Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:21, 2 June 2010

This is the talk page for discussing General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:GS/CC/RE

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Sanctions, especially bans or blocks, should not be based on edits made before the beginning of this probation?

I draw your attention to this edit Sanctions, especially bans or blocks, should not be based on edits made before the beginning of this probation by Cenarium. This seems to me to be a good principle. Discuss William M. Connolley (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What is past is prologue. Searching for patterns and behavioral styles can go back further, yes, but the sanctions should be based on actions after the start of the probation. Why do you ask? Do you think there's been marked improvement in your behavior since the start of the probation? ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Current actions are different from past enforcement history, the former is material to bring cause, the latter is referable. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Per my 'If we block for historical bad edits, where is the incentive for an editor to contribute in a policy compliant way now?' rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Numerous diffs brought up during the FS case were from before the probation William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

To evidence an allegation of continuing issues - which in part is why I feel your withdrawal from the article is appropriate - with the same subject. You get sanctioned, or not, for returning in an alleged non appropriate manner to an area where you have previously been seen as having issues, not for those historic issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. TW certainly disagrees; his close is based on pre-probation diffs. Much of the discussion around this RFE was based on pre-probation diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

An analogy; person X is believed to have vandalised Z car previously, and there are some disputed eyewitness accounts of same. The case does not proceed because of lack of reliable evidence. Should person X then be found to have subsequently to have caused some minor damage to Z car, the excuse of "I only kicked the tyres a little" does not suffice for a penalty not be applied. The apparent subsequent behaviour indicates that there may have been substance to the earlier issues, and that that problem still exists. It is, however, wrong to penalise person X for the broken headlight that happened previously. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.) WMC, there were three groups of edits which concerned me: (1) the Martian edits from 2008, (2) the critical material sourced to RealClimate (2009), and (3) the addition of a link to a personal website which contained personal information on Singer (2009). As you say, these were all from before the probation, but it was never clear to me whether you considered them to be inappropriate (then or now). And if you don't consider them inappropriate, my concern is that you might do it again. So in the spirit of moving forward, perhaps you can acknowledge that you recognize the problem with those edits, and commit to avoiding such edits in the future. And in that case I will have no objection to you further editing Singer or any BLP. ATren (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This really seems the crux. We want better editing going forward. The edits in the past are deficient. Regardless of whether the more recent edits are or not. The questions are to WMC: Do you agree with the generally accepted view that the edits are deficient? Do you think your editing in this area will no longer be deficient in the way those were? Do you understand and accept that others have concerns, and accept the validity of them? That's the heart of the matter, not sparring and faffing about. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you right now that #2 isn't (RC is an RS on non-BLP material, and the material was non-BLP) and #3 wasn't discovered until very recently despite that a multitude of editors of opposing viewpoints have seen it. #1 is very much debatable - its a context issue - there is no doubt that Singer at the time expressed that Mars might be artificial, and there is also no doubt that the article at no point in its history has stated that "Singer believes in martians" (no matter how formulated). #1 is not a BLP issue - but may be a due weight one. You will have to explain how they are deficient in specifics here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we please discuss of WMC or any editor, edits, etc on the RFE page itself, to avoid splitting discussions and because it's where it should be discussed. With respect to this procedural point, I think it's a direct corollary of the probation terms (2nd point) "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions;...", it follows under basic due process that edits made before the beginning of the probation can't be hold against a user as basis for a sanction since the warning could not have been given before those edits. See also non-retroactivity. Cenarium (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have WMC answer the questions asked. Here or on the main page, as he finds convenient. I am less happy to have KDP running interference. To be clear, I'm not saying WMC is sanctionable for edits made before the probation started. I merely want to know if he understands that many folk find his edits of Singer (in general) deficient, and if he agrees, and if he thinks he is doing better now, or about the same, or worse, or what. KDP's smokescreens notwithstanding, that's the crux. ++Lar: t/c 00:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: I'm rather unamused by the assumptions of bad faith expressed both here, on Lar's talkpage and on the main page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have WMC answer the questions asked - I think it is regrettable that Lar, and ATren, are seeking repeatedly to derail this discussion. The question here is, "do edits before the probation count", not "are there any edits before the probation you'd like explained". If yuo'd like the second question answered, start you own section William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

An entire section is not necessary, it's been asked of you in the "Request for revert of The Wordsmith's close of case "William M. Connolley" section on the project page. You can answer there. Until you do answer, completely and without evasion or prevarication, I oppose revision of the sanction in question. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes, edits before the probation period count, but not so much that they count all on their own. By that I mean the probation didn't give any editor who had a persistent problem a clean slate. If an editor makes a mistake, ok, correct the editor. But if it is the tenth time and it just so happens that the other nine times were before probation started, then that would be evidence of a pattern, rather than a one-off mistake, and those two different motivations should be treated differently.

So as supporting evidence to show a repeated pattern I think old edits/blocks/warnings/whatevers can be useful, but only to support a current complaint, and only to show an ongoing problem of the kind the current complaint is about. I would take the wording of the probation to mean that no action should be taken solely on anything done before probation was enacted, but I don't think it helps to ignore evidence of a repeated problem, if one exists. Weakopedia (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Applied to the current situation: None of the edits after the probation started are remotely sanctionable, or even remarkable. They are sign of normal editing. WMC actually offered discussion on the talk page. There is no reason for a sanction. I have trouble even understanding why SV made the request, unless we have a failure of WP:AGF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That view is not universally held. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming to reply to me, which parts? None of the edits after the probation started are remotely sanctionable(1), or even remarkable(2). They are sign of normal editing(3). WMC actually offered discussion on the talk page(4). There is no reason for a sanction(5). I have trouble(6) even understanding why SV made the request(7), unless we have a failure of WP:AGF(8). List all that apply. Feel free to expand in case I forgot something. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar, NuclearWarfare, The Wordsmith, Polargeo

(Moved from the requests page to this talk page. NW (Talk) 18:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC) )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandstein, the terms of the probation say that "Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.".

It is not just about convincing one uninvolved administrator to act on their own, it is about trying to establish a community consensus that one uninvolved administrator can act upon.

Your system would mean a bunch of editors adding a comment and moving on, the administrator evaluating all of that and then deciding on which sanction to impose. However if the administrator acted against consensus, then community consensus is all that is needed to reverse their decision. Therefore it is important that the uninvolved administrators are sure there is consensus to begin with, and that is not decided by one uninvolved admin reading a bunch of one-off comments, it is done by interaction and conversation amongst the community.

And what would be the point of your system? Your system doesn't help foster discussion amongst the various parties, it just imposes sanctions. A year from now there will be a list of sanctioned editors, and there will be no more discussion than there was before the sanctions started. But the sanctions aren't intended to be a permanent regulatory framework, they are meant to last only as long as they are needed, and for that you need goals.

The idea should be that discussion on the probation page shows consensus for an uninvolved admin to act, or that the admin can evaluate the whole scenario in such a way as to reasonably infer that their actions would meet a broader community consensus, even if there is no consensus formed on the probation page. But the mechanism of at least trying to establish consensus first isn't voided by the wording of the sanction.

By engaging the participants in discussion you have a chance of establishing civil communication between editors, which is what we need to allow contribution to CC articles. That also means that uninvolved admins need to address the community directly - by engaging in threaded discussion in the admin only section it limits the ability of the community to respond directly to their points.

The probation isn't punitive, it is meant to improve CC articles. Your method means simply sanctioning people til the only ones left are those who will edit entirely within the rules. The other method (and I would say the one the we have been using) is to foster discussion between the various parties, even if that is sometimes futile, in order that some day we can have the discussion part without needing the framework of probation to impose it, and all editors can learn to abide by the rules we have. Weakopedia (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Two other important points - the first is that not everyone who comments on the probation page is an involved editor - disallowing discussion disables concerned and uninvolved editors from contributing to the consensus building process and effectively shuts out the entire community save for the lone uninvolved admin. Which is point two, that until a wider interest is shown amongst administrators towards this probation it would be wrong to put the entire responsibility for establishing community consensus on the small group af administrators who do participate - especially when that group have at times, including in some very recent requests, had rather vocal opinions about each others status as involved or uninvolved. Weakopedia (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Weakopedia's analysis of why Sandstein's view would result in an unworkable system. What we have now at least sort of works. It may be (to paraphrase WC) the worst possible system, except for all the rest, but it does at least sort of work, and most of the enforcements get closed (and stay that way at least in part because consensus was arrived at first). If the narrative at the top is wrong, it should be changed to reflect how things are done. (and changed again if how things are done changes) ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

IS Polargeo involved or uninvolved?

We uninvolved admins have consistently in the past moved Polargeo's comments out of the uninvolved admin section. Things seem to have come to a head today. I'd like to hear from other uninvolved admins about whether they feel their perception of Polargeo has somehow changed. Quick reviews of his contribs show lots of edits in the topic area. Not as many as some, but quite a few. This fits the ArbCom definition of involvement. Comments? ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You have moved my comments twice. I have asked for clarification at the RfC. This page is not the forum for making this decision as much as you may wish this to be the case. Ultimately arbcom will make a ruling on this that will not be based on your personal interpretation of previous arbcom rulings on very different areas of wikipedia. I will as always respect that ruling when it comes. Polargeo (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

But you won't accept their opinions, even if they are pretty clear cut and overwhelmingly one way, short of an actual ruling? Interesting that you're insisting on a ruling. Be careful what you wish for. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your anger. If it is ruled that I should not act as uninvolved I will respect that even though I think it wrong, I am not worried about that at all. Ultimately the strength of wikipedia should be the consideration. I have a clear conscience that I have never acted in a biased way trying to push content but I consider that you have. Polargeo (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo - the issue isn't "involved" or "uninvolved" in a technical sense. It doesn't matter. Once you have been drawn into the debate, it's time to stop acting as an "uninvolved admin". It's not about who can Wikilawyer the best. It's about stepping aside if your actions are doing more to fan the flames than to calm them. Obviously Lar and LHvU should have moved on long ago. But it doesn't help for you to also engage in bad behaviour, just because others are. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If you actually look at my uninvolved comments which were moved by Lar they were calm conciliatory and placid even though the case was against an editor who Lar may be considered to support. For the sake of peace I would happily not make these sort of calm balanced comments if I saw that other admins were making them and that enforcement was in any way balanced and sensible, unfortunately it is not because battle entrenched admins such as Lar appear to bea ruling the roost. Polargeo (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments about that request were calm and concilatory and helpful. They just were in the wrong place, because you are not an uninvolved admin. Comments such as "battle entrenched " and "ruling the roost", on the other hand, are not calm, nor are they conciliatory and they certainly are not helpful. I am becoming increasingly convinced that on balance, you are a net negative to useful progress in the enforcement action pages. ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You're half right, Polargeo is involved. But the fact that you can successfully bait me doesn't make me involved. As for LHvU, you can't really even successfully bait him, so what's the basis for your argument? That he's voted in favor of doing something about WMC more than once? Sorry, that dog don't hunt. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was being supportive of an editor who you yourself appear to support and yet you moved my comments. I think this shows that my judgement has a level of neutrality and fairness that you do not even seem to aspire to Polargeo (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo: I don't think you're judging anger well, I am not angry, merely frustrated. But I sense much anger from you, unless this bluster is your normal tone. But that's not relevant really. What is: I think you should answer my question... you want an actual arbcom ruling and nothing short of that will suffice? Several arbs have opined about CC involvement already... asking for a ruling after that clear guidance shows WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality. Again, be careful what you ask for. As a refresher, here's a quote from Risker, made at the first CC case request:

Coren's summation of "involved admin" is more or less my thinking here; administrators who have been actively and extensively editing in this topic field will generally be considered to be involved, no matter that they may not have edited the specific article that is the current locus of dispute.

Read it. Ponder it. Then decide if you REALLY want a ruling anyway. ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We uninvolved admins - is this the royal we? Who else has? Diffs please William M. Connolley (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Read it, pondered it, and I don't hold a comment by Risker up as some sort of devine proclamation. I don't see that it has made its way into any policy statement yet. Also this is such a large area of wikipedia I don't think this is a useful definition. If we are to take this sort of definition I think sanctions should just be abandoned all together because any admin continually hanging around the area (such as yourself) could be as involved as anyone who has edited one of the thousands of articles on the subject. Just not useful. Polargeo (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to Lar to decide if my comments are involved or not. If anyone had not noticed I am in the midst of a major dispute with Lar. His move of my comments and then revert when I put them back is not supportable. Please return my comments and when an RfC/arbcom ruling is made this matter can be resolved. At present this is simple edit warring by Lar supported by threats to use his admin tools to block me. I feel quite sickened by this gaming. Polargeo (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is decorum, which is something the arbcomm has ruled they expect of admins. Lar fails, IMO. Don't dig yourself into the same hole. Guettarda (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya, there's a lot of that going around. To some admins and ex admins the failure comes naturally. Others such as myself need to be baited into losing their decorum, for the most part. Being baited isn't an excuse, mind, but perhaps if there was less baiting? ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, you edit quite a lot in this area, including recently. That makes you involved. SlimVirgin 16:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo's involvement

This historical revision contains an RFE Polargeo filed against himself. Some quotes from that RFE, in which Polargeo comments on himself in the third person:

• "I think Polargeo is right and I should be banned. The level of the ban is obviously up to uninvolved admins to decide on."
• "I have several times commented as an uninvolved admin when I clearly was involved and therefore should be banned from doing this again, ever. Sorry if this sounds a little strange. I am really genuine about this."
• "I disagree passionately with this probation. I believe it was initially not advertised wide enough to be a proper consensus."
• "My comments in the admin sections are largely to do with a protest against Lar’s involvement but that is not the motivation for this request. The motivation is to bring about a sanction on myself which clears up my involvement status and in extreme prevents me from commenting in the enforcements area altogether which is an area I fundamentally disagree with."
• "I should be banned from ever adding a comment to the section for uninvolved admins on Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. If admins wish to take this further and ban me from ever editing the page Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement then that would be acceptable to me and I would not complain, in fact I think it would help."

There are two possibilities here:

1. If those comments were sincere, then Polargeo himself believes he is involved, and should not be commenting further as an uninvolved in this probation. He was literally asking to be banned.
2. If Polargeo was simply trying to make a point, then he certainly should not be commenting in the uninvolved section, perhaps not at all, because it's clear that his point is that the probation is itself invalid and that he intends to do what he can to disrupt it.

I choose the first interpretation, in the spirit of AGF. But either interpretation leads to the same conclusion: Polargeo should be banned from the uninvolved section at a minimum. ATren (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@ATren. Things have moved on a lot since then. I did not understand how much other admins did not share my personal principles. By the rules of wikipedia I truly believe I am not "involved" in the present case of Marknutley. I suggest you wait for proper rulings resulting from the RfC and arbcom rather than trying to push through your views in a forum that is currently being questioned to this extent. Polargeo (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly has changed that takes you from involved to uninvolved in such a short time? ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with Atren on his overall analysis, lets be honest here. I'm afraid I can't find a more tactful way too say this. Polargeo has been undertaking a campaign against Lar in multiple venues over the past few weeks. Todays events are a progression tactic of this campaign and should be viewed and handled as such.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Without disagreeing or agreeing with you, let's assume you're right, and that Polargeo is undertaking a campaign against Lar in multiple venues. Should Lar be threatening to block someone who is doing that, or should Lar be seeking others to do so instead of him? There are two issues here - should Polargeo be posting in that section, and should Lar be multiply reverting and threatening to block him? My answers are "No" and "No." What are yours? Hipocrite (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Point of information. Your revert count is off. Polargeo and I were at one revert each. he posted in the wrong section, I moved it, he moved it back (first revert by him) to the wrong section, and I moved it back to the correct section (first revert by me). At that point I started the thread here on talk. Polargeo is engaged in some sort of disruption campaign, for whatever reason, but let's not falsely accuse him of multiple reverts. One each, he and I. ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Past practice has always been that we don't allow people to game the system by picking a fight with an admin and then saying that means they're involved.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's true that we don't allow people to game the system by trying to pick a fight with someone and saying that makes them involved. I contend that past practice is not that succeding in picking a fight with someone allows them to remain uninvolved. When Lar threatened to block Polargeo if Polargeo reverted Lar's decision that Polargeo was involved, as opposed to seeking outside support for his decision, he lost his "You can't bait me into wrong actions" mantle. It is not appropriate admin behavior to escalate dispuites by multiply reverting people and threatening to block them. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless that persons behavior appropriately deserves reversion and possible blocking.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, are you arguing that Lar edit-warring on the page and threatening to block another admin is the optimal action, or would him tagging the problematic content and seeking other opinions have been a better action? Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing that arguing about the minutia of the problem is falling into the game Polargeo's playing. As I said, this isn't a natural dispute, it's a tactic.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The users who told Lar to find a better solution than edit warring were me and Thparkth. I, of course, am part of the evil group of people hell-bent on having an encyclopedia that accurately reflects the best sources out there. How exactly is Thparkth aligned with Polargeo? Both of us want the edit warring and threats of blocking to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also noticed you jumping to Lar's defence before. You have not just turned up from nowhere. Therefore I consider your own thread to be a tactic. This is going nowhere and cannot be resolved on this talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Easily disproven that i'm some sort of Lar supporter. Not a matter for this thread, if you're interested stop by my talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem happy to jump in and mudsling against me without understanding any of the issues though so I do not think things are as easily disproven as you think they are. E.g. you are supporting Lar's fairly forthright views at the RfC Polargeo (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, see my talkpage.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: Perhaps. Or perhaps just enforcing the way things are done is the right approach. I don't really see you as having a lot of standing to criticise the behavior of others though, as your actions often result in escalation of situations. Whether that's your intent or not. ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As a fellow admin I have a true concern over Lar's involvement affecting his decisions. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my own editing or any actions of his against myself. I have taken this matter to RfC. Then Lar sees fit to move my uninvolved and very sensible comments on an unrelated case. A thing I would not even contemplate to do against him, even though I have considered him to be involved many times previously. Polargeo (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your intentions, this kind of situation undermines the probation because it makes it look chaotic, and you're making yourself look bad into the bargain. Whatever your concerns about anyone else, you are involved, so please approach the probation pages as a regular editor in future. SlimVirgin 16:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Slim, what do you think about Lar multiply engaging in revert warring and threatening to block another admin on the page? Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is a few editors telling me I am involved and cannot act as an uninvolved admin in absolutely any debate involving any climate change article ever I will not be persuaded. Please point me to the policy that says I am involved. Not to the comments of an arbitrator who recused. This should be discussed at the RfC and not here anyway. Polargeo (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's say for the moment that there is a legitimate dispute about whether or not you are involved. Can you see any possible compromise that would allow you and Lar to coexist on the enforcement page? Thparkth (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is my position that you have compromised your perceived objectivity in the medium term through the RFE you filed early to get yourself banned from this page, amongst other actions. I should note that I believe Lar has also compromised his objectivity through his multiple personal attacks directed at WMC and other users, including myself, his freqent disruptive reverts at this page, his threats to abuse his adminstrative tools, the ease at which he can be "baited," and the frequent documented errors of fact he has made in this area. Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec to Polargeo) Any common-sense interpretation of "involved" says that you're involved, and to be honest if you can't see that I'm not clear about why you're an admin. The degree of disruption you've been causing is really unacceptable. SlimVirgin 17:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please answer my question, above - "what do you think about Lar multiply engaging in revert warring and threatening to block another admin on the page?" Hipocrite (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The attempt at linkage is part of what's increasingly looking like game-playing. What I will say is that I hope Polargeo will consider the increasing risk of being blocked or desyopped if he continues with the same approach, because this is not the behaviour expected of admins. SlimVirgin 17:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuqese me? I'm "game-playing?" I'm asking you if Lar's actions are acceptable, and your answer is "Polargeo's are not," and I'm the one "game-playing?" Is that the behavior expected of admins, Slim? Dodging questions and accusing people of "game playing?" Just trying to figure that out. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you are becoming as disruptive as Polargeo. Please stop. Lar had every right as an uninvolved admin to enforce a standard on that enforcement page. Polargeo is admitteddly involved and yet was repeatedly adding to the uninvolved section, a blatant violation. In response, Lar did not even block (though I think he had every right to), he only threatened to, yet he is being attacked here even though it was Polargeo who was obviously acting inappropriately. This anti-Lar campaign has to stop. Polargeo is the disruptor here. ATren (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So many of the people here have told me that threats were unhelpful. I wonder when they'll come down on you. Hipocrite (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As a "defender of the Lar", could you explain his We uninvolved admins have consistently in the past... above? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing that requires explaining. ATren (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Who, other than Lar, has moved comments? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, you should know the answer to that question. ATren (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No: Lar said We uninvolved admins - you need examples of admins moving comments William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well i have mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I moved some Weakopedia comments. And probably some others. Incidentally Lar moved one of mine as well just now... --BozMo talk 17:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

They were part of a thread and it seemed better to keep the thread together... Do feel free to move them back if you feel it necessary. ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the examples above are of removing non-admin comments. I agree there is broad agreement that anyone may move non-admin comments. I believe what needs to be shown to demonstrate that the way we do things is to remove uninvolved but-still-admin comments is to demonstrate that happening. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Absent any uninvolved admin either returning the comments, or requesting that Lar provide his rationale for his actions, it could be assumed that the other uninvolved admins believe that Lars actions are not wrong (I am not saying all other admins are saying they are right, simply that there is not a case to reverse those actions). I would think that in an instance where only you, and previously Stephan Schulz, have contested that you should appear in such a category that you should find a determination that your interpretation is correct and the existing consensus is wrong. Per BRD, your Bold editing is the uninvolved admins section has been Reverted and thus it stays until the Discussion is concluded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

  An interesting argument. Would the same hold if I were to remove Lar's comments and only Lar was willing to restore them and threaten to block me? How about if Polargeo were to do so and only Lar was willing to restore them and threaten to block? How about if Guettarda were to do so and only Lar was willing to restore them and threaten to block? How about if unquestionably uninvolved Admin 1 were to do so and only Lar was willing to restore them and threaten to block? How about if "unarguably uninvolved" admins 1-10 wanted to remove something, but "possibly involved" admins 1 and 2 thought it should stay? Trying to understand the limits between "BRD" and "stop edit warring," here. Hipocrite (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the Misplaced Pages:Silence and consensus argument; in this instance if anyone else were to replace Polargeo's comments then consensus exists for them to be in that place, if anyone other than Lar were to remove Polargeo comments then there would be an obvious consensus for them to be removed, and if no-one reverts Lar's removal other than Polargeo then there is the "weak consensus" as noted. There is also the small matter that no-one else acted because the main players were too prompt, but no-one has categorically stated that they would have done so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The only consensus was that it looked like a wasps nest. I would not touch that kind of argument with a barge pole. --BozMo talk 21:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. In summary, you are advocating that anyone (or any admin - still not clear - please do clarify this) can remove, and then if a third party replaces, it should stick? How do we deal with the fact that Badmin A and Badmin B both are involved but have a nefarious deal to reinclude Badmin A's posts even afer Goodmin C removes them? Hipocrite (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Actually, reading farther, you appear to be arguing that "you each get one action" is the goal here. Dosen't that just mean majority rules on who can post? Doesn't seem very fair to the minority - they don't even get a voice, if the majority wants to shut them up... Hipocrite (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Polargeo's comments should be moved, but I think an admin should step up and do it. I'm sure most, if not all, of the admins who participate here besides Lar and LHVU, including 2/0, Wordsmith, BozMo, NW, and AGK are following this discussion. One of you needs to step up, support Lar, and do the right thing here. If you don't, you're just making your work here harder. You need to enforce the letter of the law. Polargeo is a frequent editor in the climate change articles. Kick his rear-end out of the admin section and let's get back to business. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@Cla68, I appreciate the sentiment but as the Probation terms are worded "involved" is interpreted very narrowly: "a frequent editor in the climate change articles" does not make you involved in every enforcement dispute. Whatever the "felt fairness" about it, Polargeo technically is probably not counted as involved. Using a subjective WP:IAR judgement against an admin and against the letter of an Arbcom ruling is a really ballsy move, for which I privately give Lar lots of courage points. Reverting it a second time without getting another admin to back you up made me wish I could drop the rest of my life for a few hours and have a hard look, it is out on a limb but presumably with high conviction. In response the decision to bar Polargeo from acting as uninvolved is also an expedient but complicated one. My own personal view is that it is a good call in part because the WP:BATTLE tendency which he displays demonstrates too much emotional involvement in what is going on; I am not regarding it as an implicit endorsement on my part of the "felt fairness" interpretation of uninvolved. It would be nice to have a longer list of admins to choose from, then we could make the definitions of involved broader. --BozMo talk 12:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

BozMo, Marknutley got a 6-month ban from raising requests for almost nothing. Polargeo freely admits he thinks this whole thing is invalid, has directly asked for a ban, and has been disrupting it for over a month, yet admins (except for Lar) are still waffling about his involved status. This is yet another example of the uneven playing field here. Lar was right to move the comment from this long term disruptive editor (on these pages anyways) and the only thing I would have done differently was block Polargeo after his revert. Jeez, 2/0 indef-blocked GoRight for a what amounts to a tiny level of disruption compared to this; Marknutley has long term bans on almost everything for doing the same things everyone else is doing; and here we are debating how to handle an admin who himself formally admitted that he was involved and declared passionately he should be banned. Really. ATren (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I get the point but it is kind of more complicated. I alluded to this in opening the question about whether the probation terms covered its own enforcement pages. As yet until someone raises the issue of Polargeo's behaviour on the enforcement page and some conclusion is reached about it he remains innocent until concluded guilty of the disruption etc you accuse him of. --BozMo talk 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually BozMo, it's not that complicated at all. Polargeo is biased about this process, he's disruptive, and he's been pursuing a campaign against me for some time. The rest of you lot seem content to let him. ATren is right. Step up and do something about it, why don't you? The current proposed close is unacceptable, it's far too even handed. A better close would be to ban Polargeo from these pages, indefinitely, (that is, until some sign that he's less BATTLish is given) and slap my wrist for one revert too many and move on. The facts on the ground support that outcome. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So far I have not brought any issues to the probation page I have only been reactive. No one else has brought Polargeo's behaviour toward you to the enforcement page with conveniently collected diffs and I have not therefore made a detailed study of it. What I have seen would broadly support your complaint though but it may not be a balanced sample (I watch your talk page and the probation page but I don't for example watch his talk page where for all I know you might have been up to all sorts of... ok perhaps thats unlikely but I don't have the data to go on). I don't think he quite gets how the probation thing is supposed to work yet though, and some of the disruption was from not getting it rather than trying to upset it. --BozMo talk 15:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine, I'll go through the motions again. I'll post a huge bunch of diffs, then watch as admins, who refuse to sanction one of their own, ignore it, or hand out yet another empty warning. ATren (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that Hipocrite had helpfully forced a decision by filing a formal request on the matter. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Once a third party - in this instance an uninvolved admin - takes a position supporting one of the two parties in dispute then it is recognised that there is a consensus for the actions of that party. Yes, the third party may be acting in cahoots with the party they support - but that is a separate issue (and off we go on the cabal/anti-cabal merry-go-round). If the consensus thus established is obviously wrong, then it may be expected that an uninvolved admin will speak up or even act to question the consensus, and then a discussion commences. I am not saying that everyone gets one action only, but all parties should be aware that edit warring is not the appropriate manner of determining consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo's comment on the result

Lar and Polargeo are cautioned to maintain proper decorum while editing the English Misplaced Pages. - Lar is strongly encouraged to recuse himself as an uninvolved administrator from enforcement requests where sanctions are requested against or involving Polargeo as a party, for the next 3 months. - Polargeo is required to recuse himself as an uninvolved administrator at the Climate Change general sanctions for the next 3 months. - LessHeard

I have absolutely no problem with this sanction against myself. I have been a little over the top recently in general and could do with a break. I do have a problem that I wish to outline though.

• Conflicts between editors (not as the result of standard admin dealings) clearly come under the general wikipedia definition of WP:INVOLVED. The disclaimer is as follows important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role Therefore if there are situations where an administrator has interacted with an editor in a potentially biased or non-minor way outside of their standard admin role such as Lar has done then they really should not act as admins, not ever (not ever ever ever) with that particular editor by basic wikipedia policy and that should not be overturned by a few admins on the sanctions page. Therefore Lar should never act as uninvolved with WMC or with respect to me and nor me with Lar by basic policy (not three months). However, in this upsidedown world of CC sanctions this is considered a lower priority than the basic editing of any of the 1000s of CC articles even in a neutral unbiased manner. This is completely against any stated policy and should be above the decision of a few CC admins here which is why I didn't comment on the case and wished to leave it to an arbcom rulling, however, it doesn't appear that WP policy gets in the way of CC sanctions decisions (If I have never acted in a biased way on a case with a particular editor or even edited a particular article there is no policy which states that I am involved, none). Polargeo (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• It appears that the definition of involved prefered by Lar is being taken from the comments of individual arbitiers particularly one who actually recused in the rejected case of the individuals (Lar and Stephen Schulz). This will not stand up in court my lord and is not an arbcomm ruling. Therefore we should refer to policy until such an arbcom ruling is made. Polargeo (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If we wish to look at the actual arbcom ruling then please let us do so

Avoiding apparent impropriety

All editors, and especially 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; or an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

Can someone explain to me how my very neutral comments on the Marknutley case contravened this arbcom ruling and how Lar's actions with regard to WMC and myself for that matter do not. Also explain to me how this or any other ruling translates to "any editor who has ever edited a CC article can never act as an uninvolved admin in enforcement"? Because I cannot see it. Polargeo (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No. No one can explain to you the exact logic, since different uninvolved editors involved in the decision had different logic; the consensus was limited to the outcome. My own view was that you were "uninvolved", and I noted your particular edits were very neutral. However (as you say) you have been somewhat polemic and partisan of late so your contribution in the "uninvolved" comments section is likely to cause misconceptions about partiality. For me the decision to bar you from all "uninvolved" discussion was more about the continued trust which editors of all sides placed on the enforcement process. For me the decision to bar Lar from cases involving you was similar, impartial though he might try to be, history would make it harder for him to appear fair. Consequently it was not so much about the specifics of this case (for me) but recent edits which this case typifies. Other people reached the same outcome from different directions. My view on these issues is extendable to other things: if a blog attacks WMC then there is no Misplaced Pages rule making him conflicted from editing the article on the blog. However, with no suggestion at all of fault, I think it is better if we just try not to get involved where any (however false) accusation could appear substantial. --BozMo talk 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So my involvement here in any way and not my actual technical involvement in the case in question was the problem, fair enough I accept a three month ban from acting as uninvolved in sanctions. However, this has been judged by admins on the sanctions page. I just wished that admins would have the principles to actually act when someone who is clearly biased tries to claim they are uninvolved in a particular case. This appears to me to be clearly what the arbcom rulings are stating is the problem and is something Lar falls foul of with respect to both myself and WMC, and will still do even after three months have passed, or a year for that matter. Polargeo (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an open RFC on that. It may get sorted out (presuming you are right that it needs to be) but the subjectivity is rather difficult. On top of which a plausible reading of history makes Lar out as victim more than perpetrator (although his choice of description is not perfect by any means). --BozMo talk 16:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Victim? With respect to Lar and WMC we are looking at stuff that happened before sanctions began (stuff I only brought up on the talkpage of the RFC/U because I didn't know it when the RFC/U began). Where Lar made a personal attack against WMC on matters completely unrelated to CC. How clear can we be here that Lar falls foul of the arbcom ruling (which I have outlined above) when acting as uninvolved with relation to WMC. I don't care that much for people trying to use individual arbiters' statements on unrelated cases against me when they ignore actual arbcom rulings themselves. Polargeo (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you care or do not care for, I feel you should stop these kind of comments. The only form in which it is acceptable for an admin like you to make judgements of this form is in a very carefully considered form supported by a vast number of carefully chosen diffs. If you feel that what I have called "a plausible reading of history" (not my own opinion) is not plausible you need to support it carefully and be prepared to defend your view. In such circumstances the RFC on Lar might be the right place. If you don't have time to support something in detail please don't say it, unenforceable and unrefuted allegations undermine the whole project. --BozMo talk 21:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But Bozmo I can and have supported this with diffs. It only really needs one diff but there are more, such as this. I think Lar's animosity towards WMC started with him undoing the close of an MfD , before and after undoing this close Lar participated in the discussion and so was not acting as an neutral admin. This shows that in two completely unrelated cases, before CC sanctions began and where Lar was not acting as an admin in either, Lar has shown a clear animosity towards WMC. Therefore Lar now acting as an admin on sanctions generally arguing against WMC when All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy, the policy here is WP:INVOLVED. Clear as day. Polargeo (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, this thread comes across as just another WP:POINT/WP:FORUMSHOP violation on your part. A large portion of your comments appear to be variations of your 'Lar is involved' diatribe that you believe are worded cleverly enough to warrant a repost, I'd just be very attuned to whether your comments have an agenda before making them. If you do decide you should make a comment with an agenda, make the agenda explicit (i.e., say what you mean), and if what you mean is a repeat of something you've already said, then hold back.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you it is entirely correct for me to discuss the conclusions of a recent enforcement on the enforcement talkpage. All the stuff above is so spread around that I'm not even certain all admins here were aware of the facts. Polargeo (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Duck .. the evidence

Apparently, there is a lower standard of evidence for blocking a new user on suspicion of being sock, then there is for uncivilly from experienced users. From Misplaced Pages:DUCK:

1.  Beyond a reasonable doubt
2.  Clear and convincing evidence
3.  Preponderance of the evidence
4.  Duck test (suspicion)

These levels have utility in improving this RFE, before I express a view in the RFC, would anyone like to comment which evidence level might be appropriate for blocking uncivil behavior that does not include sock puppetry? I am concerned about users who sock new users with their bites, which evidence level to apply in addressing them. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You understand that nobody wants to talk publicly about the "evidence level" because a smart sockmaster could easily adapt his behaviour if he knew what people were looking for, right? Thparkth (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i do. My comment is directed to talking about establishing the appropriate evidence level for this RFE. I can sustain the duck test on sock suspects for precautions and investigation to gather direct evidence; however, it could be handled better while there is only an indirect suspicion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious whether people believe this is Scibaby or some other sock. If it is argued that this user is a Scibaby sockpuppet, then I have some issue with that, because there is at least one aspect of this user that is definitely NOT typical of Scibaby. And if he's not Scibaby, then why is he blocked before checkuser confirms sockpuppetry and a sockmaster? An indef block on these grounds seems unwarranted given the evidence I've seen. ATren (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He may or not be Scibaby, but it's clearly broken to assume that every skeptic sockpuppet is specifically a Scibaby sockpuppet, with no real evidence, forever. If nothing else, does it really seem credible that someone so determined and obviously not stupid as Scibaby wouldn't at least learn better socking technique after so many attempts? Thparkth (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What is fun is that one editor who claimed users were socks of Scibaby at SPI -- was just indeffed for running a sock for 4 years <g>. As the saying goes "Sentence first, verdict afterwards." Collect (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiding of Hipocrites revisions

As ATren has had a detailed discussion with User talk:ClimateOracle about how not to get spotted I think Hipocrites comments do not really need to be hidden in the edit history. Maybe if he was revealing some dynamite secret but I don't think it is sufficient to justify an IAR on this new admin power. This is not meant to be my hard and fast position but is just a comment, if no one else thinks this way I will let this drop. Polargeo (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)