William Connolley (and Polargeo) vs Lar, Global warming wars Options

[Cla68]

RfC time. I take it WMC did not appreciate being called on his actions.

[Malleus]

RfC time. I take it WMC did not appreciate being called on his actions.

Lar doesn't either. He's quite happy to accuse others of what he himself is guilty of, or thinks they are.

Just in case there's any doubt though, I firmly believe that WMC's position is at best dishonest.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Moulton]

Hrmm. I see that Guettarda and KillerChihuahua (both of IDCab fame) are in on the game.

I'll be watching this one from my idiosyncratic perspective of someone interested in science-related articles that strive for high levels of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online reporting.

[Malleus]

I'll be watching this one from my idiosyncratic perspective of someone interested in science-related articles that strive for high levels of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online reporting.

You'll most likely end up being disappointed then.

[Moulton]

I'll be watching this one from my idiosyncratic perspective of someone interested in science-related articles that strive for high levels of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online reporting.

You'll most likely end up being disappointed then.

Oh, I'm resigned to the likelihood that WP will never get anywhere close to normative levels of accuracy, excellence, or ethics in online reporting. What interests me is 1) diagnosing why that is so, and 2) why there is no reasonable expectation of remedying that shortcoming.

[Malleus]

I'll be watching this one from my idiosyncratic perspective of someone interested in science-related articles that strive for high levels of accuracy, excellence, and ethics in online reporting.

You'll most likely end up being disappointed then.

Oh, I'm resigned to the likelihood that WP will never get anywhere close to normative levels of accuracy, excellence, or ethics in online reporting. What interests me is 1) diagnosing why that is so, and 2) why there is no reasonable expectation of remedying that shortcoming.

The answer to your second question is surely obvious. The place is run by children and idiots who value "civility" above honesty.

[Moulton]

The place is run by children and idiots who value "civility" above honesty.

So Sanger got it wrong? It's not adults peddling porn to children, but children peddling porn to adults?

[Malleus]

The place is run by children and idiots who value "civility" above honesty.

So Sanger got it wrong? It's not adults peddling porn to children, but children peddling porn to adults?

"Peddling" implies some kind of benefit in return. Don't see it myself. It's just a power thing. I'm an admin you're not, so I'm in charge. Why wouldn't kids love that?

[Moulton]

"Peddling" implies some kind of benefit in return. Don't see it myself. It's just a power thing. I'm an admin you're not, so I'm in charge. Why wouldn't kids love that?

I would nominate Dopamine as the reward. Dopamine is the neuropeptide most commonly associated with instant gratification.

Children and addicts are often dopamine junkies -- they seek instant pleasure, without regard for the long-term consequences.

[Milton Roe]

"Peddling" implies some kind of benefit in return. Don't see it myself. It's just a power thing. I'm an admin you're not, so I'm in charge. Why wouldn't kids love that?

I would nominate Dopamine as the reward. Dopamine is the neuropeptide most commonly associated with instant gratification.

Not a peptide (as are, say, the encephalins-- the brain's morphine). Dopamine is just an amino acid derivative.

And there must be more to reward centers than dopamine, else Parkinson's drugs that increase dopamine in the brain (L-DOPA/carbidopa) would be addictive. Or at least pleasurable. So far as I can tell, they aren't. Much. Certainly the sympathomimetics (meth, coke, etc) are far more so.

The place is run by children and idiots who value "civility" above honesty.

So Sanger got it wrong? It's not adults peddling porn to children, but children peddling porn to adults?

Teenagers peddling porn to everybody. Wow, that's unique. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)


Not.

[Moulton]

So what cocktail of neurotransmitters would you indict as being responsible for lulz?

[Zoloft]

So what cocktail of neurotransmitters would you indict as being responsible for lulz?

Hemoglobin, plasma, testosterone, and adrenaline.

[Milton Roe]

So what cocktail of neurotransmitters would you indict as being responsible for lulz?

Hemoglobin, plasma, testosterone, and adrenaline.

And piss and vinegar. Snaps, snails, puppydog tails.

Not enough sugar, spice, or anything nice.

[Moulton]

No original research here, either. Oh well.

[Ottava]

RfC time. I take it WMC did not appreciate being called on his actions.

Lar doesn't either. He's quite happy to accuse others of what he himself is guilty of, or thinks they are.

Just in case there's any doubt though, I firmly believe that WMC's position is at best dishonest.

Can't we just ban em all? Bring me back too. : )

The place is run by children and idiots who value "civility" above honesty.

So Sanger got it wrong? It's not adults peddling porn to children, but children peddling porn to adults?

I think that is the argument most pedophiles make: "she came onto me".



By the way, what about the BLP issues of Lar accusing WMC of doing something sneaky on Wikipedia regarding Climate Change in a parallel manner to "climategate"? Isn't that a big no-no? I don't really see any diffs or proof (no emails released yet).

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[EricBarbour]

Outside view by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

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 indeed true that he does not edit such articles, so that 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." [4]

* Advocates a specific content position while engaged on the enforcement talk page.[5]

* Makes no secret of his desire to "level the playing field"[6][7] 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,"[8] the "science club,"[9] and a "cabal."[10]

* While engaged on the enforcement page itself, sarcastically berates an editor for having opposed his reconfirmation as steward.[11][12]

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.

What shit. Boris is confusing his mouth and his anus again.

(Any conversation about WP's "governance" always seems to lead back to the butthole.
I think there's a lesson in there.........somewhere.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Moulton]

Any conversation about WP's "governance" always seems to lead back to the butthole.
I think there's a lesson in there.........somewhere.

You may be on to something, Eric. Antagonists in these turf battles fling dirty words the way monkeys fling poo. That might also explain the associated references to grabbing a fistful of ammunition from the dark dank depot.

[Guido den Broeder]

Looks like they both ran out of easier victims.

[A Horse With No Name]

This is one dull RfC. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Cla68]

This is one dull RfC. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

In spite of all the constant bickering, revert warring, baiting, and personal attacks that occur on the global warming pages, not that many RfC's come out of it all. One reason may be because the enforcement board gives an outlet for dispute resolution.

I reported Stephan Schulz to ArbCom a few weeks ago because he posted in the "admin only" section of an enforcement board discussion. Since he is rather heavily engaged in watching WMC's back in the AGW articles, I didn't think he should be involving himself as an admin. ArbCom gently declined to get involved, and lately he has started posting in that section again in protest of Lar's involvement. If that isn't controlled, the enforcement board will become a farce. I'm sure some will contend it is already, but there are a couple of admins, including Lar and LessHeard, who are actually trying to correct or manage the behavior of WMC and some of the other regulars in those articles. I hope that they will be able to continue to do so.

This post has been edited by Cla68: