Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive10

Request concerning MarkNutley and BigK HeX

 * User requesting enforcement : User:Marknutley


 * Users against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : General sanctions/Climate change probation

Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so =
 * 1)  BK Reverts prwatch into a BLP
 * 2)  BK Reverts an advocacy group into a BLP
 * 3)  BK Reverts a blog into a BLP
 * 4)  Mark Nutley reverts suspect sources out. Note edit sumary.
 * 5)  BK reverts Mark Nutley, against policy i might add.
 * 6) Mark Nutley reverts BK hex claiming blp exemption due to blogs and advocacy ref`s being used.
 * 7) Talk page thread begins.
 * 8)  BK reverts these sources back in. And still has not gone to talk.
 * 9)  Mark Nutley reverts with the edit summary rv as before, you can`t use blogs and advocacy sites in a blp STOP
 * 10)  BK reverts refs back in warning mark nutley he has done 3r`s. BK has also broken 3r with this revert.
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) :
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) :

I am on a 1r parole broadly construed, i have been told i broke it at Steven Milloy Bigk hex broke 3r on the article by reverting in blog and advocacy refs.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : I won`t bother to notify meself

Statement by Mark Nutley
I have been tidying this article up for a couple of days, removing obviously unreliable sources for a BLP Blog Blog PR Watch and tagging others such as this  Tagging deadlinks  fixing deadlinks using wayback  And also removing Primary Sources. I was surprised that BK began to reinsert the obviously bad ref`s back in and reverted him. Note my edit summary. BLP is quite clear on this, any content poorly sourced must be removed. Reverting these out does not count as reverts. That article is still full of primary sources which need to be removed. mark nutley (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment in response to BK I never mentioned WP:LIBEL and i am unsure were that has come from. I removed sources which were a breach of wp:blp and wp:rs policy. The content was not in my opinion libellous and did not need removing, but i`ll go check, the sources however did need removing which is why they were removed and cn tags left in place. I did also remove content which had been sourced to blogs. I would prefer for BK to explain why he edit warred blog and other crap ref`s into a BLP mark nutley (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BigK HeX
I'm just amazed on so many levels....

A 1RR editor is reporting himself ... after three reverts?

And, it also seems pretty silly for this report to be submitted looking like this, and the editor apparently going off to bed or whatever.

I guess, most importantly, I have no clue why I'm in any report here, as I was unaware of any sanctions going on with the climate stuff. I'm somewhat annoyed to be in this request for enforcement, when, apparently, mark nutley's comments indicate that he is aware that this is new to me [since he "welcomes" me to this drama].BigK HeX (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that there's an actual report to respond to, I'll say this. It was quite a while until it dawned on me that User:Marknutley was trying to refer to directives such as WP:LIBEL, as the justification of his actions. My slow realization was caused by the fact that he didn't actually remove any of the article material he deemed as contentious -- he removed only the citations for these allegedly libelous statements. Being that I was puzzled as to why he went around leaving the article less sourced, I asked him to explain on the talk page. Frankly, I've seen this editor's application of guidelines, and in many cases it has been pretty suspect, as, for example, the first source that I saw was a ref which basically was being used as opinion of the authors. Later, I stated that the publication in question (by a group called the UCS) is an RS for opinions of the UCS and he responds that they can't be used as an RS for the opinions that they hold. When I started editing, I thought there might have been a good chance that the refs could have been removed accidentally. Then mark nutley started deleting the refs only, still with little explanation as to why the refs needed to be removed imperatively (but the material previously supported by the refs was good enough to keep). I kept requesting an explanation, as I couldn't ascertain his thinking, but got very little even when he did start posting on the talk page --- I decided that very little was going to be forthcoming from User:Marknutley, based somewhat on previous interactions with him, which have made me very unsure of his level of English comprehension (which is also odd to me since he seems to be able to convey himself fine in English when he chooses to).

Anyways, it started to become clear that my disagreement could quickly escalate into a strange edit war over leaving the article less sourced, so I decided that it would defuse the situation to find alternative sources and start an RSN, which has indeed seemed to remove the contention discussed here. BigK HeX (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Mark Nutley and BigK HeX
This is pretty clearly both a BLP violation and a 3RR violation by BigK HeX. The sources are not RS, in that one is a blog and the advocacy group cite is to a press release. None are acceptable for a BLP, especially when it is negative information. MN is in compliance of his 1RR due to the fact that he was reverting a crystal clear BLP vio. There is no such explanation for the reverts by BH. GregJackP  Boomer!   12:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In the real encyclopedia, MN would be fully in the right here, but this article actually resides in Bizarro Wikipedia, where wrong is right and right is wrong. In Bizarro Wikipedia, poor sourcing is encouraged, BLP doesn't apply, and enforcing BLP policy gets you blocked. In this particular example, MN removed blog sources for criticism, which is a big no-no in Bizarro Wikipedia. Blog sources for criticism are the foundation of Bizarro Wikipedia, where RealClimate is the New York Times and The Times itself is considered unreliable and unusable. Mark should know this, and I hope he gets a nice healthy block for his transgressions. ATren (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment to BigK Hex - you welcomed yourself to the drama with your repeated insertion of weak disputed citations that were not WP:RS and your failure to follow good practice like WP:BRD. IMO you are the one most responsible for creating this report, that is why you are surprised to find yourself in this report. Off2riorob (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea. How about the section for "Statement by BigK HeX" contain just those statements.  Regardless, it's pretty asanine to "request enforcement" of a sanction that I was unaware of ... but it's unsurprising that you miss that point. BigK HeX (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea, you accept your major part in this disruption and accept your editing was in the generally accepted style that is referred to here at wikipedia as disruptive edit warring. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

MN has a point about some of the sources being introduced in this article. However, I question whether this is the right forum, as the article involves someone who comments on many subjects, not just climate change. Do we use these enforcement forums every time someone breathes a worth on the subject and there's an edit that is objectionable? Must every content dispute end up here? ScottyBerg (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This process set up to address CC issues, broadly construed. This is clearly an appropriate venue.   GregJackP   Boomer!   17:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ScottyBerg is right that this should not be used as a forum for every objectionable edit - as with every other article, one starts with clear edit summaries, escalates to discussions on talk pages, and pursues other elements of DR if discussions on talk pages do not reach a satisfactory conclusion. The other elements of DR include posting to content specific noticeboards (RSN, BLPN) as needed, but the usual escalation to ANI is supposed to come here instead of there. BigK HeX has not been aware of this board, and clearly isn't aware of the history, if astonished that someone self-reports (this is the third example I can recall OTTOMH). Frankly, I think a little more discussion at talk and noticeboards was called for before coming here, but others may feel it was inevitable that it would end up here, so why wait. -- SPhilbrick  T  19:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rlevse told me on Nuke`s talkpage that this article fell under the CC probation. As such i have brought it here. BK mey not have known about the probation but i am sure he knows not to edit war, nor insert unreliable sources into a BLP. That is why he is here. I am here as i am a 1r restriction and want it clarified that i did not break it. I do not want another spurious block due to people not looking at the evidence properly mark nutley (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that you included your own edits because you wanted clarification that your edits were fine. And I'm not disagreeing that this is the right forum once the need for escalation occurs, as the article is clearly a CC article. My only point is that one shouldn't come running to this board whenever there is a dispute, but try to work it out through other means first. While it was mildly contentious, I thought there was some reasonable progress at the RSN, and it is possible that discussion on article and individual talk pages, as well as relevant notice boards, might have been sufficient to resolve the issue. Or perhaps not, but it is helpful to remember that this board is not intended as the first resort for disputes, but as an alternative to ANI when other options fail.--  SPhilbrick  T  21:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have nor looked at the edits in question, but on a purely technical note, let me quote Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines from the probation conditions. I don't think this has happened here, and neither has Steven Milloy been tagged. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes(to StS and SPh as well, just above). Especially if the article talk wasn't tagged. See my proposed close below. ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Editors are expected to be aware of sanctions on articles, assuming the article talk carried the appropriate warning message." - I find that misleading, since the article did not, in fact, carry the appropriate warning message, either as an edit message or as a talk page banner. I suggest you strike that part to not leave a wrong impression --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Would that it were so. Editors have been punished even where no clear notice exists, and told thatt they ought to have noticed motices which were not there (and which, in one case, were placed after the infraction), and not been cleared of wrongdoing.  I take it you are proposing this as a change from current practice - it surely doe not represent current practice. Collect (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any such case. Please clarify. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I've taken another cut, see what you think. ++Lar: t/c 00:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Better, but still somewhat incongruous with how things have happened before. Only a very few number of relevant articles are tagged with edit notices, and its not reasonable to expect all editors to read talk before editing, or to note a probation header if they do - do you go through all the boxes in the top? I don't. We have previously informed new editors in the region with friendly notice to their talk page, recorded at General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log. That seems to be a lot more robust. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Point. But it seems I just can't satisfy you. Do you agree with the general theme of no sanctions for anyone? That's the important bit to me. Propose a close taking your concerns into account, here in this section, and if it's good, I'll copy it down and support it in lieu of mine. This needs closing, it's small beer in the grand scheme. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think "We take BigK HeX at his word that he was unaware of the existence of the CC article probation in general, or that this article might be subject to it, and no sanction is imposed on any party" without further comments to be sufficient. Why use more words when less will do? It's obvious that he is aware of the probation now, and someone can put him onto the notified list. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Making sure to notify editors is great (and certainly much more fair than hitting unsuspecting ones), but IMO a prominent Edit Comment Warning is likely still necessary on tangential articles like this one. For this case, in particular, Climate skepticism is only one facet of the many things that Steven Milloy objects to.  So far, it seems the only true criteria for whether some future un-templated article falls into sanctions is whether it is prone to become a WP:BATTLEGROUND between the editors whose names I see in the various sanction requests on this page, and without some warning on the article, it this type of criteria seems subjective enough to snare quite a few people. BigK HeX (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should have been warned by MN (and the warning logged) about this after the first revert so you were aware. That apparently was not done. This whole thing needs to be closed no action but with some lessons learned. ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, how does one add an warning to the edit page for articles like this? BigK HeX (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It actually goes on the talk, which, if you are reverting, even once, you should be adjourning to immediately to explain why and justify. That's common practice everywhere on wiki, not just in this area. ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As mentioned by someone else though, it also may be common practice to skip the menagerie of boxes at the top of every talk page.  Some sort of warning near the edit window itself is probably more foolproof, though talk page templates would minimally cover the bases (officially, anyways). BigK HeX (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here`s what is common practice, not edit warring blogs into a blp, try to remember it mark nutley (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Given your participation in any edit war here, you'd be well advised to take a look in the mirror, champ. BigK HeX (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Lar's proposed close. Arkon (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it so your agreement may not be operable. ++Lar: t/c 00:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just reaffirming my endorsement fwiw. That's how I took it from the start.  Arkon (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The correct approach when one believes that an edit has been made contrary to WP policy is to notify that editor of the relevant policy and pursue the matter through the RSN, BLP, NPOV or 3RR noticeboards. For special cases like article probation and 1RR, the editor should be notified of this.  From mark nutley's statement, this was not done and therefore this discussion thread is premature and should be closed.  TFD (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is stale. BigK HeX is continuing to harrass Marknutley, repeatedly accusing MN of misconduct on an article talk page: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is certainly acceptable to complain to another editor after he has repeatedly requested input for a change of name when there is no consensus for it and to repeatly make the same arguments to people when it is clear they are not convincing. I have made my views clear on the name change and my opinion will only change if new evidence and new arguments are provided.  I do not appreciate that virtually the same discussion is raised by mark nutley over and over again, requiring me to restate the same objections I had before.  TFD (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's true that Mark opened an RfC, but the current round of article title discussions, I believe, was started by someone else. In any case, article talk pages are not the proper venues to discuss editor conduct.  If BigK HeX has a problem with Mark, he should take it up at his talk page or file an RfE.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning BigK HeX and Mark Nutley

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections.


 * Suggest this be deleted for now, and restored by Mark when he has the details and diffs ready to share. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Has been filled in now, the above suggestion is no longer applicable. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors are expected to be aware of sanctions on articles, assuming the article talk carried the appropriate warning message. Nevertheless I'm inclined to take BigK HeX at his word that he was unaware and close this with an admonition that now he is aware and now he needs to be more careful and cognizant of the restrictions as next time ignorance will not be accepted, and no other action. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * StS points out the above is a bit misleading; and he's right. The article talk wasn't tagged and apparently still is not. Here's my actual proposed close: (Arkon's endorsement should be disregarded as it is prior to this wording):
 * Editors are expected to be aware of sanctions on articles, assuming the article talk carries the appropriate warning message. In this case the article did not, and as of this writing still does not. That should be rectified by any concerned editor. We take BigK HeX at his word that he was unaware of the existence of the CC article probation in general, or that this article might be subject to it, and no sanction is imposed on any party. BigK HeX is cautioned that such ignorance only works one time.
 * Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 00:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the gist of this but I am concerned that it reads as "You didn't know about the climate change probation, so you will not be sanctioned." To my mind this is insufficient; if I had come across this as a current edit-war in an AN3 report, I would likely have blocked BigK HeX for edit-warring regardless of the existence of the probation. I think any close needs to make clear that this pattern of editing is unacceptable in any Wikipedia article; that BigK HeX has not been blocked is due both to his ignorance of the probation and to the fact the edit-war was stale by the time of this report. CIreland (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a close, no action, as stale. At this point is there anything else we could do? I doubt it. I will do so barring any objection in the next 24 hours. ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * support close as stale. Life is too short --BozMo talk 19:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So enacted. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I issue
I should flag up the fact that I've raised an issue at AN/I - see WP:AN/I. Since this noticeboard has completely broken down - every request gets closed as stale - I've taken it there, particularly as the issue needs to be dealt with quickly. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning William M. Connolley

 * User requesting enforcement : GregJackP   Boomer!   18:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : General sanctions/Climate change probation, refactoring or editing other user's comments, had just come off of probation for the same violation.


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1)  Edited my comments from a discussion on this page.
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive1 Sanctioned by
 * 2) General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive4 Previous CC/RE where the procedure for refactoring was established.
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : 1 week (7 day) block, since the last three blocks (3 hours, 15 minutes, and 1 hour) did not seem to have any real effect. Extension of refactoring probation for six months, to end January 27, 2011.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : WMC was on conduct probation for refactoring/editing other editors comments until July 27, 2010. Less than a week after completing the probation, he has done it again.  This shows that he has no apparent regard for the rules of Wikipedia or an understanding of why he was on probation in the first place.

WMC notified.

@Hipocrite: I had no idea that you are dyslexic, and had I known, I would not have posted the comment. Having said that, there is absolutely no call for the vulgarity, if you had let me know that I had inadvertently insulted you, I would have apologized and retracted. That in no ways excuses WMC's edit - he could have done the same thing by letting me know. GregJackP  Boomer!   21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC) @AQFK & ATren: It was not a swipe at Hipocrite. I an concerned that ChrisO has taken and continues to take cheap shots at other editors, particularly MN and had previously brought it to the attention of various admins (but without asking for sanctions). GregJackP  Boomer!   21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC) @LHVU: I understand your point, but WMC is well aware of the issue but chooses to ignore it. GregJackP  Boomer!   21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC) @Dave: You're kidding, right? Does this mean that you're more interested in comments such as the one ChrisO made now? In any event, the issue is WMC editing another persons comment without any grounds to do so. GregJackP  Boomer!   23:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@Dave again: Chris stated that MN was someone whose knowledge appears to be well below high school level.  How is that appropriate in any manner? That does not in any way indicate that Chris felt that MN had "high intelligence" as you put it. Please, if you are going to be an apologist, do so, but don't then lecture us on civility. GregJackP  Boomer!   00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@KDP: He also removed the Chronicle ref. Surely you are not saying that the Chronicle is not a RS? It is read internationally in academia. WMC had no grounds to remove that reference, and it ties into the case here - he removes things that he does not agree with, regardless of the rules. It has to stop. GregJackP  Boomer!   12:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@Chris: Does that include your cheap shots and "gratuitous digs" at Mark and others? GregJackP  Boomer!   22:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added another diff to the prior warning section. BozMo brought this up on WMC's talkpage, where it was explicitly covered that WMC should advised the original editor, allow an opportunity to that editor to remove or redact, and only if no such redaction occurred should the comment then be removed by WMC.  Clearly he is aware that this conduct is not acceptable.   GregJackP   Boomer!   13:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely support Franamax's proposed resolution. GregJackP  Boomer!   18:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley
It isn't clear to me exactly what "sanction or remedy" has been violated here. I notice that you haven't specified; and the boilerplate says it can be declined without. Do please be clearer William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since no-one else has mentioned it, I need to point out that 1 week (7 day) block, since the last three blocks (3 hours, 15 minutes, and 1 hour) did not seem to have any real effect is wrong. Lar's 1-hour block was overturned as invalid. BozMo removed his own 3h block as invalid and effectively admitted that the 15 min one was also invalid William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I reject JEH's ruling, which is clearly invalid William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley
People might think it's ok to insult people for regarding their diagnosed medical disabilities - it's well known I'm dyslexic. Perhaps it seems that I've got this super tough exterior, and it's ok to poke fun about me mixing up words, or reversing letters. Oh, hahaha, let's laugh at the cripple. Let me put this not lightly - GregJackP can go fuck himself - forever. I walked away from the keyboard for hours after reading his outrageous shot at my disability, and Lar's disgusting, disreputable defense of it, but I didn't calm down - I'm just as furious as I was hours ago - so, in summary, Lar and GregJackP can go fuck themselves, and thank you for standing up for me, WMC. With that, I'm out for quite a while. Go fuck yourselves! Hipocrite (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhm, are you sure GJP knew you are dyslexic? I agree it would put the thing into a different light if he did, but without that it comes across as rather a lot more harmless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what's going on here or what sort of history there is between these two editors, but I interpretted GregJackP's comment to be a veiled swipe at ChrisO, not Hipocrite. But I could be wrong.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it started out from Greg picking up a typo Hipocrite had made in spelling a Latin word, with an ironic remark how one could interpret that as a sign of poor education, so yes, it was directed both at Hipocrite and at Chris in some way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting completely out of hand. I suggest that an admin with no previous participation in this area indiscriminately block everyone who has participated in the case (yes, including me) until the committee announces its proposed decision. The fact that the blocking is indiscriminate means that there is not necessarily any imputation of misbehavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Like we're really going to find an uninvolved admin willing to block a couple dozen (or more) editors. We can't even find uninvolved admins to enforce these requests.  As ChrisO has correctly pointed out, this page has completely broken down.  Unless I've missed something, there has not been a single request that has been enforced since May, and already LessHeard vanU is proposing to do nothing.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My advice to everyone? Sit tight, shut up and wait for the ArbCom. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to come of posting requests on this page any more. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Three points: This is yet more evidence that a few problematic long-term editors have turned this entire topic area into a mockery. If the committee doesn't deal with ChrisO, Hipocrite and WMC at a minimum, nothing will be solved. But of course, they probably won't deal with them, they'll probably sanction people like MN, Lar, Cla and me -- the ones who are trying to fix this mess -- and give the troublemakers yet another pass. ATren (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've interacted with Hipocrite for many months, maybe years, and I had no idea he was dyslexic.
 * Even if he knew, the issue was a misspelling, not a transposition of letters, so what does that have to do with dyslexia?
 * Why is nobody outraged at what GJP linked to: ChrisO mocking someone's intelligence and education? Of course, ChrisO must know that Mark himself has a disability which might cause him to type carelessly sometimes, right? That attack by ChrisO was much more personal and vicious than GJP's comment. Does that mean MN can now raise hell and tell everyone to fuck off, like Hipocrite did?


 * Please don't misrepresent my comments about Marknutley's edits to List of wars between democracies (an article far outside this topic area). There is no disability I can think of - unless you count ignorance as a disability - that would cause an editor to claim here that the Greek city-states weren't democracies (where does he think the concept came from?), that 18th century Britain and America weren't democracies and that the Confederacy wasn't a democracy. You would think that someone wishing to write about a topic would make the effort to learn something about it first. It doesn't indicate anything about Marknutley's intelligence, nor about any disability he might have, but it does show that at least in this regard there's a serious gap in his knowledge and his willingness to research an issue beforehand, which is reducing his effectiveness as an editor. In the context of an RfC about an editor who's plainly been driven to exasperation by Marknutley's edits, that's a perfectly valid observation to make. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Chris, you are treating that topic and your disagreement with mark as a personal battleground. Commenting on the editor's supposed level of intelligence or knowledge is unacceptable and you should know that. Cla68 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Cla68, why are you jumping to this battleground assertion? It's assuming good faith to take it that Mark lacked knowledge of Greek history when he made that incorrect assertion, are you suggesting that Mark was fully aware that he was asserting nonsense? Mark's been given a lot of leeway on the assumption that he's getting things wrong by accident, which is as required by AGF. Please also assume good faith in ChrisO's attempt to communicate the problems in a discussion where Mark's interaction with another editor was at issue. . . dave souza, talk 22:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I've heard it all -- ChrisO insulting Mark's intelligence and education was nothing more than Chris' assumption of Mark's good faith.   Are you serious?  Is this really what this has come to -- because that is a remarkably twisted, distorted bit of reasoning there and is unhinged from reality IMO. Did I misinterpret something in that post?   Please correct me and accept my apologies if I have.   Minor4th  23:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's ChrisO's statement, "I can understand why PMAnderson might get frustrated at having to deal with someone whose knowledge appears to be well below high school level." Dave, are you really defending this comment by ChrisO? Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Bizarro Wikipedia. ATren (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to know there is a name for this phenomenon I have observed in this topic area. Minor4th  01:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read comments more carefully, Cla68 and Minor4th, that says nothing about Mark's intelligence. As ChrisO also said, Mark's edits show "an absolutely abysmal knowledge of history", but many people of high intelligence know nothing of history. In my recollection, what makes dealing with Mark so frustrating is his confident and persistent assertion that his misconceptions are correct. So, please take more care to avoid making unwarranted accusations. . dave souza, talk 00:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. <b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And looky here, Dave criticizing GJP for correcting a misspelling at the same time he thinks nothing is wrong with making insinuations about another editor's intelligence! Yes, they are that blatantly hypocritical here in Bizarro World. ATren (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Again ... Wow!  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment-- I'm sorry for Hipocrite that he was hurt by GregJackP's commentary that was actually directed at ChrisO, but there is no way Greg would have ridiculed a disability if he had known. I think the assumption of bad faith on H's part is over the top, but I understand being upset even though it was an innocent edit on Greg's part.  Greg's comment actually was more of a statement about how trivial and unimportant spelling errors are and not the sort of thing that an editor should be chastised about.


 * William M.Connolley should not be deleting other editor comments, and a week after coming off probation for exactly that behavior -- you really have to wonder what he's thinking.  A warning is appropriate if he does not agree to an extended self imposed restriction, and if it happens again, I think Greg's recommended sanctions are appropriate.


 * I'm concerned about Chris' comments to MN, as ATren says that MN is also affected by a disability that might influence his edits.  Either way an apology is in order for that from Chris.  I think it's improper and mean -- sorry Chris, I assured you I would work hard to assume good faith on your part, and in that spirit, I am assuming you did not realize how your words came across or how mean that kind of comment can be and ask that you think about that if you're inclined to say something about someone's intelligence or education in the future. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that the above hatted discussion includes responses to offtopic assertions made by GregJackP in the request section above.  Other than reminding GregJackP to read carefully, I see no need to repeat these responses. . . dave souza, talk 09:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, here's a comment about WMC. He just reverted text that I had added shortly before in which I had replaced uncited text with sourced text.  In his talk page comment, WMC states that he removed it and returned the uncited text because The Hockey Stick Illusion is, in his opinion, not a reliable source.  There are two problems with WMC's statement, first HSI is a reliable source and to replace it with uncited text is against our guidelines.  Second, and more importantly, WMC appears to have overlooked that there were two sources in that citation, the second one being to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Apparently, WMC simply reverted on sight without trying to discuss it first or even giving it a measured glance.  Cla68 (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And you do not consider it tendentious editing to keep inserting a particular reference that A) is redundant B) you know is more than controversial? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are referring to The Chronicle of Higher Education, I assume? Cla68 (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)'
 * Am i? Really? Thats strange... I though i was referring to the Hockey stick illusion, the book that you've been continuously pushing on various articles, and which has been removed with most of the same arguments again and again .... One of those arguments is that you are using it to reference things that aren't supported by the book - and as far as i can tell, this again, isn't supported by the reference - since the book only states that vS was one of the editors to resign and nothing about his role as a "newly appointed editor-in-chief" (one of the description of vS in the book is "Von Storch is a colorful character who once founded a club to defend Donald Duck against accusations of indecent behavious, and for some years was the editor of a Donald Duck magazine, Der Hamburger Donaldist.") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - William M.Connolley should not be deleting other editor comments, and a week after coming off probation for exactly that behavior --you really have to wonder what he's thinking.   A warning is appropriate if he does not agree to an extended self imposed restriction, and if it happens again, I think Greg's recommended sanctions are appropriate.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 13:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - WMC should be grateful to be here at all by now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FutPer -- would you please stop hatting off my comments and partial comments. I note various irrelevant comments above that you did not hat. Mine were not tangential -- they relate to they comment that WMC deleted and his stated reason for deleting it. Please restore my comment in full. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether or not GregJackP knew of Hipocrite's disability, WMC was probably aware of it. (See the hatted section for what that is.) Thus WMC's redaction of GregJackP's dig falls under, or close to, the "removing harmful posts" situation in which wp:TPOC says it is sometimes okay to remove a posting.  Cardamon (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's little doubt that this is a knock at ChrisO (apparently in retaliation for ChrisO's knock at Marknutley), but is extremely mild compared to the stuff that typically goes on around here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Extremely mild compared to the stuff that typically goes on around here"? That reminds me of the arguments we had about whether to mention the death threats against scientists reported following the CRU e-mail hack. People argued that they were not notable as, where they live, it's so violent that all kinds of people get death threats all the time. I don't think standards of unpleasantness should be continuously lowered always to make more room for the most unpleasant we can find. --Nigelj (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall anyone making that argument at the Climategate article, but that's way off topic. My point, if I wasn't clear, was that if we went around and removed every uncivil comment, lots of comments would have to be removed.  BTW, I also point out that WMC's redaction itself contained a mild knock at GJP.  Going in circles isn't helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've known and collaborated with PManderson for years. I have an obvious interest in an RfC about him. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * GregJackP's dig may have been meant as a knock to ChrisO, but it was hurtful to Hipocrite, and was therefore harmful. Cardamon (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't think editors should be making gratuitous digs at other editors anyway. There was no need for GregJackP's comments and much trouble could have been avoided if he hadn't made them in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ref "Since no-one else has mentioned it, I need to point out that.." cmt above by WMC. I think everyone here, in ignoring the proposed remedy, has twigged that these blocks were (a) not for a remotely related offence (here was redacting talk page comments) (b) not therefore relevant in any particular way. Also, as he said, two were overturned and the third (being my first block) was procedurally dubious. --BozMo talk 20:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The blocks don't need to be for the same reason. They are all related in that they are indicative of an editor who consistently has issues with following the rules.  As I noted above, just about 12 hours ago, WMC removed sourced content and restored uncited content, apparently simply because he didn't like it, since I otherwise don't see any reason for the revert.  Three other editors, besides me, have since upheld the inclusion of the sourced material, although they disagreed over one of the sources used    .  So, obviously, WMC's blanket revert of what I had originally added was disruptive and unhelpful.  In the context of previous corrective action taken with this editor, it shows that corrective action has not been effective and is still necessary.  So, I would say that some type of more severe sanction is necessary here. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather say that your attempt to smuggle in a source that are neither reliable nor supports the text is disruptive. And if you claim support from socks, it shows a complete lack of understanding of why we do not allow socking. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephan Schulz: In what way does this source not support the text? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See the talk page of the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Stephan Schulz says "if you claim support from socks", apparently in reference to the diffs Cla cited showing support for the inclusion (repeated:    )... which of those editors are socks? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Catch21. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 00:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mixed up the diffs. The (likely) sock is User:Catch21, who occurs in Cla's diffs, but not in support of his text, but in support of his source. Struck above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning William M. Connolley

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections.
 * There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions.


 * Premature pending resolution of discussion at WMC's talk about this. ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no point in placing finite periods upon restrictions if they are to be disregarded; it does not matter if a previously restricted action is made 1 second or 1 year after the period ends, there cannot be a sanction under the expired restriction. That said, I suggest that WMC be warned that a further violation of WP:TPOC, which this appears to be, will result in a sanction and the reinstatement of a restriction of any removal of any other editors comments from a talkpage (without their approval) for a further period of 6 months. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we let the talk page discussion conclude first, per Lar, please? --BozMo talk 20:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. I would point out that I first looked at WMC's talkpage, noted the way the discussion was progressing, and then put forward my proposal here. I am content to let it stand here until debate there concludes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WMC has shown basically zero indication of any intention to abide, he's wikilawyering. I think another 24 hours for WMC's talk page discussion to result in an acceptable outcome (an undertaking by WMC not to mess with comments of others from WMC, subject to whatever clarification and codicils necessary, taking into account, for example, SPhilbrick's astute observations about the tension between PA policy and this specific issue is the only acceptable outcome I can envision at this time) or else we need to reimpose the original sanction, this time either indefinitely or for a considerably longer period. Even BozMo seems to be having little effect on WMC. ++Lar: t/c 15:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On inspection, I see no direct information from WMC to the editor whose property was changed, with attendant advice on what exactly was wrong with the post. I understand why the post could be problematic, but no-one has a right to arbitrarily remove talk page content because it's "pointless" sans a personal explanation of why it is so. (FD: I also use other editor's spelling and grammar, among many other factors, to assess their level of skill) (FFD: I have no clue where apostrophes go) I would propose that WMC be enjoined from any changes to other editor talk page comments in the CC area, up to but excluding ArbCom pages. If WMC finds talk comment objectionable, they can find someone else to fix it. The injunction to run at least until closing of the current ArbCase. There's been enough dancing in front of the jurists. Franamax (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two quibbles, 1) Maybe WMC will come around, as I said before... it could happen! 2) This is shorter than the 6 months I think LHvU has in mind (and which I was going to support as well) ... unless we posit that the case is going to take more than 6 months to close. Hmmm... No, please no. So I think fixed term of 6 months is better. Otherwise, since it's what I proposed, I'm fine with it. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To yours: 1) that boat sailed already; 2) when the AC descend from the hill, all will be re-evaluated. This is a community-enforced board and will surmount AC findings, but it must work in step. Anything more than "next few days" needs to have the exceptions laid out clearly, such as obvious or covert vandalism, BLP &c. I may act unilaterally after some reflection, but I'll accept two months of no changes at all to other editor comments, regardless of AC remedies or edit content. I find the lack of discussion with the original editor to be egregious. Franamax (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes probably, but call me an optimist. 2) The last one was 3 months, I prefer to lengthen rather than shorten but accept 2 months to get us to a close expeditiously. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW I would support some sort of ban on WMC redacting talk page comments without first having notified the author and given a reasonable time to react to warning. --BozMo talk 20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed WMC has chosen to remove the thread from his talk page without acknowledging any issue, so I'll support a measure prohibiting his redacting of other editors' comments. The way he did it in this case was unproductive (as was the stink that was raised about it by others subsequently), it was not covered by normal talkpage etiquette and apparently also against special rules that had been agreed here, and if it bears the danger of raising such a stink, it's a matter of common sense he just shouldn't do it and leave it to others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Call consensus. There are no dissenting uninvolved admins, all agree that some sort of measure prohibiting redaction is needed. Some feel notice first would suffice. Most agree that it needs to be a complete prohibition on all manipulation of other editor's comments. There is disagreement about the exact time but I sense that 2 months is a figure that all would agree to. Can someone draft their view of consensus and implement? ++Lar: t/c 13:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WMC is restricted from all CC pages (except arbitration pages) until ArbCom renders a decision. Enough is enough.  This melee has to end.  I will hand out similar restrictions to any other editor who needs to disengage, for the good of the encyclopedia.  This restriction does not imply fault or blame.  It is done to help restore order.  Jehochman Talk 22:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC rejects this sanction. I will let other uninvolved editors decide whether to lift it or not.  I am agreeable to whatever is decided. Jehochman Talk 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse from further input on this particular request, (without prejudice to recusal or participation in others) except that I applaud JEH saying he will abide by consensus. ++Lar: t/c 22:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will abide consensus. I think it will be better at this point to continue the discussion, and restore the status quo ante, meaning that I will remove the restriction.  Any administrator is free to reimpose it or another restriction.  WMC is free to volunteer on the attached talk page. It would be my preference that he do so, but to be clear, there has been no "deal" offered nor accepted. Jehochman Talk 23:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur that WMC should not be editing other peoples' comments, period. 6 months is my first choice, but I would accept two as a compromise. The Wordsmith Communicate 15:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning GregJackP

 * User requesting enforcement : William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : General sanctions/Climate change probation Trolling


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1)  Trolling
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) None that I know of
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : A request to GJP to do some thing useful instead of trolling.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : The climate change area is heated enough, particularly at this time. We simply don't need the kind of trolling GJP is doing.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by GregJackP
Pure retaliation. No warnings and a snarky comment to do something useful (as if the article that got to GA status, the one in PR, and the new one going through GAR isn't enough). He is attempting to divert attention off of his inappropriate actions, and should be sanctioned for misuse of this board. GregJackP  Boomer!   19:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning GregJackP
Retaliation, pure and simple. WMC has done it before; when I filed a request against him a while back, he turned around and filed one against me. Of course, nobody will do anything to an untouchable, so I suggest this be closed as spurious. ATren (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning GregJackP

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections.
 * There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions.

As requested, GregJackP is kindly asked to go do something useful and refrain from gratuitous snarking. WMC is kindly asked to avoid escalating stuff unnecessary through AE requests. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to have topic ban reduced to original length
My topic ban was extended by 3 months due to discussing global warming on a user talk page I was welcome at. The CC sanctions do not apply to user talk pages. According to this ANI thread a consensus of editors and admins have confirmed that CC sanctions cannot be applied to behavior on user talk pages. This list of people includes:


 * 1) Dirk Beetstra
 * 2) Tarc
 * 3) Cardamon
 * 4) Dave Souza
 * 5) Dragon's Flight
 * 6) Wikidemon
 * 7) Jehochman
 * 8) Griswaldo
 * 9) ChrisO
 * 10) Bozmo

Additionally, the admin who instated the original 6 month ban did so without consensus and without filing an enforcement request against me here - I recall SlimVirgin saying that an admin who collects evidence against someone should not be the person deciding the sanction. He simply slapped a dozen diffs together, posted them on my talk page, and topic banned me for 6 months, which seems quite excessive considering the minor and/or misrepresented/out-of-context diffs that he posted and since it was my first topic ban in the area. Despite that I've followed the sanctions and not attempted to edit any CC articles or their associated talk pages to save myself some heartache and frustration, but I've also quit editing articles largely because of this experience as well.

In light of this, since 2over0 is willing to scrounge up evidence against climate skeptics and ban them for half-a-year he should be prevented from acting as an admin in this area or even desysoped (but I doubt that can be done here). At the very least the consensus is that a 3-month extension for talk on a user page was outside the scope of the CC sanctions and that extension should be immediately revoked. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For clarity, I read the ANI consensus as: GSCC-based sanctions can not be applied to an editor's behavior that is unrelated to climate change. However, I would say that GSCC-based sanctions might apply to user talk page discussions regarding climate change, at least under some circumstances.  I haven't studied your individual case TheGoodLocust, and probably won't have the time to do so, though I do sympathize with your evident frustration.  In general, I would expect and encourage admins to give clear warnings before applying GSCC-based sanctions in potentially unexpected places, such as user talk pages.  Dragons flight (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is difficult to put so many people on a list because people interpret things differently. My interpretation was that WMC's defense was based on the fact that the CC sanctions only apply to climate change related pages (see ) and therefore that usertalk pages aren't covered under the sanction (several people explicitly said this). TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I put you on the list because you said: The climate change probation created by Arbcom applies to behaviors on climate change related pages. WMC might even have deserved a block for POINTy behavior, but applying the CC probation to pages and actions not related to climate change seems like overreaching, and the applied restriction probably needs to be revised accordingly. I put you on the list in good faith and wasn't trying to misinterpret what you said. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. I believe that "climate change related pages" may include things like user talk pages and noticeboards when editors are using them deal with climate change.  To do otherwise makes it way too easy to game the system via an otherwise meaningless change of venue.  But GSCC is still based on and limited to actions related to climate change.  That kind of nuance of opinion can sometimes be easy to miss, and I certainly don't blame you for putting me on that list.  Don't worry about it.  Dragons flight (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, arguably WMC's actions and talk page are almost entirely related to climate change and his incivility trumps anything I've seen from any other editor, but I think he does such things because he knows that admins aren't supposed to block or impose sanctions on behavior that occurs right after the sanction - some people might consider that gaming the system. In any case, his recent spat of "hattings" have called several admins stupid  and that was after you unblocked him - I guess everyone (including himself) is so used to such incivility that nobody really cares. I can guarantee you that I've never acted anywhere near that badly, nor have I received two-dozen+ "warnings" or slap-on-the-wrist sanctions and yet I'm the one with a massive topic ban (not based on content since it was all well-sourced and written). TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't get me wrong. WMC's behavior can be way beyond what is reasonable some times, and he can often be deserving of sanctions (which seem more than likely in the current Arbcom case).  I didn't unblock WMC.  I merely clarified the technical point that GSCC sanctions don't apply during those times when he isn't working on climate change stuff.  In principle, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, etc., should still always apply to him.  In practice, there is undoubtedly something of a double standard.  Dragons flight (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - reduction in ban length to time served as soon as Arb posts their proposed decisions, assuming there is not a proposal that would impose something more stringent on you. So why were you topic banned anyway? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 02:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A huge variety of reasons - 2over0 took a shotgun approach to it. Several of them were me talking about WMC et all's serious problems which I've evidenced on the ArbCom evidence page (e.g. describing how he deleted a 5 year old section in an article after he had to include another section - this was after over month (2?) of arguing with all of them until they were finally shown to be completely wrong when the IPCC itself admitted its fault). He also seemed to have a problem with me using the term "AGW advocate" which I thought was a pretty neutral term. Anyway here is the full list, but look at the actual diffs themselves and not his descriptions (I'll provide context if asked). Also, I think there were a couple diffs of poor behavior on my part, in particular I re-opened a RfE thread which I shouldn't have done, but it was excessive to ban me for that after the fact when I'd already learned my lesson. However, I want to be clear that I'm just arguing to have the extension reduced which was based entirely on user talk of a civil nature on a friendly talk page - outside of the scope of the CC sanctions as shown by the rules and recent consensus on ANI. Reviewing 2over0's excuses to ban me, in detail, is only necessary to illustrate why he should be banned from CC enforcement. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that seems reasonable in light of recent events.  And by the way, on the General Discussion talk page I did kind of get on a soapbox earlier about the disparity of sanctions and enforcement against the two opposing factions in this topic area.   If you have not had a look, I think you'd be interested. I was not aware of your sanction at the time or it would have been a good example to use.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 02:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not totally clear: are you asking to have your topic ban lifted because you see a technical angle that can be played, or because you intend to contribute constructively to climate-change articles? What can we expect from you if the topic ban is lifted early? MastCell Talk 04:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm asking to have the extension removed since it was based on behavior not under the jurisdiction of the CC sanctions. My behavior afterward is irrelevant as long as I behave well. I can assure you I won't be calling multiple admins stupid nor will I be posting the private address/telephone numbers of people I ideologically disagree with while implying that they are committing tax fraud. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give examples of articles you would contribute to, with specific additions and sources? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is this necessary? Is this a specific requirement of the probation that I missed, that editors who were incorrectly banned by the letter of the probation now have to justify unbanning by providing a list of editing targets? Why are you creating a requirement that isn't there, and why to TGL? Is it because he opposes the faction? Once again, your uneven approach to this probation is evidenced. ATren (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow.  It's like yesterday never even happened.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The questions that I ask are standard ones that ArbCom routinely asks to editors who are appealing a topic ban (see the bottom sections of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list, I think), no matter what the circumstances of the original ban were. And if you have issues with my behavior, I again remind you that you have RfC as an option if you wish for the broader community to comment on my actions. This is not the place to do so. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the most common justifications for lifting a topic ban is that the user has made significant contributions to articles in other topic areas, thereby demonstrating their ability to contribute constructively and harmoniously. TGL's contribution history shows precisely seven (7) edits to mainspace in the past four months, inspiring little confidence for the future. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, I stopped doing article edits for the most part due to the unjust nature of the ban. That is something that can be fixed right now though. Again, as I said above, I'm merely asking to put the topic ban to its original length since there is a massive consensus that the CC sanctions shouldn't be based on user talk page behavior. 04:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

TGL, in the last week you have written that:
 * "Seriously, the vast majority of academia and the media is liberal and yet you don't think this affects results at all? You can design a study to "prove" nearly anything you want - confirmation bias and groupthink is rampant. I've met more than my fair share of fruit loops when I was at college, but most of their work wasn't being used to justify the destruction of the industrial age - and so most people outside of the echo chamber of academia don't really care what they think and don't mount "political challenges" against their loony tune hypotheses."

This shows a disturbing disdain for the integrity of the academic community as a whole, implying that that studies published by reputable peer-reviewed journals are regularly rigged to find pre-determined results. You have also written, on the subject of the membership of the National Academy of Science that:
 * "Also, having some 10% of the NAS signing off on a letter means very little to me. I can easily imagine that 10% of that body is foolish enough to think that wikipedia or "Real Climate" (hard to tell the difference really) are good sources of information - it is easy to con people by only giving them the facts that confirm a hypothesis rather than those that disprove it."

This comment was made in the context of suggesting Mastcell does not understand the distinction between a scientific hypothesis and a theory, and implied the same was true of the NAS membership. The NAS is the elite body of US scientists, and to suggest that they would not know the difference between hypothesis and theory, or that they are credulous fools unable to analyse results or information sources for themselves is disrespectful and shows a highly distorted picture of the scientific and academic communities. Now, my question is this: in light of your comments, how am I or any other neutral editor supposed to assume that you are editing neutrally and not pushing an agenda? EdChem (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have to assume anything. I'm not interested in playing the game of people digging up diffs so I can defend them and we can fill this spot with pages and pages of nonsense. If my article edits were bad then I would've been blocked for them - they were not. You are suggesting to block me for having an opinion. the fact of the matter is, despite any distractions thrown out there, that the extended block was based on user talk and the consensus is that the CC sanctions don't apply to that space. The three options are either to reblock WMC indefinitely, remove the extension on my topic ban, or demonstrate how rules apply to some people and not to others based on ideology. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

@EdChem: ChrisO has been expressing his ideology strongly in this topic area. If you are concerned about TGL, then I assume you will express similar concerns about ChrisO, who recently viciously smeared a CC skeptic blogger on a talk page. I look forward to you applying your criticisms evenly to ChrisO as you have to TGL. ATren (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - now that we have had all the talk about WMC on ANI we should all know why this is a bad block. Usertalk is not CC space, end of story. So TGL has only made a few edits recently? Well that is certainly abiding by the terms of the block isn't it - surely that is a good thing. Regardless of what anyone thinks, we now have the precedent that usertalkpages are not part of CC space so let's stick to that. It would be a real shame if certain people were arguing on ANI that usertalk is not CC related, yet arguing here that it is. Weakopedia (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Two options here -- vacate TGL's block or reinstate WMC's. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 06:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Per Weakopedia, this topic ban should never have been extended for the reason it was anyway mark nutley (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Whilst a "foolish consistency ..." it is also clear that some appear to ptoffer directly conflicting views of what the CC probation rules are. It is improper to suggest that one interpretation applies to some editors, and an entirely different interpretation applies to others.  WP reasonably should be expected to say "choose one or the other" but using both depending on who is being involved is wrong.  WP is not known for being "fair" but it well ought to follow its own procedures and policies, and not alter them depending on who the personalities are. Collect (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be in our standard format. I think we need at least the sections to segregate discussion added, because at least Marknutley and Minor4th are not "uninvolved admins. I've added one section below, but the rest seems a bit tangled. Perhaps someone else can give refactoring a go? ++Lar: t/c 11:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support-ish - Well it woulda been nice to be informed that an opinion of mine was being used as support for a sanctions appeal. :) I clicked here by chance from elsewhere, but anyways... Yes, I did support the limiting of the refactoring from applying to one's own talk page, but I don't think this should be used as a blanket precedent that every ArbCom sanction can be halted at the gates like that.  When interaction bans are enacted, for example, the parties to that should be prohibited from all contact in any venue, one doesn't get a free pass to respond to the other one someone's talk page.  Or a topic-banned user contributing to or creating userspace drafts of articles that fall within the topic, I don't want a loophole opened to allow that through.  For this case, I'd like to see a link to the thread in question.  If Thegoodlocust was discussing the topic agreeably and in good faith, I'd support a lifting of the sanctions here.  If it was anything like when the Obama-topic-banned ChildofMidnight used to hang out on Grundle's talk page and BAWWWWW about other editors and the topic area being hijacked, etc...then that wouldn't be cool. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - of course we all know how uneven the enforcement of this board has been, where blatant transgressions by the science faction have drawn little or no sanction while "skeptics" were topic banned at the drop of a hat. So of course it should be overturned on that basis alone, but here we have a technical reason to overturn it. And we all know how important technicalities are these days, since even obvious trollish behavior is unsanctionable if it doesn't violate the letter of the probation. So clearly TGL should be free to edit again. In fact, he should just start editing in defiance of the invalid ban, because that's the way it works, right? As we've seen with WMC, there is no need for appeals, as long as you think you're right and you can get a mob to show up at AN/I to support you. We even have people there comparing WMC to Rosa Parks (yes, really!), a clear indication that civil disobedience is now acceptable here. So, TGL, perhaps you should just plow through all the process and start editing again, and we'll have another monster thread at AN/I to sort it out. I'll be sure to chime in with a comparison to Galileo or some other ridiculously over-the-top analogy, like they do. Fuck process. ATren (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck process, indeed. Yes, this is what "the community" has created. No doubt there will be more disenfranchised users popping up and rejecting their sanctions in reliance on WMC example. Are we absolutely 100% certain Scibaby's block conforms with the precise letter of policy?  Can we be sure GoRight's block is not invalid?   What about all those socks that were blocked -- can those possibly be valid under the letter of Wikpedia loophole justice?   I think not.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support removal of the extension - although I couldn't disagree more with ATren's characterization of the enforcement process, or the telling "science faction" label (which surely is an admission that the "other side" is an "anti-science faction"). After being topic banned until November and pledging to avoid the CC topic until ArbCom has finished its work, TGL was unwise to break the spirit of this ban and pledge by discussing the topic within the user talk space; however, this does not seem to be a direct violation that would warrant a extension to that ban. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support removal of the ban. You can't have it both ways.  If WMC's sanction is not valid due to being on a talk page, than neither is TGL's sanction valid.   GregJackP   Boomer!   15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well...there is a hair to split here, actually. TGL's ban is a topic ban that was applied broadly. It could be argued that discussion of the topic, regardless of venue, fell under the purview of the probation. That's still going beyond the letter of the terms of the probation, but it could be argued that it was within the spirit of the terms. I haven't made up my mind whether I agree or disagree with that interpretation, but it's certainly possible to use that rationale to justify this ban. Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support removal of the topic ban. I've consistently argued against topic bans unless there isn't really any other way to deal with a problem. I find Lar's argument below very strange, though. If one believes that WMC's block should not have been lifted and stands by that, then arguing for TGL's ban to be lifted by invoking the WMC case, would be an argument for making a decision that violates WP:POINT. So, I think that Lar should first accept (or perhaps agree to disgree with) the lifting of the block on WMC before he puts forward such an argument. Count Iblis (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I read Lar's statement as saying he/she is willing to go with whatever decision the majority makes. It's just that if it's wildy inconsistent, it says a lot about the situation. (Correct me if I am wrong Lar) Arkon (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's about the size of it. Also, see below, I've started a thread to discuss modifying the restriction. Perhaps there is consensus for such a modification. Perhaps there isn't. If consensus exists, it does set a possible precedent though. ++Lar: t/c 18:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of LHVUs opinion (which is entirely about WMC and makes no mention of TGL or the original block at all) we have more than enough contributors to this thread to call consensus - let's not allow 'uninvolved admin' inaction to let this case go stale like all the others. And can we make some kind of ruling that uninvolved admins wishing to comment in the uninvolved admin section of any of these requests be obliged to comment on the other open cases? There is way too much picking and choosing based on who the subject of the enforcement request is. Weakopedia (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * LHvU's comment is not entirely about WMC. Further, 2 uninvolved admins commenting, not clearly in agreement on all points, do not make consensus. We need more comments I think. I do agree that moving these things along faster is goodness. Maybe I'll ping some of the regulars. Or post on ANI. Or you could. ++Lar: t/c 12:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support removal of the extension Scjessey's second sentence is close to my own views.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support As I clearly said at the time I believed this was outside the remit of CC enforcement. I stand by this comment Polargeo (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Bozmo
As I've demonstrated before (see evidence page on ArbCom) you seem to get your facts wrong when dealing with me a lot. In this case you are implying that I'm committing "forum shopping." What is your evidence for this? As for your claim that these situations are fundamentally different, taking on Guettarda's argument I suppose, I provided a diff for your particular statements on the matter in my initial statement in order to make it clear how you are once again interpreting rules differently for different people. Finally, I won't go over the many reasons why you should recuse yourself which I have previously listed, but I will mention the newer ones - your repeated assertion over several pages that you find me to be the most annoying editor on wikipedia and the fact that my ban was extended due to a conversation with you.

In fact, in the case to extend my topic ban you used as evidence against me the fact that I asked you to recuse for that very case which included, among other things, that you were interpreting the rules differently for WMC than you were with me. So now we have you using this argument, that talk pages aren't subject to the CC sanctions over the span of half a year when defending WMC, but with me the CC sanctions do apply to talk pages. Simply incredible. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Bozmo 2
There are numerous reasons to overturn the ban Bozmo which I could've easily filed a separate request on. The most obvious would be that the "consensus" that you speak of was a consensus of one - 2over0 and it was arrived at without any discussion whatsoever. I can guarantee if Lar had planted a half dozen diffs on WMC's page and topic banned him for 6 months that you would've been on a crusade to get him desysoped. There are numerous other reasons I won't go into, but one of his most cogent points, that I shouldn't have reopened an RfE which was closed was something IIRC I'd previously apologized for and agreed not to do again despite my concerns about, you guessed it, unilateral admin action. The topic ban was purely punitive in nature. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to NW
Yes that would be perfectly fine with me. How about having two admins for the task? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning TheGoodLocust

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above.


 * I support either undoing the false "precedent" unilaterally imposed by Dragonsflight, or reduction of this ban to time served (now, not when the ArbCom case closes). The arguments given are compelling... if WMC can violate his sanction by modifying a directly Climate Change related comment in an exceedingly dickish and pointy way, and use the defense that it was a talk page, it is inconsistent to hold TGL to a different standard, especially when he was participating peaceably on a page where he was invited. WP isn't consistent. WP makes no promise of fairness, or of justice. But in this case I think propriety demands consistency. Further we should review every other sanction with a view to revision to increase consistency. ++Lar: t/c 11:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TGL has provided a defense/rebuttal at []. I am changing my view to "reduce to time served", regardless of the precedent/consistency, and based on the merits of the case. ++Lar: t/c 11:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We have previously restricted WMC's ability to disregard CC/AGW article related sanctions within his own talkpage; he is not supposed to use demeaning terminology when referring to skeptic/denialist inclined editors throughout the project spaces, and his previous restriction on editing comments that has only just expired noted he was not to make such edits even in places where it would normally be allowed - which would include his talkpages. The fact that the current restriction was not so carefully worded, and that no-one in the recent ANI discussion noted that there was precedent for WMC specifically, does not mean that all previous general restrictions are now void. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not support changing this sanction. The arguments of precedent etc are logically spurious. There is clear water between banning someone from the CC topic across WP (excepting Arbcom pages etc), particular when there are forum shopping issues etc and banning particular behavioural editing across WP. One is clearly within the intention of the probation the other is not clear. There is no inconsistency, the cases are different, the claim that those above who took one side in one case necessarily take a different side in a different case is false, of questionable faith and uninvolved admins trying to follow abstracted analogy as consistency would be unworkable. --BozMo talk 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since ArbCom is now voting on whether or not to completely ban Thegoodlocust from Wikipedia for 6 months, I think it would be best if we held off on modifying the sanction for now. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 11:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if, for example, we uninvolved admins find that the topic ban ought to be removed (should consensus for such exist, I don't see it yet, but I don't think TGL has made as complete a case as could be made) I think it would send a good message to ArbCom that they've lost the plot here if we remove it, and make them reimpose it against consensus. I see no reason to go lame duck early. We could still be many weeks away from case closure. ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, Setting aside what appears to be a version of an WP:OSE, is there any valid argument to remove the topic ban? Any sign for example that anyone has changed their mind since the consensus was reached? --BozMo talk 14:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is a chance there is, yes. TGL needs to, in one go, present a clear argument, well supported, for why the original ban was inappropriate and should be overturned, and/or present a clear argument, well supported, for why the extension was inappropriate and should be overturned. I see a lot of material up there but reading through it all does not yet convey such a case to me. Merely the possibility that one exists. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok Lar. If you can see a possible coherent argument then do coach him into it (I think he needs to try to stick to facts and not talk them up to make a point) or present it yourself, at present I see no coherence. Part of the problem I guess is when people call consensus, but diversity of reasons were given, it is hard to construct case law from it. The two cases were far from identical. --BozMo talk 07:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See []... I think it's a pretty coherent rebuttal of material raised in the discussion and makes a good case for "reduce to time served and a warning to go forth and sin no more". ++Lar: t/c 11:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not accept any outcome here which implied agreement with that screed. I do not see tGL as very good at listening or acknowledging error in general or in that statement. Also per above there are issues of accurate representation (possibly inadvertant of course). --BozMo talk 21:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't entirely covered by the probation, but I would be much more at ease with lifting the sanction if TGL would be willing to accept a temporary supervised editing for a limited amount of time. If, as he says he plans to do, he goes and just edits botany and non-controversial climate change articles (they do exist!), this should not be that big a deal, and also might head off some of the problems that have come up in the past with him and controversial issues. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone is happy to do the supervision I don't have a problem with this. --BozMo talk 21:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley comment editing restriction modification
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning William M. Connolley comment editing restriction modification

 * User requesting modification : ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC) (pro forma)


 * User whose modification of restriction is proposed :


 * Sanction or remedy that has been modified


 * Discussion of sanction:
 * General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive10
 * Original text of sanction:
 * is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors, for a duration of two months.
 * Modification (modified section bolded) which was done in these edits:
 * is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors about climate change or that appear on discussion pages related to climate change (broadly interpreted), for a duration of two months.


 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Approve this revision of the original restriction, by arriving at consensus here that we should do so, or find that no consensus exists and restore the sanction to its original form. ADDED: Or come up with a different restriction that addresses valid concerns raised.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : There is a lot of backstory, hopefully most folk are aware of it and it doesn't need repeating, but after a series of blocks, extensions, shortenings and an unblock, (with much AN/I discussion) unilaterally modified the sanction text, claiming consensus existed at ANI. It is not clear to me that such consensus existed, so I've reverted the change to the status quo ante.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : Not necessarily applicable but I will did place a link in the ANI discussion to this page shortly as well as notifying WMC, DF, and NW. (as well as TW, BozMo, Franamax, FutPerf, and LHvU ... all the other admins who commented in the original sanction placing discussion)

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley comment editing restriction modification

 * I have made this request pro forma so I do not see myself as needing to recuse from discussion. I think whatever the outcome is, the modification as it is currently worded is itself subject to ruleslawyering, and needs some correction, even if there is consensus for the spirit of it. I will have more to say later and will place my final view in the "result" section. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you just say that you plan to act as an uninvolved admin in a request that you have brought yourself? Weakopedia (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. It's a pro forma request. We've had a unilateral modification of a sanction, based on a claimed ANI consensus. I've brought this request to see if there is consensus for that. IS there? Let's see. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even amongst folk who really don't care for WMC there are some who would question your uninvolvement with regard to any request about WMC - and you must concede that this is in part due to the manner in which you have chosen, at times, to express your opinion about him or his actions. If you really want a lasting result I think you would be better to recuse as an uninvolved admin in this case, if only not to taint any eventual result with the inevitible cries of involvement. Weakopedia (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you see that Lar is bringing a request that is favorable to WMC and not against him? Either way, it is not necessary for Lar to recuse because this is not adversarial, but still -- maybe to reduce the drama that will overtake the actual request ... just step aside now that you have made the request.    I don't think this is a request that is going to require consensus by uninvolved admins either -- I think this is straight community consensus.  Any involved editors' comments can be weighted or discounted accordingly by the closing admin.   <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How can this possibly be favorable to WMC? From WMC's (Lar's) perspective the best (worst) that can happen is simply that the status quo is maintained, but there's a risk (opportunity) that a more restrictive sanction could be imposed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how there's a risk that a more restrictive sanction be imposed --- as it reads, he's not allowed to edit other's comments at all. The only way it can be modified is to be less restrictive.  In any event, do you not agree that there is no call for an uninvolved admin section in this discussion because it's a community consensus we're looking for?  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no. The short version is that Lar has reverted a change back to his preferred version (quite arguably, wheel-warring with other admins in the process) and is asking if he can keep it that way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * SBHB: That's a novel interpretation. Novel, but false. I reverted a unilateral change back to the version that had consensus. It was the first valid revert so it's not wheel warring by any stretch of the imagination. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * M4: No, this needs to be decided by a consensus of the uninvolved admins, not by a random sampling of whoever turns up. A single admin, acting unilaterally, doesn't get to overrule a consensus. Since there was some question about the language, I started this request to seek clarification. I recused from further discussion fairly late in the process on the orginal request as there were enough other admins here to get to a good consensus. If enough uninvolved admins participate here again, I no doubt will again. So far I haven't stated my actual preference as to the substance of any modification. I have merely stated that I don't care for the abrogation of process. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about that and I apologize for my temporary lapse of reason -- I was about to make concessions that don't need to be made as well, but I have stricken my support of the modification. I will comment further below BozMo's comment and also speak to the issue of uninvolved admin consensus versus community. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ' Oppose revision as written but support a different version' -- recall that this sanction was imposed on WMC for removing a comment by GregJackP in a request for probation enforcement against WMC  Applying the wording of DF's proposed modification, the comment removed by WMC was not "about CC" and it will also be argued that the comment does not "appear on discussion pages related to climate change."   From reading the ANI comments, I think what the community is trying to do is adjust the sanction so that it is clear that WMC can delete or archive comments on his own talk page.   There was also a concern about whether this particular sanction can apply outside of the CC probation area -- a very legitimate question that needs to be addressed because WMC is not the only editor subject to sanctions that expand into other Wiki space.


 * I don't think there is a bright line that can be drawn to define exactly which spaces fall within a probation sanction and if you start allowing some wiggle room, that is where the gaming and tendentious editing and disruptive removal and editing of comments will occur-- this has been proven in the past. This is not new behavior by WMC, he has been sanctioned for it in the past, it causes huge disruption and the restriction needs to be pretty tight or it will end in even more disruption and gamesmanship.  So my preference is that the sanction be modified to clarify that WMC is prohibited from editing, removing, refactoring or interlineating other editors' comments in any Wiki space other than his own talk page.   With respect to his talk page, he may archive entire threads, but he may not archive selective comments from threads and leave others in view.  Let's keep in mind that there is already policy that prohbitis the removal of comments on talk pages unless it's a BLP violation and a couple of other narrow circumstances -- WMC should be restricted from editing others' comments even for those reasons because those reasons get gamed and twisted and manipulated to accomplish an entirely different purpose.  If there is a BLP violation, someone else will pick it up.  Same with vandalism.  And for a two month period, he can refrain from bracketing within another editors' comments on his talk page also, not because the bracketing is necessarily wrong or bad, but because we need to have a reprieve from the drama, and WMC is asking that we make the sanction very clear -- that is not a big deal, and he can refrain from making a POINT with his brackets for two months, just as he did when he was restricted for 6 months immediately prior to the most recent sanction.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think the sanctions as I understand them could be applied (if so worded) to both CC space and to edits related to CC in any space other than parts of the appeal process, Arbcom space and perhaps the users own talk page. I do not think we can, under these sanctions, limit the editing WMC can do to say Cold Fusion articles unless the edits were actually about a CC topic on the Cold Fusion article or talk page. That however is still gameable. --BozMo talk 20:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a preliminary injunction against Lar playing the uninvolved admin in a request he himself initiated. See here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose modification -- having regained my ability to think, I have stricken my earlier answer and I oppose modification of the sanction. As BozMo says, he understands that the sanction extends beyond strictly CC pages.  That is the common sense reading and the fact of the matter is everyone, including William, understood what it meant.  As LHVU said, we are in probation with the express authority to impose creative sanctions that are not what's typically available for enforcement, and this is precisely because the usual policies, remedies, and enforcement mechanisms have failed.   William's restriction is appropriate, and it is very easy to understand and just as easy to comply with -- Don't edit other editor's comments, anywhere for any reason for two months. It is a perfectly permissible sanction under the circumstances, and it was arrived at by consensus.   The problem with the ANI is the community members who are not familiar with the CC probation and difficulties have conflated Wiki policy and guidelines with acceptable probation sanctions, and that is not the proper way to look at it.  There is no rationale for referring to Wiki policy that applies to every editor and determining that a probation sanction must comply with regular Wiki policy and norms.   That just makes no sense of course.   Leave the sanction as it is -- let's wait for ArbCom do what they're going to do, and it will likely make the discussion moot.  In the mean time, William can argue that the sanction means something other than what it says,  but the meaning is clear and whichever admin is looking at enforcing it can make the determination about whether he has violated his sanction.   It really wouldnt have mattered if the sanction were initially worded differently, William would have pushed whatever boundaries it imposed and we would be having the same discussion because William simply does not like to be told what to do and refuses to bring his behavior in line with what's expceted of every other editor.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus at ANI was that the sanction (as interpreted by TW and others) was inappropriate. Based on that conclusion, DF quite rightly altered the wording of the sanction to reflect consensus. Minor4th mistakenly undid that change, and NW corrected his mistake. Lar then chose to revert to his preferred wording. In so doing he not only chose to edit-warred (a persistent problem here when he feels his "authority" is not respected), he also chose to override ANI. Quite frankly, this whole section is unnecessary. Guettarda (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that consensus didn't actually exist except in wishful thinking by some folk. (go ahead and count noses if you like, start at the very beginning... although we don't count noses) And even if it did, it's not clear that it could overrule what is done here, which has more deliberative processes. Therefore DF's mod was unwarranted and was properly reverted in a single revert (M4 and NW cancel each other out and have no effect on the revert count since M4 is not an admin, and after NW's correction (not reversion) the score was still zero reverts) Quite frankly, this whole section is quite necessary, although I have no idea what the outcome will be. That is for consensus to determine. Your comment, as well as those of others in your faction, is not helpful and is an attempt to undermine the GS/CC process. You should stop, or you may find ArbCom will come down harder on you than they already are likely to. ++Lar: t/c 00:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * An uninvolved Admin has considered all the arguments made there, and then made a decision based on that. Typically you don't get a consensus by merely "counting noses". It is not an accident that typical election results are close to 50-50, even if there are huge differences between the two candidates, see here why. Count Iblis (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus by close to 50-50 is not consensus, it's status quo ante. When we get consensus here, it's almost always blazingly obvious that we have it. Merely asserting that consensus existed there, without presenting analysis, doesn't make it so. Dragons Flight failed to do so. His reversion was out of order. Now, we are here to find out what the actual consensus is. It may be that the modification should stand as written. It may be that the status quo ante should stand. It may be that some modification of the status quo ante, but different than DF's version, is what should stand. Do not try to interfere with that process of determination, please. ++Lar: t/c 01:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait...I thought you said "we don't count noses"? And yet, here you are - while ignoring the fact that the discussion did come to consensus to undo the block. As for instructing others not to "interfere"...your edit warring and unilateral rejection of the decision made at ANI by people who are actually uninvolved could called "interference". It could also be called disruption, something you have a history of engaging in. Lar, your almost total lack of recent participation in article-space edits makes it clear that you are not here to build an encyclopaedia, which is the sole reason that Wikipedia exists. Please stop interfering with that process, and stop lecturing the people who actually contribute around here. Guettarda (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Process not valid - Lar, who brought this, is an WP:INVOLVED administered who has just wheel warred the sanction before bringing this RfC. In terms of the behavior that this is sought to enjoin, Lar's revert escalates a pointless show-down between editor WMC and (among others) certain involved administrators who seem to have it out for him in the tendentious climate change articles.  That is poor dispute resolution: it does not help the smooth functioning of the project, and just continues what looks like a punitive and WP:POINTy attempt to put WMC in his place.  There never appears to have been consensus to apply an editing restriction to WMC's talk page in the first place, and there certainly is not one now.  In any event, it exceeds the scope of the climate change general sanctions to tell people what they may do on their own talk page, so consensus is not the point - you can't form a local consensus to exceed the authority here.  Whether or not there is consensus here to do so, Lar's revert should not stand, nor should any GSCC sanction exceed the scope of GSCC.  A case can be made that where the subject at hand or participants in a dispute spill over from CC to other articles, a CC sanction may continue to apply.  This is not such a case.  The nexus is too weak and the sanction too broad.  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is definitely a case for WMC to be restricted from modifying comments even on his own talkpage where he can just delete them if he doesn't like them - but the venue for that kind of non-CC related sanction should be ANI, not here. And that's where the discussion took place. I too think this is just a pointy request - I would support sanction against Lar specifying that he be prevented from opening any RFEs on this page against WMC, or that he be prevented from commenting as an uninvolved admin for cases involving WMC, or that he be blocked should he try and do both at the same time again. While WMC may be (in my opinion, is) deserved of sanction, Lar has tainted that process to the point of invalidating, in many peoples eyes, any eventual decision. Weakopedia (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I opened this in order to get the matter resolved. I have not commented on the substance of any modification, and I don't intend to. So I guess I may as well recuse since I have already defacto done so. This request is not "against WMC", rather it is "for" doing the right thing. DF, an involved admin, abrogated process by falsely calling consensus and substituting his own judgment for the considered outcome of the process the community put in place to handle matters. ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Weakopedia that this is a pointy request. You need to step away until the arbitration committee issues a decision on this issue, which I understand is fairly soon.ScottyBerg (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that Arbcomm's proposed remedies preempt the general sanctions, and this sanction in particular - so I think the issue will soon be moot. I have commented there that the decision suffers the same ambiguity as the community sanction - does the prohibition on talk page modifications extend to every subject, or just climate change?  But it will be up to Arbcom to fix that.  Considering that WMC is likely to be topic banned for a while, if not banned outright, and we're only talking about edits to his own talk page, it doesn't seem to matter much one way or the other what he is allowed to do for now pending the finalizing of the decision. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going to try keep my comments brief as I think my position has already been articulated elsewhere for the most part. Obviously I prefer my version of the sanction or something close to it. The core issue, I believe, is that GSCC exists to deal with the conflicts and behavioral problems within the realm of climate change. Sanctions that extend beyond that scope are inappropriate for this forum. Broader behavioral issues should be addressed by applying global policies such as CIVIL, NPA, etc. Or failing that, they should be handled via a consensus of administrators (AN / ANI) or Arbcom. I agree that there are broader behavioral issues to consider with WMC, and hopefully Arbcom will address them shortly, but I don't believe that GSCC should be trying to regulate behavior unrelated to climate change work. Now, about process. There was a long discussion at ANI. Admittedly that discussion covered a lot of ground. Some of it addressed whether the sanction was inappropriate or over broad. Several of the commenters explicitly addressed the question of GSCC scope, while others said the prohibition went too far without being explicit about GSCC scope. Based on the comments made at ANI and the general history of GSCC I believe that a consensus existed that the sanction needed to modified and that the modification I made was the most appropriate choice. Was that consensus as clear cut as a voting tally? No. Obviously the discussion was messy, but I made a decision based on that discussion in good faith. I understand and accept that people can in good faith disagree with me about whether a consensus existed in that discussion and whether my response was the most appropriate one. However, as a matter of principle, I feel that an administrative action taken based on discussion should be respected at least until the issue can be clarified by further discussion and consensus building. Hence I feel the reverts of my change are in error. I find the arguments made to the contrary to be largely uncompelling, as there would seem to be no urgency here, and in particular I see no reason for one administrator to substitute his judgment about consensus over that of another administrator prior to allowing further discussion to clarify the issue. As wiki problems go, this one would seem to be of little practical consequence, and hence not really a big deal; however, I do feel compelled to express my firm disagreement. Dragons flight (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not an uninvolved admin. ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to explain a bit more. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I've illustrated my point, see at right. That's a scary graph. It illustrates nicely why I personally am an "alarmist". But you need to click through to see who contributed it. If that's not convincing enough, review .. Dragons Flight is heavily involved in this topic area. Therefore, not uninvolved. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How does contributing images make anyone "involved"? That's surely stretching the definition of "involvement" to an absurd extent. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with ChrisO here. If the dispute were related to the editing of an article in which DF was heavily involved, then Lar would have a point. However, this dispute is quite far removed from any content dispute. I.m.o., what is important here is if the Admin can put any personal stakes he/she may have aside and make a ruling that is in the best interest of the affected areas and Wikipedia in general. So, given DF record here at Wikipedia, can we trust him to do what needs to be done? Without any relevant evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that this is the case. Count Iblis (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the ArbCom has usually defined that "for the purpose of imposing sanctions ... an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." Editing an article or contributing an image does not constitute "involvement". -- ChrisO (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Robert A. Rohde -- I am a newly-minted Physics PhD from the University of California, Berkeley. I joined the physics department, following undergraduatedegrees in physics and mathematics, but despite having taken all the traditional physics coursework (e.g. quantum mechanics, cosmology,general relativity, etc.), I ultimately discovered those topics are not what I want to devote my life to. Most of my research time has been focused on the earth sciences, climatology and related areas."
 * Comment -- This comment was originally in response to Wikidemon and was meant to be posted last night before there were intervening comments but anyway ... If being an "involved" admin is actually so worrisome to you, as it appears to be by your comment, it might interest you to know that the admin who unilaterally modified a probation sanction in WMC's favor is a climate researcher at UC Berkley.  From his user page:
 * Please also take a look at his Art of Global Warming series on Commons.  This is not someone who should have been unilaterally modifiying a sanction against WIlliam Connolley so that it is less restrictive than what 7 uninvolved admins agreed on after several days of discussion.  Surely you agree?
 * You're mistaken on most of your other points as well - there absolutely was a consensus and a very specific sanction imposed on WMC prohibiting him from editing other users comments on his own talk page, and it certainly does remain in place now. Your failure to appreciate the overall context of the sanction and focus on Lar is what is hindering the smooth functioning of the encyclopedia.   Lar is not involved -- if that changes with the ArbCom decision, so be it but at the moment he is not involved according to the definition of the probation.  It's also wrong to say that a sanction against WMC on his talk page is beyond the authority or scope of CC general sanctions.  And in fact this is precisely the place to form consensus about the administration and enforcement of a probation sanction.   It's not local -- it's just in a different locale that was established precisely for this type of discussion.  Any editor is free to comment here.


 * Now, let's clear this up. Here is the relevant sequence of events that some editors are missing:


 * 1. January 27, 2010 as a result of habitually modifying, refactoring and deleting other editors' talk page comments, WMC was sanctioned and placed on an editing restriction for 6 months as follows:

"User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done. Exceptions are made for archiving discussions that have received no comments for at least one week, and for whole removal of comments from his own talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 3:38 pm, 27 January 2010"
 * Please note that the sanction specifically references archiving whole comments from his own talk page. Everyone understood clearly that this sanction applied to WMC's talk page as part of the CC probation for WMC.    That's a reasonable understanding since his talk page is where many of WMC's metadiscussions related to the topic area take place,   The sanction clearly contemplated a prohibition on modifiying any other editors' posts on any talk page.  It very clearly imposes a restriction beyond what is normally allowed on a user's own talk page.   William understood this.   Everyone understood exactly what it meant, and it worked .... for six months, we did not experience that particular brand of disruption from WMC.


 * 2. July 27, 2010, WMC's editing restriction expired.
 * 3. August 3, 2010 -- WMC deleted a portion of GregJackP's comment on this enforcement page and inserts his own commentary in square brackets.
 * 4. August 3, 2010 -- Greg brought a request for probation enforcement against WMC for deleting a portion of Greg's post.   Greg's recommended enforcement was a block of one week and to extend the editing/refactorikng  restriction of WMC's
 * 5. August 3, 2010 -- WMC retaliated against Greg by bringing an enforcement request against him for "trolling." The request was summarily closed as being an improper request.
 * 6. August 3-4, 2010 -- WMC is given an opportunity to agree to a self-imposed restriction, which he does not accept. Discussion continues among uninvolved admin.
 * 7. August 5, 2010 -- in the midst of a developing consensus to restrict WMC's editing of other user's talk page comments, Jehochman swoops in and unilaterally  topic bans WMC for the duration fo the Arb case.   This was a unilateral action with zero corresponding discussion of this sanction.   Having no support for the topic ban, and the topic ban being rejected outright by WMC, Jehockman had to revert himselfhaving been rejected outright by WMC and an excellent demonstration of why a rogue admin should not unilaterally take action contrary to the consensus that is in the process of being built.
 * 8. August 6, 2010 -- Uninvolved admins LHVU, Franamax, BozMo, Lar, Jehockman, The Wordsmith, and Fut.Perf agree to a "complete prohibition against all manipulation of other editors' comments"  - the discussion very clearly encompassed comments on WMC's own talk page   Throughout the discussion, the proposed sanction is variously referred to as an "extension " of his prior editing restriction, which I've quoted above.   Although there is generally agreement that a 6 month duration would be appropriate, a compromise of 2 months is settled upon because of the anticipated Arb Com decision.
 * 9. August 10, 2010 -- The Wordsmith closed the discussion and logged the sanction in the probation log as follows:

"'William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors, for a duration of two months. The WordsmithCommunicate11:55 pm, 10 August 2010, Tuesday (12 days ago) (UTC−5)"
 * Given the specific discussion about a restriction against editing other editors' comments on his own talk page, and given that WMC had just completed a six month editing restriction that clearly applied to his own talk page and modification or deletion of other editors' comments in that space -- there can be no reasonable argument that the August 10 sanction could have been intended to be less restrictive than his immediatly preceeding restriction.  We impose escalating sanctions for repreat behavior, not diminishing and less severe sanctions.   There can be no question, therefore, that the restriction encompasses comments to his own talk page. Indeed it is worded very broadly because that is what the decision was -- a vitrually complete ban on editing other editors' comments.


 * 10. August 17, 2010 -- WMC edited TW's notice of the sanction on WMC's own talk page, including his own commentary nested within the text  of TW's post.
 * 11. August 17, 2010 -- TW blocks WMC for 48 hours  for violating  his prohibition against editing others' comments.  ANI is started by Bishonen and all hell breaks loose.


 * Ultimately, ,WMC served his 48 hours under TW's block.  Just because the block expired or even if it had been overturned, that does not do away with the editing restriction against editing others' comments. Lar is not the one being tendentious -- in fact, aside from LHVU he appears to be the only one who actually understands what's going on here.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You can also choose to bold a few other words in that quote of the restriction, e.g. these ones: "User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done. Exceptions are made for archiving discussions that have received no comments for at least one week, and for whole removal of comments from his own talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 3:38 pm, 27 January 2010" Count Iblis (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In response, no, I would not be interested to know that an administrator is a scientist, or other insinuations impertinent to the matter at hand. I was looking at the specific conflict of interest in this RfC, and the broader way in which administrators who are actively involved in the climate change editing disputes, and whose impartiality in dealing with other editors is reasonably in question, weigh in and use their tools and prerogatives consistently in favor of one group or another.  I would insert the word "only" between "Lar is not the" and "one being tendentious" in the comment above.  People are too caught up in the fight to have a clear perspective.  Reopening their skirmishes like this is a pointless effort that wastes time, inflames rather than calms, and has only the most remote connection if any to improving the content or editing environment of the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that right now Lar needs to step back and let this take its course, but there is nothing wrong with his request for clarification on the limits of the sanction against WMC that is already in place. As you can see from this page, there is disagreement about what the initial sanction means and how it can be enforced, and this discussion needs to either be hashed out or dropped, but it was not improper for him to return the sanction to its state before the fight began and ask for discussion and clarification.  I do not see him arguing for any particular position -- only requesting that the issue be fully explored.   Let's not lose sight of the fact that none of this would be a topic of discussion if WMC had not engaged in repeated behavior requiring sanction and then taunting and pushing a point in violation of the sanction likely for the very purpose of inflaming and causing all of this controversy.  Focus on the problem rather than the attempts to solve it.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Minor's lengthy post: Several editors here (in particular Lar) claim that they support the scientific consensus on climate change, and that this arbitration is only about behavioural problems. If that is so, how can the fact that DF is a competent scientist in the field have any influence on on whether he should or should not act as an uninvolved administrator here? Has he been involved in any BLP conflicts lately? Has he edit-warred? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not said that DF was involved or that being a scientist would make him involved.  I don't think having a particular opinion about article content would make an admin involved, and I don't think having an opinion about an editor's behavior or a even having an opinion that there exist disruptive factions would make an admin involved either.  Certain blocs, however, appear to be very concerned about categorizing admins as "involved" when they are not.   I thought one who holds such an expansive view of "involved" might be interested also in putting DF in that box.   It's not a position I would subscribe to, however.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 07:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to note that the community rejected the way in which the restriction was enforced in the circumstances; the community did not reject the restriction itself - unless the admins actively intended to overstep beyond where they should be. The issue is common sense, admin judgement, what is permissible, and other issues (scope, etc). If the blocks occurred for refactoring of comments in climate change related discussions or pages, there would be no issue. Similarly, if the admins had not blocked for the legitimate interruptions that occurred on his user talk after TW imposed sanction, there would be no issue - one must not try to bend the terms of probation; they need to work within the confines of it that are appropriate to the circumstances. One must never forget that the community explicitly opposed general sanctions across all of the English Wikipedia on all users. Where some things are invalidly done at one point, it doesn't mean it will be OK later - some things just pass people's radars, and it happens all over Wikipedia. The admins therefore either forgot that the restriction is subject to the terms of this probation (this includes admin counselling sanctioned user), or did not fully appreciate what this means. That is part of the problem and that is what has brought about the need to change the wording of this restriction. The other part of the problem was that the person who was responsible for GSCC coming into force is responsible for providing guidance on how it works. I think the person in this case had copied the wording used in Obama probation (thinking it worked pretty well in that area), but didn't realise there was a lot of guidance by the drafter (incidentally, me) and other experienced users, both on and off wiki, in making the whole thing work in practice (except on a handful of editors that were later dealt with via a case anyway) . This probation on the other hand is obviously somewhat broken due to the way it's been going since the word go - there's little point trying to turn things around when people are familiar with this way of doing it, and any changes really should reflect a separate, different or new scheme. All that can be done to move this towards resolution is to fix the secondary issue that is the cause of concern at the moment. Dragon had the best of intentions in making the amendment/proposed amendment in trying to achieve this (and minimise the embarassment) but it still wasn't quite right (as it would still cause issues).
 * The best thing that can be done is to add "Subject to these terms, WMC is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors for a duration of two months." That diff incidentally provides the most succinct and most effective guidance, both for the sanctioned user, other users, and users who will enforce it in the future. It explicitly directs admins with the common sense and good judgement that is needed in enforcing this particular type of sanction (when imposed through this sort of scheme), and note that it fully falls within the confines of the probation. I appreciate that some people may think WMC should be fully restricted (to extend beyond the CC topic and to his user spaces where interruptions are for some reason not allowed), and there may be a case, but they really should make their case at a more appropriate venue than here. That's the way I'm seeing things, and as I said at the ANI, I'd say the same thing for any user who found themselves in the same circumstances (and whenever I find where I did in the past and the outcome of it, I'll diffs of that too). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree.  WIlliam should not be allowed to interject his own comments within other editors' comments even on his own talk page.  That specific problem was noted in the discussions leading to the sanctions, and it was agreed that his pattern of interjecting comments within other editors' comments was disruptive.   Discussions on his talk page related in any manner to CC probation items, including discussions of other editors and all the meta discussions that in any way touch any aspect of the CC probation should be included within the restriction.   That would include TW's notice of sanction that he edited with is bracketed comment.   It as a violation and it is withint the probation.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning William M. Connolley comment editing restriction modification

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections.
 * There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions.


 * FWIW I don't have a problem with the wording proposed above except an explicit own talk page exemption per ANI looks sensible. The issue about exactly is editing a comment also might get some wording. --BozMo talk 20:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The original wording, or the wording as modified? You don't make that clear (and your exemption may not be completely logically consistent in either case), I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There appears to be precedent for this, and with regard to WMC, as when the restriction on using insulting or demeaning terms or phrases in respect of other parties was extended project wide; this would cover WMC's talkpage. The recent previous restriction on WMC's editing of other peoples comments also noted that it covered instances where it would normally be permissible, which again covers the normal exemption of ones own user talkpage(s). Therefore, this modification is not a further restriction upon WMC's ability to respond in his preferred manner but bringing in line with previous sanctions. It should be noted that in those previous cases the clarifications were placed after WMC had explored the boundaries of the previous wordings. On this basis, and the belief that WMC is unconcerned with furthering a less contentious working environment through self regulation, I support the proposed modification. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You support the less restrictive version that Dragons Flight unilaterally changed to? Or do you support the version that we had to start with? Or some modification of it that isn't DF's version? I'm not totally clear. Sorry for my confusion. You and BozMo both confused me! :) ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I supported the version which I thought you were asking for approval of above. Anyway to be clear I support "William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors about climate change or that appear on discussion pages related to climate change (broadly interpreted), for a duration of two months." with a possible rider (which I don't like but ANI may suggest) of "exempting his own talk page". Broadly this aligns with my comment above: our remit is limited to CC pages, CC talk pages and discussion about CC --BozMo talk 21:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks. Well I've taken no position whatever on this matter, I merely brought it here to be resolved properly. I thought I had worded the initial request well enough to make that clear but if improvement is needed, please suggest mods... Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, my bad reading then. As repeated oft, CC discussions (anywhere) and everything on CC pages are within reasonable terms of the probation. In my view discussions which are neither about CC nor on CC pages should not be included. A row which starts with an admin on a CC page and spills over elsewhere (like the WMC one I think) probably would be included. But I also think the community gives (although I do not agree with) wide latititude on own talk pages. You may recall I have tried blocking WMC for own talk page comments myself, but the precedent of Arbcom decisions ran against it...
 * The original one, which intended to restrict WMC from editing other contributors to CC/AGW related space comments. I understood that the uninvolved admins had agreed that WMC was to be restricted as per the previous restriction, but unfortunately the wording used did not include the phrase "even where such editing is usually permitted" as noted previously or refer to the previous restriction. The discussion at ANI did not even note that a previous restriction had very recently expired, and that that had covered WMC's talkpage. I have been trying not to involve myself in such discussions, others may well have forgotten, some parties were never going to bring up the matter, and those unfamiliar with the situation were obviously not inclined to look that far back into WMC's history. I should note that I was minded to block WMC for violation of his restriction on using demeaning or insulting terms/phrases in regard to CC/AGW editors when he called ZP5's commentary "trash" and used the phrase "brown hatting" when collapsing some other editors - including CC subject related ones - but decided against it. Mostly because there would have been accusations of "finding another reason to block WMC" instead of noting the violations, and also I suspect that not everyone recognises "brown hatter" as a slur used by homophobes (nor that using such a slur as a method of demeaning another editor is of itself a discriminatory issue) and other ignoramus'. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning ScienceApologist

 * User requesting enforcement : mark nutley (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : General sanctions/Climate change probation


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1)  Inserts the pejorative Denier into a BLP claiming the three sources are peer reviewed.
 * 2)  User:Wenchell changes it to sceptic (note edit summary) and SA reverts Denier back in
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) He already knows i have pointed out his error multipile times on the article talk page. As have other editors.
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Either a topic ban from BLP`s of those skeptical of AGW or he has to get someone to check a source before he adds content to a blp to ensure he is not misrepresenting sources
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Either a topic ban from BLP`s of those skeptical of AGW or he has to get someone to check a source before he adds content to a blp to ensure he is not misrepresenting sources
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Either a topic ban from BLP`s of those skeptical of AGW or he has to get someone to check a source before he adds content to a blp to ensure he is not misrepresenting sources


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : The sources used by SA to call Watts a denier are being deliberately misrepresented. None of them call Watts a denier and only one is in a peer reviewed source. One is self published and actually calls watts a sceptic. The second is from  it is an opinion piece from a extreme left wing online magazine  this source does not call watts a denier it calls his website a denier site. The third source   is also not a peer reviewed source and also calls watts a sceptic. This deliberate misrepresentation sources in a blp needs to be stopped now. Please read through this thread  were you will see SA not only continues to say the sources are peer reviewed but that he has not misrepresented them. He quite simply does not get it and enforcement seems to me to be the only option.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : 

Statement by ScienceApologist
Content dispute escalated here by User:Marknutley after using the threat of wiki-litigation as a bludgeon to get his way. More details can be had for the asking, but essentially this is a case of someone being tendetious. Recommend sanctioning the filing party for failing to utilize the proper dispute resolution system. This is the same line being towed as by User:GregJackP and User:Minor4th. It would be nice if we could actually discuss articles without having people threaten to wiki-litigate. Judicious reminders of this principle would be most appreciated.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Petri Krohn
On August 24, 2010 – as a total outsider – I reviewed the two sources linked to on the article talk page. (See Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)) My conclusion was that both of them describe Anthony Watts as a climate change denialist (as defined in the linked article) and not as a global warming skeptic (as defined in the article Global warming controversy, where the redirect now points to.)

My comment was responded to with what I consider to be a personal attack by mark nutley. I find this behavior unacceptable.

I did not take any position on the reliability of the sources or their relevance, as these issues were not discussed. What seems to be going on at the talk page is a stonewalling operation against what should be a clear case in favor of ScienceApologist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please help me find where Global warming controversy defines "skeptic". It is a very long article and a quick search was not productive. Q Science (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess it should do a better job at the definition, as the redirect now points there. The definition I refer to is in the phrase "skeptical scientist", as opposed to pseudo-scientists defined in the "denial" article.
 * This discussion is however totally irrelevant, as this page is about enforcement of general sanctions placed by ArbCom. Dispute resolution should happen somewhere else. The mere fact that so much space here is wasted on dispute resolution is a clear indication that the accused, ScienceApologist, acted within policy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. – From this diff I now learn that the underlying dispute is in fact about which of the two articles should be linked to. The exact verbal definition becomes thus irrelevant. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that the definitions are still important so that we don't link to the wrong article. I only found the phrase "skeptical scientist" two times, and neither was a definition. I was also only able to find "pseudo-scientists" (actually "pseudoscience") in one article, but it made no connection with "denier". However, since you have used the term "pseudo-scientists", it appears that you are saying that only a degreed scientist can be called a "skeptic". Is that correct? Q Science (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is true the a large part of the media use the word "Skeptic" instead of the word "Denialist". However, here at Wikipedia the article is at Climate change denial. If you think that it should be moved to climate change skepticism you can make a proposal. I guess someone has in fact already made such a proposal and failed. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. – Climate change skepticism redirects to the section Global warming controversy. I guess I should have used that expression, as it is now more refined. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Petri, when you say you concluded that the sources describe Watts as a denialist, can we agree that neither uses the term denialist to describe Watts, and what you mean is that the discussion of Watts is consistent with the definition as provided in Climate change denial? I see two problems with this. First, even though you say it is not synthesis, that's exactly what it is. Second, you are relying on a Wikipedia article, which is not a reliable source. This second point is absolutely within policy, but it isn't even a technicality. The WP article is wrong, as the definition they propose isn't supported by the citation. (As an aside, I now understand why so many editors are making the mistake of equating denialism and skepticism—how ironic that the source of the confusion is Wikipedia). I have added that article to my to-do list., but to see the error, go to the source "supporting" the definition. The opening paragraph contains the sentence," And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions." I agree with that as a description of denialism, but it doesn't support the definition used. -- SPhilbrick  T  13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are making good arguments, unfortunately none of this was present in the original discussion where ScienceApologist was accused of misbehaving. I agree that there is a strong argument for not using the word "denialist" in WP:BLP, except when attributed to someone.
 * The discussion was however not about what wording to use in the article, as much as about what article to link to. The Lockwood article only uses the word "denial" three times. The whole article however is explicitly about the kind of denial now described in the Wikipedia article Climate change denial. As has been attested multiple times, the press interchangeable use the word "skepticism" for "denial". I have created the disambiguated redirect Climate change skepticism (denialism) for this kind of cases. (We also have Historical revisionism (negationism).) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning ScienceApologist

 * The terms "climate change skepticism" and "climate change denialism" are used synonymously by scholarly sources. Using one or the other primarily an issue of style, although "denialism" avoids the ambiguity of the word "skeptic", since in this context its meaning differs significantly from the usual meaning of the word in English. Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "contrarian" is gaining currency in the outside world as avoiding the baggage carried by both "skeptic" and "denier." We might consider settling on that as a reasonably neutral term for whatever-these-folks-believe. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There exists a relavent ArbCom amendment request, filed by GregJackP: Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. However, it looks unlikely that ArbCom will do anything as they see it mostly as a content dispute. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A "denier" is not the same as a "skeptic" and the terms are not used interchangeably.  The sources cited by SA use the term "Skeptic" but he has revert warred to keep the term "denier."   He knows better.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 18:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that the terms are used interchangeably in scholarly sources, can you explain the rationale for your assertion? Guettarda (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I question the wisdom of escalating a content dispute such as whether to label a prominent opponent of climate change science a "skeptic" versus a "denier", particularly on the eve of an Arbcom decision to which the disputants are parties, and that would replace this entire general sanctions mechanism with arbitration enforcement. Please settle this disagreement on the talk page of the article in question.  The BLP concern, if it exists at all, is extremely thin.  The terms "skeptic" and "denier", whether interchangeable or not, are statements of analysis and opinion characterizing a person's views, without universally agreed fixed definitions.  Thus, the place to look for guidance is not peer reviewed science articles, and some amount of reasonable editorial discretion is called for when using them.  It's not as if either term is unverifiable.  This reliable source, for example, describes him as a denier.(".. deniers like Climate Audit, or Anthony Watts's site...")  It would be better if SA hadn't reverted at all.  If they or others continue to edit war on this point, I would see a problem, but SA is at one revert on a minor arguable content point, so I just don't see anything here.- Wikidemon (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On further review, I see two further problems with the bringing of the complaint. First, it is stale.  The 1RR revert war began and ended two weeks old at this point.  Second, it is a forum fork.  There is an open Arbcom motion that covers this very question, something the parties must be aware of.  Third and finally, pages are where disputes go when the parties aren't trying to resolve things among themselves and there is future disruption to be prevented, neither of which applies here.  A rather heated discussion has been ongoing on the article talk page ever since the initial edits.  Although there is a lot of noise in the discussion, the parties do seem to be discussing.  - Wikidemon (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment You see nothing wrong with misrepresentation of sources in a BLP? None of you? This is not a content dispute, it is about an editor deliberately misrepresenting sources in a BLP mark nutley (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're grossly overdramatizing what happened seventeen days ago. I don't see a BLP issue here. "Skeptic" and "denier" are essentially synonymous. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think even you believe the two are synonymous. If they were, there would hardly be continual edit wars over their usage, now would there?  Ever seen a edit war over describing a car as "speedy", rather than "fast"?   Fell Gleaming <sup style="color:black;">talk  20:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what you mean? "Skeptic", "denier", "contrarian", "naysayer", etc., are used interchangeably. Can you explain why you consider it "misrepresentation", given that the terms are used synonymously? Guettarda (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If they are so interchangeable then why has the Guardian stopped using the term Denier? They are not interchangeable at all as denier is a pejorative. If there is no difference in the terms then why would SA insist on the use of Denier? Even when his sources did not call watts a denier? Why is the fact that an editor who misrepresented sources one of which was self published in a BLP not a cause for concern here? This is what people should be looking at, not spurious allegations of this being an content dispute, look at the article talk page please mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why has the Guardian stopped using "denier"? I didn't know that they have. You have a source that discusses their decision to stop using the term? But this is entirely beside the point - scholarly sources do use the terms interchangeably. The terms are used synonymously. It's certainly appropriate for editors to determine which term is most appropriate in a given context. But that's not your assertion. Your assertion is "misrepresentation". If a source says "African American" and an editor uses "black" in an article, that's not misrepresentation, even if some people consider the latter term un-PC. I just can't see how this can possibly be considered "misrepresentation". Your answer seems to be entirely a distraction, and in no way answers my question. Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I question why this case is being filed now, seventeen days after the last questioned edit. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as best as I can tell there is no current dispute. There is no reference to Watts as a skeptic or denier in the lead, which I question as he seems to be notable primarily for his CC work. There are likely to be dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of routine edits and mini-controversies like this in the global warming area. If every single dispute is going to result in a massive fight, there is going to be chaos. In fact, to an extent this case is typical of what we've seen too often. This dispute, if there is still a dispute, should go to the talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is being brought now because SA continues to assert that the sources are peer reviewed and that they call Watts a denier. None of those are true. Please look at the article talk page like i requested in my evidence mark nutley (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. A civil discussion, in which SA takes the totally reasonable position that Watts' climate skepticism should be mentioned in the lead. This enforcement case is ridiculous, and something needs to be done to stop wastes of time like this. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A discussion were he continues to misrepresent sources and claim they are peer reviewed when they are not? This is a BLP and if this had been lets say a sceptic editor i doubt a lot of those posting here would be so forgiving mark nutley (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's your position. SA denies that and I tend to agree with him. I also agree with Wikidemon that this complaint is stale. This kind of needless bickering really has to come to an end. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Guettarda claim (without any refs): "Given that the terms are used interchangeably in scholarly sources, ". Ok, does any scholarly sources claim that he is a denier? If not, out with it. We don't make up things on Wikipedia Guettarda. This is ridiculous and bad for our reputation and may be libelous against a living person. We say nothing else than what WP:RS sources say, and even if some extreme left wing magazines calls his website denier, we should be cautious adding it (this was not even the case here, no sources calls him that if I've interpreted the discussion her correctly). That an experienced editor like ScienceApologist repeatedly break a possible WP:BLP just underline how far some of our editors are willing to go to smear their opponents (I assume so). And please, try to read this SA: Denialism and you will probably understand why this may be more problematic to use than Skepticism. Nsaa (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Guettarda claim [sic] (without any refs)... I clearly explained the basis for my argument. Other than you, no one has bothered to ask for sources, simply to make forceful claims, without evidence, that this isn't true. As for "we don't make things up..." - you should direct that comment at Minor4th, Marknutley, QScience and Sphilbrick who are claiming that these terms are not used synonymously, but who, it would appear, are simply expressing their opinions as if they were facts. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A vocal minority of researchers and other critics contest the conclusions of the mainstream scientific assessment, frequently citing large numbers of scientists whom they believe support their claims (6–8). This group, often termed climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention and wields significant influence in the societal debate about climate change impacts and policy - William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, 2010. Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences "Early edition".
 * Environmental scepticism encompasses several themes, but denial of the authenticity of environmental problems, particularly problems such as biodiversity loss or 'climate change - Jacques, Peter J, Riley E. Dunlap, and Mark Freeman. 2008. The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics 17(3):349-385
 * Research by McCright & Dunlap (88, 94) has focused on the opposition movement dubbed contrarians, denialists, inactivists, or sceptics. Boykoff., M., 2009. We Speak for the Trees: Media Reporting on the Environment, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 34, pp. 431–57.


 * Denialism seems more accurate than Skepticism, since the latter is used in a misleading manner by climate-change deniers to give their position a false sense of respectability. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * mark is right on this one, and it's curious that anyone is defending SA on misrepresenting sources as being peer reviewed when theyre not and edit warring in the term "denier" over "skeptic" when his sources use the word "skeptic.".  By this logic every living person is either a denier or an alarmist.   You all know differently.  SA knows the terms are not interchangeable or he wouldnt be edit warring in "denier" - if theyre interchangeable then he should have no preference for one over the other.  This is a BLP -- why would anyone support the inclusion of a controversial label when it's not sourced? Anthony Watts himself has said he's not a denier.  Theres no rationale for SA's deception and manipulation other than POV pushing, even if he remains overtly civil about it. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it that you have a source that supports this? Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Conflating "skeptic" and "denier" is abject ignorance (I'm surprised at those who are making this error). That said, SA is perfectly within rights to attempt to make a case. The brief edit warring has ceased, so until and unless SA tries to insert unsourced claims, let the tempest on the talk page continue, it shouldn't escalate here. (Mark is right on the merits of the talk page claim, but I disagree that it belongs here).-- SPhilbrick  T  20:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Abject ignorance"? Fascinating. Source for your opinion? Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * -- SPhilbrick  T  22:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a "current dispute" and definitely NOT "stale". SA is making false claims on the talk page and trying to push a negative POV not supported by the references. His actions are just as distruptive as an edit war. However, rather than sanctions, I would prefer that more people contribute on the talk page. Q Science (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an easy way to resolve this. Just add to the lede of the Watts article that Watts is a climate change sceptic or contrarian using those sources.  If SA (or Guettarda, based on his comments here) changes it to denier, then bring him here for a BLP violation and ask for a topic ban or some other sanction.  That should take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla - this is exactly what happened and that is why the issue is here. "Skeptic" was used, the cited sources used "skeptic" and SA revet warred change it to "denialist" more than once -- misrepresenting sources and editing against consensus.  So I think it's appropriate that SA should be topic banned or at least banned from editing BLPs. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 04:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? I'd like an explanation on how you can justify this. I've wasted already way too much of my time on this baloney request and others of its ilk. Closing without action to me is just like saying, "It's okay to bring this tendentiousness to this board and bandy about sanction ideas whenever you get into a dispute with the person." What consequences for the filer are there if an enforcement request is closed without action due to the tendentiousness of the filer? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC) That is your interpretation (OR/SYNTH) and evaluation of what the sources actually say. The sources call him a "skeptic" -- those are the sources you brought to the article. Your very own sources call him a "skeptic" and they do not say he is in the denialist camp. Stop insisting on using a label that is not sourced. It is a BLP violation. This is the proper place for discussion because you will not stop, despite sourcing and despite consensus and despite BLP concerns. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 04:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope the parties can resolve this on the talk page, but the above is a reasonable approach. Some reliable sources call him a climate change / global warming denier, others call him a skeptic, which is a more inclusive and less loaded term.  The term skeptic has only gained currency in the last few years so some of the older sources, and newer ones that aren't with the times, use the older language.  But all that is a content decision.  Why can't each side here take a step back?  Is there anything at stake that matters here?  How is the reader better or worse informed either way?  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla, I base my arguments on scholarly sources, not blog comments. Not to mention, although I didn't sign it, I'm still abiding by the pledge not to edit climate change articles. Try to focus your argument on facts. And please stop personalising everything. That's not the way we operate here. Guettarda (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is something that people seem strongly about. However, would all of you consider the following compromise? The Watts article uses the "skeptic" term, since that is what sources seem to use. SA gets a warning about BLP and BLP Special Enforcement, to prevent things from happening in the future. Neither SA nor anyone else gets a sanction at this time. Could we all live with that? The Wordsmith Communicate 03:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't warn me any more. I'm tired of being warned about this. How about warning tendentious editors about filing false claims and causing unnecessary drama? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you know about WP:BLPSE. If you don't, this is your notification. Now that that's over with, can we all agree that "skeptic" is a better term? It seems to be what most sources call Watts. Denier may or may not be accurate, but skeptic is probably better to use in the article. If we can agree on that, i'll close this RfE. The Wordsmith Communicate 04:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't the correct place to discuss what type of wording to include in the article the talk page? Go ahead and close. I agree that we should have a sentence that's properly sourced. Also, you didn't mention what you think about warning tendentious editors who seemed emboldened by manufactured compromise with their evil. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing this without action will send a strong enough message. The Wordsmith Communicate 04:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're tired of being warned, then stop trying to push your POV on the talk page . Calling someone a denialist is a serious charge, since the term strongly implies ulterior motives (see the article if you doubt this), so the sourcing for such a charge needs to be especially strong. Your sourcing is especially weak. The fact that you are pushing this claim even as arbs express strong concerns about BLP sourcing is especially telling. Mark was absolutely right to bring it here. ATren (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My sourcing was strong enough to show that Anthony Watts is in the camp of climate change denialism. How that is phrased is a different matter and which sources are chosen is something that is best discussed at the talk page. What "arbs" are "expressing" in your opinion is irrelevant to this discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My own sources indicate he is in the climate change denialism camp. That's been fully demonstrated. How that camp is properly described is a matter of style, not of substance. The discussion is only here because certain editors such as yourself have learned that it is better to make a lot of noise about BLP-concerns than it is to actually try to have a reasoned discussion about issues on article talk pages. This is called being a tendentious editor and you can be blocked or banned for engaging in this kind of behavior. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the word "skeptic"? Is it less accurate? Is it not sourceable? If you and the others agree to use the word that is actually present in the sources, then i'll close the request as moot. If you insist that your word is better, without providing any reasons why it is actually better than the proposed alternative, then you might not be getting the point of BLP. The Wordsmith Communicate 04:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, even if denier appeared in one of those sources, I would be hesitant to include it in the lede. Denialism is a serious charge and to define this person as a denialist would require significant, independent, secondary sourcing. SA's sourcing appears to be none of that, and, (oh by the way) they don't even label him denialist! This argument by SA is pure tendentiousness and he should be sanctioned for it. ATren (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He probably will be, if he insists that sources say something that they don't, and trying to include them in the article. Nonetheless, I would rather this be resolved peacefully, without the need for sanctions. That's why i'm offering SA a way out: either accept the term "skeptic" for the article, or make a clear and convincing argument why "denier" is better. The Wordsmith Communicate 04:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, talk about me in the third person. That's really nice and civil of you. To be clear, I have never insisted that the sources say anything that they don't (despite incorrect protestations to the contrary). I also have been very open to seeing what the different sources we might want to include in the article are. I've offered three, so far I've seen one other source from SciAm mentioned obliquely by marknutley some two weeks ago, but when I asked later about whether we should use it, I got stonewalled. I've asked four separate times now on the article talk page what sources should be used. Hopefully, someone comments soon. Also, this Sophie's Choice you're offering me is not really based on any sourcing your suggesting, as pointed out below. I don't need an "out" in this fashion. I need acknowledgment of proper Wikipedia process and decorum. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK flat out: are you arguing that "denialist" should be used or not? If so, provide multiple, reliable, secondary sources. If not, then we're done here. ATren (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mu. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And that's exactly why you should be sanctioned. This constant argumentation and obstructionism is the definition of tendentious editing. ATren (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this is the definition of tendentious editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Guettarda, et al -- From Anthony Watts' blog:
 * "As we all know, the debate over global warming is contentious, often vitrolic. Labels are often applied by both sides. One the most distasteful labels is “denier”. I’m pleased to report that the UK paper The Guardian has taken on this issue headfirst."
 * Watts cites a Guardian article which says:
 * "We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to 'climate change deniers' in favour of, perhaps, 'climate sceptics'. The editor of our environment website explains: 'The former has nasty connotations with Holocaust denial and tends to polarise debate. ... Most if not all of the environment team – who, after all, are the ones at the sharp end – now favour stopping the use of denier or denialist (which is not, in fact, a word) in news stories, if not opinion pieces."
 * Guardian article, Watts' article


 * As noted above, to conflate the two terms is abject ignorance, and there is no possibility that SA, who is no stranger to this topic area, is not aware of the difference. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 04:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) - Well, call me ignorant then. The terms have different meanings, but are sometimes used interchangeably, with some justification.  Skeptics are also denying something about climate change, namely the overwhelming scientific consensus that it exists, and the very strong scientific consensus that it is human-caused.  However, the article Watts cites is on point, the term "denier" is loaded and unfortunately does evoke Holocaust denial.
 * Anyway, a warning here is unwarranted, and only rewards the filing of vexatious enforcement requests. That may be moot; I doubt Arbcom will have as much patience as the community for non-actionable requests.  The 2+ week old 1RR event is stale, and too trivial to merit a sanction unless there's something I don't know about BLPSE (there doesn't appear to be a link for that).  The ongoing discussion is a valid use of the talk page.  We don't sanction people for arguing a content proposal that fails.  Arguing "yes, my sources show X", "no your sources don't show X", is what talk pages are all about.  There are clearly sources that support SA's position, even if in the end we decide that the sourcing is too weak or doesn't satisfy weight or POV requirements.  The only time this becomes a problem is when people tendentiously repeat arguments and don't respect consensus.  That's a pretty high standard.  A 2-week back and forth good faith argument with plausible arguments and productive editors on both sides shouldn't be chilled by one side by trying to get the other side sanctioned.  - Wikidemon (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding what has happened.<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, he's not. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(e.c. x 5)The problem is, almost every scientist who studies global warming can be properly called a "skeptic" in that they follow the scientific method. The current article on Wikipedia that describes Watts' position is climate change denialism. Guettarda above has provided sources indicating that "global warming sceptic" and "global warming denier" are roughly synonymous where they have been used in the best sources (PNAS is far better than a lot of the junk being floated around here). I haven't seen any source that indicates that "denier" is pejorative any more than I've seen a source that indicates that "skeptic" is laudatory. I just don't know which term is better and I'm not expecting to be influenced by some admin fiat. Give me a source, Wordsmith, that shows why your word is better. My position is one of agnosticism rather than preference, but I will not simply agree that "skeptic" is a better term just because you think it is. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is better because the sources use it. BLP policy indicates that any material that is challenged (or likely to be challenged) needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources. "Skeptic" is verifiable. "Denier" is not. Therefore, skeptic is what he should be called, and BLP is clear on this. Anything else would be misrepresenting the sources used. The Wordsmith Communicate 05:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which sources are you referring to? The Soundings source is explicit. So is the Alex Lockwood source. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your Lockwood source refers to Watts as "sceptic and former weatherman Anthony Watts" -- this is a self-published source.
 * Your "Soundings" source is an interview with Monbiot marketing RealClimate, and he says "So these sites were set up partly as a counterweight, in response to other websites established by deniers like Climate Audit, or Anthony Watts’s site,which are used every week by journalists, particularly in Britain and Canada and Australia, who constantly pick up the nonsense promulgated."  Not a reliable source and not a peer reviewed journal as  you represented -- and it's not even clear whether he's referring to Watts as a denier or if that is just describing Climate Audit.
 * Your third source has no reference at all to Watts as a denier or a skeptic.
 * <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 05:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Context is everything for the Alex Lockwood source, which says this: These examples are illustrative of the myriad ways in which different forms of new media are

utilized to support climate disinformation. I have specifically chosen mainstream media sites, and their permeation into other forms of media, rather than individual blogs, to move away from the idea that it is only single issue fanatics (SIFs) that propagate climate denial. There is presence, but what of the volume? There is very little research in this area, perhaps because as of February this year there were 112m blogs tracked by Technorati.com, not including the 72.8m in China.xiv In research to be published, Neil Gavin argues that few people are searching out climate change information online, and those that are find “an environment that is more digital jungle than ‘public cyber‐sphere’” (Gavin, forthcoming). However, rather than Googling as Gavin does, turning up 80 million entries for climate change or global warming, another starting point is to look at blog aggregation sites. While this omits traditional media, it is a good measure for extra‐institutional influence. On Wikio, four of the top 20 science blogs are sceptics. The most successful, WattsUpWiththat.com, the US‐based blog of sceptic and former weatherman Anthony Watts, in July this year posted 646,024 page views (2.8m since launch). The point here is basically that Alex Lockwood has clearly labeled Watts a "single issue fanatic that propagate[s] climate denial." You can judge for yourself whether this is a fair reading. Also, the peer review issue here is interesting since conference proceedings in the social sciences can sometimes be considered to be peer-reviewed.
 * I disagree with your claim about Soundings not being clear that Watts is a denier. The peer-review on this magazine/journal is a bit more interesting, since this is in an interview. Arguably, the article was subject to editorial review but the contents of the interview likely were not vetted. I acknowledge that for this source the BLP matters are a bit dicier (the opinion of others for some reason, when negative, is more BLP-problematic than otherwise).
 * The final source, I believe, does square away Watts in the denialist camp.
 * Now, whether these sources should be used, or others should be used, is a topic for discussion at the talkpage, me thinks. I'm still waiting for other sources since people seem to dislike these so much. I asked Wordsmith for his opinion, but he's not yet got back to me.
 * ScienceApologist (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SA, please don't take a "my way or the highway" approach to this dispute. Cla68 (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I won't. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

From Climate change denial
 * commentators have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views, and for injecting morality into the discussion about climate change


 * Several commentators, including Monbiot and Goodman, have also compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial

break
In other words, "skeptical" is the honorable search for truth, and "denier" is used as a personal attack. IMO, pushing for the use of "denier" in this context is nothing more than a smear campaign. Since this is a BLP, and since there is significant opposition to pushing that specific POV, even if reliable sources use the term it should not be used on Wikipedia unless Watts uses it to describe himself. Q Science (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all very interesting, Q Science, and I'm aware of the connotations as it seems to be a favorite sticking point. However, I'm not sure that a Wikipedia article (itself not a reliable source) should have any influence as to how we should treat a BLP. Just because commentators have criticized the phrase does not mean that Wikipedia must shy away from it unless the person themselves self0-applies the phrase. That's like saying we can't write a BLP about someone being a murderer since the term is pejorative. (And, before you jump to any conclusions, I'm not saying that climate change denial is akin to murder). ScienceApologist (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Q Science, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please stick to reliable sources, not cherry-picked factoids. Guettarda (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was SA who suggested that source specifically to tar Watts with that label. So, first it is "use this source", and now "that is a bad source"? Q Science (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested reading: p. vii-viii of Bud Ward's Communicating Climate Change: An Essential Resource for Journalists, Scientists and Educators. It's well worth reading the whole 2-page section "A Word About Words". But the key bit is this:

Ward is editor of the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media and was named "Climate Change Communicator of the Year". Don't take his word as gospel truth, but I think it's a great starting point (bit late for starting, but say what) for people to think about the issue of how to communicate this phenomenon. Guettarda (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: I propose we call Watts a heretic, for daring to disagree with the scientific consensus as determined by the experts and conveyed here by the science editors. ATren (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Suggestion: How about we label all of those in the scientific consensus as "alarmists" or "AGW fanatics" - doesn't that mean the same thing? GregJackP  Boomer!   11:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I don't see cause for action here. Apparently, there is even a solid (if minority?) RS basis for User:ScienceApologist's edit. Seems far more like a case for an RfC at the article or perhaps an issue for the NPOV noticeboard. Seems premature and, perhaps even a bit belligerent, to attempt an RFE. BigK HeX (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Compromise content discussion
To summarize: The most appropriate conclusion to this episode is that both sides get a spanking and are sent to bed without dessert, and they have to promise not to do this again. Then everyone goes off and does something useful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Marknutley was being unhelpful by dredging up a cause for action two and a half weeks after the fact.
 * ScienceApologist is being unhelpful by insisting on the "denier" label when "skeptic" is the term that, for better or worse, appears in the preponderance of reliable sources. (I happen to agree with the frustration over hijacking an honorable term for cynical ends, but our personal feelings don't enter into this.)
 * If they would both agree to drop it, I would accept that. Skeptic is clearly the term that RS use in this case. That is what we use. SA needs to accept that, and MN needs to not put things in the wrong forum. If the talkpage wasn't working, an RFC or BLPN would be better choices. SA's actions are probably more serious, though, since there are the reputations of real people at stake. MN just wasted a few hours of our lives. If SA would back down, and MN would agree to use the appropriate forum, then I would close the case. As it is, though, I think I know what needs to be done (but I would rather not have to do it, so please resolve this without admin intervention). The Wordsmith Communicate 05:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which specific sources are you referring to, Wordsmith? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See the above post by Minor4th. He beat me to it as I was double checking the sources. The Wordsmith Communicate 05:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree with my analysis. If so, why? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. The Lockwood source, clearly calls him a sceptic. To draw any other conclusion from it is original research. The interview isn't at all clear. That could be calling his website a denialist, or it could be referring to the previous example. The third I can't seem to access at the moment, and I don't recall what it says. It is clear that per BLP, he should be called a sceptic. The Wordsmith Communicate 06:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we're having this conversation here, but at least it's happening finally! Anyway, I'm unclear why you think that the Lockwood source could be referring to the previous example, which are all the mainstream media sources explicitly (and Watts is clearly a blog). Are we of the opinion now that parsing a difference between a website that presents the views of a person and the person are different? Is Anthony Watts assumed to be lying when he publishes simply because this is a BLP? I'm also unsure why you think the interview isn't clear. Can you elaborate? Monibot is pretty clear about what he thinks, IMHO. But, is it right to source to his opinion? Furthermore, do you think these sources are adequate for sourcing that he is a climate change skeptic in those particular words to be found in the lead or is some other wording better? Are these the only sources that are good, or should we find others? What is the distinction between climate change skeptic and climate change denial according to reliable sources (not Wikipedia as below) anyway? Which part of BLP are you most concerned with? Is it the implied defamation or something else? So many questions, so little time. I'd like to keep discussing this, but I'm wondering if this is the appropriate venue. Is it? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are all content points (both Wordsmith's and SA's), and this is a behavioral enforcement board. SA's position has reliable sources to back it, something any editor here can easily check out in two minutes on google with a healthy sense of WP:BEFORE.  One is free to argue the weaker position, that's how we find the winning position to begin with.  Even if you disagree that SA has even a credible argument, again: absent bad faith we don't silence or sanction editors for being on the losing side of a legitimate content dispute unless they repeatedly challenge consensus to the point of tendentiousness.  In fact, people are arguing with a straight face, and presenting sources here, to say that "denier" is the right word to use, not "skeptic".  Will we warn and sanction them too?  - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this the appropriate venue? Absolutely not. However, it is finally being discussed here, so i'm hesitant to move it when we could solve this issue amicably right now.
 * My issue with Monibot is more grammatical ambiguity than anything else. When he says "So these sites were set up partly as a counterweight, in response to other websites established by deniers like Climate Audit, or Anthony Watts’s site" the placement of the comma makes it uncertain if he is calling Watts's site denier or just Climate Audit. Either interpretation is plausible, so I don't think that counts as convincing evidence either way.
 * As far as other sources, I don't know of any other ones, since I am not an experienced editor in this field. I have never even seen Watts' website. Having more sources would be a good thing though, so if you have more then it would be a good idea to provide them. The Wordsmith Communicate 06:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The other issue with Monibot is that if "denier" is as pejorative as we are all saying, then this may need to be attributed to him directly. However, the parsing you provide seems weird to me. I'm pretty sure that the correct way to parse it is to group Watts' site with Climate Audit rather than the "other sites" which act as "counterweights". I really don't think it is plausible that Monibot is grouping Watts' site with things that are opposed to deniers. Why do you? I think that more sources might be fine too, but people haven't been discussing this all that much on the talkpage when I ask for them. I offered three sources which I believe make a pretty strong case that Watts is in the denialist camp (again, whether that term specifically should be used I'm agnostic on), but others have subsequently been trying with different degrees of success to convince me that these sources may not be the best for that. I really like the Lockwood source, but people don't like that it wasn't published by a third party outside of conference proceedings. I think Monibot via Soundings is a fine source, but others don't like the interview and the magazine. The final source is just one that seems to place Watts firmly in the camp of people who have been "denigrated as denialists" as it were (it's a collection from a pro-denialist POV). However, the question remains whether that source is good enough. Mark Nutley provided a Scientific American source which I think could be promising, but is also a bit confusing. . Here is a source which calls him "different from your garden variety denier". We could just use these two and be done with it, but when I asked if that was a good idea I was met with a confusing amount of silence. So what do you say to "His blogging and advocacy are generally from the position of disbelieving the climate science community's conclusions about global warming." with the newsreview.com and sciam.com sources? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The wording is a bit clunky, but that is certainly a start. What do you think about "His blogging and advocacy generally disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming."? I think something like this is a phrasing that all parties could agree to. Hopefully we can solve this one quickly. The Wordsmith Communicate 07:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer: "His blogging and advocacy generally dispute the scientific consensus on global warming." It's a bit more descriptive. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we've got an acceptable compromise. I'm going to go down into the uninvolved admins section now and say that we don't need to make any sanctions, and we'll wait a day or so before closing to see if everyone can live with this solution. The Wordsmith Communicate 07:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No we do not. That's not a compromise, it still links to the denial article which is loaded with allegations of ulterior motives. This is clearly unacceptable without solid sourcing. ATren (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know of a better place to link to? The Wordsmith Communicate 07:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about nothing? The denial page is clearly not appropriate. There may be another page that would work, but absent of another we should link to nothing at all. ATren (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. ScienceApologist, what do you think of not having a wikilink on that word? The Wordsmith Communicate 07:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a link so that people generally know what sorts of disputes he has with the consensus. The first question a reader will ask is "How does he dispute the consensus?" The answer is contained in the sources which show that he disputes it not in the alarmist way but in the denialist way. The easiest way to address this while avoiding the "skeptic" vs. "denier" argument is to simply link to an appropriate article that describes the general position of the deniers. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not link to climate change skepticism, and let that link resolve where it may? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather favour Boris's proposals on this, in particular the term "contrarian" which appears to be generally more acceptable to these opponents of mainstream science, and can be sourced here. Perhaps a new article is needed as a linking explanation? However, if the current proposition is acceptable all round, I'm happy with that. . . dave souza, talk 08:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, we could link to Global warming controversy, which explains the scientific and political positions of both the consensus view and the dissention. The Wordsmith Communicate 08:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or we could use the exact word that the sources used ("skeptic") and not misrepresent sources in BLPs.  GregJackP   Boomer!   11:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * oh for crying out loud - now we cant use the word "skeptic" when thats what the sources use- because one tendentious editor refuses and holds the article hostage and because the admins enforcing in this area are too reluctant to actually impose sanctions when theyre clearly warranted?? Pathetic and unacceptable.   Goes to show that wikilawyering and tendentious editing pay off.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 11:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not sanction people if we can avoid it. I don't appreciate articles being held hostage any more than you do. And I think it's pretty bad that only the threat of a sanction gets a compromise from SA, but I'd rather have a term everyone agrees to than more war. If SA repeats this behavior of violating BLP via OR/SYNTH yet again, stronger measures are needed. But I'd rather not sanction people if we can avoid it. Calling for people's heads doesn't always help. ++Lar: t/c 12:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Violating OR/SYNTH? In what way did he do that? I think it has been demonstrated more than adequately that the terms are used synonymously. Threatening people because you don't like that facts is totally unacceptable behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think any such demonstration has been made, quite the opposite, in fact. Mischaracterizing things and then slandering people because you don't like the facts is totally unacceptable behaviour. You need to stop. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No Minor4th - we can use whatever term we want. Any of the terms - "skeptic", "contrarian", "denialist" - is widely used, and they're all synonyms. And there are pros and cons to each term. But it's primarily a style issue. And stylistic differences should be worked out by involved editors in a civil manner where truth is respected. Instead we have a barrage of false claims, a spurious RFE, and a deluge of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Of course, the reality is that selecting an appropriate label is the least part of the issue. Once jargon is clearly explained, it's rarely a problem. If jargon isn't explained, the regardless of what word is used, the average reader probably isn't going to come away with a clear picture of what's going on. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can't contribute constructively, you need to step away completely. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not very helpful. If you're going to warn people, I would advise Minor4th against throwing around terms like "tendentious editor", "holds the article hostage", " pathetic and unacceptable", and lobbying for sanctions on a matter that is clearly unsanctionable, particularly as a discussion winds down.  Or are you agreeing with the content position that calling the subject a "denier" is SYNTH and too poorly sourced?  There's a sound argument to the contrary, and the job of weighing arguments is a content matter.  - Wikidemon (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I take no position on content. I think "pathetic" is a bit over the top rhetorically speaking but I agree with the characterization that SA seems to be impeding progress. ++Lar: t/c
 * So I take it, it is concluded that we're using the term "skeptic" since that is what SA's sources use and since it has been established that "denier" carries very negative connotations, not appropriate for a BLP. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 16:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a shame if this was the case, since "skeptic" is really a misuse of the term. A scientific skeptic changes his or her mind when empirical evidence is presented to support whatever they are skeptical about. We're talking about people who reject the empirical evidence because it doesn't fit their ideology/belief, and that's basically denial. To relabel "denial" as "skepticism" in order not to hurt the feelings of these people does not seem very encyclopedic to me. That being said, we must follow the convention employed by the preponderance of reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The compromise offered by SA and those that agree with him is that Watts's blogging/advocacy generally disputes the scientific consensus on global warming. There were two sources (one of which I believe was presented by mark nutley) that support that fact. Can the opposing editors please just agree that that would be a good compromise? If SA et al are willing to give a little ground, you need to do the same here. We can resolve this peacefully. Otherwise, users whining about tendentious editing while not being willing to negotiate may find themselves under civility parole. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anyone is "whining about tendentious editing"... pointing it out when it happens and whining are two different things are they not? Can we just drop all the accusations and counter accusations of bad faith and the like? ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a compromise -- it's a refusal to use the term that is used in the sources because he doesn't like the term. That's unacceptable.<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's keep in mind this is a BLP we're talking about and remember your warning you gave yesterday about WP:BLPSE <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any valid behavior warning here. Nevertheless, as a content resolution if it's a choice between "skeptic" and "denier", although both have reliable sources to back them up we should choose the broader, more neutral, and (currently) more often used term "skeptic".  As several editors point out, the term "skeptic" as used with respect to climate change differs somewhat from the common meaning of the term, so we should link that the the closest approximation we can find to a neutral Wikipedia article that explains the climate change skeptic movement.  Best not to coin new terms or adopt less frequently used terms like "contrarian" just because they're more neutral.  We're in the business of reporting the world as people describe it, not advocating our own descriptions, even if those descriptions are better.  - Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? Not only has SA inserted a self published source into a BLP and misrepresented it, not only has he on the article talk page and now here continued to claim the source is good but peer reviewed. If this is the wrong board for this sort of thing then i consider my sanction against adding sources to CC articles null and void as this is the exact same thing whic hi got sanctioned for, using a SPS in a BLP mark nutley (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing the part where we're discussing it now, and we've got some new sources (and better ones, I think) . The Wordsmith Communicate 17:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your sources call him a "skeptic" also. Scientific American -- "Internet readers pounced, sending e-mails to the center and also to skeptical bloggers such as meteorologist Anthony Watts.";  newsreview --"Chico meteorologist Anthony Watts has been hailed a hero by Republicans and dubbed a climate-change ‘denier’ by environmentalists" --note the scare quotes and the fact that it's only one ideological bent that calls him a "denier."   The source also says,  "Watts’ skepticism flies in the face of the international scientific community..." .   What exactly are you proposing these sources for?  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I`m not missing anything. There was another source for my edit as well the WSJ but i was sanctioned for using a self published source instead. If this as you say is the wrong forum for obtaining a sanction against an editor who has misrepresented sources and used a SPS in a BLP then it was also the wrong forum for you TWS to sanction me. If SA is allowed to use a SPS in a BLP and also deliberately misrepresent three sources then as i said, my sanction is null and void, happy editing mark nutley (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your sanctions stands. Violate it at your own peril. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No it does not, if it is ok for SA to do it then it must have been ok for me, i did`nt see you trying to reach a compromise when i was brought here, you called for my head. Either all are treated equally or you and your sanction can take a hike. I have created plenty of articles since my sanction and none of the refs have been problematic yet the sanction is still in place, so bollocks to it. mark nutley (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, cool it. You should not talk of violating your sanction just because you feel someone else is doing something incorrectly. That way lies further sanction. You should instead be demonstrating that you can work well with others. Try to be easier to work with than those you are in contention with. In fact, that applies to everyone. Could everyone please cool it. Let's try to reduce the heat a bit please. Let's have a niceness contest instead of a pissing contest. Because if one breaks out, people will be sanctioned or blocked. ++Lar: t/c 18:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark has every reason to be pissed off. When Mark has demonstrated that he can work well with others, it has done him no good. On the other hand SA has demonstrated if you're stubborn as hell and refuse to give in, eventually you'll get your way. Or does that only apply to one faction whose buddies show up to overwhelm enforcement discussions?

Arbitrary section break
So here's a recap of events leading to this enforcement -- SA revert warred the term "denier" into the Watts article, removing the word "skeptic". SA has continually maintained that the sources are peer reviewed, but they're not. The three sources that SA cited describe the BLP as a "skeptic" but SA for weeks has refused to use the word "skeptic" and insists on "denier." This discussion has conclusively shown that "denier" is a negative term with negative connotations, used by opponents of "skeptics". This discussion has also conclusively shown that Watts himself is disgusted by the term "denier" and calls himself a skeptic. This is a BLP that requires impeccable sourcing - yet, SA throws in self published sources and interview quotes from Watts' idealogical opponents. Wordsmith earlier in the discussion recognized that SA's actions were tendentious and were violative of BLP, enough so that he warned him with WP:BLPSE. In response, SA continued to refuse to use the term that the sources use and continued to misrepresent the sources, relying on a Wikipedia article for the definition of "denier." Alternatively SA and pals chastised others for relying on Wikipedia articles for definitions. Now, Wordsmith has semi hinted at imposing a civility parole on me and sanctions against mark have been threatened. What was it that ATren used to call this place, BizzaroPedia? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion has conclusively shown that the so-called "skeptics" don't like being called "deniers", but that's all. "Denier" is still the most accurate term. "Birthers" don't like being called "birthers", but that's what everyone calls them because that is what they are. "Birthers" deny the existence of empirical evidence that proves Obama is an American, just as "deniers" deny the existence of empirical evidence that overwhelmingly shows that humanity plays a significant role in climate change. Worse than that, many deniers are paid by big energy industry companies to spread their disinformation, whereas most "birthers" are just ignorant. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor4th's summary is useful, as it lays out the events in a cogent and comprehensive way. You may not agree with them, but there they are. Your comment is not. Focus on the issues around the article, please, not on what you are focusing on. ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment was pointing out that some of Minor4th's "useful" comment was inaccurate. I was trying to make a legitimate point with respect to the terminology being discussed. Please avoid making provocative comments of this nature in future. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You've not rebutted anything important though. The important issues here are the insertion and removal of terms, whether that is being done in contravention to BLP policy or not, and whether there are editors (SA? Others? Both sides) being tendentious. Not whether "big oil" paid for things or whatever. That's smoke. As I said, focus on the issues around the article. Agree or rebut what Minor4th said, please. And stop casting aspersions. That's not a "provocative comment", it's something you need to take on board. ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I must disagree with your entire comment. I made my rebuttal with an analogy, and it is not my problem if you don't agree with it; furthermore, it is not up to you to tell me how to respond to the comment of another editor. Moreover, I object to your claim that I am casting aspersions. I do not understand why you persist in trying to escalate this disagreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar, if you're here in an administrative capacity perhaps you could encourage Minor4th to heed your comment regarding toning things down instead of endorsing the editor's side of the argument and criticizing those who dispute their statements. Minor4th's content argument makes sense but their summary of events is one-sided and not wholly accurate, they continue to advocate for sanctions against SA that are not going to happen unless someone loses their temper, and their use of terms like "tendentious editors", " pathetic and unacceptable", "...and pals"  [stricken in response to Minor4th's toning down earlier comments - Thanks!] would tend to widen disagreements over behavior rather than narrowing things towards a content resolution.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rebut the summary then. I've already cautioned Minor4th and Scjessey, and now I'll caution you too, focus on the issues here instead of casting aspersions. ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor4th has made a very thoughtful gesture, thanks! So I'll do the same.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the summary: "SA revert warred..." is too strong a description for reaching 1RR on both sides, and omits the salient point that this happened more than two weeks ago. "'Denier' [is]...used by opponents of skeptics..." is an incomplete description, because plenty of neutral reliable sources have used the term as well.  "SA throws in self published sources..." refers to talk page discussions, where the validity and strength of sourcing is fair game for discussion.  "SA's actions were tendentious" is a minority opinion on one side of a behavioral dispute, not a summary of events. "warned him with WP:BLPSE" - that's neither the outcome here, supported by policy, nor is it generally accepted as legitimate.  "In response, SA continued to refuse to use the term that the sources use and continued to misrepresent the sources" - this incorrectly suggests that arguing for a weak or non-consensus content position is tendentious behavior.  It is only tendentious if it continues past the closing of a discussion and establishment of consensus.  However, I don't think any of this really matters, if people are willing to accept that they disagree somewhat, that sanctions and sanctions enforcement just aren't going to happen here, and that consensus is to use the word "skeptic".  We'll get there faster if everyone puts down the stick and accepts that this outcome is more or less a done deal.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He added "denier" with edit summary: (he's one of the foremost internet gw denialists according to three peer-reviewed articles.) sourced to a SPS, an interview from an opponent, and a journal -- all three called Watts "skeptic", not denier.  Another editor changed it to "skeptic" per the sources.   SA reverted with edit summary (Reverted to revision 377767893 by ScienceApologist; not according to the sources, it isn't!. (TW)) -- flat-out misrepresentation.  It wasn't just that he reverted in a BLP violation, it's also that he flat out misrepresented what the sources said and also misrepresented the quality and reliability of the sources.  SA is not a new editor -- he knows these policies backwards and forwards, it can not reasonably be presumed an innocent mistake ... like some of mark nutley's earlier edits.  Yes, WP:BLPSE does apply and it is supported by policy, and is generally accepted and legitimate.   Remember that editors cannot agree to ignore policy even by consensus.  I'd say his actions on the article and his steadfast refusal to accept the term that the sources use is tendentious according to WP:TE :  "Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors."   We don't compromise on BLP's.   We must get it right -- that is policy, and it's not negotiable.  That means impeccable and multiple reliable sources.   No self published sources, no derogatory terms that the BLP himself has expressed disgust over.   This is not an area for compromise or bridge building because it is a BLP and strict adherence to policy is not just desirable, it is required.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Local consensus cannot ignore content policy, but it can interpret whether a particular piece of content does or does not conform to the policy. Your points about BLP are well taken, and apply to the article page revert.  If SA was tendentious on the article page he was tendentious for several minutes a couple weeks ago, far too old an issue to bring up now.  If he got the sources wrong or needs better sourcing, that's what talk pages are for.  "Denier" is verifiable to many sources, and I don't see any support for an assumption that SA was acting bad faith by arguing that it should apply - if so, half a dozen editors here should be sanctioned for having the nerve to think the term is apt.  Even granting you that SA's argument in favor of the term is weak, again, there's no prohibition on being on the losing side of a sourcing or BLP disagreement on article talk pages.  That's what talk pages are for.  One editor says "my sources support X", and another editor says "no they don't".  How else are editors supposed to sort these things out, by filing enforcement actions against each other? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While "Denier" may be verifiable to sources, none has been cited. Sources cited say "Sceptic".  To reword this as "Denier" is either WP:SYN or WP:OR. And claiming that an interview is a peer-reviewed source in an edit summary is misrepresentation and can only be incompetence or bad faith.  Either integrity is expected from editors, or it isn't.  It's a binary value.Slowjoe17 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You left out the third option - beyond SYN and OR there is simply weak sourcing. I would treat this as a weak sourcing issue.  I've cited sources that say "denier" for purposes of showing they exist, but at the same time, the weight of the sourcing supports "skeptic" in my opinion.  That's why the whole thing looks like a simple content dispute where the parties should just enact the consensus they've reached, those on the losing side should respect that, and everyone can move on.  I'll take your word for the source being incorrectly represented as peer-reviewed, although I consider peer review a canard when dealing with science journal articles assigning academics to political camps.  If I had to choose between a mistake (incompetence is a little harsh, don't you think) and dishonesty, I would give people credit for making mistakes, and say the talk page is where that gets sorted out.  Why does this need to get any more contentious than that?  - Wikidemon (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sort of. But I'm pretty sure we use the more polite and formal term, "conspiracy theorists" rather than "birthers".  Also, one place where the analogy breaks down is that there are supposedly two different incarnations of opposition to climate change science conclusions, the (mostly older) deniers who simply said the climate isn't changing, and the (newer) skeptics who say that while the climate may be changing, either it isn't serious, the cause is not human, the case isn't proven, etc.  They may be holdovers from the same movement, and may have similar motivations and approaches, but the wording has changed.  If a distinct wing of Obama conspiracy theory emerged, with one camp admitting the circumstances of his birth but advancing a constitutional argument why he's ineligible for office, and if that camp became widely identified under a different name, we might have this same discussion over that too.  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. If I find material in an article that is contained in a peer reviewed journal, it is good to go in a Wiki article? Especially if I can provide other sources that support it? Do I understand this correctly? I'm asking for an admin to answer the questions here, so I can understand if the peer-reviewed journal article I found is good for use as a source. Thanks, GregJackP   Boomer!   23:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as you follow the wording and intent of all of these policies. The question you ask is meaningless without specifics. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (non-admin opinion)...and it still needs consensus that it belongs. We don't repeat everything that's sourceable and that otherwise complies with content policies and guidelines.  If we did Wikipedia would be as big as the Library of Congress. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuel for Thought, Energy and Environment, 2010, Vol. 21, Iss. 3, pp. 334-335, states that William Connolley erased the Little Ice Age, rewrote 5,428 articles, deleted over 500 articles, and barred over 2,000 editors... It is an article in a peer reviewed journal (based on the standard used by SA), so can we say that WMC controlled and manipulated content to promote the AGW activist cause?  What is good for the goose (skeptic) is good for the gander (alarmist).  Same journal, same column, different issue.   GregJackP   Boomer!   00:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting question, but I'm not sure what's good for the goose is a in fact good for the gander, if you know what I mean... wink, wink, nudge, nudge. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just following up - am I to understand that since SA's sourcing is impeccable, that I can now insert the above into an article? Because if it is not actionable against SA, it is not actionable against me.  Thanks,  GregJackP   Boomer!   00:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the claim has already been reviewed and rejected on Wikipedia, this is an instance when it cannot be regarded as anything other than a falsehood. Knowingly adding a falsehood to a BLP is not likely to be looked upon kindly. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Chris, please read WP:V. Verifiability, not truth, is the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.  It is, as ScienceApologist stated, a peer-reviewed journal.  Isn't that the standard for the SPOV used in articles on science and scientists?  There are plenty of other, major media sources that support the article in the peer-reviewed journal.  Wikipedia is not claiming it is true, it is reporting what the sources said.  Are you claiming that a peer reviewed source is not reliable?  Or that the column that SA got his information from is not reliable?  If the source is good enough for one BLP, it is good enough for the other.  There is no middle ground there - it is good or it is not.  Which is it Chris?   GregJackP   Boomer!   04:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is being used to game
Marknutley is clearly using this enforcement board to game itself. I agreed above to a compromise with TWS, but the continued sabotage of any sort of compromise seems plainly clear to me by a few editors who seem bent on assailing my motives and actions at every turn with varying degrees of evidence.

Here's some comments on Lar's "result"


 * 1) There is no reason to use any term that we don't all agree with be it "denier", "denialism", "sceptic", or "scepticism". There are reasons to avoid all of them and we've explored them throughout these threads. A compromise whereby we use none of those words is acceptable to me, is it acceptable to anyone else?
 * 2) I've never "pushed denier in". In fact, I don't like the term "denier". I like the term "denialism" or "denialist" but don't particularly care if we use a synonym. I don't think that it is okay to whitewash just for the sake of whitewashing. Explanation should be offered (this is why I 1RR the replacement of "denialist" with "skeptic" since I viewed them as synonymous as did Wikipedia and a number of the best sources available including those from PNAS).
 * 3) I do not engage in OR/SYNTH and consider Lar's accusation of such to be groundless without analyzed diffs.
 * 4) I take extreme umbrage to the claim that I "currently lack" a willingness to work with others unless Lar can provide diffs. In fact, I take this phrasing to be a personal attack and ask Lar to rewrite it or strike it since a "willingness to work with others" is something I consider a private character trait.
 * 5) I have already accepted the compromise of TWS.
 * 6) I reject Lar's insinuation that the discussion isn't over. It looks to me that he jumped in without reading the whole thing.

I am willing to consider Lar an editor, am willing to continue discussing matters with him, but until he exhibits the competence to actually describe and analyze what occurred in this exchange, I will not be accepting his advice or guidance as an administrator from here on out. Any attempt for Lar to use his tools against me in this action will be appealed directly to arbcom and a reversal or removal of his tools will be requested. I have already drafted the relevant e-mail to arbcom about this and have had it vetted by three independent administrators, former administrators, and former arbcom members for maximal impact.

In any case, TWS is acting like an administrator and does seem to be paying attention to the situation. I'm willing to deal with him.

That's the last you will hear from me on this page. Subsequent discussion of this matter will continue on the Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) page. I will no longer be feeding the trolling and tendentiousness of this matter. Please contact me privately for more.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There you go, instead of saying sorry i misrepresented sources he says he has not, he responds with threats and uncivil attacks by calling people trolls, i know this is going to be closed as stale (as usual) but something needs to be done about an editor who point blank refuses to admit he is wrong and intends to continue on the same course mark nutley (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the most personal, incivil, and argumentative wikipedia editor I have come across in a long while, Mark. That you are still active on Wikipedia without being blocked/banned is nothing short of amazing to me. Something needs to be done about you. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, as you see above I reached the very same conclusion as ScienceApologist after analyzing the sources. Are you saying that I too am misrepresenting the sources? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously are, none of the sources call watts the internets foremost global warming denier, or a denier, nor are they peer reviewed, and one is self published mark nutley (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning ScienceApologist

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections.
 * There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions.


 * The issue is being discussed, so I don't think we need to sanction anybody. Mark really needs to learn the appropriate forum for things, though. This wasn't it. The Wordsmith Communicate 07:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with TWS about forums. Another warning for those bringing this to multiple places. But since we're here... If SA agrees to the compromise put forward by TWS and others, and accepts skeptic, and stops pushing denier in, stops with the OR/SYNTH and in general shows signs of some compromise and willingness to work with others that are currently lacking, close with a warning to SA as outlined above. IF SA rejects compromise, I think stronger sanction is warranted. We're not to the end of discussion yet, so it could go either way, but that's my view as of now. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the filing of this request may have carried a content dispute into the realm of "please ban my opponent so I can gain editorial supremacy". We ought not encourage or reward that sort of WP:BATTLE type behavior.  The fact that there is a request below against the same party is very worrisome.  Either the party is editing noxiously, or somebody is headhunting, or both.  We are all weary of this dispute.  Before drawing any sort of conclusion, I would like a completely uninvolved party to review the evidence of this request, and the one below, and generate a concise summary, sans all the argumentation and rhetoric.   Do we have any page lurkers who'd like to volunteer for that assignment?  You do not need to be an administrator. Jehochman Talk 21:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Second the request for a lurker, preferably one completely uninvolved, to put together a precis. I would note that SA's belligerence is not at all helpful, though. He is not exactly the model of a collegiate editor when he says things like
 * "Any attempt for Lar to use his tools against me in this action will be appealed directly to arbcom and a reversal or removal of his tools will be requested. I have already drafted the relevant e-mail to arbcom about this and have had it vetted by three independent administrators, former administrators, and former arbcom members for maximal impact."
 * ... some notice of that sort of intransigence ought to be taken. If there is consensus for imposition of a sanction, it will be imposed, without regard to bluster. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)