Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:56, 4 May 2010

SBHB's outside view

Regarding Misplaced Pages: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)

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: when we put "Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages)

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 Misplaced Pages)

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. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 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 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)

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: and especially this 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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 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 a 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)

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

rfc/u?

Should this not be posted here  ? 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

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? --CrohnieGal 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, --CrohnieGal 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. Misplaced Pages: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)

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”
• ”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”

• ”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”

oh and the classic

• "What is WMC afraid of"

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)