. There is also no clear consensus here, nor do I feel that one will develop in the forseeable future. Therefore, in a manner consistent with the guidelines for closure at WP:RFC/U, I hereby move that we close this RFC. The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

13 edits to the RfC yesterday is not yet "inactivity", when activity on the main page (not the talk) has truly been low for a bit longer then this is worth considering. Also whether to take this to another venue is worth considering. Polargeo (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If i'm not mistaken you've already indicated your plan to escalate this to arbcom. If so you have your checkbox next to RFC attempted. Might as well get on with it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That is fair for you to say that but it is not truly reflective of my thoughts. I am still open to all possibilities. Polargeo (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How about you dropping the whole thing as a bad job, and I in turn will undertake to be more scrupulous about keeping to the guidelines in place about involvement, and I will try harder to not allow myself to be baited into inappropriate responses going forward? Are you open to that possibility? ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

13 edits, 0 edits which are working towards a solution. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Second Motion to close, with recommendation that the complainants have a cupcake. Collect (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

@Lar it is not up to me individually. But I would accept you not commenting on CC content issues in general or making wide ranging accusations about cadres whilst acting as an uninvolved admin in any particular case. Also there are situations where you have favoured or gone against certain editors such as WMC or Cla which has brought about the perception of bias. I actually think if you were to set an example and recuse on cases involving these editors where your personal feelings run so strongly other admins would follow your lead. Polargeo (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur with closing; waste of time to continue. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with closing this. --John (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of uninvolved editors who have endorsed SBHB's summary. So there's real substance here. I think we should give Lar a little more time to respond to the opinions of a portion of the community. An RFC poses the question to an editor "how do you propose to address these concerns?" In response to similar concerns, he recently promised to bring back "good Lar". I'd hate to think that was an empty promise. This is the second venue in which editors have raised concerns like these. It's about time he addressed them in a substantive fashion. Guettarda (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The undertaking given by Lar in the comment above dated 16:18, 7 May 2010, goes a significant way to agreeing to meet the concerns expressed. I would hope that being more scrupulous about keeping to the guidelines in place about involvement would include meeting the recommendations in Outside view by Sandstein, in particular regarding displaying "the detachment required to be perceived as impartial". Hipocrite's endorsement of 12:17, 4 May 2010, refers to Arbcom stating "... administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator’s position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention..." Does anyone have a link to that Arbcom statement? . . dave souza, talk 19:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Avoiding_apparent_impropriety. Hipocrite (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to respectfully disagree with The Wordsmith, Stifle, and John. I see evidence of a good deal of participation from uninvolved editors, and several of those have endorsed SBHB's statement. These editors do agree that the RFC is not baseless, and therefore this RFC should be left open for the standard time (1 month) to ensure that all appropriate feedback is given. NW (Talk) 21:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose closing. I have been busy and have still to digest. No reason this should be closed any shortert than the one month duration. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

We tend to let these run 30 days... so that seems the thing to do. I do thank those who suggest it be closed early though. ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No reason not to let it run in my view, particularly given Lar's suggested resolution above. Avoiding being baited is the part I find the most reassuring; he's acknowledging that it happens, which is much more than what I expect the subject of an RfC to do. Yes, there's a fair amount of mudslinging, but at the end of the day if the subject agrees that he could do things differently I think something good has come of it. You need a super-thick skin to be an admin in this particular area, and I'd prefer not to remove one of the few who is willing if possible.--~TPW 20:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

New view by 2/0

In his edit 2/0 said it was important if Lar had prior disagreement with WMC before starting to act as an uninvolved enforcement admin on his case. Advocating that WMC is blocked.

• [61] 13 September 2009 Usertalk WMC. Relating to the fact the Lar unilaterally undid the close by MZMcBride [62] by another admin of an MfD on one of WMC’s userpages. Polargeo (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Before and after undoing the close Lar participated in the discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff advocating deletion of the userpage. Symptomatic of Lar's dual role wrt WMC. Polargeo (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• [63] A lovely example of Lar taunting WMC in saying he regrets that Cla wasn't elected but rejoicing in the landslide against WMC - 23 December 2009 Polargeo (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Seems to just back the whole pro Cla anti WMC bias argument. Polargeo (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I forgot that gem - I found [64] to be about a million times worse. Hipocrite (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! Polargeo (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

But Lar started the page Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/William M. Connolley/Questions for the candidate on 17 November [65] so what does that mean? If you follow that diff and scroll down he also asked WMC a whole mass of questions many of them extremely leading questions which IMO appear designed to trash the application. how does this square with his later mockery? Polargeo (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't let the facts get in the way of a conspiracy theory there.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe those were form questions. Hipocrite (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but Lar chose to mock WMC. Lar is creating his own conspiracy. Polargeo (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Do what you want, however if I were you I'd strike the entire 19:39 comment because it makes no sense given the actual facts.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is begining to look like Lar started having an issue with WMC in September over unhappines with WMC's criticism of Arbcom decisions on WMC's user subpage Polargeo (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Started? Guettarda (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know for sure. But from his offwiki reply on wikipedia review it looks likely that Lar came to this enforcement in the first instance with the preconceived intention of dealing with WMC and his "cabal" and certainly not to hammer the skeptics. But maybe I am reading far too much into his comment [66] to Cla's post on wikipedia review - 4 Jan. However, when Lar is involved in several offwiki conversations with Cla and Abd and several others who have a grudge against WMC I am not surprised this has reinforced Lar's opinions. Polargeo (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• [67] It appears to be this anti WMC discussion “Abd-WMC The cabal strikes back” on Wikipedia review that led to Lar reopening Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff (Lar’s post Sun 13th September 2009, 5:11pm) Polargeo (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• the correct link to wikipedia review: [68]. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

On a more positive note

I don't know enough about the history to be able to say knowledgeably whether or not I agree with what 2/0 suggested doing, but on the face of it, it sounds like a very intelligent way towards what could be a positive and fair outcome. So please let me ask: Lar, what do you think about 2/0's opinion? Do you see it as something you could agree to, or not? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be a start but recognising he has come to enforcement with an agenda and that he should no longer act as an uninvolved admin would be better. I really was hoping to find compromise until I started to find more evidence of Lar's bias in this area (sections above). Polargeo (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The more I see the complainants stepping in like this, the less sympathetic I become to their complaints. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A response to the view by 2/0

Since I was asked to respond I shall. I thank 2/0 for his thoughtful commentary but I am afraid I cannot agree with much of it. Point by point (note that I have elided some of the points)

1. "I think, for the sake of propriety, it would be best if you refrained from commenting at the probation page while there is a good faith discussion of your actions in this area"

   I don't think that would be a good idea at this time. The number of admins is just too small. With the recent attempt to sanction LHvU as well, there is a severe lack of balance. So, no.

2. "dredge up an old case" about KDP

   I'd have to look at it all again but I don't think someone starting the talk page discussion, helpful as that is, mitigates other transgressions... we've seen "I took it to talk" used as a tactic when the "talk" that was started consisted of "you should learn to read" and similar comments. I don't remember the details and KDP may not have been doing that in that particular case. Call that one a wash.

3. "Whatever you think is the truth of the matter, grouping editors together and referring to them as a cabal (or cadre or anything else) is not productive."

   The problem here is that there IS such a grouping. Statistical analysis aside, we have time and again, over the course of a number of years, seen this phenomenon of a group of editors coming to the aid of each other without regard to the actual facts of the matter. Meatball:DefendEachOther is a good principle, but it does not refer to reflex action. See the views of MZMcBride, Horologium and Sxeptomaniac... this group exists, regardless of denial, regardless of what term you use. Failing to recognise this is a failure to come to grips with the problem. Yes there are others, but this one is the one that causes more problems than random deniers. So, no.

4. "You use the phrase levelling the playing field quite frequently, but I confess I have never been quite clear on what you think is wrong "

   If there is a group that comes together to sway discussions and falsify consensus, and worse, who generally throw their weight around and belittle others, that's an unlevel field. That's wrong. What to do about it? Don't let the group get away with it. So, no.

5. The "socially inept" diff.

   OK. That was the middle of a rather long exchange. I acknowledge I need to do better. So, yes.

6. " socio-political topic area with a grounding in science" or "scientific topic area with socio-political consequences" and please stop talking about it...

   OK. I think my views on content are a distraction repeated too many times, yes. But they were brought out in the first place to answer "Lar is a skeptic" charges. (which is nonsense) and "so what do you think is wrong with the articles, then" questions. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Call that a wash.

7. "insulate yourself a bit better "

   OK... not sure exactly what is meant but I will keep it in mind.

So... some agreement but some of the more important stuff I differ on, I'm afraid. I still thank 2/0 for the view, even if I don't agree. It's far closer to a useful view than, say, SBHB's, which is pretty party line.

What next? I'm willing to acknowledge I am imperfect. I think more willing than many, actually. But I am not involved. Having a content view about a topic is not involvement. Having a view about unacceptable behaviour is not involvement. Even having previous encounters with a particular person is not involvement. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

seen this phenomenon of a group of editors coming to the aid of each other without regard to the actual facts of the matter - please clarify that you do not include me in this group or show examples where I "time and again" come to the aid of others "without regard to the actual facts of the matter". I'll also note that SHBS has the largest number of endorsers, including quite a few I've not seen in the CC articles (or anywhere). I think it would be good if you took his observations seriously. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know if I'm in the group also, as I'm reasonably confident that my proposed solution to this area is far, far from the stance of these others. I'd also like my "time and again" come to the aid of others "without regard to the actual facts of the matter", just so I can correct any problems with my editing. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who asked you this, and I want to thank you for answering specifically and thoughtfully. I have a few comments and follow-ups. It seems to me that the areas where there is now disagreement about 2/0's view are points 1, 3, and 4. (Point 2 seems to me not to be central to the present RfC.)

With respect to point 7, you said that you were not sure what precisely it means. My reading of it is a suggestion to be willing to make your point once, and then not to reply to further comments from the other side (not get in the last word), in the sense of (my formulation, no one else's) a sort of not feeding the high-functioning troll. In case that helps.

With respect to point 1, that was something that made me uncomfortable myself when I first read 2/0's view. There is clearly a concern among some editors who have commented that we should be careful not to let administrators be gamed out of participation. With respect to points 3 and 4, though, I have a suggestion and a follow-up question. It seems to me that it is possible, and potentially useful, to refrain from saying explicitly that there is a cabal and saying that there is a need to level the field, even when one is concerned that there is a cabal and an unlevel field, and one is working to level that field. In my own small experience, I have found it constructive to refrain from saying that other editors have a POV even when I find it obvious that they do. So I will ask: what would be your opinion of refraining from explicitly using that language, while still taking part in such a way as to continue to do the work that you have been doing? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I've made my point on points 3 and 4 at this point, as you pointed out. So it would seem pointless to keep reiterating it if everyone knows by now. So, sure. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually "needless, especially in view of point 7, to... " rather than "pointless to..." but I could not resist using "point" in there one more time. Being excessively clever in phrasing is one of my vices. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not so naive as to think that this will satisfy everyone, but I would suggest that neutral editors might feel that this has been constructive going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. One can hope. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe take another look at that point about getting in the last word. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Even when I'm agreeing with you? Oops, I did it again. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Lar, "we have time and again, over the course of a number of years, seen this phenomenon of a group of editors coming to the aid of each other without regard to the actual facts of the matter." Yes, I've seen that sort of thing being generated by offwiki discussions on WR with the aim of discrediting editors working to show mainstream scientific views of pseudoscience. Hope that's not been happening here. The suggestion that experienced mainstream editors should be perceived as a group "that causes more problems than random deniers" implies a bias against accurate coverage of science, which from your other statements I'm sure is not your intent. Your comments belittle such editors, as shown by the responses from Stephan Schulz and Hipocrite, and more care with throwing your weight around would be appropriate. Tryptofish makes a sound point that it is "constructive to refrain from saying that other editors have a POV even when I find it obvious that they do", and it would be helpful going forward if you can show similar restraint when acting as an uninvolved admin. . .dave souza, talk 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While I feel you've spun things around (massively) badly, I would like to stop discussing this. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary "so I will" suggests that you will stop discussing this going forward, and on that basis I'm glad to drop the matter. Of course if you raise it again, then it is likely to be challenged. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"I've seen that sort of thing being generated by offwiki discussions on WR with the aim of discrediting editors working to show mainstream scientific views of pseudoscience." Frankly, I believe that's utterly false, and anyone who's spent much time reading Wikipedia Review threads would know it. By far, most active editors on WR very much want to see articles accurately reflect mainstream science (there are some pseudoscience supporters that come around, but they tend to not be very popular). What they don't like is seeing "science" used as a justification for repugnant behavior.

You really should drop the WR bogeyman routine. It's worn out, and was never particularly effective anyway, as people tend to eventually check out the site on their own, and find out just how bogus the scary stories are. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You've given several examples of what is not involvement, so just what is involvement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.81.172 (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Closing

It's getting to about that point (maybe another week) where the RfC should be closed. Generally, requests for comment are simply closed and left as is. However, since this is clearly a matter where all parties want some sort of resolution, I feel that a closing statement by an uninvolved editor would be a good idea. I would volunteer to write such a summary, but this decision is entirely up to Lar. NW (Talk) 18:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Closing as-is may be the best course. As you note, RFCs generally do not achieve any sort of resolution and are essentially the Wiki version of Festivus. No matter what the closing statement says, someone is going to argue with it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that much of this RfC (but not all) is moot, now that more and more ArbCom members have been coming out and emphatically stating that I'm not involved. NW, thanks for your offer, I'll give it careful consideration but my selection criteria involve evaluation of bias, not just uninvolvement. I'm no longer sure you are unbiased. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Closed

I have closed and archived this RfC. By Lar's request above, I have not left a closing summary. I encourage Lar to read the RfC in detail and take the advice given to him about his manner of writing to heart. Hopefully, a common agreement will be reached here, if not, I would advise taking the matter to arbitration again after the current request page is cleared. NW (Talk) 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked a different admin to take a stab at a close but that didn't happen, perhaps due to time. Perhaps they will still reconsider, some summation would be good. I just didn't think you were capable of giving an unbiased one.

I'll see your admonishment and raise you... I think everyone active in the GW area (articles and enforcement) needs to read that RfC carefully, because it surfaces rather a lot of troublesome behavior by rather a lot of folk. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I find disconcerting about your behavior - making some unspecific accusations that leave a big back door for plausible deniability, but support a climate of bad faith and paranoia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. Seriously, until you completely repudiate use of milliLar, (and perhaps even apologize directly to me for introducing that astonishingly bad faith usage, if you have the introspective capacity to realize just how unacceptable it is, which I frankly doubt) you have no standing to comment. None. I read the RfC. I thought about it. I stand behind my response to it, which is that while I am imperfect, the matters raised are mostly false and appear more like an attempt to push out an admin that is unfavorable to your side of things than an honest attempt to work with me to make this a better project. If not, then why did MZM's view get so many endorses? Why did mine? No matter, this will all be before ArbCom soon enough. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh, to me it looks like Lar just doesn't like being told what to do or think. Understandably. Most of us don't. Seriously, I don't think this (or any) RfC requires a summary by anyone (whether admin or not). People have commented. Lar has read it. Time to move on. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitely seems as though Lar has drawn his own conclusions which are backed up by his core supporters. He seems to think that arbcom have said he is not involved but as that simply was not addressed in full by this RfC and not backed up by arbcom with any ruling I think that remains for another day, other forums and depends on the situation. Polargeo (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as confused as ever, eh Polargeo? ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yep. I admit to being imperfect (Something many of my detractors are incapable of, apparently), and admit I could do better in how I respond to provocation. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No Lar. I am very very imperfect but in situations where I have an interest that renders me not neutral I do not act as an uninvolved admin. Polargeo (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Which is what I've been doing here. You're running out of sea room on this. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is time for you to stop pushing your agenda as an uninvolved admin and let other truly neutral admins control the situation. Or do you think that you cannot possibly let go until certain users are banned and your goals have been achieved? Polargeo (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC) After all I would not insult a user and then act as uninvolved myself. You have gone way too far. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to reuse that one example? Asked and answered already. You are peddling the same overblown stuff you started out peddling. I note you and WMC got no endorses, at all. Doesn't that tell you something? I'm done, you can have the last word if you want, because I'm not going to redo this whole RfC in one thread, thanks very much. Your view just isn't widely held. ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you simply going to ignore facts. No matter how you try to dress it up that one example was never presented on the main page of this RfC because it has only come to light since I presented my case. Polargeo (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC is closed, let it stay closed please. If there are some concerns in the feature, a new one could be requested, but now I believe it should be let go.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay however, the most widely supported view in the RfC stated that Lar may be acting within the rules but is not acting within the spirit of the rules (and that is without all evidence being presented as I have just outlined). If this is taken as a carte blanche to continue as if nothing had happened then that is very sad. Polargeo (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed closing summary

Lar did ask me if I would write a closing summary (and I agreed), but it appears I got caught up in other drama and forgot about this. So, I propose the following closure. I am involved in this RFC so I won't impose it unilaterally, but I think it is a compromise that we can all live with.

While I don't think anyone will truly be happy with this closing statement, I think it is something we can all live with, and will help to reduce the long-term drama. Would anyone care to endorse this? The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't a closing summary come from somebody who has not entered a statement in the RfC? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that is why Wordsmith has prepared it, but not placed it on project page (see their opening remarks). Writing RFC closing summaries is hardly anyone's idea of a good time, so I'm sure any potential uninvolved closer appreciates this draft - at the very least as a a framework upon which to build. –xeno^talk 15:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but it is being suggested as the basis for discussion. I don't see what's stopping another administrator, who presented a different position in the text, proposing another closing statement, and then a free-for-all ensues. It would have been better if an uninvolved administrator made a statement that was a basis for discussion. Otherwise we're sort of back to square one. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is to stop anyone else from proposing a different close, but I don't think anyone will. Everyone just wants to be done with this matter, and I do try to be fair in my judgments. I think participants will recognize that this is about as accurate a summary as they're going to get, given the apparent lack of consensus. The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Another alternative would not be a bad idea. I don't like the idea of a participant's draft being used as the basis for discussion. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I can't help but note the irony of much of the RFC centering around Lar's involvement despite his strong expressions of partisanship, and the RFC then being closed by an admin who made strongly partisan statements during the RFC. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a fair summary of the RfC. I doubt that any other admin would summarize it much better. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with this summary. Those who expressed concern over Lar's behavior and actions cited a range of problems. Lar's interaction with WMC was not a major point of their concerns, yet for some reason it receives much of the emphasis in the closing summary. Furthermore the "science cabal" is singled out as the only putative faction, not recognizing that similar concerns have been raised over behavior of the WR/contrarian axis. But most of all, having the close summarized by someone who is a strong supporter of one of the parties and openly antagonistic toward another is wholly inappropriate. If a reasonably neutral closer does not step up (not perfectly neutral, but reasonably neutral) the RfC should simply be closed without a summary. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's a fair summary. Cla68 (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Cla and JWB, it's a fair summary. Perhaps we should start another RFC to decide what the summary should be? Do you guys ever give up? ATren (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
• The summary goes into far too much speculation and wild conjecture. The Wordsmith is also too involved as an admin in this area to make a closing statment. No closing statement would be better than conjecture by an admin so involved. Polargeo (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Given that these comments on the close fall exactly on the same lines as the RfC itself, I'd suggest a fair closure would be one that all whine or that none whines about. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    • A participant in an RfC should in no way even contemplate providing a closing statement (this is a big mistake by The Wordsmith) and it would be disturbing if any uninvolved admin even tried to use this as a draft on this basis. Polargeo (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact it is indicative of the super powers that admins who have never edited a CC article seem to think they have in this area. Polargeo (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this: The point being raised is that the closing statement is written by an admin who strongly advocated on behalf of one side in the RFC. What if the "GWcab" (as Cla68 calls us) nominates an admin of their choice to review the statement? Any disagreements can be worked out between those two admins. I have to reiterate that for a partisan in the RFC to attempt a first-mover advantage as done here is exceptionally bad form. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Such bad form it should be thrown out and ignored. Nominating admins by either side should not happen. Polargeo (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK then, let's have another RFC to decide how to close this RFC, and that new RFC will surely generate more conflict and heat, all directed at Lar, until the point where he just gives up and goes away, just like all the other admins who have been intimidated away from this topic area when they don't agree with the status quo. ATren (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

@ATren, you don't agree with the status quo and you hang on to Lar's every move and back him up even when he does not wish to be backed up. This is not about your personal preferences though. Polargeo (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, I really don't care whether the people here think i'm biased or not. I spent a considerable amount of time reading and rereading every single comment, and I believe my proposal to be fairly representative of the comments made. Your opinion may vary. Note that I did not close the RFC with this summary. I merely proposed a summary, which is well within the bounds of involvedness. Anyway, the RFC is already closed. If nobody else wants to make a summary, then let's just walk away. I really don't know what you want out of this. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think any admin who takes up my request below would find your summary very useful. Thanks for taking on yet another thankless task here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think this thread shows that there are several editors at least (and probably at least several more) who will not accept Wordsmith as a closer. The lack of trust around WP:GSCC is just that bad. It seems to me that the reasonable next step is to request for another admin who is uninvolved and not either a sharp enemy or a friend of anyone involved here to do the closure and look over Wordsmith's conclusions. So I asked User:DGG (here [69]) He's someone I respect, although we're not friends, and I don't think he has any connections that would interfere with this. If he can't do it, let's just ask others who aren't friends or enemies of major participants here and are otherwise uninvolved. Any objections? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Certainly, another option is to just let this thing list in the water like some ghost ship, an ugly monument to a hellish little corner of Wikipedia and a warning to others. That serves a purpose, and I'm fine with that, too. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Later note: Apparently DGG also participated in this one. I didn't catch that (shoulda checked). So nix that request. There must be some other admin out there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

John please be balanced, please. This has nothing to do with lack of trust, nothing at all. The Wordsmith was a major participant in the RfC. He simply should not close it per normal decorum. Not by anyone's standards. Polargeo (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A closing statement is not really needed as there is an arbcom case that can look at this RfC objectively without closing statements. If anything the closing statement should simply point to the arbcom case. Polargeo (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I draw your attention to the fact that I have not closed it. Nuclear Warfare (talk · contribs) closed it. I just wrote a summary for the participants to think about.

Good, then I draw your attention to the fact that neither of you should write an official closing summary of the sort you have written above. But especially you (The Wordsmith) as a participant in the RfC. Where as NW is not. I may as well summarize the whole thing myself. Polargeo (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, feel free to waste your time writing up a summary, but you'll get more objections than we've seen so far to Wordsmith's work. But you know that, so why would you just stir the pot further with this odd suggestion? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a waste of time for Polargeo to attempt to write a summary. His draft summary would be no less legitimate. Since no uninvolved administrator seems inclined to write one, that seems to be the fairest outcome. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this isn't going anywhere useful. Charging TWS with being a "strong supporter" of mine and "openly antagonistic" to someone else (who?) is really pretty ridiculous. TWS's view dinged me pretty hard, as I recall, but I nevertheless endorsed it because he was being fair and balanced. I suspect DGG's wouldn't meet with my approval so round and round we go. We could have several summaries written I guess... link to them all from the front. Leave it to ArbCom. I got some useful input out of this RfC. I think that's about the best you can hope for in any RfC. ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Wordsmith did a very good job with a very difficult task. Given that it is highly unlikely that any summary will really be able to reach broad consensus, maybe we should forgo having one, and just leave it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I do try to be objective and even-handed. Its a shame that nobody can recognize this because of their own positions on the issue. On Wikipedia Review, I am smeared as part of the pro-WMC/anti-skeptic cabal. Here, i'm called "openly antagonistic" towards WMC. The real truth is somewhere in the middle, and I don't appreciate insinuations about my own biases. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that you must be doing something right! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

When you take the middle ground, you tend to get stones chucked your way from both sides. Cyberbalkanized areas are not pleasant for moderates to step into. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is heading to arbitration anyway so might be best to just archive, acknowledge polarisationa and move discussion to various climate change pages. At least there there are some referees...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia Review, I am smeared as part of the pro-WMC/anti-skeptic cabal Getting smeared at Wikipedia Review is just a rite of passage as a Wikipedia editor grows in wisdom and experience. Personally, I wish I'd been smeared with a bit more gusto, but I'll have to take what they serve up. Believe me, you're just a nobody until somebody at WR has at least made an unfair criticism or a snide remark about you. There's gotta be a user box somewhere for this kind of thing. And the chicks dig the scars. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I just find it funny that each faction thinks i'm part of the other one. I did register an account at WR so I can defend my integrity, but it hasn't been validated by an administrator yet. Anyway, that is neither here nor there. This line of discussion isn't very productive as far as this RFC goes, so if anyone wants to discuss my own biases then they are certainly welcome to do so at my User talkpage. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck with defending yourself there. Stick to the dry facts, be quick about it and expect no fair treatment. That's my advice. Oh, and keep your fingers away from the bars. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that folks like JWB and Cla think its fair, whilst Boris thinks not, makes the fairness entirely clear. I agree with Boris. Also, I don't think that whinging about how people see you on WR has any relevance at all here. Lar admits that his behaviour has been imperfect - this is meaningless. Lar has admitted this, only in the sense of "we are all imperfect" - ie, it is no admission at all. Also, I think the assessment of the "Lar position" vs the "Boris position" is biased; the "Lar position" is summarised as "not invovled; wide support" whereas as the Boris view is summarised as "suggesting that Lar's conduct does indeed need improvement". A fair rather than biased appraisal of that would have been "suggesting that Lar is involved". I have a good faith belief that - your personal beliefs have no place in making the close. In short, this proposed close is badly broken and should be rejected William M. Connolley (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why William M. Connolley, I do believe you've just personally attacked me. Tell me, do you do this often? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

TWS tried hard to be balanced. You've done nothing to be balanced in your commentary. NOBODY endorsed your view. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lar#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary. Nary a one. That tells me something. I realize it may not tell you anything, though. As I said, I've taken feedback on board from this, and that's about the best that can be hoped for. The ArbCom case hopefully will sort out some of the issues. Or not. But I think we're done here. I again thank TWS for taking a shot at closing this in a way that was balanced, even if it didn't meet with universal approval. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes but you still ignore the fact that the most supported view in the RfC said that your involvement was not within the spirit of the rules and based on previous arbcom rulings in the area that simply is not good enough for you to just continue with the existing majority disquiet about your motives and tactics. Also the killer facts about your previous non-admin negative involvement with WMC only came late in the day on the talkpage so were never presented on the main page. These can provide a very reasonable case in their own right for you never acting as an admin with regard to WMC, even without any of the information presented here being included. Polargeo (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, I think I hear a whining sound. Do you hear it, too? One would think you had no idea there's an ArbCom case coming up. One would think you had no plans to dump your diffs and complaints there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why JWB, I do believe you've just personally attacked PG. Tell me, do you do this often? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Connolley: Physician, heal thyself! ... ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I know, he's not an MD, but it's just too good a quote

Why Lar, I do believe you've just been snarky and wasted people's time. Tell me, do you do this often? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If giving you behavioral advice in the hope that you will do a bit of introspection, and see what the negative impact of your inappropriate behaviour is... if that is a waste of time, then yes, I wasted some time. If on the other hand you are open to input, then no. As for how often I do it... I perhaps too often assume the best and make the effort when a more pragmatic person would already have written off the troublemaker and moved on. But I do continue to hope. Perhaps foolishly. Hope that helps clarify matters for you. Because scanning this subthread will reveal to even the most casual reader that you are the most disruptive and snarky participant in it. You should change your approach. Although even advice from your friends doesn't seem to have any effect. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I missed Lar did ask me if I would write a closing summary earlier. I think that speaks volumes, too William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

@John. Thanks for the advice about the arbcom. Though your comment was about two hours too late because I have already presented evidence to such effect at the arbcom case. I just don't want people to be mislead by the various attempts at spin going on here which appear to be trying to make it look like Lar is exonerated by the RfC with only a minor gripe or two which he has taken on board by saying he is not perfect. We are all not perfect but we are not all acting as uninvolved admins in a way that can be construed as showing clear bias. Polargeo (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• This seems like a nice, balanced summary of the RfC. That nobody endorsed the filer is noteworthy. It would be good to think that the community as a whole could learn from this huge dramafest, if the findings of this and the Arbcom could be filtered into WP:INVOLVED somehow. --John (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think that there is a problem with this summary in that if one correlates the acceptors/rejectors of the summary with positions in the RfC - then a pattern arises. Summaries of an RfC that is roughly split down the middle either be generally accepted or equally rejected by the lines drawn in the RfC. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Apart from the procedural issue (an involved administrator, at the request of the subject, proposing a closing statement for this RfC), I think that there are substantive reasons to object to this proposed closing statement. It bends over backwards toward leniency, gives excessive weight to the failure to endorse the initial statement, and insufficient weight to the Short Brigade Harvester Boris statement, which received the largest number of endorsers. The "cabal" allegation should have been more firmly rejected. The lack of endorsements of the initial statement proved that there is no "cabal." The statement is, in general, mealy-mouthed and speculative. The fact that no uninvolved administrator would step up to the plate on this indicates what a hot potato this subject area is. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • What, still talking about this? Well, could you elaborate on how The lack of endorsements of the initial statement proved that there is no "cabal."? I think there was plenty of endorsement of the notion that there's something funny going on... look at how many endorsements MZM's view got. I think just counting noses and saying "28 endorsements proves something while 25 endorsements proves nothing" is missing the point. If I had canvassed I expect I could have gotten my view to be the most highly endorsed. So what? Proves nothing. There is a division in this area and the views, the endorsements and the discussion here all line up in accordance. This RfC was a farce. It appears to have been started out of animus, and it's wasted a lot of time to no good result (except to bring into sharper focus some of the issues and some of the players team markings that may not have been previously clear). Nevertheless I did try hard to find useful constructive input to take away from it, but that apparently wasn't good enough for some. Leave it to arbcom. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that if there was a "cabal," a group of editors who reflexively endorse each others views, you'd have seen endorsements by members of the cabal. To me this is a slam dunk. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Alternatively, they're not stupid, and cross endorsing each others outside views, mixed in with the innocent bystanders who didn't know better and were drawn in, might have been viewed as a more effective tactic than being the only endorses in a view that was way over the top. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I guess that's one possible hypothesis, but it presupposes a degree of collusion and bad faith that I view as far-fetched. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
          • • Again, see MZM's view. No one endorsing that view found the notion that there is a group of editors acting to protect each other far fetched. So... not sure what to tell you. You're probably one of the innocent bystanders though if it's any consolation. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
              • Yes I saw his/her view. MZM said don't all show up to the same discussions, support each other unconditionally, and then expect nobody to notice. But that doesn't make any sense. Nobody supported the initial statement, so obviously people didn't support each other unconditionally, and it logically follows that there is no "cabal" (unless the cabal conspired to not support the initial statement, as you suggested). ScottyBerg (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
          • I actually view Lar as an inocent bystander who has been drawn in and now is sticking to his convictions despite all evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately Lar carries more admin weight than your average uninformed bystander and other users are clinging on to him like limpits. I invite JWB to cite this diff as another Polargeo disruptive comment. Polargeo (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
            • It's not disruptive. It's just not very perceptive. Doesn't fit the evidence well. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
              • Of course you regard criticism of your actions as not very perceptive. However, this is not the place for self appraisals. Polargeo (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)