Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 10:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC).

• Lar (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

This RfC regards Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. In the enforcement of these sanctions Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement there is a section in which uninvolved administrators comment and ultimately decide on sanctions. The dispute is based on the issue of whether User:Lar is commenting as an uninvolved admin when he has potentially goaded the editor who is being put forward for sanctions and whether Lar has also expressed views of bias in his application of these sanctions. Hence demonstrating that he should not act as uninvolved.

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

• Lar should be banned from acting as an uninvolved admin in the area of sanctions enforcement. Particularly with respect to cases involving User:William M. Connolley. Polargeo (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Several users have questioned User:Lar’s status as an uninvolved admin on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. In particular the case involving User:William M. Connolley (WMC). In Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#William M. Connolley (WMC) Lar has continued to comment as an “uninvolved” administrator. The question is simply can Lar act as a neutral uninvolved admin in this case? Lar claims he is uninvolved.

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. An argument is that some edits by Lar, such as this could be conceived as provocation of WMC.
2. Some of the discussion in which Lar has engaged as an uninvolved admin was moved to the talkpage here by User:KillerChihuahua. This situation is disruptive to Wikipedia and climate change sanctions.
3. Lar has consitantly tried to enforce extreme sanctions on WMC that are so extreme given the circumstances of the actual enforcement request that they cross the line into victimisation. e.g. and that is one of many.
4. Also Lar's extreme comment on using sanctions to reduce the control another admin and various editors supposedly have on the climate change area of wikipedia shows extreme bias. bearing in mind he made this comment in a section that should only be edited by uninvolved admins.

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

• Lar is acting as an "uninvolved admin" against convention in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement when he potentially has a grudge against a certain editors and has possibly shown bias in his comments in this section. Polargeo (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

• The issue has been discussed extensively by several editors on Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement without any resolution and as an example was raised by User:Polargeo there
• Comment by User:Tony Sidaway on Lar's talkpage resulted in denial of the problem from User:Lar, here.
• After I (Polargeo) proposed this RfC Lar contacted me on my talkpage but I just cannot accept him acting as an uninvolved admin in this case and therefore I cannot see any common ground. I don't think this can be resolved by straight forward negotiation.
• The idea of taking this to RfC has been backed by WMC at User talk:Polargeo/LarRfC. WMC has had many many interactions with Lar on both of their talkages which do not appear to have resolved anything. Providing diffs is not really worth it in this extensive conflict. Polargeo (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests for enforcement#This is a matter that should be laid before the Arbitration Committee suggestion that this should go to arbitration with significant discussion following.
• On April 9, KillerChihuahua tried to discuss some of these issues with Lar. Here are diffs of KC's part of the converation: , , , , , and of Lar's last comment: . This currently starts at: User_talk:Lar#220_questions.2C_221_questions.2C_whatever_it_takes. Cardamon (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

• Lar has many times refused to accept that there is an issue. Providing individual diffs for all of these times is pointless. Lar simply denies any issue such as here and then tries to negotiate and be open. This really desparately needs to be looked at by editors outside of the climate change area.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. William M. Connolley (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Polargeo (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

If I understand this RfC/U correctly there are three major contentions to it:

1. That I am not an "uninvolved admin" within some particular meaning of the term.
2. That I have "goaded" WMC, a party who appears on the page (either as the subject of, or as the intiator of, numerous enforcement requests) with some considerable frequency.
3. That I have expressed bias in my views about how various enforcement actions should be resolved.

... and one desired outcome:

• That I be deemed not an uninvolved admin, particularly with respect to WMC, and thus not eligible to put my views on how to resolve enforcement actions forward as part of the consensus process that has evolved, and also not eligible to carry out unilateral enforcement actions, as is the process at many other arbitration enforcement pages.

I will deal with these in order:

1. Uninvolvedness: This comment by TS (He is uninvolved but does hold an opinion (as most of us do) on the way in which global warming should be covered) is pretty good at summing things up. He does not find me involved. Further, a number of other people have also commented that they do not find me involved. I don't edit articles in this space, I haven't been involved, and my interactions with WMC prior to this enforcement action getting started have been pretty routine... no more than many other admins who have had encounters with WMC from time to time. I think most reasonable people will agree I'm not involved within the meaning we all customarily hold, although I acknowledge that WMC and many of his close allies do not agree. I think asking for annother ArbCom opinion on what constitutes uninvolvedness might be helpful to those who have doubts.
2. Goading: The charge seems to basically be that I am imperfect in my interactions with WMC. We all of us are imperfect, of course. And it's expected that those trying to enforce sanctions should be among our best behaved folk. However, I do not think I've "goaded" WMC. Certainly, he's managed to get my goat from time to time, which I regret. But he has gotten the goat of many of us. I'm truly sorry to point this out, as it's not an excuse for imperfect behavior among others... but WMC is not a very civil person. He does not suffer fools gladly. (and by his definition, many of us are fools) He has a history of baiting others he is in conflict with until they explode. I am not the only person who holds this view. One of numerous comments about WMC's inability to get along with others: ...those restrictions are being gamed by WMC in that his tone and inferences create an uncomfortable environment within discussion involving him and those editors who may be considered as editing to a AGW skeptic viewpoint (LHvU)... I need to do better at not taking his bait, and I freely acknowledge that. But I do not think this charge rises to the level of disqualifying me from enforcement.
3. Bias: The charge seems to be that my view of how matters have progressed in the AGW article space (i.e. poorly), and why, is not universally accepted. Correct. It is not. But I'd refer you again to the comment by TS linked above. Excerpting again: If Lar occasionally presents opinions on probation enforcement that differ greatly from the opinions of others, that is not a problem... I think there is value in diverse opinions. But I do not go against consensus. Surfacing opinions and proposing differing remedies gets us to better solutions. So I don't think this charge is valid at all. We do not want to have only admins of one particular view doing the enforcing. We want admins that uphold our principles of NPOV, of civility and a collegial environment, of working together, of reliable sourcing, and the like. Their own personal views are not supposed to matter.

Now, on the desired outcome of removing me from the enforcement... all I will say is that it has been an observed tactic in the past for a party to an admin action to cry "he's involved" as a way to knock the admin out. We tend not to countenance that approach, and we should not do so in this case.

Side note: I would like to see BozMo's offer firmly rejected. He and I do not see eye to eye on everything, (who does?) but he is a valuable member of the enforcement team. The answer to improving this enforcement regime is not to remove admins in pairs until none are left. The answer is to encourage more admins to participate. And part of that is making the enforcement area itself a bit smoother and friendlier. To do that, we need to embrace all views.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As respondent. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
2. with comment on BozMo: tha apparent balance is curently unequal, and removal of "one on each side" would therefore make the balance less equal. Nor would it appear that Lar has a particular side he favors concerning AGW. The removal of people in disproportionate numbers from side of any debate does not help WP. Collect (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
3. I would stress this from Lar's point #3: "Surfacing opinions and proposing differing remedies gets us to better solutions... We do not want to have only admins of one particular view doing the enforcing." BozMo and 2/0 have consistently disagreed with Lar, but for the most part they have worked together to come to consensus. None should be removed, but if Lar is removed, they all should be removed, because Lar is no more biased than the others; in fact, less than most, even accounting for his bickering with WMC. ATren (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
4. I would comment upon Lars summarisation of the desired outcome; even if it were found that the contentions were accurate in any way (and that would not be my view) I should state that it should not matter, since Lar is not going to act against consensus - his input to the admin discussion is that of an experienced admin, familiar with policy and experienced in dealing with issues, and wedded to the principles of editing Wikipedia. If it is considered that Lar's arguments may sway or persuade the consensus, then it will only be by reference to policy, guideline and practice; and that is how it is supposed to work. To end, I repeat I do not find the points raised in this RfC persuasive and nor the necessity of Lar amending his manner of conducting himself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
5. I don't understand what the issue is here. As LHVU points out, Lar has not acted against administrative consensus, nor has he said that he would do so. Cla68 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
6. From what I read I did not see Lar has ever abused his administrative tools.I neither see any evidences of a so called bias that influenced his decisions.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
7. I've known Lar for quite a long time now. I do not always agree with him however I have not seen any abuse here and I do not believe he would do so. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
8. I also see no evidence of abuse of sysop privileges, nor undue involvement or anything else that would preclude Lar from participating. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
9. Agree from beginning to end. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
10. I endorse point (3) particularly. I support (1) technically. Point (2) is hard to call since there is both fault on either side and also misunderstanding plus cultural differences between the two. The to and fro is unhelpful to the general atmosphere in the probation area. --BozMo talk 09:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
11. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
12. Agree Thparkth (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
13. Cube lurker (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
14. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
15. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
16. Horologium (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
17. As Polargeo and WMC have shown, Lar has explicitly and specifically come out against the (presently) majority view on these pages. Contra Polargeo and WMC, that is not a sign of bias. Lar's summary is accurate. --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
18. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
19. Mostly agreed. Really only noting this due to the fact that some are attempting to use this RFC to win other battles. Arkon (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
20. It seems to me that the concept of "uninvolved" developed to deal with the exact problem that is occurring in this RFC. And I strongly disagree with tightening the meaning to exclude admins who have conflicts with editors during the dispute resolution process when an user is acting as an admin. If an admin is being less than perfect with their civility in response to dealing with contentious enforcement requests then that can be dealt with (including getting additional support for the admins working in the contentious areas.) But that should not trigger a request for an admin to abstain since this will escalate the negative response toward admins in order to get them react and need to abstain from working in a controversial area. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
21. I trust Lar never to act against consensus. I endorse his above comments on how this case has unfolded. There's always been a problem on any enforcement issue, with a genuinely uninvolved admin coming in and then being considered "involved" by some because of their enforcement role. This would be nonsensical and I don't believe it's what WP:INVOLVED says. As he says, we're all human, but I trust Lar for all his imperfection, and know he acts with the best interests of the project at heart, and that he always abides by policy, consensus and is thoughtful in discussions. Per FloNight as well. --John (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
22. Lar is sound, and Lar is not "involved". He can be trusted to step back when required. This RfC is vexatious and rather obviously designed to try to gain advantage n the content dispute. Fie on those who created this nonsense. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
23. I see this RFC as a symptom of the battle ground on these climate change articles and I feel it is unfair that individual admins are being subjected to the stress of an RFC. Lar probably has made poor choiced comments but considering the editing environment would drive a saint to drink, and the comments are mild this RfC should never have been happened. It is my view that Lar is uninvolved and acting in good faith and is being unfairly singled out.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
24. I've seen no diffs suggesting Lar is "involved". What I do see is a small group of editors showing contempt for the content and behavioral policies. If the admins enforcing the probation are undermined to the point that the case ends up before ArbCom, some of those editors are likely to face topic bans, so it's in their own interests to make sure the probation isn't derailed. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
25. Zero evidence that Lar is in any way 'involved'. --M^ask? 00:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Lar is uninvolved per the definition given in the terms of the Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation; he is "not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions". Lar never edits climate change articles, so can never be in conflict "on the topic". This definition is deliberately narrower than that found in WP:UNINVOLVED and specifically relates to conduct on the probation enforcement requests page. Thus Lar's acting as an uninvolved admin is done in good faith.

He does have a "pre-existing relationship" with WMC, mainly as the long-term recipient of snark. Lar should feel free to voluntarily treat himself as "involved" in this case if he feels there is any chance that his judgement is clouded, whether or not it strictly meets the definition in the probation; but there is a danger that in the poisonous atmosphere that surrounds climate change in Wikipedia, if he does so, some editors will use this to claim that he is also "involved" in future enforcement requests not relating to WMC. It should be made clear that this is not an acceptable argument. Thparkth (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Yes. ATren (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Albeit not on the gratuitous use of "snark" as a word therein. Almost all long-time admins have been involved with other long-time admins, and Lar does not have an abnormal amount of contact with WMC. Collect (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes. mark nutley (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
4. The first paragraph, absolutely. I was not aware of any previous history between Lar and WMC, but am not surprised if there was - both are long time contributors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Affirmative. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Concur except for the second paragraph's first sentence because of my lack of knowledge about that relationship. See also my view below.  Sandstein  21:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Agree mostly, except that it needs to be made clear that Lar is completely free to continue participating in this area. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
8. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
9. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
10. ++Lar: t/c 02:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
11. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
12. In essence, but prefer Sandstein's view below. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
13. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
14. Horologium (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
15. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
16. --JN466 00:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
17. --Heyitspeter (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
18. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
19. --John (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
20. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
21. Late endorse, per lack of a satisfactory response to Casliber's request below. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

On balance, there is a significant issue here:

1. I do not doubt that Lar is acting in good faith ref WMC and believes he is keenly seeing misbehaviour which the rest of us are not quite managing to recognise.
2. However, he is also being a little imprudent in expressing his personal feelings about WMC on pages where we are trying to stay calm and balanced, and elsewhere.

This makes is difficult to be seen to be fair, and easy to get side tracked into whether the unsupported allegations about WMC using "dishonest tactics" which we "don't get" are appropriate etc. There are still issues with WMC's behaviour but it is harder to deal with when there is so much smoke on both sides, and contributing to the smoke except for in the narrow confines of the judgement section is not helpful.

As a personal extra note (not endorsed by others who sign below) if there are people who regard my own position as equally biased as Lar (which may be the reaction to this view), I would be entirely happy for both Lar & I to withdraw from acting as uninvolved admins on climate change probation, to maintain balance .

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --BozMo talk 13:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Enric Naval (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Agree except for the first eight words: "On balance, there is a significant issue here". It doesn't appear to be significant. I don't see his behavior as intimidating. Intimidating editors would be significant. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
4. More light less heat, or whatever the saying is. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Note:

1. I can't understand your offer to withdraw as "balance" against Lar. I don't regard you as acting in my favour - quite the reverse William M. Connolley (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Agree with (1) and (2). However, trying to restore 'balance' by withdrawing as actors is confused.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: this view is provided by someone currently banned from engaging in discussion on Climate Change related topics and is probably in violation of that ban --BozMo talk 22:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a frivolous request - just as Polargo made this ridiculously frivolous and pointy request against himself. If this request is even seriously considered then LessVanHeard should be brought up as well since the same group who has repeated, in the hope that repetition can conjure truth, that Lar is biased have already sown those same seeds on another fine administrator.

Perhaps I'm considered involved, just as some consider Bozmo to be involved due to his involvement in the potentially multi-trillion dollar carbon credit market, but I think Lar's interactions can be summed up well by this diff, where WMC insults Lar after I gave him a barnstar for Lar's incredible work over the years (really amazing stuff if you look at your history). Perhaps I should be just as openly hostile to admins I don't like, get my friends to chant with me, and hope that the diff display distracts from the diff substance.

Unfortunately, rich soil welcomes all seeds - regardless of what bare fruit they bear. Astute gardeners must recognize the weeds and remove them by the root while preserving the decency of their plot. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

@Boris: I suggest that the letter of the policy actually be applied before the "spirit" (or anything else as subjective/manipulatable) is enforced.TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

@Enric Navel: Perhaps Lar's "delusion" could be cured if accused meatpuppets of WMC didn't bring these silly enforcement requests against him.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
2. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Horologium (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar's consistent position is that he is an uninvolved administrator in the climate change probation because he does not edit articles in that topic area. It is true that he does not edit those articles, so he qualifies as "uninvolved" under that formal criterion.

But there is a long tradition on Wikipedia that following the spirit of policy is as important as following the letter of policy. A sample -- by no means complete -- of the points that raise concern over Lar's behavior in this regard includes where he:

• Derides a group of editors in the enforcement area as "socially inept."

• Advocates a specific content position while engaged on the enforcement talk page.

• Makes no secret of his desire to "level the playing field" by tilting it more favorably toward one group of editors and less favorably to another. As such he comes to the sanctions not as an impartial arbiter, but as one with a preconceived agenda.

• Promotes a battleground mentality by lumping editors together as "the cadre," the "science club," and a "cabal."

• While engaged on the enforcement page itself, sarcastically berates an editor for having opposed his reconfirmation as steward.

At bottom the question is whether we are meant solely to follow the letter of policy or whether we also should respect its spirit. If adherence to the strict letter of policy is all that matters, then there is no ground for this RfC and it should be closed. If adherence to the spirit of policy is of any interest at all, then Lar's continued involvement in enforcing the climate change probation is problematic.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Enric Naval (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
3. With the exception that I think WP:DISRUPT applies Polargeo (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
4. William M. Connolley (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
6. dave souza, talk 20:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
7. --BozMo talk 10:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
8. Not all of these diffs are problematic, but I concur with the broader point, in the sense of my view below (i.e., this is better understood as a symptom of a systemic problem, rather than simply as admin misconduct).  Sandstein  21:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
9. Snowman frosty (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
10. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
11. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
12. Prolog (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
13. Per Sandstein. Hipocrite (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
14. Per diffs 12,13, and 14 (at a minimum WRT this topic). If one has a position on a subject, then one should just go and edit it. I can't in good faith accept as 'uninvolved' when those diffs are supplied. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
15. I think it's a trifle idealistic to claim that there's actually a tradition of following the spirit rather than the letter of the law, but there should be. It is very easy to debate the subtle meanings of each word in a policy, ArbCom decision, or edit summary. When we speak of user conduct, in fact, that's all we can do, since we just can't read minds. The typical seasoned Wikipedian is intelligent enough to see that Lar does not fall within the deliberately narrow definition of "involved" in this case, but that doesn't mean he's helping matters any at this point. Lar doesn't suffer fools gladly, and this is the kind of situation that encourages the sort of maddening behavior he understandably dislikes. I would prefer for Lar to recuse himself rather than having to rely on yet another cumbersome page whose meaning can be debated ad nauseum, however.--~TPW 13:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
16. Rami R 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
17. -- Cirt (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
18. Mathsci (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
19. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
20. Cardamon (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
21. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
22. points 2 & 3 per Casliber. -Atmoz (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
23. People in authority need to avoid labeling, name calling, and the appearance of bias. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
24. Weakopedia (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
25. Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
26. Unfortunately this is what has developed. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
27. Current evidence indicates a bias. R. Baley (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
28. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 12:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar really seems to believe that a cadre exists, and that WMC is leading it . This sort of delusion is not good, specially when it is being held by an admin.

It starts reminding me of User:Abd's insistance that there was a "cabal" that was squashing minority viewpoints for unspecified reasons. Lar just fails to see the possibility that WMC could be right in his arguments, Lar just defaults to assume that WMC is wrong and that it's all part of a bigger plot. I can't trust Lar's judgement in WMC-related actions, or in climate change-related articles.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Enric Naval (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Don't like the word "delusion", but yes, I can see the similarities with a (much less long-winded) Abd. Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Not sure if he sees it as being led by WMC, but he clearly has this discourteous and uncivil delusion misconception. . dave souza, talk 20:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC) strike "delusion" as rather strong, I think he's entrenched in a mistaken analysis. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
4. William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
5. After some thought, yes, I agree. Like Abd, he uses loaded language, and when challenged, backtracks into redefinitions. Likewise, he suggests "possible" similarities with the EEML, followed by a non-denial denial. A nice use of WP:COATRACK in project space... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
6. Delusion is not a good word, misconception or similar is better but I endorse the general viewpoint Polargeo (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
7. With the proviso that the implications of "delusion" are harsher than necessary. Stephan's second sentence above is especially apt. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

   Endorsing stronger statement than I was previously comfortable with as Lar has gone against WP:NOTVAND/WP:VANDTYPES in . "Significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism ... where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Edit summaries of "remove WP:COATRACK attack on individual and on inauiry, not info about the blog" and "Might as well redirect now, there's nothing here that isn't already in Andrew Montford" are non-frivolous explanations. Hipocrite (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Lar has explained that he failed to notice Cla68 calling the edit vandalism. Hipocrite (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

8. -- Cirt (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
9. Sort of. I think if Lar were to recuse himself or refrain from commenting on issues related to User:William M. Connolley it would go a long way towards alleviating the concerns in this RfC/U. Does anyone have evidence of a personal dispute between these users already extant before this year? I think it matters a great deal whether this entanglement is an extension of a pre-existing dispute or merely has grown out of this set of interactions. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
10. "Delusion" seems too strong, but labeling as described gives the appearance of bias. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My feeling was that much of this was due to unprofessionalism and discourtesy on Lar's part in promoting one-sided views rather than acting as an uninvolved admin. I had hoped that by setting out what I saw as the main issues on his talk page, we could agree on behavioural improvements that would make his continued involvement in the process work reasonably well. I gave him time to respond, and having noted his proposal to defer consideration for time reasons, left it at that.

It was therefore astonishing to find that he'd been spending the time producing a long argument on the talk page of this request for comment, in which he has the discourtesy to Wikistalk my edits along with those of four other editors, and describe me as part of "this group of editors" which, "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"."

This clearly shows Lar promoting a battleground mentality – he then pays lip service to encouraging "the existence of "groups of related editors"... we call them "WikiProjects".", having just breached WP:CIVIL by labelling five editors as a "cadre". Wikipedia is a cooperative project, with editors of various overlapping interests coming together in subject areas to work as a team. Lar's approach of labelling editors interested in science as a "cadre" or a "cabal" at the same time as pushing for his own ideas of "levelling the playing field" to favour specific non-scientific viewpoints of a science based subject is unsuitable behaviour for an "uninvolved admin" in administering these sanctions , and as he appears to be unable or unwilling to even consider reforming this behaviour I regrettably must conclude that he should not continue in that role. Strike conclusion in light of RfC talk page discussion, dave souza, talk 19:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. dave souza, talk 21:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Polargeo (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
3. -- Cirt (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Though not necessarily the conclusion, I share many of these concerns. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion struck in the hope that recent discussion suggests progress towards resolving these concerns. Thanks for the comments, dave souza, talk 19:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Users who endorse this summary

1. Om nom nom. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Nice cupcake. Nit the first such RFC, to be sure. Collect (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Sugar high five. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
4. ATren (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Five High Sugar, and pass the other one too SatuSuro 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
6. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Endorse, it is a farce. Can i have some cake now mark nutley (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
8. Lar hasn't been perfect, but this is a farce. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
9. I expect a cupcake on my talk page when this is all over. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
10. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
11. I'm trying to lose weight, so I won't go so far as to say "farce". I'm even willing to AGF about the starting of the RfC. But I think there is an appearance of trying to remove someone who doesn't need to be removed from a content disagreement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
12. who authorised cupcakes for Lar though? does bishonen know? - is this the start of a Lar / Bishonen socking scandal sure to rock the wiki to its core? Important questions, no doubt, but maybe for another RfC. Privatemusings (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
13. If it wasn't so funny it would be sad. Off2riorob (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
14. As long as Lar is willing to share some of cupcake with me :)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
15. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
16. Horologium (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
17. Succinctly put. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
18. Lar has lost his cool in a stressful environment and has at times got dragged into the battle ground, when in my view acting as a good faithed uninvolved administrator. This is his own fault but considering the intolerable editing environment with POV pushing tag teams, I must agree when looking at things in context that this RFC is a farce and feel that Lar does not deserve to be subject to an RFC. This RFC is a symptom of the battle ground, not a solution to it;, climate change drama is too complex for RFC to solve, as it involves multiple people with polarised and extremist viewpoints.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
19. --B (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
20. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
21. Seeing as "farce" is French for "stuffing", cupcakes seem to suddenly make more sense ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Lar has the courage and conviction to tackle an area that is among the most contentious and toxic on Wikipedia. This is an area that many of us (including myself) stay as far away as possible from. Every time I hear about a global warming dispute (which seems to be occurring more frequently of late), I run the other way. Lar should be commended for what I believe is doing his best to help make the area less toxic. WMC has a long pattern of attempting to bully others when they attempt to stand up to him. He demonstrates a persistent inability (or unwillingness) to converse in a manner conducive to collaboration. This has been going on for years, and yet he is still allowed to continue. It does, indeed, give the appearance that he is unsanctionable, and that anyone who makes an attempt to rein him in is met with bullying and having their own conduct questioned. There does seem to be a cadre, cabal, group of editors,or whatever you wish to call it, who all defend each other and create a very uncollaborative atmosphere in the area of global warming, broadly construed. Their conduct is seemingly so perfect that anyone questioning it must surely have a bias/agenda. All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

Now, Lar's own conduct is far from exemplary, and even borders on uncivil. The diffs above in the summary of the dispute demonstrate this adequately. However, I call on all editors involved to examine their own consciences. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As proposer The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Including the part about being imperfect. We are all of us imperfect. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Per Lar, actually. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Agreed that he is to be commended for his efforts, and agreed that his conduct isn't untarnished. This view is consistent with my preference for Lar to voluntarily recuse himself (he may well be burnt out because of this area). WMC's conduct is another, likely more problematic, issue.--~TPW 13:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
6. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
7. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As noted by Thparkth, Lar meets the formal requirements for uninvolvedness as specified in the community sanctions. But as noted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris, some of his contributions are not consistent with the position of unbiased observer that most of us envision when reading the words "uninvolved administrator".

This is not necessarily surprising. In my experience, it is very difficult for an administrator to be frequently sanctioning editors involved in highly polarized disputes (such as Israel/Palestine, Eastern European issues or climate change) and to be perceived as neutral by both sides. This is not only because the participants of such disputes often see everyone in terms of friends and enemies, but because regular participation in dispute resolution will inevitably lead to the admin forming their own opinion about the dispute and its participants. While voicing these opinions does not automatically disqualify admins from acting as such, they should be aware that doing so, except where required to explain their admin actions (e.g. "I am blocking you because you edit disruptively") diminishes the authority and legitimacy of their actions.

They should also be aware that while they themselves may consider themselves perfectly neutral and may indeed try their best to act neutrally, other people cannot read their thoughts but only their words, and may therefore form a quite different impression. In such matters, perception is key. Finally, admins should consider that longterm admin activity in an area of conflict may cause them to become subject to regulatory capture by one side of the dispute unless they take very good care.

For these reasons, I advise all admins (and, in this case, Lar) to:

• choose (and, if necessary, declare) whether they want to act as editors, which includes participating in general discussions about content and conduct in the area of conflict, or whether they want to act as administrators, and therefore to stay "above the fray" and keep their opinions to themselves (except where required to voice them to discuss or explain specific enforcement actions); and
• when they feel that they are no longer impartial, or even when they feel unable to display the detachment required to be perceived as impartial, to withdraw temporarily or permanently from administrator actions in the area of conflict.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As proposer.  Sandstein  21:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
2. kudos to these sage words --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes - while noting that Lar contributes to the consensus and not over-rides it, and has scrupulously avoided enacting any sanction within the probation area. Striking; I cannot agree upon further consideration of the second bullet point which I feel is liable to be ruthlessly gamed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Well...yeah, I thought this was pretty well understood, but worth reiterating I suspect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Could quibble, but reasonable overall. (And thanks for introducing me to a new concept.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
6. I can go along with this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC) --- LHVU is right, the second point will be ruthlessly gamed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
7. The second bulletpoint should be changed, but I note that Arbcom ensconsed it into cannon when it stated "... 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..." Hipocrite (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
8. Rami R 16:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
9. -- Cirt (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
10. Very much so, including the second bullet provided that we should not allow people to choose by accusation which administrators may comment on their behaviour. I also from personal experience heartily recommend taking a break for a month or two. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
11. Well put. Lar has sensibly counselled others to "stay above the fray", but in instances linked above has clearly failed to display the detachment required to be perceived as impartial. Given Lar's assurances on the talk page of this RfC, my hope is that this problem will not recur. . . dave souza, talk 19:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
12. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
13. This statement seems a fair, balanced and sensible interpretation of the situation with good advice.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
14. An excellent statement of the general problem. Applicable here (as elsewhere) DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar does not act outside of consensus. Never has, and, I believe, never will. In the matter of the CC Probation enforcement page his views and suggestions are weighed by the other admins, as are those of all other parties, in coming to a decision. They have only as much influence as the policies and guidelines as Lar invokes. I do not see, and indeed request examples, of Lars' comments unduly or otherwise strongly influencing or changing the other admins considerations. Providing Lar does not act upon his viewpoint when it is not of the consensus and only contributes toward the consensus in both the finding upon the request and deciding upon the appropriate response, then it is fully within his remit to make such comments and suggestions he feels will most appropriately serve the project generally and the Probation specifically. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As author. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
2. ATren (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
4. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Having seen WP:False consensus in action, and noting that Lar has not, AFAICT, shown a "viewpoint" concerning GW, and noting that I have both agreed with and disagreed with Lar in the past, I endorse this partial summary. Collect (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
6. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
8. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
9. With the caveat that I have seen Lar act outside of consensus, though not in this area, and not inapropriately. I question the propriety of an "admin only" discussion area. Since when did being an admin give you special powers of discussion? Hipocrite (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
10. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
11. Pretty much, though I think that grouping people does them a disservice and contributes to the problems in the topic area. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
12. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
13. Horologium (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
14. All true. Mackan79 (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
15. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
16. Late endorse, per lack of a satisfactory answer to Casliber's request below. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
17. --Heyitspeter (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
18. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

During the period of Lar's participation in the climate change probation/enforcement forum, he has been subjected to a lot of baiting and pile-on snarking, ridicule, snide comments, and sniping by a certain group of editors. In my opinion, they were/are trying to provoke an emotional response from Lar. I'm going to start a representative list of supporting diffs here. I think Lar has done a fairly good job at keeping his cool under the circumstances and, as has been noted above, has consistently accepted the consensus decision-making with the other admins who are participating in the climate change probation enforcement board. I would say that the attempts to provoke Lar reflects much more poorly on those editors doing so than on Lar's responses.

• WMC:

• Short Brigade Harvester Boris:

• Guettarda:

• Stephan Schulz:

more to come

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cla68 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
2. When Lar took a strong stand against WMC's aggressive behavior, WMC attacked Lar in multiple venues, and when Lar responded, WMC (and others) used the resulting conflict to claim that Lar is involved. I believe this has happened before with WMC: IIRC, two admins who recently took action against WMC were ArnoldReinhold and Tedder, and both were accused of involvement and thus intimidated into not taking further action against WMC. I will try to track down diffs and bring them here. ATren (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes, and this is quite clear from anyone who is really watching. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Keep collecting 'em. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Thank you very much for taking the effort to pull all of these together. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

   Cla continues to do good work documenting abuses. Since it was drawn into question on the talk: my endorsement stands until further notice (Oddly, I do keep an eye on this page) ++Lar: t/c 10:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

   Abuses?

6. Quite shocking really, the amount of abuse lar has had to put up with mark nutley (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

   @Hipocrite: yes. ATren (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

7. I am pretty comfortable with science controversies (and in real-life have a bias that climate change is serious and real), and I am comfortable with a serious content debate, but I have have stayed away from the entire climate area like the plague. So I'm uninvolved with respect to this history. On the other hand, I've interacted with Lar in other areas of dispute, where I've been deeply grateful for his helpfulness, and I've sought out his advice, so I'm not neutral with respect to him. With that background, I've carefully read all of the diffs here, not just the ones from Cla, but all of them in this RfC. What I see is an imbalance in which the comments by those who have raised this complaint seem worse than the evidence of Lar's own actions. Clearly, this is one of those subject areas where editors, all around, get hot under the collar, climate notwithstanding. But I just do not see evidence to justify the requested sanction against Lar. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
8. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
9. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
10. Horologium (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
11. I don't believe there is any serious claim that Lar is more involved than any other admin who has acted in this area. I also see a very concerted effort to attack the referees for disfavorable decisions. I don't believe it's about secret collusion (as inevitably is read into the talk of cabals elsewhere), and I don't believe WMC or those who support him are the main problem in this area, and I would discourage anyone from looking at things in that way. But this kind of request is a symptom of the larger dysfunction, which continues to promote that dysfunction by going on the attack rather than dealing thoughtfully with ongoing problems. Mackan79 (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
12. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
13. Heyitspeter (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
14. I am a big believer in looking at things in context. This RfC is equivalent to Lar getting headbutted and then Lar being moderately incivil in response, when he could have headbutted back. Dunno if that makes sense or not. :) So yea, there is a background of provocation in a stressful environment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
15. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose that all admins who vote against Lar here should themselves be removed from CC probation "uninvolved" status, on the grounds that supporting removal of Lar on such flimsy and partisan grounds reveals their own bias.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ATren (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Agreed, but this will not happen. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
3. I agree it demonstrates abominably bad judgment that does call their admin status into question, but I've seen what I consider worse from a couple of them, and they remain admins. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
4. A bit hyperbolic, but something that should be noted by the proposed targets. Horologium (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
5. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
6. I endorse this summary as a way of making a point of the frivilousness of this RFC.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been on top of the climate change probation since shortly before it started, and have engaged in numerous productive discussions with Lar. I have seen Lar around various parts of the project before, but cannot remember any significant interactions before a few months ago. I have found that he argues consistently for the cause of fairness, and for the most part I agree in the essentials with his interpretations of what that entails. I can personally attest that edits that might have the effect of driving off someone interested in enforcing this probation are not uncommon, nor is a battleground mentality. Attempts to game the probation by "playing the ref not the ball" should be resisted, whether they comprise nastygrams, sycophancy, or just general whingeing.

Lar, on balance you are doing a bang-up job, and I commend you for it. I would like to offer a few quibbles I have with your approach, and hope that you accept them in the spirit they are offered.

1. I think, for the sake of propriety, it would be best if you refrained from commenting at the probation page while there is a good faith discussion of your actions in this area. I am sympathetic that no one should be able to disqualify you simply by initiating vexatious proceedings, but I do not think that this is the case here. One of the strengths of the wiki model is that no one editor should be considered indispensible; for instance, I am much happier with the level of vitriol on my talkpage having taken a month (mostly) off from these pages. This is also why I consistently argue that we should be as predictable as possible when deciding any sanctions.
2. While we are here, I would like to dredge up an old case. I consider it water under the bridge at this point, but I still think you were unfair to KimDabelsteinPetersen in deciding his revert restriction by omitting consideration of the fact that he started the talkpage discussion. One of the goals of the probation is to put an end to the incessant edit warring in the topic area, which to me indicates that we should do more to encourage discussion as well as more to discourage drawing up the battle lines. This is part of why I suggested including a discussion requirement in William M. Connolley's revert restriction; I think that that is going reasonably well and would like to see the principle extended to more of the major players.
3. Whatever you think is the truth of the matter, grouping editors together and referring to them as a cabal (or cadre or anything else) is not productive. Assigning people to groups when considering them does these editors a disservice; I am not a psychologist, but for more on the dangers of thinking of people as groups rather than individuals see Out-group homogeneity bias and Implicit Association Test. When you voice these concerns, you have the effect of encouraging more cohesiveness in the several groups and reinforcing the battleground mentality that is such a problem in this topic area. These editors are individuals, and should all be treated as such. Unless this goes back to ArbCom or you otherwise develop actionable concerns, I think referring to "groups" or "sides" at all is having rather the opposite effect of calming down a heated topic area.
4. You use the phrase levelling the playing field quite frequently, but I confess I have never been quite clear on what you think is wrong and what we can and should do about it. I gather that it has something to do with the cabal question, and I think that it is generally just as antiproductive.
5. Diffs like this one really do not help argue that you have not pre-judged certain editors. Then again, I am a socially inept nerd who spends too much time editing Wikipedia, so what would I know?
6. You think global warming is a socio-political topic area with a grounding in science, I think it is a scientific topic area with socio-political consequences - neither of these opinions is relevant in any way unless we start editing these articles, and there is no reason why I should know how you feel. I believe that it is statements like this that have led people to question your involvement, and I think that a more hands-off approach would be beneficial.
7. I would appreciate if you were to insulate yourself a bit better from what we all agree are nigh-interminable discussions of questionable value. People are going to disagree with you, sometimes quite strongly. There is no need to get in The Last Word™, especially on a WT discussion whose utility is questionable in the first place.

Thank you for reading my concerns. If you have any advice regarding how I can improve my approach, my talkpage is open. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As author. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
2. A thoughtful and good analysis. While I might disagree with Lar about the relationship of "fairness" and "due weight", these are issues that should be resolved amicably. The behavioural concerns are well put, and my hope is that the recommendations will be followed. . . dave souza, talk 19:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Hipocrite (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
4. The seven points listed above are good ones. This pointer is a good way forward on conduct regardless of other outcomes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Yes, well said, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
6. All but point 1. because firstly Lar does not form the consensus on those pages, he contributes to it, and, secondly, this would not progress toward resolving the issues surrounding the RfC but is rather the desired outcome of the RfC; in order to address whether Lar should not edit the enforcement page, Lar should not edit the enforcement page... Otherwise, some good general points. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
7. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
8. Concur with my NaN colleague. Jehochman ^Talk 20:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, at the end of the day, this is about building an encyclopedia. Alot of folks will decline to read this RfC past the "he said/I said/he said/I said" argy-bargy which is usual. What onlookers really need is clear and simple links examples of edits/points of view on the articles in question, where one side can succinctly show how their edit/argument/proposal is upholding principles of sourcing, undue weight etc. WRT balancing articles, or the other side is off-beam. Please list links below. This would be the best way of enlightening outsiders. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I wouldn't want to shoot for easy targets, so I'll provide you two links to edits of Cla68 that are not acceptable: . In the first linked section, go to where Cla68 writes "I support Tillman's proposed addition to the article, it is reliably sourced..." One of the prime sources Tillman's proposed addition to the article used was , which was dead at the time Cla68 checked it, but used to be what was apparently an impersonator pretending to be the subject and making comments on an unmoderated blog forum. That's just the worst part of it - please read the whole section.

The second comment shows me asking where Cla68 found the quote "Mined" in one of his sources, which he actually failed to link to - he linked to a copy that was live two years prior, but had been archived in 2008. You'll note he never responds to this - even after he's repeatedly asked.

Both of these edits show reasonably clear offwiki coordination, a total lack of respect for our sourcing policies, and trading on Cla68's previously good reputation to pull a fast one on other contributors. Where did Cla68 get the quote "mined" from, exactly? Where did he get the dead link from, exactly? Why is he calling Tilman's obviously poor sourcing reliable? Hipocrite (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe #Outside view by Short Brigade Harvester Boris provides clear examples of the basis for concern. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is asked for here. If you are looking for general example, I can provide them but they seem out of scope for this RFC. If you're looking for examples of the conflict with Lar, I would refer you to Cla68's view above to counter SBHB's earlier view. ATren (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, my theory is that if we just stick to the conduct, comments will be restricted to passersby or those directly involved with the battlelines developing in the usual way as has been already seen. Most of us have insufficient time to wade through the diffs to try and figure out what was the original point that was getting folks hot and bothered in the first place, and there are often times it can take a few clicks to find. Hence, if this RfC is going to be of any use, then showing outsiders (who might be a little, I dare say, less interested in the personalities involved and more interested on the impact on the actual content) some examples would be prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I more or less qualify as what Casliber is calling a passerby, and I agree with what Casliber is saying. I looked at the links provided by Hipocrite, and what I think I see is a content dispute about sourcing in which Cla, not Lar, provides some sourcing for the use of a word, and Hipocrite observes and corrects some bad links and disagrees with how the sources are being presented. I don't see anything there that would be Lar's fault. The fact that this is what emerges as the first answer to Casliber's question seems to me to undermine the credibility of the complaint against Lar. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

For one not familiar with the issues it takes some reading over. I agree Lar's name isn't on that talk page at all. Maybe another then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I specifically stay away from this topic, because of the behavior I am seeing exhibited towards Lar. However, my awareness of the dispute (coupled with most of the diffs provided above) is enough for me to submit a view.

I won't use the word "cabal", but there is a group of like-minded editors on this topic who are certain to show up whenever climate change is the subject of a dispute. (I see most of the usual suspects have commented against Lar; there are one or two more who haven't participated yet.) They all support each other unconditionally and all share essentially the same views on AGW and climate change in general. Anyone who does not share that view is subjected to low-level harassment and disparagement, never strong enough to rise to the level of a valid complaint, but cumulatively enough to keep all but the most determined away from the subject. It appears that Lar has run afoul of the gatekeepers of the global warming articles, and now there is a concerted effort to prevent him from using his admin bits in any fashion on the topic, because he has acted against the wishes of a noisy minority. I am not impressed by the differences supplied by SBHB; they show that Lar correctly notes groupthink exists on this topic, and that he is occasionally exasperated by it. In this RFC, he has been accused of being "delusional" (by Enric Naval) and "unprofessional" (by dave souza), and accused of exhibiting a battleground mentality (the same battleground mentality that will no doubt be assigned to me shortly), by the same small group of editors. Well, yes, coordinated attacks often appear to be a battleground. In any case, Enric and dave's views extend beyond the bounds of acceptable discussion of the editor's behavior into the unacceptable realm of personal attacks.

MZMcBride uses the term "farce" to describe this process; I think he is being too kind. Farces often have some entertainment value, but I don't see anyone really enjoying themselves. Additionally, as noted by Collect, tit-for-tat admin topic bans don't work well even with symmetric opposition; booting Lar doesn't make the situation better.

Horologium (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

1. (Added late) As I wrote this, of course I endorse my own view. Horologium (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Collect (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Thparkth (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
5. ATren (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
6. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
7. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
8. views extend beyond the bounds of acceptable discussion of the editor's behavior into the unacceptable realm of personal attacks There's been quite a lot of this. Editors concerned about this should be ready to cite diffs. By this point, an ArbCom case would be less of a time sink and less bothersome than continuing on without one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
9. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
10. Exactly. ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
11. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
12. --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked in on RFC/U in a while, but it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same. A few things are different, now that the topic is Global Warming instead of Intelligent Design, but I see a number of the same names, and the old dirty tactics are still alive, though perhaps less blatant than they used to be. The same obnoxious behavior justified in the defense of "science," the same sniping, the same collection of one-sided, misleading links designed to silence opposition by manipulating policy, rather than using actual facts, and the same "we aren't a cabal and you're attacking us" in cabal-like unison.

Lar isn't perfect, and he's willing to examine his communications and admit where he's been wrong. That alone makes him one of our best admins, in my opinion. WMC, on the other hand, would rather sling more attacks and call on friends to circle the wagons, rather than even consider that he might have made any mistakes at all.

Wikipedia can not afford to shelter those who would drive off new contributors simply because they accidentally crossed the wrong editor's path.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Collect (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Horologium (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
4. "Yes, we are all individuals" ATren (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Having experienced what it was like to be on the receiving end of the Intelligent Design group's disapproval , I think this summary is accurate. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
6. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Particularly paragraph 2, which is a direct refutation of the thesis propagated by some (for example SBHB in his support of Stephan Schulz's view) who ought to know better. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
8. Support.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this area of Wikipedia suffers from a great deal of factionalism. Doing anything in such an environment can be extremely difficult, as even quite reasonable people will often decide that it just isn't worth acknowledging "inconvenient" problems (sorry), for fear of creating something worse. I think clearly we have multiple competing factions in this area.

One major problem is that promoting factionalism and opposing it often looks very much the same. For instance, a perfectly uninvolved admin could look at a situation and say, "here we have a group of editors gaming the system and acting disruptively." This seems to be what is claimed here about Lar. Yet, every admin in this area probably takes this view. The problem of block-editing ginned up by conservative blogs is often discussed as a given.

Lar is far less involved than either BozMo or 2/0 in terms of a history in working on the content. He seems to have wikipolitical views comparable to other admins such as LessHeardvanU or KillerChihuahua. The rest of this seems to be smoke. I'd like very much to see a thoughtful evaluation of any of these admins in terms of what they've done and how they could improve, or better yet of ways that editors could ourselves work to improve the editing environment, but this RfC is not set up to provide it.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I don't follow the subject area enough to agree or disagree about the involvement histories of particular editors, but otherwise, this view fits very well with my own reading of this RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Pretty much, especially the final sentence. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Absent the aspersion cast at 2/0. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
4. I didn't see any aspersion cast here at 2/0. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Noting that there is now an RfC set up to investigate these issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
6. --Heyitspeter (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Am always open to thoughtful evaluation of my actions, as well as those of other admins. Always. This RfC's initial section by WMC and Polargeo is hardly that, though. ++Lar: t/c 17:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins are generally intelligent people. With intelligence comes the ability to make up one's own mind. Pretending that admins should not have opinions does a disservice to the encyclopedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As view-er. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Endorse last sentence.Heyitspeter (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Short and to-the-point. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 06:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
5. My mind's open about the "generally intelligent people" part, but I'll take it on faith. I strongly agree with the rest. The implied separation of personal opinions and admin actions actually extends to any content actions by all editors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
6. True as far as the statement goes, but the kicker as as JohnWBarber points out - i.e having an opinion on a subject but then stating one is going to both adjudicate and direct an article's content simultaneously is a different kettle of fish to this statement. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Admins theoretically have the power to ban people, which means that admins ultimately control content because of Wikipedia's constant tug-of-war over ideas and POV in many subject areas. Needless to say, editors who are trying to ensure that a particular point of view is prevelant in this website don't want to be banned, because then their side may lose the content battle or their view may not get presented (of course, their addiction to Wikipedia may also have something to do with it). Thus, they will use every mechanism possible to put admins they perceive as threats at arm's distance. Admins, of course, do form opinions on which editors they feel are operating in good faith and which ones are not, and, as Sarek points out, this is natural. Nevertheless, admins should be aware that if they make these opinions known, editors who feel threatened by these opinions will very well try to use those expressed opinions as a weapon in their fight over content. Who does this reflect most poorly on? I think the answer to that question is obvious. Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

   I'd like to endorse Cla's view of the view. That really nailed it! It's dead wrong for editors to try to get rid of administrators seen as obstacles to pushing a content goal, when the administrator is a human being with an opinion but who is administrating within policy. It's also a good idea for anyone in a position of authority to recognize that it can be prudent to refrain from stating one's opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

   It's not really a new problem, though. Triers of fact always have an opinion, and it's their duty to both be unbiased and give the appearance of fairness. Otherwise the whole system breaks down. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

8. Yup. To JWB, there is a difference between having an opinion and stating it regarding the subject matter, and the subject of how the matter is being edited. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
9. Endorse, acknowledging the problem of having an opinion while acting on facts in evidence. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
10. Endorse, no-one should be pretending that admins should not have opinions. Casliber and Cla68 both make good points, in the latter case it should also be noted that admins who "form opinions on which editors they feel are operating in good faith and which ones are not" should take care to not let such preconceived notions distort their judgement of the evidence before them, and should assume good faith. They should also be careful not to prejudice a case by expressing these preconceptions, particularly as editors who feel supported by these opinions will be encouraged to play the system using civil POV pushing as a weapon in their fight over content. ScottyBerg is right that admins deciding on sanctions have a duty to act fairly and give due appearance of fairness. . . dave souza, talk 21:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
11. If you succeed in getting an admin to form the view that you are being repeatedly disruptive, then you have two basic options: either make the necessary adjustments, or rest assured that consensus will support your decisions. Continuing in the same manner but simply accusing the admin of involvement because the admin therefore maintains his or her initial view is not a third option, nor can I agree with Dave or others that this in any way supported by the important concept of maintaining proper appearances. Admins having opinions and stating their relevant opinions should be strongly encouraged, not discouraged; their doing so only increases transparency and helps editors understand and address these views. The tendency to stymie openness from decision makers with intemperate criticism is always present, but should be resisted. Mackan79 (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
12. Sarek's view is obviously true. Somehow it is nevertheless sadly unsurprising that it's not more widely held here. ++Lar: t/c 17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Lar claims to be an "uninvolved administrator" in the climate change probation. In my time on Wikipedia I've understood an uninvolved editor as someone without a strong opinion on the editors and the content in an area, i.e. as someone who can act unbiased and neutrally. The probation, on the other hand, explicitly spells out that For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Lar seems to use a non-standard third version that is based only on the areas an editor has contributed in. By that definition he is indeed uninvolved. By any reasonable definition he is non-neutral, biased, and has a displayed a prejudicial opinion that is impossible to penetrate with arguments of any kind.

• As pointed out by others in this RfC, Lar admittedly entered the area with a feeling that "the playing field is not level" and the explicit intention of fixing that. Yes, in a certain sense the playing field is not level. One side in the Wikipedia climate change discussions has the overwhelming amount of scientific support on their side, as shown e.g. in the statements by all major National Academies of Science collected in scientific opinion on climate change, the IPCC reports, and the recent independent review by the US National Academy. The other side has a few columnists, bloggers, and hundreds of sock puppets. However, levelling that playing field is not in Wikipedia's interest - or in anybody's who supports quality coverage. It is only due to the hard work and permanent vigilance of a number of scientifically literate editors that despite aggressive campaigning and socking the weight of the scientific opinion is, if not perfectly then at least adequately, reflected in the climate change articles, which have received praise from serious outside sources. Lar has been effusive but nebulous about what exactly he wants to level or what he perceives as "uphill", but he has consistently advocated more and stricter sanctions against members of what he calls "Team Science", while he has been remarkably diffident when discussing problems with editors associated with the so-called "skeptic" position.
• When it was pointed out to Lar that several editors in this very RfC have questioned his suitability for handling at least certain probation cases, he first dismisses them with the claim that "mostly, they are not ". When clearly uninvolved editors are pointed out to Lar, he suggests that at least some of those "bear him animus and pile on on general principle", while admitting the he has not "examined the work of those folks to make any determination". I see this as pointing out a very broad lack of good faith, but also, and significantly, as a sign that Lar automatically discards opinions at odds with his without even giving them reasonable consideration.
• In a current probation case, a new administrator disagreed with Lar's preferred solution. Lar immediately declared him "not entirely uninvolved" in what to me looks like a clear attempt to denigrate the opinion provided. During a lengthy discussion on Lar's talk page, it became clear that this was another snap judgement without any sound support. However, after first defending the claim of involvement, Lar then reinterpreted his statement as merely a technical comment (quite regardless of the fact that even technically it needs a lot of stretch to make his claim anything but just wrong).

In short, Lar has the unfortunate habit of forming opinions too quickly, of stating opinions in at least misleading and often derogatory language ("Cabal", "involved"), and of equivocating if caught with an undeniable error. Given the resulting bad blood between Lar and several editors in the climate change area, I do not see how Lar can usefully serve as a neutral, unbiased administrator in this area.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
2. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Let's put aside policy for a moment, which seems ambiguous anyway, and take a long view. To me, the situation is like a cop having to deal with unruly protesters. A cop can't or shouldn't scream obscenities because they are being yelled at him. The person with the power has to act with restraint. Yes, it is possible that he is deliberately provoked. But seeing a cop behave incorrectly has a chilling effect, and I say that generally, not just on this person. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Lar's refusal to even admit the possibility that those criticizing his actions could be acting in good faith and not because they "bear him animus" is a large part of the problem. The sentence beginning with "In short..." is spot on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
5. - Vsmith (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
6. Polargeo (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Partial endorse. I don't know Lar well enough to know if the "in short" sentence is descriptive of his behaviour here. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
8. --Snowman frosty (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
9. Guettarda (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
10. dave souza, talk 20:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
11. well summarized SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 19:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
12. Rami R 19:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
13. Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
14. It can be difficult to avoid developing involvement even with good faith, and this is what has has happened here 01:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Many here have stated that they trust Lar to not act against consensus. It is my opinion statements such as these miss the point. General Sanctions enforcement (GSE) is not a consensus based process. It is imposed when the usual process fails, in order to enable administrators to take action without gaining explicit consensus first. General sanctions do not typically even require usage of an enforcement page, often enabling administrators to act at their own discretion. What's more, GSE isn't like normal administrative actions; GSE without consensus can only be revoked if counter-consensus exists, and attempting undoing of GSE, even a controversial one, without consensus is grounds for immediate desysoping. It because of this that the question of involvement becomes critical; it is the most significant, if not only, safety device in this process.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Rami R 20:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
2. I endorse this, but feel community sanctions in this area is a failed process and I feel that sanctions and administrator enforcement should be taken over by ArbCom.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.