Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive 2

Proposed procedure for dealing with uncivil comments
''reply to Lar moved from below to new heading
 * I rather like your proposal of requesting editors to remove uncivil remarks, then if refused getting an uninvolved admin to impose a strikeout template. Questions – should the remarks be struck out by the editor, or removed completely? Where would you suggest placing requests for this action by an uninvolved admin? . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (feel free to move this subthread somewhere (?) if you like) I like struck rather than removed, (as I do on my own talk page...) because that way others can see, and judge for themselves. As for the process, I think as lightweight as possible... perhaps something like one place on the WP:GS/CC/RE page, periodically archived to a special archive, where requestors presented 1) the diff(s) of the remark(s) at issue, and 2) the diff of the discussion on the remarker's talk where they were asked, and didn't answer satisfactorily. (perhaps using a template?). Admins then either strike the remark, or explain why they did not. X number of days later the request is swept off the page if unanswered (or swept earlier if N admins say no, it's not strikable)??? something like that? That was just off the top of my head. About as lightweight as I can think of without being easily gamable. ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that sounds good. Saves wondering where to raise the issue, and a brief explanation on the standard talk page GW template with a link to the reporting place would make it easy to find. . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar has the right idea. This is not for complex or difficult cases, it's just housekeeping to help keep a lid on the tendency to drift into ad-hominem or WP:FORUM-style discussion. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral closes
I have reverted Jehochman's close of a section. For the second time, he closed it unilaterally once before. After reopening it, substantial discussion ensued, much of it, in my view anyway, productive. And there appeared to be motion toward a possible resolution and outcome. I think we need to not close things when there is ongoing discussion without seeking consensus from the other participating admins first. Or else I think we are going to be playing "chase the ambulance" and whoever gets there first gets to impose their solution unilaterally. Which I think is a very very bad idea. I welcome further discussion. Maybe I'm all wet, please tell me so (and I will shift from a hang back and seek consensus approach to one of "get there first and shoot everyone involved") I'd rather we tried to find innovative solutions that actually worked instead of throwing up our hands. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're all wet. You've "unilaterally" reopened the thread twice. That word unilateral doesn't really mean what you think it means, because there are several other editors who support the view that sanctions were not warranted.  You can't place sanctions without a consensus, and what you've got here is deadlock, at best.   I am disgusted that WMC is chided for incivility while rampant tendentious editing is ignored.  Wikipedia needs topic area experts to help edit articles.  I do not agree with "civility at all costs" and "every edit is sacred" (no matter how uneducated, or inaccurate).  WMC is not the most diplomatic editor, but what he said about ZP5 was supported by the evidence (ZP5's contribution history).  We should not punish people for using plain talk to identify a real problem. Jehochman Brrr 19:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a big softie, but agree that a statement on tendentious editing and persistent misrepresentation of content policies would be very helpful. WMC's statement needed clarification that it was specifically about ZP5's lack of sound constructive edits to global warming articles, and would have been greatly improved by some more evidence, but these points were clarified in the statements he made here. My reading of the proposal is to improve procedures for dealing with allegedly uncivil comments, without chiding anyone. Perhaps appropriately distributed chiding would be useful in improving the editing environment and avoiding yet another attempt to restrict  WMC's useful contributions. . dave souza, talk 19:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is, we weren't stuck. Progress was being made and a consensus was being arrived at as to what to do, which you upset. Twice. That's a purely procedural observation, separate from your statements about what you think the outcome ought to be, which I don't necessarily disagree with. ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that tendentious editing is on the table, I hope it will not be beyond the powers of the uninvolved admins to do something about it. Topic bans should not be considered a step too far, not at all.  Where Wikipedia is being harmed by abusive and often ridiculous wikilawyering and the "I don't hear that" approach to discussion, those with a history of such practices should be excluded to see if things improve. --TS 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "those with a history of such practices should be excluded to see if things improve." - And just who gets to be the arbiter of such decisions? You?  Me?  Excluding people from the debate only fosters discontent and creates more problems in the end.  Can't we actually try to find constructive ways of dealing with things rather than proposing bannings?  I think you fancy yourself a peacemaker but I fear this particular proposal of yours goes decidedly in the opposite direction from peacemaking.  Just my opinion, mind you.  --GoRight (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A large part of the problem is that we have a number of editors who are not interested in finding "constructive ways" but came to Wikipedia specifically to fight over climate change issues. is a perfect example. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * GoRight. please take a look at the log of this probation. There you will see that several disruptive editors have been removed from the discussion.  That's one thing this probation was set up to enable. --TS 21:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While the log certainly shows that some editors have been removed, I don't believe that the neutrality of those removals has been universally accepted which renders your point rather moot, IMHO. It also likely contributes to the current string of requests regarding WMC (and hence we have MORE arguing and tit for tat behavior).  I believe your proposal will only exacerbate and already volatile situation, not defuse it. Returning to my original question, though, who gets to be the arbiter?  The actual answer is obvious, the admins.  My point is more subtle: there is no universally accepted "disruptive editor bar" that can be objectively applied here.  Ergo, the banning decisions would be subjectively enforced and would likely lead to MORE discontent and arguing rather than LESS.  I pledged to work towards making these pages a more collegial environment and, IMHO, seeking the banning of your fellow editors is NOT a collegial thing to do.  Please don't go down that path.  --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * By "I don't believe that the neutrality of those removals has been universally accepted" you seem to be ignoring the fact that universal acceptance is not nor has ever been the standard for administrator action. In other words you just raised a man of straw and bashed the hell out of it.  That's timewasting so please stop it.


 * If you believe that the enforcement requests against Dr. Connolley have something of a tit-for-tat nature, I agree with you.  This perception may well be shared by some admins, making them more reluctant to sanction Dr. Connolley even when he's pushing the envelope.  I note also that at least one editor has been sanctioned for making multiple enforcement requests against Dr. Connolley.


 * I thought it was obvious that the admins are the arbiters, and your question struck me as unworthy of response. You say "please don't go down that path" of individual admins sanctioning editors.  But we went down that path many years ago and it's long been an integral part of Wikipedia.  The sky hasn't fallen. Disruptive editors need to be told when to stop.  Nothing makes them more pleased than an opportunity to mess up discussions with wikilawyering and other abuse. --TS 23:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "you seem to be ignoring the fact that universal acceptance is not nor has ever been the standard for administrator action" - I never said nor implied any such thing so please take your own advice with respect to men of straw and time wasting. And worse still, you never addressed the substance of my point thus wasting more time.  So, how do you propose to address the issue of neutrally and objectively determining who is  "disruptive", or not?  Who specifically would you consider to be the current crop of "disruptive" editors who require banning in your eyes, vs. NOT "disruptive" editors who you would keep?  I ask so that I might get a feel for the characteristics you apply to such a determination. Note also that this brings us to the relevance of the point you have referred to as a straw man, namely that the application of sanctions and bans issued up to this point is currently NOT viewed as having been neutrally administered.  This view is apparently held by quite some number of editors as evidenced by the myriad of discussions on this very point which have taken place in many areas across the project.  Thus, this point is not a straw man but is directly relevant to the question at hand.  --GoRight (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)  Stricken since I am somehow apparently being tendentious.  I apologize for the transgression.  --GoRight (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: The matter of purportedly tendentious editing was (is?) being discussed here. I believe the tone of the various participants speaks for itself.  My conclusion is that I was not being clear in my communications which led to confusion and misunderstanding on the part of TS, and so possibly others as well.  Therefore let me summarize my point as follows: TS's point that the probation has already removed some editors via sanctions is moot, IMHO, because those sanctions are viewed as controversial (i.e. not universally accepted) as evidenced by the myriad of discussions about them where various editors assert that they have not been evenly and neutrally applied.  Thus, implementing even more bannings is likely to INCREASE the discontent and acrimony in this environment rather than DECREASE it, all other things being equal.  In other words, don't throw more fuel on the fire that you are attempting to put out.  It should be obvious that more bannings will have very little chance of leading to the amicable outcome that would be required to achieve a collegial atmosphere.  We have to find ways to work together not seek to toss each other out.  --GoRight (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of process needs to be stopped
In reading the latest complaint against WMC, I think some conclusions are inescapable:

1) WMC has been and is currently being subjected to a campaign of off-wiki vilification that is unprecedented in my experience as a Wikipedian (and I've been around since 2003). It's important to note that he is not being vilified for civility issues but because of his entirely mainstream and conventional scientific views.

2) This is not just about WMC. There's an ongoing Internet-driven campaign of vilification and intimidation against those involved in climate science, even journalists merely reporting it. See e.g. and  for recent reporting on this issue. WMC's troubles on Wikipedia are merely a symptom of a much wider campaign going on worldwide.

3) WMC's opponents on Wikipedia - some of whom have come here specifically to fight over climate change issues and target him personally - are being deliberately hyper-sensitive on civility in an attempt to get him topic-banned. Most of the complaints made have been bogus or unactionable. Where there have been civility transgressions, they have been minor. You could easily find equally "incivil" comments by any of the complainants. This is ultimately not about WMC's civility; it's about civility being used as a pretext to drive out an editor in good standing, or to wear down the enforcing admins to the point that they sanction WMC on the "no smoke without fire" principle. It's worrying that Lar seems to be moving towards the latter position. Admins, be aware that the complainants are seeking to exploit your goodwill here.

4) None of this means that WMC has a free pass on civility issues. However, it is unconscienable that this process should be abused to harass an editor. When this article probation was established, it was set up to resolve disputes, not to be used as a cynical and vindictive means of harassment. The ongoing abuse of this article probation needs to be stopped. It will do Wikipedia no credit at all if a mechanism to deal with abusive conduct merely ends up being another means to carry out abusive conduct. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair process here on the actual complaints must start here first. Abusive stops and closes seem to be the norm on WMC complaints, as supported by Admin discussions  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is one further conclusion that may be drawn, and that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with all, any, or none of the foregoing, is that WMC's seeming disdain to the sensitivities of those who complain provide sufficient material for claims to need to be reviewed. That may not be the intent, but it might be borne in mind should there be further complaints. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The guy is being hounded very severely. His incivility under the circumstances is excusable.  The hounding should be dealt with quite strictly. Jehochman Brrr 22:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, there is no excuse for the way WMC addressed ZuluPapa in the instance in question. ZP had not personally attacked WMC, so WMC's personal attack was unjustified.  As I've pointed out, WMC has baited me, but I haven't responded with a personal attack because I have chosen not to.  WMC has the same freedom. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're smarter, perhaps, but you're also not quite so famous, and not nearly as heavily targeted for abuse. Jehochman Brrr 22:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We expect more from the famous, rather than less. I don't think the hounding card plays well here. I think if you continue this line of arguement you open yourself to the same charges of not being uninvolved that are being levied against other admins. ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * An intriguing line of argument: if an admin differs from another admin's opinion on the matter of whether an editor is being "hounded", he opens himself up to "charges of not being uninvolved"? If such absurd charges are to be made, wouldn't they be reciprocal?  You as the other admin seem to be open on the same basis, that your opinion on this question appears to differ from jehochman's.  Of course I think your argument is absurd on its face, but it could be quite amusing seeing you try to fend off the complaints of some earnest seeker after truth insisting that you must have an animus against some editor because you don't perceive him to be hounded whilst another admin does. --TS 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since that seems to have led to a contradiction, it can't well be right. Something went wrong somewhere. I don't think it's about differences of opinion. Nor do I think I myself would be the one charging Jehochman was involved. I just said I think some folk might. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, you're "just sayin'". I got that.  It was your careful circumlocution that I was trying to lampoon. I'm a little concerned at your attempt to leverage this whispering campaign against jehochman that started on your talk page with a "hypothetical" question.  It's just not cricket. I hope that's blunt enough for you to get the point. Don't talk down the other admins. --TS 23:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not at all clear what you are getting at. I think you are being coy. I have no idea what is going on in that thread on my talk. I certainly do agree about not talking down other admins, and having been the victim of many a whispering campaign myself, I don't care for them at all. That said, I still have no idea what is being alleged or not alleged. Or whatever. ++Lar: t/c 23:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say he is "involved". I would say that he apparently either disregarded, or neglected to actually read the probation page.  I don't think he's the only one either.  Arkon (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have zero edits to this subject. Zero, and don't much care for it.  I prefer higher impact disasters, such as gamma ray bursts,  shipwrecks, or nuclear submarine accidents. WMC is a person just like everybody else.  The famous often lose their cool under pressure.  Jehochman Brrr 22:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The guy is being hounded very severely. Yes. His incivility under the circumstances is excusable. No. The hounding should be dealt with quite strictly.Yes. -- SPhilbrick  T  22:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with points 2 and 3, very strongly. I'm not directly aware of point 1 since I don't follow a lot of blogs and etc but if someone could point me I could study up more. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I both filed a request for enforcement against WMC and agree that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. I resent the insinuation that there is a tension between these two things. I also note that biases in this article space favor "pro-climate" (whatever that means) POV warriors to a fault, and these biases need to be recognized so that they can be minimized (having biases isn't the problem, it's letting them inform arbitration that hurts). The transgressions of these groups are perceived in an unrealistically positive light or are explained away while those of anti-climate change editors are exaggerated. For a case study, look at 2over0's descriptions of Goright's contentious diffs and their corresponding content - with his description of WMC's contentious diffs and their corresponding content. Content-wise, WMC's edits were far more problematic than GoRight's, and yet in each case a rosy view/description is given for the the former's edits while a negative spin is given to the latter's.
 * On a semi-related note, the idea that "expertise" should annul civility, as Jehochman suggests on the project page, is astounding, especially at Wikipedia where most editors write anonymously . Add that to the fact that WMC's content edits over recent months have not required expertise (mostly reverts and removals of content he disagrees with for personal reasons: ) and the argument comes across as hollow.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is really pussyfooting around the issue. We all tend to make up our minds, in this particular dispute, on the basis of whether somebody is a useful part of Wikipedia. The reluctance to sanction such vested contributors has been called a serious problem, but I've been around long enough to see that valuable editors don't become liabilities at the drop of a hat. There is a strong and widespread perception that many of the science-minded editors, of whom Dr Connolley is the most prominent in this area of editing, are A Good Thing and should not be chased away. There is also a strong perception that there are far too many POV-pushers on the global warming area and that our long tolerance of such abusive behavior has led to over-reaction and a circling of the wagons by the few science-minded editors who have ventured into the global warming area and stayed. This is the reality we have to deal with--unwinding the knot without cutting too many vital threads. --TS 23:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I take no position on WMC's civility or lack thereof either way preferring to let others debate that issue. You seem to be implying, however, that WMC is NOT a "POV pusher" and that his opponents those editors that would disagree with him ARE "POV pushers".  You also appear to be using "POV pusher" as a pejorative.  Were these your intentions?  If so I consider this to be a uncivil comment and would ask that you kindly refactor it accordingly.  If not kindly clarify your meaning.  In either case I would be interested to hear how you define the term "POV pusher" and how you would propose that we determine just who is, and is not, a member of that group so that there is no misunderstanding as to your meaning here.  --GoRight (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's generally recognised that Dr. Connolley does an excellent job of writing about the science and keeping nonsense out of the articles. I can appreciate that, from  some viewpoints, what he does by representing the science well is pushing the point of view that the science is a valuable thing that people should be able to read about in our encyclopedia unadorned by accompanying dippy nonsense, but that is not the way the term "POV pushing" is used on Wikipedia. POV-pushing is certainly a pejorative, in the sense that is used on Wikipedia, and we should really not be enabling those who come here to engage in it.  We should encourage those people to start a blog, in keeping with What Wikipedia is not, which by the way is one of our policies that expresses the point of view that encyclopedias are too important to be used for political graffiti. --TS 23:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * TS: I think you're making some assertions that are not necessarily universally held. ++Lar: t/c 23:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is pussyfooting around the issue. WMC is a near-SPA account who's contributions beyond this topic area are minimal.  Within the climate change topic area, WMC's edits are among the most tendentious and disruptive one is likely to encounter.  I see no reason an account whose total edits are a net negative to the project should continue to be tolerated.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you been bitten by the same bug that got GoRight, Lar? When I say "generally" I mean that, and not "universally".  I accept your right loyally and patriotically to register your dissent. --TS 23:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well that's a relief. Here I thought you'd completely papered over that there are significant numbers of editors who think that there's a fair bit of ownership/control/POVpushing going on in this area, among other things. Certainly, at first blush your words read that way. ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute: you say you thought I'd "completely papered over that there are significant numbers of editors who think that there's a fair bit of ownership/control/POVpushing going on in this area." I expressly referred to the POV pushing and the ownership problems in the comment at 23:26 to which you replied--in other words I am one of that "significant number" and I stated so.  Is it possible that you read the first sentence and a buzzer went off in your head, distracting you from reading the following statements?  It certainly looks that way at first blush. --TS 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction. My comment on POV-pushing and the resulting overreaction an ownership problem was at 23:02.  You may have skipped that comment and only seen the comment in which I used the word "generally", to which I assume you were replying. --TS 00:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we may be talking at cross purposes. I've explicated this before I believe, but it's my view that while there is a great deal of disruption and POV pushing happening from the fringes inward, there is also control/ownership and POV pushing from the center out.... that the "AGW cabal" (I wish there was a less pejorative term but that one is more efficient than "the loose group of like minded editors that has on and off worked in this area and who all seem to react in similar ways even though there is little or no evidence of on or off site coordination or even ill intent") has resorted to some less than ideal tactics in their attempts to keep the articles where they think they belong, and that the pendulum has at times swung too far. You may not agree, you may think that it's one sided, the fringe is entirely at fault, but that is not a universally held view, I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me why we would treat this differently to 9/11 conspiracy theories or the creation/evolution argument. There is a well-established scientific consensus view, there are a few dissenters inside the scientific establishment but the majority of dissent is effectively religious, people who reject the science out of hand and collect every possible scrap of evidence to support that rejection, because they have deep-rooted philosophical objections to the necessary actions which the science implies we should take. The links discussed recently to an unreliable source are a perfect example: it's "teach the controversy" all over again. If WMC feels embattled it's because he is: when the world is not as you like it, it seems these days to be of paramount importance to reshape Wikipedia to reflect the world as you wish it to be, because somehow that will make it all better. The length, depth and bitterness of these disputes is continually escalating as the profile of Wikipedia increases. I believe there will come a time when even the sorts of sanctions we have on these articles will no longer work and we'll have to start some formal process of editorial review for the most contentious areas. I hope we're not there yet. In the mean time we should be helping people to stay focused on content not personalities and stamping hard on circular argument and argument which is "source X says Y, we must include it because Y supports the One True Way". It's pretty clear to me that this is a politics v. science collision, and I'm afraid I don't trust politics over science. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do think some editors are of that opinion. That isn't a controversial statement and it isn't inconsistent with any statement I have made.  People on Wikipedia are diverse and there are many opinions.  Now a test of whether an opinion on this is true would be whether or not the articles on global warming misrepresent the science due to this alleged POV-pushing from the avowedly pro-science editors.  I've not seen any evidence that they do, and the global warming article has even been singled out for praise by qualified experts, but if you have some examples we could discuss them. --TS 01:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that I've already went on record as saying that although I disagree with some of the editorial emphasis, (that the lead has more science and less impact to society than I would expect) that I think the articles generally aren't bad. What I'm referring to is the process, not the product. The product is what we really need to care about but this process, seems to me, has a reputation for being... not so good. Sharp elbowed, or worse. Do the ends justify the means? Sometimes I wonder. (we had this discussion before somewhere or another, I raised how Milhist produces high quality work with far less sharpelbowedness) ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay you and I at least seem to be agreed that if there's a problem with "Team Science" it's not that they push their points of view into the articles but that their interaction on talk pages is less than ideal--I believe that is similar to what I referred to as "overreaction" and "circling the wagons". But generally the content is good.  It's ownership, but it's a relatvely benign form with regard to content.  The problem, such it exists, is not POV pushing but a proprietary approach and rather savage manners.


 * This is why I earlier referred to the problem as "unwinding the knot without cutting too many vital threads." These are really great articles.  How do we have these great articles but without the endless fuss?  I think making it harder for the POV pushers to thrive would help.  A clear statement that content policies are not to be messed with, and talk pages aren't for endless attempts to insert nonsense.  Identify the characteristic behavior and put a sign on the talk pages of all articles saying this isn't the way we do things here, then sanction the POV-pushers until they stop trying.  That would take the weight off "Team Science" and they'd have a chance to mellow and become less abrasive towards legitimate discussion. And for those members of Team Science who won't mellow, even when the last POV-pusher has given up, we can direct them to Citizendium or something. There'd be a plentiful supply of more laid-back, less stress-addicted editors anyway, once the POV-pushers had been sent packing. At the moment many of these chaps don't want to go near global warming because it's such a harsh environment for experts and the scientifically literate. --TS 01:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mostly agree, with the exception that I do think there may be a bit of POV pushing and ownership from "team science", as you call them. (I like that term better than "AGW Cabal" for sure, and it trips off the tongue better than the variant I had) The core articles are balanced enough, I suppose but there seems a lot of wasted energy around stuff like whether to call the email thing "climategate" "hacking incident" or what (just one example) Further, some of the stuff around the edges, like the allegations of keeping BLPs tilted pro/anti depending on whether the scientist is consensus/skeptic respectively, if true, would be very very concerning. It better not be true. So I'm worried. But yes, if the entire environment can be improved, it will hopefully bring more editors in and things will be mellower. I've avoided this topic area for the most part, for years, for exactly the reasons you outline. (hence I'm "uninvolved" :) ) ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that this can be "one size fits all". If there are egregious BLP violations in articles covered by this probation then those supporting the methods that uphold that bias can be sanctioned, whatever their views on the science. As an aside I would be most sympathetic to parties raising concrete problems with the BLP, and to remedies including stubbing down and rewrites--Jimbofication--in the worst cases. This is after all the way we've handled really toxic BLP problems.

So perhaps we have a basis for a basic principle: that content policy is to be strongly enforced on this probation. The elaboration of that principle can be worked out if we can get agreement from enough admins. What do you say? --TS 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of political bias in science editing

 * This thread grew out of 

Why continue to beat around the bush. The outside problem that many editors have is that several of the "science" editors appear to be applying a political aspect to their approach to the GW articles. If they would stick to the science and leave the political conjecture out of the picture this whole area would be far less contentious. Now perhaps it is the view that some of supposed AGW deniers come into these articles with their own political bent, but the reaction seems to be the circling of the wagons around these articles with a pro AGW view where any digression is viewed as a political position against their own. Also, since there are a number of editors that do seem to be "in control" of these articles the result is stronger pushback against that percieved control and percieved political approach to the science. It is no surprise that people would feel that way when some of these same editors move outside the science articles and into the political articles with the appearance of promoting a certain political point of view that backs up their belief in the science. It is hard for people like me to really believe that they are approaching the science from a strickly science point of view when they also delve into the political world that would call out those that don't believe in the science. Climategate a culmination of this issue. The whole current view of AGW is that is it a poltical issue using questionable science as a reason for control of others. Until the real root of the problem is addressed I find it unlikely that any of this is to change. WMC is just the most public face, and since he is/was also a politician the link only appears stronger. Arzel (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:WEIGHT – "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Imhofe's minority viewpoint on science is notable, and should be properly described as a minority view. WP:PSCI may also apply. . . dave souza, talk 07:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. I am not arguing either for or against any content on Inhofe, rather that those that claim to be applying the "science" also appear to be playing the role of advocate for regulations on the reduction of greenhouse gases.  How can one take their view that they are neutral in their regard of the science when they also are promoting, or appear to be promoting a political point of view, which by its nature is not neutral.  From a science point of view, what difference does Inhofe's view on AGW have, UNLESS, your goal is to not just report the science, but also frame the view of AGW as a political wedge?  That is the root of the problem, and until the appearance of a political bias is removed from the framing of the GW articles you will not solve the problem.  It is a problem of your own unduing, so you can't solve it from the other side.  Arzel (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing the validity of the science of global warming, which is a clear scientific consensus, with possible amelioration or adapatation, and political discussions on what to do about it. When Gore or Imhofe say we should do x or y, that's a political argument based on agreement with or rejection of the science. When Gore gives incorrect sea level rise figures, we don't say "that's political" and leave it, we show the scientific majority view. Similarly, when Imhofe says global warming is a hoax, we make the scientific majority view clear. Have a read of AR4, where sections show I. the hard science, II. the potential impacts assessed from a range of sources, III. possible ways of mitigating anticipated change, and a synthesis agreed with government representatives summarising these sections. The whole thing is an attempt to reconcile the science with political agreement, as far as that can be achieved. So, if you think that can be made clearer, please help. If you think that climate change denial should be given equal validity, that's the wrong approach. . dave souza, talk 14:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am saying that the "science" editors should stop acting like they are impartial arbitors on these articles when it is clear that they have a political view as well. I am not saying that fringe views should be given equal weight, and I wish you would get off that point.  I am saying that if the so called "science" editors really only care about the science then they should care less that Inhofe or others don't believe in the science.  They clearly are, as you continue to show, thus they are clearly do not have an impartial view of the science.  They should stop acting as if they have the "righteous" view of GW and stop being so immeditately dismissive of anyone that disagrees with them.  I was trying to make a simple point of how you and others are missing the root of the problem, and all you have done is dig in your heels and prove me to be correct in my assertation.  Leave the political aspect OUT of the science discussion if you ever expect those that you view as problematic to work in a colaborative manner, because until you do they simply will not believe you are truly impartial with regards to the science.  You and the other "science" editors are causing this problem and until you come to grips with that you will not solve it.  Arzel (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fringe views shouldn't really be given any weight. The science is indisputable, and each new piece of evidence that emerges reinforces that fact. As long as people like Inhofe use their politics to meddle with science, it seems only fair that scientists cannot be blamed for meddling in politics. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the science is correct then there is no need to meddle in politics. The science will stand the test of time.  Your statement that the science is indisputable is what got the UN in trouble.  Arzel (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Arzel, if politicians like Imhofe didn't make notable statements about science, then we wouldn't show their views on science and wouldn't be required by undue weight policy to make clear the majority scientific view of their statements. But they do, and we are. Take it up with them. . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have missed the point, and I don't know how else to explain it to you. Arzel (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

On reliable sources
As I've pointed out in the case comments, ZP5's repetitive and disruptive attempts to give undue weight to a book by an unreliable source, an author with fringe views, were repeatedly supported by Cla68's interpretation of verifiability policy. Even after I pointed out the fact that the policy specifically refers to the writer as a source to be considered for reliability, shortly before this case was opened, Cla returned to the theme that "All that matters it that they were published by reputable publishing houses, like Booker's book." Cla described his work contributing to military history articles. A parallel in that area would be a persistent editor insistent that Churchill behaved badly during the Battle of Britain, who demands that the World War II article includes a statement that the battle is described in Len Deighton's Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain. Not an exact parallel, as Deighton is a respected writer. As Deighton is published by reputable publishing houses, in Cla's view that is enough to make Deighton a reliable source whose views should be shown. In contrast, when I edited the Battle of Britain article using that book as a source, other more experienced editors pointed to more detailed work by specialist historians, and I fully accepted their reasoning in evaluating sources. In subsequent discussions Cla still did not acknowledge the need for such evaluation: I've pointed out more reliable sources than Booker. I'm certain that Cla is acting with the good intention of improving coverage of minority views, but he everyone must accept that reliable writers are required for anything other than a primary source in which (fringe) proponents give their own position, once the significance of their position in the specific area is shown by reliable third party sources, with due weight being given to mainstream views of these fringe positions. . . dave souza, talk 23:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC) modified 23:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think one could make a good case for an administrative ruling that content policies are to be applied more strictly in the probation area. Selection of the right words might be difficult, but the key problems appear to come from editors ignoring due weight, verifiability and the BLP in an effort to shoehorn some bit of fringe stuff into the article.  That even experienced editors with many years experience of editing articles are supporting this dilatory behavior is worrying. --TS 00:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Which dilatory behavior are you referring to? Perhaps you need to bring another enforcement action request so it could be examined? ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a systemic problem, which is why I think the solution might be a motion encouraging admins to treat tendentious behavior with respect to content policy more strictly. So as to attenuate this kind of pointless "discussion" over doomed attempts to add bad sources pushing fringe points of view.


 * I raised the specific details (which I don't think are actionable in themselves) in the last William M. Connolley request. The head comment of this section refers to the same discussion.  --TS 00:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @DS - How, exactly, do you propose to determine which authors are reliable and which are not? Who is the arbiter of such a decision?  Where is the objective test that we can apply?  The ability to selectively declare who is reliable, and who is not, is effectively a tool for pushing a particular POV.  So how do you propose that we prevent arguments such as the one you are presenting here from being used as such a tool to effect the introduction of a personal POV into the articles?  I would argue that there is a reason that WP:V explicitly states as its very first sentence "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true."  As an editor you are NOT granted the privilege of determining who is telling the truth and who is not precisely BECAUSE doing so is an indirect form of WP:OR.  --GoRight (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The verifiability policy is quite mature and well developed, and it shouldn't be difficult to identify egregious wikilawyering like the attempt to push a biased book by an author with a very poor record for fact checking into the article on the IPCC. Those prepared to indulge in such behavior will out themselves and can then be sanctioned  --TS 02:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bias runs both ways, who is to say yours is better than someone elses? Arzel (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The policy requirements were discussed on the article talk page, particularly here and here. @ GoRight, the policy answers your question. See WP:V. "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...." and so onwards. Note WP:V are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. See WP:SELFPUB for requirements when using them. @ Arzel, see NPOV policy. As WP:V reminds us, "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." Perhaps familiarity with these policies is helped by experience in editing more contentious areas than milhist, areas where the subject is hotly debated in the mass media and where bloggers actively encourage sockpuppets and meatpuppets to push their fringe pov on Wikipedia. As has happened at GW articles. I always assume that those pushing minority views do so in good faith, and may need guidance to appreciate the nuances of verifiability and neutrality policy. It's difficult to communicate these nuances when media and bloggers like Solomon are actively pushing wildly incorrect claims that The Cabal or WMC are unfairly Hiding The Truth. In the end, strict adherence to policies is needed. . . dave souza, talk 07:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You underestimate or fail to fully realize the extent of the minority. You are not talking about a 5% fringe hear, it is closer to 25-30%.  Consistantly calling them a tiny minority sounds dismisive and does not improve the situation.  Sockpuppets are largely the effect of the control by a few.  Meatpuppets work in both directions.  Arzel (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that only a tiny minority of peer-reviewed published scientists on the subject differ from the view that AGW is occurring and is significant, we don't cover science according to public opinion polls. Your assert that sockpuppets are the effect of the control by a few, do you mean they're controlled by a few bloggers, scibaby etc.? I've seen evidence of calls for meatpuppets on "skeptic" blogs, not elsewhere. If that does work in both directions, all the more reason to adhere strictly to policies. . . dave souza, talk 14:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Global warming is not like other large-scale issues of the past: it is based on physical processes rather than political ones. It cannot be 'fought' like Communism or terrorism can. Like wars and revolutions, these are people all the way down. Normal political tactics, like hack a few emails, dish some dirt on key private lives (or manners), discredit someone's morality, vilify their personalities, don't work to stop physical processes. All such tactics do is provide delays, during which the gasses continue to build and climate change accelerates. Arguing that black is white, "until you can prove me wrong", and then arguing that blue is yellow after that, do not help Wikipedia at the best of times, but they are seriously misplaced in this area. Gathering public support against scientific facts may make people feel better about themselves, but in the long run can only delay the inevitable and lead to increased suffering worldwide. We have articles on the politics, the economics and public opinion, but the main articles on the science itself (like Global warming) and on the scientific bodies (like Scientific opinion on climate change and IPCC) are key targets for those who want to discredit it and them. Such actions are hopeless, the facts are clear, but they will keep trying none-the-less. It is important that WP remains clear-headed over this, as increasing numbers of people worldwide begin to rely on it for factual analysis when it appears in their Google search, as well as increasing numbers hoping that by altering the WP text, they can alter the climate change facts themselves, or make it go away. An even-handed approach to anti-science activists, their acolytes, and the gullible, in the articles on the actual science is potentially disastrous, and not just for WP's reputation. Having editors with sufficient academic background to apply WP policies, to be able to sort the reliable sources from the fringe, the science from the lies, the proven from the made-up, and the courage to support them when they do, is essential. Sorry for the long post, but sometimes... You know. --Nigelj (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your view which is worth bearing in mind. One point, the IPCC provides a meeting point between hard science, estimates of impacts and possible ways of dealing with it, and government involvement to reach agreement on the basis and wording of the final report. Ben Santer describes some of the process. . . dave souza, talk 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @DS - Yes, I am familiar with the policies as written but thank you for the primer none the less. You seem to have misunderstood the primary point of my question so let me clarify and ask it a different way. My point was directed more at how we neutrally address the subjective aspects of the policies that you are referencing.  For example, how does one neutrally and objectively determine which sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy?  This is an inherently subjective determination and one that is open to personal bias.  There are other subjective aspects to those policies as written as well.  This is why I was raising the question of who the arbiter of these subjective determinations will be as this will have a significant impact on both the nature of the outcome and the acceptance thereof. I also question your fundamental assumption that the GW pages are, and should be, a science only topic.  As far as I can tell in the available sources recognized by WP:RS the peer-reviewed literature only comprises a small percentage the the third party sources.  By WP:WEIGHT the science aspects of the GW debate (as represented by the peer-reviewed sources) should therefore be limited to a comparable percentage and the social and political aspects of the topic should dominate our coverage as long as we intend to follow our stated policies.  I believe that currently the articles are giving undue weight to the scientific aspects of the subject.  YMMV, but hopefully you don't wish to ONLY cover the scientific aspects of this important social and political topic.  --GoRight (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ GoRight, thanks for coming back on that. I didn't give the "primer" originally because I assume that experienced editors are reasonably familiar with policies, but I'd been surprised in the article discussions, and thought that might clarify things. At the risk of quoting acronyms, both WP:SOURCES and WP:NPOV set the ground – the latter summarising the former as "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available..." That's subjective, and like all subjective matters we look for sources. If respected reviewers and experts in the field praise a source, that's a good guide. That was far from the case in this discussion about the writer, who for our purposes is required to be a reputable source, not just published by a reputable publisher. It's also context specific – Booker may be a great source on satire of the early '60s, Pro Patria Pro Fumo to quote the Eye, but he's an active actor in the debate and not a reliable historian. Like everything else it's down to talk page consensus, but that has to be in line with policy. Others presented sources to support his reputation, and again these were subject to critical examination. I certainly wouldn't limit the search to peer reviewed publications for a historian of science, but authors have to be shown to have a good reputation in the field. Such historians would be a good source on the political and social aspects of global warming.. Far from wanting to only cover the scientific side, today I added mention of Imhofe here as he's mentioned by the source as significant, with Congress becoming politically involved. More coverage of these aspects seems worthwhile to me, but based on independent experts rather than campaigning journalists, and always with the science aspects being dealt with as policy. . dave souza, talk 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see this Reliable Source dispute being taken up on this talk page. Wikipedia has clear paths to content dispute resolutions that precede this project. Now as I have asked in good faith on the article talk pages (to be met with distraction PA bringing us here). What dispute path would the the source removers like to proceed? (Perhaps, it is obvious that it is this one. In which case .. launch a formal complaint that does not involve a content dispute). Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a few editors who appear to have strong personal feelings about using Booker's book as a source, although I've found that they don't seem to have a very good idea of what he actually says in the book. Again, discussion of this book should be taking place on article talk pages or on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Cla68, good to hear from you. That's a very evasive statement, you seem to be dismissing a well sourced evaluation of whether the writer as a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or indeed sourced expert evaluation of the book as whole, as "a few editors who appear to have strong personal feelings". Of course if you're willing to accept the policy, and use the book as a questionable source, or present full and equal support for the author's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for talk page consensus, then that will be good. However, this stateement about "what he actually says in the book" looks like you want to ignore such evaluation, and base the use of the book on your own personal reading of it. You were one of three editors insistent on ignoring evaluation of anything but the reputation of the publisher. If you persist on that tendentious and disruptive course it will become a behavioural issue. However, I hope that will not be the outcome. . . dave souza, talk 04:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern, Dave. Please try to keep discussion of sources on article talk pages or associated noticeboards and if you have a personal problem with me, please take it up on my talk page. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC case
I have closed the WMC case again. ZP5 reopened it for "further diffs within 24 hours"; that is not the purpose of this page. If he wants to start an RfC that's up to him, this page is about managing the general article parole. The original report by Cla68 is being addressed as a wider issue affecting more than one user, so the report has served its purpose. We're not here to serve as a repository for vindictive diff-mining. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The intention of that case was to address the behavior of the complained editor. I would like to file an RfC on this project page, about this project's enforcements requests.  I resent the accusation of "vindictive diff mining" when there was clearly a desire for additional context for the case. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like you are determined to prove me correct. I think that is regrettable; I'd far rather you tried to demonstrate taht I'm wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In time, I will, have faith. You may correct yourself ahead of me. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But until you do something of value, there is nothing for me to correct. Take a look at your contributions one day, and weep William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe this and the related essays will help you.  My value is not for you alone to judge, thank you for the concern.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're not a newbie. You've been editing since December 2007. You should know how to edit within community standards by now. Jehochman Brrr 21:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your problem is that anyone *can* judge you, by looking at your contribution history. From yours, it becomes obvious that you've forgotten that we're here to write an encyclopaedia. Please: prove me wrong: actually make some valuable contributions to real article-space William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me WMC, I took your concerns to mean I am new to the Climate Change articles, and I have yet to have a sustained contribution? @Jehochman, according to WMC, I have yet to contribute to the Climate Change articles ... I call that new. I am new to the Climate Change articles, however I am not new to wiki.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the community accepts me elsewhere, but for some reason, I haven't been accepted in the Climate Change articles. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're not yet to have a sustained contribution, you're yet to make any valuable contribution at all. You've "contributed" a couple of articles that were correctly deleted. according to WMC, I have yet to - no, *according to your contribution history* which is visible to all William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What was that joke about arguing on the internet again? Ignignot (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, given the concerns raised about me, I'll take some time to review my Climate Change contributions history with a cause analysis. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) This one? Or there used to be a chap with a sig on usenet: "when you are arguing with a fool, chances are that he is doing the same" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have obviously misunderstood my comment and I would appreciate it if you would AGF. Furthermore "usenet" is not a RS for retard quotes.  Nice try, but your xkcd comic represents a PA and your WIKI:TEND is inexcusable.  Also welcome to wikipedia. Ignignot (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gotta love those links! So if WMC didn't get it right, what were you referring to with the arguing-on-Internet comment? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * psst, I was being ironic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignignot (talk • contribs)

@WMC, how about you take a timeout from the reverts and deletions for a while, self imposed Zero RR might help both you and wiki? There must be greater value in adding content over deleting it. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Goad, goad, goad; needle, needle, needle. What is the purpose of this page? --Nigelj (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * - It depends. If the reversion/deletion is happening because the content is wrong/propaganda/against consensus/stupid then obviously the greater value is in the reversion/deletion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that reversion is just another editing tool. It can be put to good use or bad, like any other tool, but it isn't bad in itself. If reversion removes bad content, that is a net benefit. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

1RR violations: Question about procedure
If an editor violates the 1RR rule, are we supposed to report them immediately or are we supposed to ask the editor to self-revert first? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be polite to ask the editor to self revert mark nutley (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mark. Solving a situation amicably is always the best solution. NW ( Talk ) 22:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A request to the other editor will confirm whether they thought it was outside of the restriction (vandalism, 24hrs+ etc.) or a simple mistake that is then rectified. It can be brought here in the first instance, but it would be hoped that the first response would be to inquire of the "offending" party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I politely asked the editor to self-revert but he's refused. Formal request for enforcement coming shortly....  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A diff to the refusal, so the reviewers know under what basis it was refused, would be helpful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * His explanation doesn't make any sense that I can see. But you can read his explanation here and here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Late return to discussion) I meant the diffs should be presented in the request. I apologise for the lack of clarity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "baiting" hangs over certain discussions on this probation. We shouldn't be baiting one another. We must raise our game, and that means we walk away from that attitude. --TS 23:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't make obviously false accusations, Tony. Nigelj violated 1RR all by himself.  I even gave him the opportunity to self-revert before filing the request so he has no one to blame but himself.  To be honest, even his first revert was disruptive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This attitude must die if the probation is to succeed. --TS 23:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dealing firmly with the people who hold this unconstructive attitude would be a good start. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What attitude is that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The attitude you have epitomized in the above comments. --TS 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What attitude is that? If you have something to say to me, come out and say it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No. The "dealing firmly with people who..." route works up to a point. But we must not eat ourselves. As I suggested the ther day, once the habits of POV-pushing are identified those who are engaged in it will become sanctionable and things will get better. But not before, and that applies to all POV-pushing. We must all work towards normalization, ane preferably before things reach the point where we can even begin to consider that somebody like Nigelj may be sanctionable. --TS 00:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But the probation hasn't been applied to all POV-pushing. In fact, most of the editors who are the most guilty of tendentious editing are still around and still being disruptive. The only difference as far as I can see is that the POV-pushing is more civil.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And, of course, the level of underlying acrimony has been increased by the perception that the sanctions in question have been one sided up to this point. Raising the temperature under the surface only leads to results similar to what the world saw with Mount St. Helens.   I fear TS is incorrect in his assessment, and that following his advice would lead to similarly dramatic outcomes.  --GoRight (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is all a bit vague. If you have evidence to support those vague claims, then submit an enforcement request.  I urge the admins to take serious requests for content policy enforcement, supported by good evidence, seriously. --TS 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC removed MN's comment
. MN's comment was not inflammatory, and in fact was supporting Boris. I believe WMC is restricted from removing others' comments from conversations (other than his talk page) so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Not sure if it merits a RFE, so I'm raising it here first. ATren (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sanction says talk pages. That isn't a talk page. Whats your problem? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already responded on the RFE page. I had removed this section after I'd found more violations (e.g. "clueless"), and thus decided to go ahead and file the formal request. You've restored it and responded, but I already responded on the RFE, so I think the discussion should take place there. I will not respond further here. ATren (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Hochman's removal of other people's comments
This is not acceptable. Perhaps it might be necessary to remind Mr. Hochman that having a few extra buttons at the top of your screen doesn't make you a superuser. Removing other people's comments isn't acceptable, and it needs to stop. Scott aka UnitAnode  04:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you asserting that you and AQFN are exempt from following the instruction This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When the "uninvolved administrator" chooses to drop a notification of a warning that had nothing to do with the request that was initially made, then yes, I have every right to respond to him there. If he has a problem with my usage of surnames, he needs to draw up a request against me like any other user would have to do, not insulate himself with his few extra buttons, and simply drop a weird warning on an unrelated case. Scott  aka UnitAnode  04:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I apologize. I didn't realize that I had added my comment to the wrong section.  I've removed it per Jehochman's request.  Was placement the only problem with my edit? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise - what it actually says is 'This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.', so if you mistakenly edited the wrong section it was up to the uninvolved admins to move your comments to the appropriate section. If your comments were removed rather than replaced then it is whoever removed them that should do the apologising. Weakopedia (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove, Mr. Hochman?
Moved here from User talk:Jehochman

Why do you think you have the right to remove other people's comments from the CC board? Having a few extra buttons doesn't make you a superuser. Please refrain from removing other's comments. Scott aka UnitAnode  04:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do have the right to remove offensive comments from the board that are posted in the wrong section. Please go refactor your remarks and place them in the appropriate section.  Jehochman Brrr 04:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Two points: (1) there was nothing close to "offensive" in my comments; and (2) they were made in response to LHvU's odd statement about my using a surname, which wasn't even an issue that was being dealt with in the request, so they were not misplaced. Scott  aka UnitAnode  04:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not an uninvolved administrator. Please move your remarks to an appropriate location, and refactor them for civility. Also, stop this forum shopping where you post the same complaints in multiple places.  Keep the conversation together.  Doing otherwise is disruptive. Jehochman Brrr 04:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not "refactoring" anything. Nothing I wrote was uncivil in any way. And unless LHvU removes his odd "warning" of me from his "result" post, shouldn't my rebuttal of it stay there as well? I think so. Scott  aka UnitAnode  04:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed your tag
Please explain here how my response to LHvU was uncivil or inappropriate. This bullying needs to stop now. Scott aka UnitAnode  04:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The heading reads: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. You are not an uninvolved administrator. Thus, your edit was inappropriate. MastCell Talk 06:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * UnitAnode, you made a trivial mistake which Jehochman quite rightly corrected, as he or one of the other admins would do for any non-admin user who mistakenly posted in the admins' discussion section. It was not aimed at you personally. There's no need to go ballistic over it. Calm down and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:2OverO
Can one of the admins / CU's floating around have a look at User:2OverO please William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put a request out on AN/I to block him. ATren (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) Guess I'll post this here. I undid two edits by the account User:2OverO, as on his userpage he doesn't state that he is an extra account of User:2over0. The name is similar, but one uses the letter O and the admin uses the number 0. I felt it was important to quickly undo the edits, so no one would be confused by the edits. If they are actually made by the admin 2over0 or my actions were wrong I apologise.83.86.0.74 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've also reported it at WP:UAA. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Indef blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Amusing, but could become tedious if repeated. Keep your eyes peeled for more impersonations and revert on sight Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 23:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A big thank you for everyone who took care of that. I do have an alternate account, User:2over0_public (confirm), but it is listed on my userpage and includes that confirmation link. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope CU was applied to try to ascertain whether or not the perp has edited here under another user name. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was. There was no sign of related socks. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Question
As i am under a restriction against edit warring i am unsure on how to deal with the following matter.

A blog has been used as a ref in multipile articles This has been brought up on the RS noticeboard, here

In accordance with wp:rs an anon ip removed them, however User:John_Quiggin reverted these removals. I then removed the more blatant blp violations per WP:BLP, however WMC has reverted one of these with the edit summary  that the papers were published is established by the refs to the papers; the link to the blog is mere convenience But the actual link leads to an attack piece by Tim Lambert against Jaworowski [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/01/hissink3.php presumably Jaworowski believes that these are the product of a huge conspiracy as well. It should come as no surprise that Jaworowski's theories were not published in a scientific journal, but in 21st Century, a magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche, renowned for his belief in various conspiracy theories] This is obviously not acceptable as a source nor is it good behaviour, but as i am unable to revert this attack piece out of the bio i now require some advice. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Like it says on the talk page: you've misunderstood the refs William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I have not Jaworowski published several papers (Jaworowski, 2007; Jaworowski, 1999; Jaworowski, 1997) in 21st Century Science and Technology, a non-refereed magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche.[4] with [4] being a link to deltoid blog which is an attack piece. There is no reason whatsoever for that link to deltoid blog to be there mark nutley (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well of course there is - it is useful information William M. Connolley (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And now he has done it again These links to an attack blog should be removed yet wmc decides to ignore policy and continues to reinsert it mark nutley (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting blog piece,though I'm not sure it matches our sourcing standards. I'd be loth to accept the notion that it's an "attack blog" of any kind. Seed publications have an excellent reputation and Tim Lambert isn't just your average blogger. Lambert correctly points out that Zbigniew Jaworowski's piece is published in an online "critique of mainstream science as a series of conspiracies" rag run by the followers of Lyndon Larouche]. But that being so makes me wonder why we are mentioning the nonsense Lambert debunks so ably in the first place. Yet more POV pushing by fringe science supporters. --TS 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Request
I don't believe the community is capable of resolving the neutrality dispute on our Climategate article and wish to disassociate myself from the proceedings. Will any admin be willing to grant me a 6 month topic ban on our climate change articles? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Meh, just walk away and edit elsewhere. Or, grab a drink, relax, and revisit the issue when you are less frustrated.  I don't think anyone would sanction you just because you ask.  Hope you everything gets better for you. Arkon (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no technical way of enacting a limited ban. I don't think any admin will be willing to enforce a voluntary self-ban with a block - I'm certainly not. I suggest you simply make a bold declaration on your talk- or user page, including a statement that other users are requested to revert your edits and remind you of your pledge if you do edit articles you voluntarily want to leave alone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Stephan's suggestion might work. Request that your self-ban be enforced by fellow editors performing a token revert to remind you of your ban, should you ever stray back to the climate change articles. If the token revert doesn't work, then you're on your own (and I'd take a dim view of anyone who tried to enforce your self-ban by edit warring). --TS 00:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove any "problem" articles from your watchlist to help ignore the topic. I've done that before to avoid subjects that "get on my nerves" and spoil the fun - its gotta be enjoyable 'cuz the pay is lousy. Vsmith (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already removed them from my watch list. Stephan, I understand there is no technical means of enforcing a block.  However, the threat of being warned/sanctioned should provide enough incentive for me to keep away.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking the liberty of talking about your particular case, the main time sink for you appears to be the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article, specifically its talk page. You may remember I edited that article and its talk page heavily in December, but on December 27 I announced I would be "on leave" from the article for a couple of weeks, "and we'll see if my absence makes a significant difference."  I've barely looked at the article since then, but it hasn't gone in a way I disapprove of and it contains no major problematic content.  In fact, I'm not too surprised that it has been much improved in (and perhaps even by) my absence.  It's admirably brief, about half the size it was on December 27, and some of the major differences of opinion over content and balance have been resolved without my involvement.  My superfluousness as an article editor has been demonstrated to my satisfaction, and I couldn't be more pleased to have the disturbing illusion of controlling article content taken away from me.


 * I recommend that you try something similar: take a couple of weeks out and see if the article doesn't magically get improved without any involvement from you. If that works, then together you and I can perform a miracle: to stay away from that article until, without exerting any conscious effort, we have turned it into the best possible article on the subject. We can do it together, and we'll be the two smuggest, most self-satisfied Wikipedians in existence, for we will have demonstrated the true secret of Wikipedia: individual editors don't matter.  So there's your incentive: to demonstrate your trust in your fellow editors to manage without you, and to reclaim lost time.  -TS 01:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo's not "uninvolved"
By virtue of this comment, claiming vaguely that the decision is "'bend over backwards' civil to the talkpage POV warriors" with no supporting documentation, I think Polargeo should not be considered "uninvolved" on this enforcement page. ATren (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How many admins have you declared involved? How many of those admins agree with you? Why are admins who disagree with you so much more likley to ignore your standards of "uninvolvement" than those that agree with you? Hipocrite (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * does not appear to be an admin, but I have not moved their comments because I wouldn't care to be accused of censorship... or I am just lazy. Anyway, the question of "uninvolvement" appears moot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is evidently causing some confusion. Perhaps it should be moved?  I don't think anyone would accuse you of censorship for moving non admin comments out of the admin section.  Ignignot (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination)
Just to keep admins here informed: There was a brief tussle about an attempt to WP:SNOWBALL close this AfD. Because events were taking place rapidly, and because there was some division here about whether or not general sanctions cover that AfD, I brought up the matter at AN/I I asked there that admins keep an eye on the page. The consensus at AN/I seems to be to keep the AfD open because "Snowball" doesn't apply. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is, of course, a sock problem at that AFD. Hipocrite (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The consensus at AN/I seems to be to keep the AfD open - that will be Let this train-wreck run its course, it doesn't really matter if it crashes at turn #2 or turn #7 since the crash itself an inevitability.  and related William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowball always applies, except (as here) when it doesn't work. You can never know the result until you collapse the state vector. --TS 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, TS; no harm, no foul there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

General sanctions regime has failed
There is now a huge volume of requests for enforcements here. The sanctions regime has become a tool for editors to fight each other. It is not a system that actually resolves any conflicts leading to better and more constructive cooperation between editors. Count Iblis (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Has fighting decreased on the article pages themselves? That is the measure of success. Franamax (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the sanctions regime has improved the editor behavior related to the AGW articles. There are still some issues, but I would recommend giving the process some more time before deciding if it has been a failure or not. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's working as well as it can. I'd still like to see bolder use of the very broad admin powers and less discussion, but it seems to me that the probation is working, because partisanship is becoming more difficult. People are setting more realistic goals and finding common ground.

There are particularly promising signs of steadily improving standards of sourcing in the coverage of the social and political debate as well as the already world-class coverage of the science. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 00:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that the emotional climate of these articles is gradually cooling down. I'm not convinced it's due to the sanctions regime itself rather than the natural ebb and flow of wikidrama. I do think it greatly helps that some of the instigators have been put on furlough. For my part I'm gradually tiptoeing back into the articles, but am prepared to step back again if certain unfavorable developments occur. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Count Iblis' point on the large number of outstanding requests for  enforcement.  I've been waiting for some time to find out when WMC's  frivolous and retaliatory complaint against me is going to be resolved.
 * But to a larger issue, what are the sanctions meant to achieve?  If it was to  turn POV-pushing  into WP:Civil POV  pushing it's been a  mixed bag.  If it was to resolve the NPOV dispute, it's been a clear and  obvious failure.  I don't know what the current state of this topic  space is, but I do know that the fighting is currently spilling over  into the WP:RSN and WP:BLPN  noticeboards.  But maybe that's a good thing as it will attract more  uninvolved editors?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But to a larger issue, what are the sanctions meant to achieve?  If it was to  turn POV-pushing  into WP:Civil POV  pushing it's been a  mixed bag.  If it was to resolve the NPOV dispute, it's been a clear and  obvious failure.  I don't know what the current state of this topic  space is, but I do know that the fighting is currently spilling over  into the WP:RSN and WP:BLPN  noticeboards.  But maybe that's a good thing as it will attract more  uninvolved editors?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Its purpose? As with all probations, the purpose is to end warlike behavior and restore a collegial editing environment. This is a prior requirement to resolving any other disputes. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 01:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "collegial editing environment"?  Then I would say that it's a failure.  The disputes on these pages are among the nastiest I've seen on Wikipedia.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And along those lines, I think the personal attacks and bullying that used to be rampant on the talk pages of some of those articles has noticeably declined. Revert wars have definitely declined also. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is the edit wars and PA have cooled down; however, it's not clear tome the articles are improving just yet with collaboration. The sanctions themselves are not always equitable, however they are timely. I still sense ownership issue and teamed sides. The waters still seam too hot for me to enter without fear of being bitten or attacked with an edit war or further PA.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Clear and obvious failure

In fact, the situation is so bad, one of the warring factions is refusing to even admit there's a POV dispute on Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Any admins want to look into that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You previously said there was hardly a POV dispute on the article - you wrote "I think that mentioning the death threats in the lede is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Sure, it's notable enough to warrant mention in the article body, but not in the lede. To be honest, it appears to be an emotional ploy to draw sympathy for the scientists," and then clarified "Yes ... Fix these two issues [the title and the death threats in the lede] and my concerns about neutrality have been addressed." Are there death threats in the lede right now? IE - your only current neutrality concern is the title? Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * - The proposal to remove the tag, which I made, followed a long period of both article and talk page stability. Perfectly legitimate. It's a shame AQFK chooses to battle and edit war, and now play games, rather than discuss constructively. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if what you're saying is true, that's further proof that the sanctions have failed, correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a normal editing dispute being resolved by discussion on the talk page. What exactly would you expect to be happening at this stage? --TS 19:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Normal? I've never seen a POV dispute so bad that editors are refusing to admit that there's a POV dispute and are edit-warring to keep the POV dispute tag out of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I point out on the article's talk page, The proposal to remove the POV dispute tag was made at 07:31, March 9, 2010 and implemented less than 4 hours later. How did that give everyone enough to time discuss the issue, let alone reach a consensus? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it happens that a dispute tag remains on an article long after issues have been resolved. At some point, if there are still people who are dissatisfied, what takes place then is a discussion to see whether there is, despite this, a consensus that issues have been resolved reasonably.  That's what is taking place: a dispute about whether there is any remaining dispute.  If it should happen that only a small number of people are now dissatisfied and the great majority are satisfied, then such a small rump cannot hold the article hostage forever, and the tag will be removed by consensus. --TS 20:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering the world has many time zones a 24 hour period sounds more reasonable than a 4 hour window. Most people sleep (or would like to sleep) around 8 hours a day.130.232.214.10 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a bit precipitate to remove it so quickly, although strong agreement formed almost immediately. In any case it will be put back if a substantive dispute remains. --TS 20:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was party to a POV tag dispute on Scientific opinion on climate change that preceded the sanctions, evidence that these are continuing would indicate the sanctions are not effective here. Because, it simply takes 3 or greater editors to have a POV issue for dispute. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can convince enough editors that a substantive point-of-view dispute still exists, then the tag will remain until whatever the dispute might be about has been resolved. What's wrong with that?

But a word of caution: "two or three editors" may make a point-of-view dispute in a small-scale discussion, but typically as the scale of the discussion broadens over time the proportion of those perceiving there to be a substantive dispute may change, until those perceiving a dispute may find themselves overwhelmed by those who see no issue.

If the sanctions were aimed at reducing point-of-view disputes, they would be misconceived and oppressive. A diverse set of editors editing an article on a controversial subject will often encounter disputes over point of view. This is to be expected and isn't anything to be concerned over. How we resolve those disputes is what matters. --TS 21:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Notifications
As the log page isn't watched nearly so closely as this one, I am taking the liberty of advertising a discussion recently begun on the log talk page about the notification messages (the vast majority of which have been delivered by me). Recently I've been accompanying that message with a word or two about the discussion, and a few of the recipients have responded with their views.


 * Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log

Please go there and let's discuss what we do about this. --TS 23:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate?
I'm wondering if this is considered appropriate? I've asked for a retraction, of course, but it was refused, rudely William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it was appropriate given your constant rudeness and petty sniping, it was far less than i would like to say mark nutley (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong spot (move ? where?)
I don't understand what LessHeard vanU means. This thread informed ScJessey about the circumstances of an edit he had just made and he asked the protecting admin to revert that edit. That is a very good result and I consider this thread to have served its purpose in restraining sharp-elbowed editing on a particularly sensitive article. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 15:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You missed where this was supposed to go, I think, TS. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's my telephone. For some reason it posts comments intended for the main project page to this talk page instead. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 15:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I moved the comment to the appropriate part of the main project page and expanded it a bit. --TS 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering admins uninvolved who are involved in the content discussion
I am surprised by Stephan Schulz's comment here. He seems to say he is uninvolved, even though he has been directly involved on the content issue, because he is not in a dispute with Ratel. To the contrary he made the original edit that started the dispute, and has stopped in to support Ratel's versions. Does the probation really mean to say that editors are uninvolved even if they are directly involved in the content dispute? Mackan79 (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephan shouldn't be commenting in the admin-only section in this request. Out of order. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, he shouldn't probably comment in any of the admin sections for this enforcement page. He is obviously quite involved in CC articles (broadly construed, ooo look, arbcomspeak) Arkon (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we do require editors to cow-tow to the letter of the law, it should cut both ways. The way the probation is written, I am uninvolved, and Ratel can expect a specific warning before sanctions are enacted. Now possibly we should reconsider how the probation is written, but one of my aims in commenting in that section is to recall the exact stipulations for the people deliberating. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I should probably be clear in my statement here. I don't have a particular opinion on what you wrote, just that in general, I cannot consider you uninvolved in the CC article area.  Not a bad thing, just my opinion. Arkon (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I quite agree that I'm not common-sense uninvolved. But I am probation-uninvolved, weirdly enough. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Stephan's comment that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact also appears to be a personal attack, unless I am missing something. Is he seriously saying that Ratel's comments are an acceptable and justified deviation from WP:AGF? Great, let's all attack the whole concept of AGF and just start lambasting everybody with the most offensive things we can come up with. Mackan79 (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By commenting as an admin in the "Results" section, Stephan is acting as an admin in this dispute, in which he is clearly involved. I'm going to report it to arbcom. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Stephan, I think you should take the high road and recuse yourself here. Admins need to be clearly uninvolved if the sanctions process is going to work. Even before this, Lar was stretching the limits of "uninvolved" to the breaking point; no need to make things worse. Keeping your conduct above reproach is always the best way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar? Sure, if you'll add that to BozMo, Jehochman and probably Lessheard.  I'm fine having 2/0 do the whole thing, or having all of them, but this is hardly acceptable, especially not without noting the extent of his involvement. Mackan79 (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cripes man, Lessheard has probably been the best at following the probation. If he continues as he has, I totally plan to commend his efforts. Arkon (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a complaint, against any of them. But what is this about Lar?  Consider me half impressed that Boris can recognize an administrator blatantly involved in this very disagreement, only if he can also make an irrelevant jab at another administrator for something entirely unrelated.  Personally I would like to see more uninvolved admins weigh in on this request, since the perceptions of LessHeard and Jehochman seem to be quite different. Mackan79 (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (Re Mackan79): Nope, I have not said such a thing. But AGF has its limits, and in this field there are certainly some editors who have less than perfect encyclopaedic interest. Not to ride a dead horse to the market, but you do remember Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Scibaby, right. That does not have anything to do with this request. Mackan79 (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's evidence that there is at least one long-term concerted effort under way to disrupt the climate change articles. That does not excuse, but contributes to explaining Ratels claims. It also means that LHvUs surprise at this is hard to understand for me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the existence of an annoying, easily spotted sock puppet excuses violations of AGF and (worse in my book) not communicating on the talk page about non-trivial changes to an article that he knows is under probation. But this has ventured pretty far afield - the idea that he without sin be the only administrator involved is a little silly because CC has generated so many admin requests that you're going to be hard pressed to find one who is uninvolved and interested.  I don't think editing the same article, or even making edits on the same section under dispute is important, because the request isn't about content at all, just behavior.  Ignignot (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This issue is bigger than me. It's about what's happening to climate change articles on wikipedia. Global warming, like evolution, is a scientific subject with extremely strong general consensus amongst the practising scientists in the area. These same scientists have their hair on fire with anxiety about the way FUD Merchants are deliberately misleading the public, causing much fiddling while Rome burns. From a scientific point of view, the FUDders are peddling WP:FRINGE theories, and should not at all be given equal weight or time on pages concerning this issue, nor indeed during conversations like this, where we are misguidedly enjoined to treat them like learned colleagues with pristine motives. In just the same way, anti-evolutionists and creationists are not given equal weight and deference in debates on pages concerning the science of evolution. So there are limits to how much good faith should be extended, in this encyclopedic environment, to people with antiscience agendas on scientific pages — that is, if you want to have an encyclopedia worth the name. Now if this reasoning escapes any serious editor, I suggest that he/she has lost the plot about what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. ► RATEL ◄ 16:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside... "Global" means it's a global subject, science is clearly only part of the issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At no point does a group of people being wrong or having an agenda excuse poor behavior towards a specific person, unless that person has demonstrated malice. AGF is simple.  You're saying, "they're a bunch of fringe idiots who are subverting wikipedia's goals to further their own ends, and he agrees with some things that they say, so he is one of them, so AGF doesn't apply anymore," but AGF does not apply to groups, it applies to editors on a case by case basis.  And don't attribute to malice what can simply be ignorance, stupidity, or honest disagreement.  This is indeed at the heart of what's happening in climate change - people are identifying groups of editors that they lump others into, ready to attribute any mistake to deliberate wrongdoing.  Collaboration cannot be built on a foundation of mistrust and quick, arbitrary personal judgement.  In my opinion, any editor that is not communicating, is snidely insinuating, constantly calling others out on minor guideline violations, rushing to authority for help when a few minutes of calm discussion would do, grouping editors into us and them when we're all just jerks on the internet with too much free time, or trying to right all the evils in the world should move on to other topics that they don't get so emotionally attached to.  As an aside, this is why I support a topic ban on CC for almost anyone who has edited a CC article or talk page.  Ignignot (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ArbCom review has been requested. Cla68 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Fifty-fifty articles
Am I right in summarising that every case that is brought here is decided purely on the editor's behaviour, with no view to the content produced, or the accurate reflection of sources, or the application of due weight, or any contribution made to building a good encyclopedia? It seems to me that the band of anti-science and anti-AGW proponents that arrived on the climate change articles soon after the CRU hacking incident have taken to wiki-lawyering like proverbial ducks to water. When arguments about content go wrong, the combatants end up here and the issue is then decided on the basis of who has been the rudest, who has tip-toed around the behavioural guidelines the most daintily and who is best at winding the other guy up to the point where they break some rule somewhere first. I have seen comments recently from long-term contributors about having vowed not to get involved but commenting anyway, or intending to keep articles off their watchlists, or generally not wanting to touch climate change articles with a bargepole.

It seems to me that the evolutionary effect of this will be that, at some point in the infinite future, all the articles will end up a 50/50 mix of statements based on scientific research and ideas rooted in anti-science polemic. Global warming 'belief' may seem like a 50/50 political choice to some American voters at the moment as they have just been subjected to one of the most pernicious disinformation campaigns in history. But in the wider world, the science is settled and all relevant scientific associations and societies agree it is. 50/50 articles would be a travesty against the facts. Is this process designed to achieve 50/50 articles in a world where no one can truly judge the rights and wrongs of, say, political, religious or territorial debates? If so, I wonder if they really are the right process for this case, where the results of five to eight decades of worldwide scientific research need to be balanced against the noise made by well-funded special interest, business, political and lobby groups in a few very wealthy countries. --Nigelj (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, Nigel, the assumption that you are dealing only with anti-science editors is one of the major problems. On Climate change denial you and a couple of others have been editing to remove all mention of any criticism of this term from the lead of that article.  There is notable controversy, discussed in dozens of reliable sources.  WP:LEAD clearly states that the lead should cover notable controversies.  Yet, it is now being continually removed without any suggestion of what would be appropriate to include.  Does an editor truly have to be anti-science to see this as a problem?  It seems to be your view, and that of some others, that disagreements over NPOV in this area must come down to pro-science vs. anti-science.  That is a classic battleground mentality, and absurd.  Writing good article is not a simple matter of documenting the science, or a majority view.  The quality of our articles runs a huge spectrum, and almost always there are ways to make improvements.  The fact that qualified scientists have certain points of consensus on climate change, meanwhile, does not mean there is a consensus on every related topic such as whether public skepticism is largely a matter of "denialism."  That is a political issue, not a scientific issue, for which the scientific consensus is only one of many points.  Climate change should not be treated as a matter of political controversy, but Climate change denial is.  The articles address different issues, and will be written entirely differently.  Black and white, undifferentiated views that treat all of it in the same manner are not good enough. Mackan79 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's my take based on my experiences participating in Wikipedia, and that's that it doesn't matter what the subject matter is. First of all, we don't take sides on any issue.  Policy requires that we edit neutrally.  Neutral writing means that the reader cannot tell which side the writer is taking.  When we press the "edit" tab, we're committing ourselves to that principle.  Second, how well do we cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with other editors in order to produce articles that are complete and NPOV?  Do we try to find common ground?  Do we suggest compromise solutions?  Do we edit war?  Do we, in a civil manner, suggest alternatives?  If you think of things in these terms, then it doesn't matter which "side" anyone is on.  What matters is how well each editor works with others to build content and their commitment to NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Everybody's in favor of neutrality. The problem is defining what "neutral" means in practice. I think the definition constructed in WP:NPOV is quite good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's where my point #2 comes in. Because everyone has a different bias on what is neutral, that is why cooperation, collaboration, and compromise are necessary.  So, when an enforcement action is requested, I think admins should be assessing how well the editor in question tries to work with everyone involved in any particular article. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that the admins base their decisions on policy rather than personalities. We have WP:NPA, etc. for behavior that is sufficiently uncooperative to merit sanction. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cooperation, collaboration, and compromise is the foundation of how a wiki operates. You just said that it is difficult to tell NPOV.  Well, that's how you tell if someone is trying to follow NPOV, by seeing how well they cooperate, collaborate, and compromise.  It's not about personality at all. Cla68 (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's independent backup for what I'm trying to say. Notice that scientists fared poorly with the collaboration aspect. Cla68 (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Scientists fared poorly at collaboration? I don't see that in the article you cite - am I missing it? It is extremely difficult to succeed in science if you can't collaborate effectively. There is a rich literature on collaboration in science (this is as good a starting point as any). Of course, people with scientific training and expertise may find it difficult to collaborate on scientific topics with people who are enthusiastically ignorant or aggressively irrational, in the same manner that Donald Kagan might find it hard to collaborate with Randy from Boise on Peloponnesian War... I guess what I'm saying is that while there are individual "scientific" editors who are failures at Wikipedia's particular collaborative model, it would be a sloppy overgeneralization to assign scientists in general a lack of collaborative spirit when quite the opposite is the case. MastCell Talk 18:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Another excellent set of points made by Nigelj. Now I've already explained to  MacKan that the Climate change  denial page is not about genuine scepticism —that goes in Global warming scepticism— but about the concerted and  disingenuous campaign to obfuscate the fact that AGW is occurring, and it's bloody serious. That this campaign is taking place is undeniably true; we have ample  sources for that. That's beyond debate.  Now when we know that something is happening,  the term used to describe it (denialism) is  no longer a pejorative. Pedophilia  happens, and calling a pedophile "a  pedophile" is not hurling a pejorative  at the person, it's merely describing his behaviour. Of course,  the pedophile will be eager to tell you that he  thinks it's a pejorative, but that's not  material. So that's why we are editing to "remove all mention of any  criticism of this  term from the lead of that article". People caught  red-handed doing something antisocial, like lying about science to  further their own financial interests, do not get 50/50 time to make  their fringe cases in ledes. Or else go to the articles on things like  pedophilia and insert a sentence there saying that the term is  "generally pejorative", and see how long that lasts. Lastly, Climate change denial is NOT a "political  controversy", it's about how some groups are trying to mislead the  public about a SCIENTIFIC issue, in exactly the same way the public was  misled about the harm of tobacco smoking for decades (by some of the very same people, incredibly — watch the Oreskes video). ► RATEL ◄  00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I guess my point is related to the "equal validity" and "weight" aspects of WP:NPOV. These sanctions are being policed on the basis of editors' behaviour prior to being brought here, but the issue that almost always brings people here is one to do with WP:DUE weight in NPOV. The root problem we have is how to deal with fringe views: that's what leads to the short tempers that get people to here. --Nigelj (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and my contention is that some sort of ÜberAdmin or group of such people, or maybe Jimbo himself, needs to make a cogent decision about global warming and how the encyclopedia should approach the issue. Because currently the fringe views are masquerading as legitimate, and threaten to drown out the science. ► RATEL ◄ 00:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The comparison to pedophilia is just about like the comparison to Holocaust denial and AIDS denialism: inapposite, and considered by several reliable sources to be offensive. The fact remains that no reliable sources dispute those terms, no one disputes that they are significant phenomena, the terms are nearly universally recognized, and each of them is defined by specific positions that someone takes regardless of their motives.  "Climate change denial" is different in all respects, in that it is disputed by numerous reliable sources, very few reliable sources even use much less discuss the term (and several state that they specifically avoid it), and the concept is predicated not on any specific position but rather on taking a position for ulterior motives.  Thus "Climate change denial," as we have defined it, specifically means someone who denies global warming dishonestly (as indeed William Connolley has specifically noted).  If that doesn't make it a pejorative, as at least two sources have specifically stated, I don't know what would.  How specifically to say it is a separate issue, but one that is quite hard to discuss when editors constantly return to how vile the campaign is. Mackan79 (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please go back and read the probation terms. This isn't about content, and is just a distraction. If you have content problems, you have the normal channels you can use. Arkon (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How is this not FUD and WP:SOAP? The articles are not going to devolve into a mass of wishy-washy bullshit.  It hasn't happened in other contentious topics and it will not happen here.  The process behind wikipedia works.  Climate change is not going to be the beginning of the end of wikipedia.  Is that seriously what you're afraid of?  If it is, then calm down.  Things will still be around tomorrow.  I don't look at wikipedia on the weekend and it doesn't descend into anarchy while I'm not around to fix everything, although obviously that must be through the grace of god.  Ignignot (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I myself am constantly amazed this project was ever able to survive before these pages were graced by my august presence. :) Franamax (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, there is a serious risk of many articles becoming colored with misinformation or downright propaganda when you have a small group of honest editors competing, with limited time, against a phalanx of tendentious editors potentially in the employ of the selfsame industries discussed on pages like Global warming denial (I am not naming names and this is a suspicion, not an accusation). Are you really so naive as to think that these mega-corporations, with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, will leave wikipedia alone, when it is usually in the top 4 hits on any Google search on any subject? Why should unpaid editors like me spend hours combating people who relentlessly and persistently rewrite articles to put their employers in a more positive light? Or if they are not employed to edit, why should unpaid editors, who support the scientific consensus, have to spend countless hours reverting and rewriting the ill-conceived bafflegab emanating from the rightwing talk radio and the conservative blogosphere? Something should be done to sequester this whole topic from those who have malevolent or misinformed motives, and there are more and more of them and less and less people like me prepared to spend precious time defending themselves on noticeboards such as this when the inevitable frivolous whaaambulance calls to authority are made. I notice some of you want to refocus on process here, but there are larger issues at stake. ► RATEL ◄ 05:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia needs editors who are willing to look carefully at articles, the available sources, and craft unbiased and informative content. It needs editors not to shoot from the hip in order to battle perceived enemies.  You are unfortunately doing the latter. Mackan79 (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about years of editing FUDdy rubbish and apologist twaddle from AGW-related articles. I'm not new to this. "Shooting from the hip" is not on the menu. ► RATEL ◄ 06:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Nevertheless, I suspect your approach is better suited on articles where the FUDdy rubbish and apologist twaddle is not the topic of the article, since simply removing it (and assuming the worst in those who disagree) tends to make for a less informative article.  That's all. Mackan79 (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ratel: I agree with Mackan79. While the issue you raise is one aspect, and an important one, of the larger set of problems with this topic area, your approach in dealing with it is decidedly not helpful. If you wish to continue editing in this area you are going to need to change your tone, and in fact, your entire outlook and approach, as they are not satisfactory. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to Nigelj; yes, you are correct. People editing here are permitted (privileged) to do so under the rules, policies and guidelines. In the case of Climate Change and related articles, these "limitations" upon the editing model are further emphasised by the restrictions of the probation - designed to ensure compliance with the editing ethos. In short, you may edit the pages in accordance to the existing NPOV, relying on and referring excellent third party sources, and if you are a rude fucker who enjoys twatting the nay-sayers, removing content simply on the basis on who included it, and calling them names then you are likely (I trust) to be sanctioned to the point you cannot edit the article. If you have a viewpoint that is entirely contrary to all reasonable pov, justify your stance because the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster is beaming The Truth directly into your brain, but are prepared to discuss your proposed edits reasonably on a talkpage and to accept the consensus that is derived then you will be tolerated until you are gently told that your edits will never be included and it is suggested you find another medium upon which to expand your theories (which, being the conscientious soul you are, you go and do.) Being "right" about the subject provides no consideration against violations of the rules pertaining, same as if you are "wrong". IMO. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the requirement that people discuss their edits on the talk page be actually enforced - and when it turns out their edits have irrefutable flaws - like they misrepresent sources, and those flaws are made clear on the talk page, that continuing to make the same edit over and over results in actual sanction. I don't think this is likley, however. Hipocrite (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement - my point is that the editor who holds and contributes to extremist views (on any matter) will not be sanctioned if they are a model Wikipedian (because their preferred edits will be not included according to consensus, but they will not offend the sensibilities of any other good faith editor). The editor who contributes content within the existing consensus, but who violates all other policy and guideline when dealing with other editors will not be allowed to edit. There really is no problem to the latter, either. Those who edit according to the available reliable references are "expendable", because any other good contributor can use the same references and arrive at much the same content, if their behaviour is otherwise intolerable. Brutal, but true. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors need to cease
I have occasionally dipped my toe into the turbulent waters that are this page, but most of the time, I have refrained from doing so. The primary purpose for my doing so is to avoid the peanut gallery – in this case a set of editors who seem to turn up on every other request to either defend someone whose point of view they agree with or attack those whom they disagree with. I am not saying that this is true for every commentator, but for a good number, this is certainly the case. Therefore, I am asking that threaded discussion on General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement cease. If you have something to add to the request, drop the diffs, add perhaps a few sentences of explanation, and leave it there. If you disagree with someone's interpretation of the diffs, please do not post. Administrators are more easily able to come to a fair conclusion when they don't have deal with spin from partisans.

Administrators: I was thinking that we formalize this "rule", as it were. Your thoughts? NW ( Talk ) 20:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's worth a try, although we should except those editors against whom enforcement is requested (if any). We can sunset it for two weeks, with an option of renewal if there is consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ec :I think the threaded discussion is "mostly harmless", with typically a couple of non-obvious points made amongst the face-off. I haven't seen any sign of uninvolved admins counting votes and think people with nothing to say (or who say nothing new) will realise what gets notice and what gets ignored. --BozMo talk 21:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, NW, I see your point, but I can't get behind a proposal that starts out by "banning" uninvolved editors.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "uninvolved" wasn't exactly the best word to use. If you take a look at the top 11 non-admin editors to the page, you have Tony Sidaway, Thegoodlocust, Heyitspeter, William M. Connolley, ChrisO, Marknutley, GoRight, Hipocrite, Unitanode, Scjessey, and ATren. With just a few exceptions, they have all been heavily involved in editing climate change articles. Perhaps that is to be expected with such a board, but it hasn't exactly helped matters. NW ( Talk ) 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured you meant, but still, not convinced it's a good idea. Maybe I need to actually patrol here for a bit and see if my opinion changes... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While the noise to signal ration is high, it has been the case that I have been informed by some of the comments - the standard reactions by some commentators can also be "tuned out" to a certain extent, although it would be wrong to disregard them. A diff that places an earlier diff into a different context, or an example of same behaviour earlier on another article, provides coverage that a reviewing admin could not hope to achieve. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly comfortable with any suggestion of "muzzling" people, including the usual suspects. An open process where everyone gets their say seems more important to me than avoiding wading through a bit of noise. I do agree that people should generally just make their initial comment and if they feel a rebuttal to someone else is necessary, keep it with "their" comment rather than getting into a long indented argument. I hope no-one thinks that a bunch of people saying the same thing is going to have more weight than one person. It is going to be strength of argument that will sway admins, not quantity. Perhaps just an unofficial convention that if comment gets out of hand an uninvolved admin can collapse it or otherwise bring it to a halt, request by request? Franamax (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * NW I applaud your out of the box thinking but I find that the counterpoint is often useful. Diffs sometimes can be looked at too quickly so having someone say "but that's not what they mean" can be quite a good thing. Perhaps some requests when things get excessive, but not an outright prohibition. "mostly harmless" per BozMo. ++Lar: t/c 21:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think NW has hit the nail on the head. I earlier clumsily attempted to address this problem from the standpoint of the low quality of some recent enforcement requests, but the real problem (which I have discussed vaguely at various points) is that having a talking shop like this invites a battleground mentality. Despite an overall improvement on the articles, this warfare seems to be hardening and new warriors have been attracted by the noise. That is very worrying. Tasty monster (=TS ) 22:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a problem, but I'm not sure this is the exact fix, and I suspect that's a fairly widely held view. Can we brainstorm a bit? What if we just try restricting people to their own sections to reduce the amount of back and forth? ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about put a discussion section on this talk page and anyone who wanders off topic gets their comments moved here by an admin. Ignignot (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It strikes me now that if there's more than one round of rebuttals, it will become very hard for an outside reader to piece together the timestamps to make sense of it, to "pick up the thread" as it were. ;) What about a formal section "Statements by others" where interested parties and outside observers would have a specific place to post their diff's, interpretations and proposals - separate from "Discussion concerning..."? Threaded discussion could then still go in, well, "Discussion..." but no "novel" ideas can be raised there. Franamax (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think tangential discussions and bickering should be collapsed by an uninvolved administrator. If anybody wants to read it, they can. Jehochman Talk 09:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you maybe put a tag on the template under the section for comments by uninvolved editors? It's not self-evident how that section should be approached and that should help.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I always read the comments, but I agree that the signal/noise can be pretty low after the first few iterations. I would oppose anything that would hinder bringing relevant context to the discussion, but bringing the battleground mentality to this board is massively counterproductive. I like Lar's idea of separate sections - the rererererebuttals are where we start losing people anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation
How is this probation working? I agree with 's idea that we should have an evaluation, perhaps 14 days from now, and decide whether to continue with this probation, or to refer the matter to arbitration. Does that sound like a good plan? Jehochman Talk 09:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I support that in principle, though I think things would have to be a lot worse than I currently believe they are for me to agree with an assessment that the probation has failed. The quality of the science-heavy articles continues to show incremental improvement and attention is being paid to rigorous sourcing on the social, political and biographical articles. A lot of good editing has been done with a minimum of pain. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm with the delicious TS on this one. Ignignot (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like we're having the eval now. :) I think we're doing some good. Whether TS is tasty or not is a different question and one I have no interest in. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In my view the probation works when there are clear standards of conduct, in which case the probation allows admins to apply them without a long bureaucratic process. I think that's a very good thing, and something we're much better having than not having. If the purpose is simply to give admins extra leeway to sanction editors for whatever reasons they come up with, then we have big prolonged disputes and it doesn't work as well.  Of course I don't believe the latter is the intention, but there does seem to be some difficulty in articulating what the standards are.  Whether that can be done is, in my view, what determines whether the probation is useful or not. Mackan79 (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good observation. However, I see the risk that "clear standards of conduct" will a) concentrate on primarily shallow criteria and b) invite gaming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing less revert warring. Also, I'm seeing less personal attacks from a few of the editors who had issues with following that policy in the past. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't forget that the ultimate aim of this or any other probation is to improve the quality of articles. Keeping editors civil and cooperative is a laudable goal in itself, but we're not here to run a community - we're here to create a high-quality encyclopedia. I think it remains to be seen whether Wikipedia can cope, in the long term, with the huge amount of pressure from anti-science partisans on this issue. It's the old "civil POV-pushing" dilemma. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you name an "anti-science" editor, Chris? I don't know of any editors who have stated that they are "anti-science." Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla68 has an excellent reputation for improving articles. Perhaps you, ChrisO could work with him to bring some of these articles to recognized standards of quality? I encourage editors to try working with somebody who may have a different outlook by finding common ground. Jehochman Talk 00:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An example from this morning: user  summarily removed my edits to the  Background section of Climate change denial, saying that my version is  "ill-advised" and changing The scientific  opinion on climate change is that human  activity is causing global  warming (which the IPCC has  stated) to the more equivocal The  current scientific  opinion on climate change  is that human activity is contributing to global  warming. He also removed a quote from a book that explains the  origins of AGW denial, without giving any reason. That's what we're up  against, every damn day. ► RATEL ◄  00:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ratel, the point is that you can't go around saying folks are anti-science even if it's true (on which I am taking no stand in the present instance). It's against your own interest to do so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors who are not interested in climate science per se are editing climate science-related articles in larger and larger numbers. It's that simple. And it's not good for the encylopedia. ► RATEL ◄
 * We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I think it's good that editors who are not interested in climate science per se are involved since it broadens our perspectives. Even the contrarians are helpful (to a point, anyway) because they motivate scientifically literate editors to reinforce the material. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

SBHB, you have a more tolerant disposition than I. Then again, maybe we should leave the science articles to these people, the ones who think science is a democracy and that their dislike of certain findings invalidates those findings? Abandoning the constant struggle to keep the rampant BS off global warming pages would make life easier for a whole lot of us. The fact that wikipedia tolerates this antiscience editing, and apparently even encourages it (per your statement above, and see also all the chatter here and on other pages about how my gruff tone is more important than my edits), is the reason why eminent climate scientists like Stephen Schneider refer to the "wiki model" with complete and utter scorn (hear him say that, about ½ way through this podcast). ► RATEL ◄ 01:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ratel, are you sure that your feelings on the subject aren't too strong to allow you to edit objectively? I'm trying to improve a pro-AGW blog article.  I'm going to use the GA nomination forum to gauge the success of my efforts.  Could you do the same for a skeptical topic, such as the Watts Up With That or Heaven and Earth articles?  Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah, that's the second time you've asked me if my "feelings" about global warming aren't "too strong" to allow me to edit objectively. Now please back that up with an edit showing how I've tried to insert subjective material that would harm the wikipedia. Please! Go ahead. And if you cannot, please admit here that your tactic of questioning my objectivity is yet another ploy to silence opposition by provoking a topic ban, because that's how I see it. Not too subtle, are you? As I've said elsewhere, global warming is the most important topic on Earth at the moment. We are seeing huge climate changes, droughts and floods, all over the world, directly attributable to this phenomenon. Climate scientists are either in panic, desperate, or quietly defeated by the way utter idiots with venal motives have managed to sway public opinion to the point where essentially nothing has been done, and more and more people think the whole thing is a scam instead of the greatest emergency ever to face mankind. ► RATEL ◄ 01:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't take this the wrong way but I think you're proving Cla68 right. Really, it would be best for all concerned (especially for you and others on "your side" of the debate) if you were to back off a bit on the hyperbole. Please consider it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In response, I can only encourage you to listen to what the scientists are saying and pay a little less heed to inconsequential wikidramas. ► RATEL ◄ 02:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to gain at least a passing familiarity with what the scientists are saying. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is sarcasm considered civil? -Atmoz (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Water off a duck's back to me, Atmoz. SBHB may be interested in climate change, but may not be familiar with the latest studies, all of which paint a more dire picture than just a few months ago. It's not looking at all good. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me Ratel, that instead of wasting your time editing Wikipedia, you need to be camped out in front of the national legislative assembly of whichever country you live in with a big sign letting them know how dire the current situation is and what they need to do about it. Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No doubt you'd say the same thing to the eminent scientists from whom I take my cue. Which just goes to show how out of touch you are. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 02:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa, Ratel just went overboard there. You've proven Cla correct. Your comments are akin to that of a homeless man with a picket sign reading "the end is nigh". You might want to tone that down some. Macai (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And you need to set a better example. Please refactor your remarks. It is not acceptable to call another editor homeless or imply that they are a crazy street person. Jehochman Talk 11:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to "refactor" or in any other way "take back" what I said because doing so thanks to being threatened by an administrator is probably one of the most cowardly, unprincipled things one could do. Anyway, I don't honestly think that Ratel is some crazy homeless man with a picket sign. I'm fully aware that people are prone to exaggerate themselves on the Internet. This does not, however, indicate his comments don't resemble the kind of attitude crazy homeless men with picket signs exhibit. Macai (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ratel, any impending doom to life as we know it does not matter to Wikipedia. If the world is ending, we'll document the events in a neutral, dispassionate way.  If you can't check your feelings at the door, please edit other topics instead. Jehochman Talk 12:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never allowed sensationalism or advocacy to enter into my edits to wikipedia, Jon. But my private thinking on this matter, which I have exposed on these Sanction pages, is far from being like a "homeless, crazy man" as some wag suggested above (in a flagrant personal attack), & is in line with the best current academic opinion on the topic. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 02:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest anything, Ratel. I simply stated the fact that one of your comments did, in fact, resemble the kind of comments made by crazy homeless men with picket signs that say "the end is nigh". This isn't a personal attack so much as it is a statement of fact. You referring to me as "some wag", on the other hand, is a personal attack. Now, I'm not going to ask you to "refactor" or in any other way "take back" your comments, primarily because I know you're at the very least being honest with me by insulting me directly. Macai (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is plain fantasy. If the world is ending, we will continue to squabble if its raining sulfur or sulphur, if Brimstone has to be capitalized as a proper noun or not, if Armageddon has been called by JHWH, Jehova, or Shiva, if Syrians are superior to Dutch because they live closer to the mountain after which the event is named, if sex with someone of a different sex is more or less of an abomination in the eye of Quetzalcoatl than using non-standard orifices, or if a comment in reply to a bullet has to be indented used :: or *: or, Ares (PBUH) forbid, :*. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gozer the Gozerian has told me though ritual sacrifice that editors are all biased but their edits should be towards a neutral point of view. That means people will always argue, and that articles go towards a state where there is an equilibrium between the biases.  A supplication to Queen Dopplepopolis revealed through Her Majesty that it will not necessarily be a 50/50 split.  The downside is that almost everyone will be somewhat unsatisfied with the outcome. Ignignot (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A Skeptical Version of Ratel's Comment
I wonder how Ratel's comment (above) would be viewed here if he spoke such forceful language as a skeptic. I'd like to demonstrate how Ratel's words would sound coming from the other side:
 * Ratel: "We are seeing huge climate changes, droughts and floods, all over the world, directly attributable to this phenomenon." Skeptic: "We are seeing governments enact policy all over the world, directly attributable to the panic caused by alarmists"
 * Ratel: "Climate scientists are either in panic, desperate, or quietly defeated by the way utter idiots with venal motives have managed to sway public opinion" Skeptic: "Politicians are in a panic to enact policy to appease true believers with their environmentalist agenda who have managed to sway public opinion"
 * Ratel: "...to the point where essentially nothing has been done, and more and more people think the whole thing is a scam instead of the greatest emergency ever to face mankind." Skeptic: "... to the point where essentially the world is in a state of panic, and more and more people think this scam is the greatest emergency ever to face mankind."

Now let's put the skeptic paragraph together:
 * "We are seeing governments enact policy all over the world, directly attributable to the panic caused by alarmists. Politicians are in a panic to enact policy to appease true believers with their environmentalist agenda who have managed to sway public opinion to the point where essentially the world is in a state of panic, and more and more people think this scam is the greatest emergency ever to face mankind."

How long would an editor who posted this last here? First he'd be accused of being Scibaby. If that passed, his comments would be routinely removed as soapboxing. If he persisted, I'm guessing he'd be topic banned within a week for soapboxing and POV pushing. Yet Ratel has been saying stuff like this for a long time with no action. For people who really don't care about this issue, the difference in how the opposing POVs are tolerated here is striking. ATren (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference is that Ratel has a history of editing other articles, including ones totally unrelated and uncontroversial and the editor who would be posting that would not. And, as a counter-example, User:Chadhoward. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So your saying, if an established user posted that skeptical version, he would be allowed to edit AGW pages? I don't think so. In fact, I think I can find examples from this enforcement page which contradict that. ATren (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Err no, the problem is that you've failed to invert correctly. In your first example, Ratel is talking about Nature, and his comments can't possibly be interpreted as an attack on anyone. In your "inversion" you're attacking alarmists. See? Ratel talks about science, you attack people William M. Connolley (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Two other differences are (a) the original comments could be sourced (at least to the blogs of) otherwise reliable writers and speakers, whereas you'd be delving into Conservapedia, the most extreme right-wing think tanks, and their blogs, for sources for your examples. (b) These comments were made in discussion, not in article space, so finding the sources and the encyclopedic language can come later. --Nigelj (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This what if argument is great because it demonstrates that people love to argue about stuff that they can never be proved wrong about and love talking even though it isn't going to go anywhere, and they should know better. Seriously stop.  Ignignot (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even further off topic. I promise I will stop after this. Hey, I wonder if this is the way the think-tank people work? Take the impassioned expressions of someone who knows the facts, turn them round to say the opposite (regardless of the facts), and see how they look? Hmmm... Not bad... Put that into the senator's speech, will you Igor? --Nigelj (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

John, several editors have replaced my material, you know, the stuff you removed with the comment "ill-advised". They've actually added to it, showing that there are numerous excellent sources for this data, not only Hamilton. BTW Hamilton is an expert on ethics, which is why he is interested in disinformation campaigns. He doesn't have to be a climate scientist to comment in this area. He's not telling us about global warming. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 06:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A much better comparison (1) A direct personal attack is made on me in which Ratel refers to block history, calls me "anti-science" and falsely says I reverted him without explanation. (The explanation for removing the quote was that it was too long, as stated in the edit summary  and I invited him to discuss the matter on the talk page.) These involve violations of (WP:NPA, WP:CIV, two policies specifically mentioned on the probation page, and Jehochman completely ignores all that. When Macai responds, Jehochman's first reaction is to rebuke Macai.  suggestig that Macai refactor his comments. Two hours later, Jehochman makes a very, very general statement to Ratel that he should "check your feelings at the door". Jehochman has yet to ask Ratel to refactor his personal attack and uncivil comments. Does this show double standards at work, or is there an explanation? Will I be blocked for making this statement? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes mainstream comments problematic is their tone. What makes contrarian comments problematic is their resolute determination to misrepresent the state of the science. --TS 20:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In my experience - and putting it bluntly - so-called "contrarian" sources frequently lie or otherwise actively set out to deceive the reader concerning the state of the science. The situation is very similar to that which exists with creationist sources. What makes this a real challenge for Wikipedia to deal with is not so much the nature of the sources as the intensity of the promotion of those sources. Non-experts or fringe figures within their professional fields are pretty clearly deprecated per WP:UNDUE, WP:VALID and WP:V. However, a significant number of individuals view those sources as being at least as or more important than mainstream, often peer-reviewed scientific literature, which they regard as biased, fraudulent or otherwise invalid. Again, this is very similar to how creationists operate. Perhaps there might be some lessons to be learned from how the evolutionary biology Wikiproject has handled creationists? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are TS and ChrisO responding to my comment? The indenting would indicate they are, but the odd thing is that the comments themselves don't seem to square with what I said. (Put more fully here I'm fine with using the wording at Global warming). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they did not address your comment, instead using your post as an excuse to push their personal opinions on the topic. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, did you actually read what we wrote? Pretending we didn't write our responses but instead made up some wild nonsense that didn't directly address and refute JohnWBarber's false claim is a rather lame response.  I'm disappointed. --TS 23:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh -- I get it now! When ChrisO was talking about Non-experts or fringe figures within their professional fields are pretty clearly deprecated per WP:UNDUE, WP:VALID and WP:V. He was talking about the source of the information Ratel was adding to the article: Clive Hamilton, an Australian philosophy professor writing about the U.S. politics of a science-related issue. Thanks, Chris! ... So ChrisO, why make that comment here? I'm surprised you haven't already gone over to the article talk page and supported my position there. Or gone to the article page and reverted the same information out -- you could've added a link in the edit summary to your comment here. So glad you're coming around and seeing it my way. I don't think you should be comparing Ratel to creationists, though. I don't think that's a good way to promote a good working atmosphere. Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with the characterization in this particular case, but I wouldn't go around saying that kind of thing. Now, as to TS's comment ... I'm afraid when TS caricatures Cla68's characterization of TS's characterization of my comment by saying made up some wild nonsense that didn't directly address and refute JohnWBarber's false claim -- well, without getting in too deep here, let's just say the didn't directly address and refute part kinda is what it is if you know what I mean. I'm not aware of any things I wrote that actually got refuted or even rebutted there. Or even addressed. Care to try again? Or are we getting off topic? Feel free to continue this discussion on my talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then, that proves it, since a majority of editors can't be wrong. I must be "anti-science" then. Or am I "anti-ethics"? Or is it both, Ratel? Hamilton must be a qualified expert and a reliable source if he's an expert in ethics. The only reason I ever had to object to any of it was because there's something wrong with me, as has been pointed out repeatedly. That must be it. Thanks for clueing me in. I think I'll stop extending this thread now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm and temper tantrums do not carry weight with me. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 02:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theories, on the other hand... now that's how to get your attention. Macai (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Goals

 * A while back on this talk page, I suggested we set goals, these of course should be measurable. Without measurable standards, we can apply an Bayesian inference for our degree of belief.  The consensus is unknown to me.  My impression is progress on the articles is retarded. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Some sample achievable goals:

I've no idea how we'd fare on those measures, but I suppose we could find out easily enough. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * most editors feel that they have a greater stake in this area of the encyclopedia
 * new editors feel more welcome
 * there is relative harmony on talk pages
 * the incidence of edit warring declines
 * fewer incidents are found actionable on admin noticeboards
 * blatantly disruptive conduct declines
 * editors feel optimistic
 * the more egregious abusers are banned from the topic.
 * A worthwhile goal would be getting a shared acceptance that WP:WEIGHT requires that we should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view, not writing content strictly from the perspective of the minority view, making it clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view, and explaining the majority view in sufficient detail to avoid misleading the reader. This applies to the extent that we're explaining science and the scientific method, and less clearly applies in politics where denial of the significance of AGW is prominent but worldwide seems to be a minority view. Simply getting agreement in describing science would be very helpful in achieving harmony. . . dave souza, talk 17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave, one of the things that is important to bear in mind is that there are the viewpoints in the scientific community and then there are the viewpoints in society. One could find that the overwhelming consensus of scientists favors the AGW thoery, while perhaps only half of society holds that viewpoint.  In a science article like global warming you would tend to focus on the viewpoints of scientists when discussing the pure science aspects.  In a Climategate-like article, which discusses a public controversy, the issue at hand isn't even the science, it is people's reaction to behavior of scientists.  So, looking at the public's viewpoints, rather then scientists' viewpoints, would probably make more sense.  So you can't say something is a majority/minority viewpoint unless you specify of whom you are speaking.  Remember that Al Gore discussed the disparity between scientific publications and popular news outlets regarding climate change consensus in An Inconvenient Truth.  So don't think it is some kind of attempt to run roughshod over climate science when we document the fact that people disagree with the consensus, especially if they are non-scientists.  There is a difference between saying something is doubtful versus saying that certain people have doubts about it.
 * One of the things that I see, time and time again, is that some editors essentially argue that by documenting the fact that some scientists and regular folks hold an alternative view point, we are somehow validating or giving credence to that alternative viewpoint. These editors feel that their (correct) viewpoint will be undermined by mention of the alternative (incorrect) viewpoint.  Besides being COI and POV, it also reflects a profound insecurity regarding the consensus.  And of course, even if we believe something is true, it is not our place to advocate for it.  We merely say that the mainstream, consensus viewpoint among scientists is X, the alternative viewpoint is Y, different segments of society hold varying degrees of belief in either X or Y, and leave the rest up to the scientific community and society. Moogwrench (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With you generally, but your final statement of what we merely say misses out an important stage – The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained in sufficient detail to avoid misleading the reader. Where claims are pseudoscientific we represent the scientific view as the predominant view and the pseudoscientific view as secondary, including explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories – this would reasonably apply to the fringe position that global warming is a hoax, even though it's a common political statement. . .  dave souza, talk 08:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that part of the problem is that between science and society, the notion of "uncertainty" is radically different. Society, or parts of it, will always see uncertainty as about 50%, "they could be lying to us". Science is much more precise in the definition. So it's important to pay attention to which aspects are being addressed in any particular article. Franamax (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree absolutely. This is well covered in Merchants of Doubt - Video of talk by Naomi Oreskes, if you have an hour to kill. --Nigelj (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One interesting measure is the number of edits in this Project Page vs the number in this one WikiProject_Environment/Climate_change_task_force. I suspect by edit count analysis, there is greater activity on sanctions than task force harmony right now. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not simply formalize the unofficial rules we had before the sceptics decided to challenge them, leading to this messy probation system. I.e. we impose order on the talk pages by e.g. closing discussions by consensus etc. That worked very well from 2007 till late 2009. Considering that the Global Warming article was a FA while it was under fierce attacks surely proves that this system is an example for all Wiki articles on controversial subjects.

If we formalize this, then one needs to elect an editor who will formally close discussons, make final decisions on edits in the article when there is a dispute on it without a strong consensus either way, etc. etc. This system has to be approved by the current Admins who oversee this General Sanctions process. Count Iblis (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Count Iblis, the problems at Climategate article are very different than on the science articles. At the Climategate article, we have pro-AGW editors arguing against the majority viewpoint and in favor of the minority and fringe viewpoints.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By "pro-AGW editors" do you mean those who support the contrarian view of the so-called "climate skeptics", that AGW can be safely ignored or is even a Good Thing? . . dave souza, talk 19:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we then refer to editor who disagree with the "pro-AGW" editors as "Scibaby supporters?" I mean, you're reverting back in his edits, right? Hipocrite (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know who Scibaby is nor do I know how to check an IP's identity, nor do I care to. In so far as I understand the rules, I'm supposed to assume good faith. If there is sockpuppetry going on, someone else will have catch it.  I already have my hands full trying to present the mainstream viewpoint in the Climategate article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In this instance, A Quest For Knowledge, your idea of "trying to present the mainstream viewpoint" was re-adding an email soundbite which is demonstrably false, and is shown as such on the "documents" article linked from that section. You should get up to speed on what the mainstream viewpoint is, particularly when it's a viewpoint about science. . . dave souza, talk 21:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That the "hide the decline" quote was taken out of context is the mainstream viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to agree, unfortunately this edit didn't convey that very well, will review the best way of giving due weight to the various views on this. . . dave souza, talk 08:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop playing games. You well know that wasn't my wording.  I simply reverted ChrisO's edit because his reasoning was wrong.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit pointy to reinstate a bad edit you didn't agree with just because you didn't agree with the reasoning given for removing it, and I thought that you were adopting and supporting that wording. Leaving it, or changing it to accurate wording, would have avoided an unnecessary argument. Best always to edit to what you mean rather than take issue with procedures, glad to be assured that we share an understanding on the mainstream view. . . dave souza, talk 17:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Are you still rejecting the mainstream viewpoint that the name of the scandal is Climategate?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Different topic, and I don't share your view about the extent to which that label is mainstream. A topic for another page. . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) This is an interesting idea. I think the problem isn't really anti-science editing or partisan editing per se, what really winds people up is ignorant editing, like simply removing a recently-crafted new paragraph or sentence rather than working with the originator to improve it, or because it's 'too long' rather than shortening it, or because of not finding the discussion on Talk even though it's right there if you look, or because it's not cited when the citation follows at the end of the next bit (I have examples of each of these, but I don't want to get personal). If only there was someone with a brain, who was prepared to get involved in 'content', who was there to say "no" when necessary. Of course material should be removed if the consensus is UNDUE or FRINGE etc, but I think some people learned such removal tricks early in their CC-editing career (e.g. back in December last year) when it was used against them for good reasons, and now use it too much where the reasons actually don't apply, and then whisk others off into these sanctions if they get upset. If only there was a neutral, but informed and rational referee that actually had the confidence of the majority of content editors. (By the way, I'm not sure that 'neutral' is a useful word if that means "I'm not sure whether AGW is actually real or not as both sides of the debate seem to have a good case" as that is already a FRINGE view in most of the world). --Nigelj (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would nominate TS to this position of benign dictator. Ignignot (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of some biographies I honestly don't think we should set content as a goal. The content of most of the articles is fine. The science content is pretty damned good and we should be very proud of that.

On biographies, very rigorous inclusion standards are finally emerging in this area. Where we they before? Lost in the post? Admins should not be afraid to enforce them by warning those who commit egregious breaches and stopping the activity if it doesn't stop after a warning.

In my opinion it is a well-established fact that there has been warfare on the biographies between those who want to exaggerate the significance of minor figures and those who push poorly sourced negative claims into climate-related biographies. This is seen in mirror image on both mainstream and contrarian figures. Some of this behavior is unequivocally wrong and administrators should not be scared of enforcing the letter of Wikipedia policy here. It's what we'd do anywhere else, so we shouldn't treat climate change articles differently--the fact that they're on probation should give the various factions less say, not more, in who gets sanctioned. The brighter editors will learn soon enough, and we don't need the less self-aware editors. They'll identify themselves and can be handled appropriately.

So, focus on conduct, with a major aspect of conduct being appropriate handling of conduct polices on biographies.

I'm not really serious about the metrics I listed above at 1632. I think the process will have worked if it allows the community to deal with this problem without going to the arbitration committee. --TS 19:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem of low quality material that is thought to be "pro-science"

 * This discussion continues at Talk:Climate_change_denial


 * This moved section is replete with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, as I indicate here. I would appreciate it if someone like LessHeard vanU showed even-handedness when distributing warnings about these issues, and deliver a warning to Mackan79, just as he did to me. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 04:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then open a Request; the involved "uninvolved admins" are not tasked with searching out and sanctioning editors, but considering requests made after other avenues have been exhausted (though this would not stop any from acting upon policy or guideline violations were they to become aware of it.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No time for exhaustive bureaucratic tattle-tale processes, sorry. If you need that in order to act, when the proof is right in front of you, then I give up. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 14:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not doing more than a cursory check of the discussion content prior to moving. Had I realised that I was moving possible personal attacks onto an article talk page I probably would have collapsed the section here and invited the thread starter to discuss relevant issues at the talk page on his own initiative. The thread has now been collapsed at the article talk page so I'll leave it there. --TS 12:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, I already responded to this on the talk page where Ratel posted his full comment. My general concerns remain, but I'm content to discuss them the next time it comes up. Mackan79 (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets
I closed the discussion at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and opened the indicated section at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Unless someone can convince a checkuser to monitor this page, we still need to report them at WP:SPI; any account listed in this section should at least be close to WP:DUCK territory, but CUs can clean up the sleeper accounts as well. Blocked or cleared accounts should be removed to avoid cluttering up the page. I am not aware of any similar procedure on other pages, so I would like to review this in a few weeks. If this needs more discussion, we can also put this on hold for a while. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I am strongly opposed to the policy of unsanctionable reverts of suspected Scibaby socks, and it doesn't help my piece of mind that reversals of these reverts by users in good standing are sanctionable. This proposed policy seems to me to be highly contrary to WP:BITE and WP:AGF, and given the existence of a minimally problematic alternative (viz., wait a day for the findings of a checkuser), it isn't justified. Do you think an RfC would be appropriate?--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Hipocrite (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I don't follow the edit histories of climate-change pages, could anyone present specific instances where edits were reverted based on a mistaken belief that they were made by Scibaby sockpuppets? I understand the theoretical concern voiced by Heyitspeter, but it's not clear to me how big of a practical issue this is. On the other hand, the current asymmetry between the ease of creating Scibaby socks and the delay in blocking them is a clear source of potentially avoidable disruption. MastCell Talk 18:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Edits from suspected Scibaby socks have generally not been reverted in the past because doing so was potentially sanctionable. That would change with the implementation of this policy. I suppose I can give you a list of users that were suspected Scibaby socks but passed the checkuser, i.e., potentially valuable contributors who would be unjustifiably victimized by such a policy and would therefore be much more likely to leave Wikipedia outright. User:Jpat34721 and User:Chadhoward come to mind. As far as I can tell, most of the usernames of the accused are listed here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive. --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet I reverted a certain scibaby sockpuppet 4 times on the 1rr protected article just the other day. Why do you think I didn't revert Jpat34721 and Chadhoward, yet did revert Biltmowre, 68.26.48.121 and 173.116.120.246? Wait, I'll give you a hint - some socks are obvious and will just get reverted. Other socks are not, and will get held in abeyance. The same as it was before this toothless sanction was presented. I've got a counter proposal - I'll revert editors I am sure are Scibaby, and you can revert back editors where you just think I might be wrong. After three strikes on your part, you are placed on 0rr across all climate-change articles, forever. After one strike on my part, I'm no longer allowed to claim that I'm reverting Scibaby, forever. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you? Hipocrite (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, this isn't an action movie. If you rephrase your comment in the form of a reasonable thing to say (e.g., following WP:POINT), I'll reread it and provide a response.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone develops a pattern of mistaken Scibaby reverts I can guarantee they'll be called to account. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My 2c (this is contrary to Wikipedia norms, I know): We should look soley at the content of the edits made, not who is making them.  Bad edit, revert, good edit, yay.  I don't personally care who is responsible.  Arkon (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Arkon, I think you're describing current practice. For instance the sock "Task force B" made a valid comment at Talk:Global warming, its role edit before being blocked for can evasion. The edit has not been removed and several editors have even responded agreeing with it on the merits. Tasty monster (=TS ) 08:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that if his edits aren't removed, he's achieved his objective. The only way to discourage persistent sockpuppeteers - I've been dealing with one on Gibraltar-related articles for years - is to delete their edits as soon as they appear, regardless of whether they are "good" or "bad". If the sockpuppeteer becomes convinced that there is no point in him continuing because anything he does will be reverted on sight, he will eventually give up. By holding out the possibility that some of his edits might be accepted, you give him a motive to continue indefinitely. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understood it, the way a "good" edit is adopted is by the removed edit being re-made by an editor in good standing. The socks name does not appear in the history (or on the talkpage, when made there) against the edit, but the substance is (re)added to the page. The vandal knows already that "their" edit has been reviewed when it is removed, so it being re-presented under a good editors name provides no extra noteriety. It is, of course, a question of balance between including material that does benefit the project and "not discouraging" a troll. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin: please close the CRU hacking name-change discussion and change the article name
The discussion at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident has reached the seven-day mark and it looks clear that a consensus was reached to change the name of the article. I count 32 in support, 10 opposed. I suggest that an uninvolved admin confirm the consensus, close the discussion and change the name. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've no problem with somebody soliciting a close here, but it might be better for the health of the community if some administrator not previously engaged in this area made the close. Either way, I hope the obsessing over this article's name will end soon (irrespective of the closing admin's decision).  Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that this is the probation page, how many uninvolved admins will see this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is explicitly devoted to uninvolved admins. An admin who engages in administrative action in this area is not "involved". --TS 22:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well personally I still feel it may have been better to wait and see if someone from WP:RM showed up to reduce the chance of controversy but hopefully it won't matter Nil Einne (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that I am a sufficiently uninvolved administrator. I shall take a look at the discussion now. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping up. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring of other editors talkpage comments per previous discussions
Following the discussion to be found at User talk:LessHeard vanU, I propose that the requests for an uninvolved editor or admin to remove/collapse/etc. personal attacks and other issues covered by the initial discussion (linked at my talkpage discussion above) be made at the General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and that further comments may only be made by the party whose comments are the subject of the request. Any uninvolved editor/admin may then action the request and note it accordingly on the page. If a request is not actioned within 72 hours, then the report is archived as unactioned. Generally, as envisioned, this should be an area where requests are expedited by means of the first account believing that the request is actionable being permitted to take the necessary action - and therefore any report not actioned within a short time frame is archived. Any comments? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible, and appropriately worded to avoid prolonged "peanut gallery" comments. I would suggest, though, that 24 hours would be a more sensible limit.  Anything problematic that was left around for 72 hours, or even 48, would either have led to more serious actionable problems, and if not then the sooner any associated reference is removed the better (whether because the request was erroneous or because we dodged a bullet and the fewer potential triggers the better). --TS 21:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the timescale point is good, but perhaps 24 hours is a little too short - one day for something to be reviewed by editors in differing timezones around the world? 36 hours? If the comments are particularly strong then they will likely be actioned by the 1st reviewer anyway (or even taken to a different venue for actioning?) so the outer limit is only for more marginal cases. 36 hours? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This touches on something that I find incredibly frustrating.


 * At the most basic administrative level, in responding to request from another editor to protect an article or block a disruptive editor, no review period is required.  I ask an admin to do something, he agrees with me and he does it.


 * The whole idea of the probation is to give administrators more power to act, but at every turn the administrators seem to be hobbling themselves, or one another, with unnecessary requirements to "review" prior to taking action.


 * Here we have a situation where even the most basic editing conventions have broken down and, accordingly, the administrators have been explicitly permitted to take action against previously warned editors. And yet here you are all pissing around making excuses to avoid taking the most basic and timely action to lessen damage.  I even think it has become more difficult to block a disruptive editor under this probation than it have been if the probation had not been enacted.


 * What this topic needs is some strong and uncompromising assertions of order. We've all agreed to this.  Do it.  Stop mucking about.  --TS 23:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I am not sure I follow the nuances being discussed above in terms of who does what and when. Can I ask that we simply take the previously agreed description and refactor it to include the updated nuances and post them here?  I think everyone would benefit from having a clean articulation of the procedures that we can reference.  If doing so opens some procedural can of worms please ignore this request.  --GoRight (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did that, when I was first asked to look into adminning this section; I got seven shades of shit for briefly blocking two content editors who were removing other peoples comments from talkpages (which is, you know, sort of against policy/guideline) on the basis that they were uninterested in explaining themselves again. I could of gone nuclear when I saw the reaction, but instead thought of working by agreement with the existing admins (the ones who had a bit of a reputation of placing more credence on the representations of the pro AGW editors, although I have found them to be interested only in applying policy) so that actions and reactions were moderated. I think it worked - the two parties, although fundamentally distrusting of each other, no longer blind revert each other, and personal attacks have diminished. Since they are no longer able to swear at each other and metaphorically kick each other in the shins, they have had to explain there actions to each other... Now, I am likely wrong, but I think I see instances in CC articles where once a position is explained then the other side comes along with either a counter argument or proposal which is then rebutted or countered - but creating just a tiny opportunity to finding a common ground.
 * Simply, if the reaction of admins were to be reactionary warnings and sanctions then the dispute that is within the writing of the articles would simply expand into the sysoping realm. There would have been no example on how consensual actions diminish the potential for accusations of bias (not that that is not prevalent - witness comments about my and Lar's willingness to enforce the sanctions upon editors who are supportive of AGW, and previously some complaints by sceptics that the existing adminship were not so inclined) and incitement of further incidents. Wikipedia is no longer the creature of a few years back, when a cadre of admins enforced their interpretation of "right" without reference - this model needs to be adminned in the manner in which it is expected that editors will interact; consensually, carefully, and respectfully.
 * However, and in keeping with my desire to achieve agreement, if you think 24 hours is the max and that the main principle is that the first editor in good standing who believes the material should be removed may do so without further reference, then fine; I will agree. Anything that is passed over by the first few reviewers is likely not that contentious (or is too contentious for simple removal). If I can get another admin in agreement, then we can hunt down the wording and amend it accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sensitive to the criticism that we've hobbled ourselves. TS has a point there. And yet I think it's better this way... Sanctions aren't imposed until there's a consensus, or at least a rough one, and there's a chance for reasoned discussion. I find that better than unilateral imposition followed by possible wheel warring over things. In this contentious area, having a bit of process or even due process seems a good thing, it's not as simple as random vandalism. But on the matter of removing comments, which is smaller import than a topic ban, I think 24 or 36 hours is plenty and would support either of those figures, whichever has more support from others. I applaud LHvU for, again, coming up with something novel that will hopefully help continue the move in the right direction. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To LessHeard vanU I would say that as an administrator you're supposed to get seven shades of shit for everything you do, and if that isn't happening yet you haven't even begun to fathom what adminning is about (I've been call "old school" for saying this in the past, and I take that as a compliment).


 * To Lar, I'd say that the notion of wheel wars has been used to cow administrators who are, or have remained, illiterate as to what is a wheel war. An action taken and then reverted is not a wheel war.  An action repeatedly reverted is a wheel war.


 * Bold action is the signature of timely adminship so don't creep around agonising as if the bit were a curse you couldn't shrug off in a moment. Do what seems best for Wikipedia, and if it should turn out not to be, don't repeat it.


 * I think 24 hours is okay, and I hope LessHeard vanU (do you have an actual name we could call you? this is getting tiresome) can agree with that too. --TS 23:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not understanding, but does this just have to do with requests that a personal attack be removed? It seems like a decent process, if so, although I suppose I'm wondering if it isn't a bit specific for editors to keep track of. Is there a way to funnel editors toward this process, just for this type of request? Mackan79 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done and noted at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Now to meddle with the enforcement request page itself... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC) General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Header amended; please review/correct as necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony's comment on Mark Nutley
Commenting here for technical reasons--please refactor to the project page, particularly if you want to reply. What is annoying most people, I think, is Mark's determination to remove the characterization conservative from instances that are either well sourced, or as in the case of The Spectator, unimpeachably and (with good cause) proudly conservative. The polarization of responses to the book, with ideological conservatives treading a path quite distinct from the mainstream including most scientists, had been remarked upon by commentators and was made all the more remarkable in the context of the vehemence of the scientific response to the book.

Mark was trying it on and treating informed comments with contempt. And edit warring. If he's been warned about this kind of behavior in the past he should be told to stop trying it on. I've no doubt that he will now stop if told to do so firmly enough. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved it for you mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mark's response is "bull", which I assume is a euphemism for bullshit. Well, perhaps Mark simply doesn't know that The Spectator is the proudest and most celebrated organ of political conservatism in the UK. I sometimes think that this is the tragedy of Wikipedia: that here we are not constrained by the bounds of our ignorance, but are free to comment endlessly on the areas in which our intellectual laziness makes us a liability. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you care to refactor your calling me ignorant, intellectually lazy and a liability? And yes it is bull, we report what the sources say and let the reader decide, to add tags to sources saying they are "conservative" and "right wing" is not wp:npov. And to be honest i am surprised you would actually back the use of labels on sources mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically, Tony was commenting on Wikipedia in general. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC)I checked the article and I only saw one source being cited for "conservative press". The disputed content may be legit or might be an example of cherry-picking, I'm not sure. Given the contentious nature of the neverending content dispute on CC-related articles, it could be either one, take your pick. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually several hands had been stretched out to Mark on the talk-page. For instance, i've asked him twice now if he could somehow cast doubt on the reference given for "conservative" (for instance find a counter-example, showing that the reference isn't accurate) - but that has been ignored.
 * No kim it has not, i asked how one ref from two weeks after the book was published can lead to the labeling of sources as conservative and right wing. A question you have yet to respond to. mark nutley (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, the reference makes, what we already know, verifiable. It doesn't really matter how old it is ... unless... you can show us that there is reason to doubt what the reference states (which frankly i do not think there is), then there would be something to address.  This is now the 3rd time that i'm answering this.  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Mark makes an interesting point. If a source is out of date, then it is no longer reliable.  (Again, boldfacing the "If" that begins so many of my sentences since so many people seem to miss them.)  The classic example I always bring up is an article published on June 28, 1945 by New York Times blaming Germany (not the Soviet Union) for Katyn massacre - something that is now known to be false.  Of course, with the Katyn massacre, there are plenty of reliable sources disputing the original account.  This doesn't seem to be the case here.  I guess you can bring this up at the WP:RSN but it seems like a pretty trivial thing to be editing warring over - for both sides. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what i'm fishing for AQfK.... If Mark can find anything that reasonably shows that the reference is off now, then the reference should certainly be reconsidered. But as far as i've been able to determine, the reference was and is spot on the mark. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually no you are not, you are sidestepping my question. Which i will repost here for you. How exactly does one ref from the age manage to cover all of the above? How can one ref allow the breach of wp:npov by refering to sources as right wing and conservative? It quite simply does not, the use of labels on sources is pushing a wp:pov into an article, which you must agree is entirely wrong mark nutley (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1 the conservative broadsheet[39] The Australian
 * 2 conservative commentator[40] Miranda Devine
 * 3 Paul Sheehan, a conservative commentator[42]
 * 4 right-wing columnist [43] Andrew Alexander
 * 5 The Spectator, a conservative British magazine
 * MN has a point, the allegiances of each source needs to be referenced (1,2 & 3 are easy, since they are used in the WP articles - 3 not, and 4 does not seem to have an article) and why. Although much of CC skepticism has a right wing origin, not all right wingers are skeptic. Rather than referencing the general political leanings of the sources, it seems to me that the CC skeptic outlook of each needs to be noted and referenced to comply with NPOV. (Please move this to the article talkpage if more appropriate). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved it to the article talk page, mark nutley (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
I would like to propose a moratorium on requests for enforcement by partisans against other partisans. There seems to be a lot of tit-for-tat going on. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) That's one idea. The other idea is to have them bring it here so that something can be done about it.  However, one interesting thing about this area is that everyone is considered a partisan, as of some time right before their first edit. Mackan79 (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the point of the sanctions if editors can't use them to win content disputes against their opponents? In all seriousness, I propose a 1-year topic ban on all disruptive editors from both warring factions.   The might sound extreme but please read the following post from Jimbo and ask yourself, "Does this situation sound familiar?" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is quite an interesting opinion. Of course, even more than Scientology, Climate Change is forever finding new supporters for both sides of the debate; it would be interesting that if a few of the more entrenched participants of either sets of opinion were removed from the area whether there would be the successful recruiting of adversarial minded editors. Perhaps it is the type of subject that attracts overly resolute contributors? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Climate Change is forever finding new supporters for both sides of the debate" I don't see how it would be any worse than it is now.  In fact, this seems to have slowed down quite a bit.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, I propose a 1-year topic ban on all disruptive editors from both warring factions. Interesting idea. AQFN, what would be your response to those who say this should include you? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This may not be the answer that you were expecting, but I can say this with complete honesty: I don't believe that I've ever made a single edit that was against WP:NPOV (or at least my understanding of it at the time).  I try to write for multiple viewpoints (including the opponent) with weight expressed in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources.  When you see edits which only express√ one POV, it's only because the other POV was already included in the article and I was trying to balance out the neutrality.  My biggest mistake so far (that I am aware of) in terms of WP:NPOV was when I cited WP:AVOID to argue against "Climategate" as article title.  I now believe that I was wrong because WP:NPOV is a policy and WP:AVOID is a guideline and you can't use a guideline to override a policy.  Any other mistakes are probably minor and accidental. I'd welcome any disinterested and neutral party to examine my edits and I doubt they would find much wrong with them.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't believe that I've ever made a single edit that was against WP:NPOV." I honestly don't know how to respond to that. It's rare that I'm at a loss for words, so mark the date. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. I told you that it might not be the answer that you were expecting.  I suggest that you read the rest of my answer so you understand what I mean. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do understand. That's what bothers me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's Jimbo's reply to my suggestion that CC be handled in a manner similar to Scientology.. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured he'd eventually get payback for that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Request to uninvolved admins
When arriving or departing the project page, could you look at open requests and either comment or action? If something hasn't been commented upon for a day or so, and there is no obvious consensus, then perhaps it should be collapsed as "no action" - unless you find something that needs addressing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck

 * Moved from main enforcement page to talk. Franamax (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Permalink before move: Franamax (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Did anybody here notice that there is no reply to this request in the WMC section? And that WMC has not edited Wikipedia since about 3 hours before this request has been created? Do we now block people without a hearing? If yes, I have a couple of blocks I'm sorely tempted to make. In short, I consider this a major fuck-up. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was aware Dr Connolley was inactive, when I blocked the account. I had not expected WMC to respond, however, to the Request since it was apparent that he had violated his 1RR restriction and that he had used the terminology as evidenced by the diffs. What was he going to do? I would point out that the allegations of 1RR and unfortunate choices of wordings were contained in the Marknutley Request which WMC participated in - and to which he made no response, then. The reviewing admins, and the comments by others, addressed the content of the allegations, and not the contributor, and a decision was made and enacted. Should we have waited for when, or if, Dr Connelley returned to see if he had something to say and then block him for obvious violations of his restrictions? I would not be surprised if some editors would prefer that, and there may now be some questioning from that quarter about why sanctions are not made in such a way as to ensure that "naughty editors" are properly "punished". This admin, however, sees sanctions as preventative, and that is why I continued to make the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ""naughty editors" are properly "punished"" This has nothing to do with punishing bad editors.  It has to do with ending the disruption.   The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors.  Perhaps you can explain to us, LessHeard vanU, how WMC's repeated acts of misconduct help advance the project? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They do not. His high quality content contributions to a number of topics do. I do not wish for what may be the case, that Dr Connolley has left the project, but I would wish to try and close down the avenues by which his actions have been disruptive. You may feel that the nett result of Dr Connelley's prolonged absence from editing WP to be beneficial, but I do not. They would, however, be vastly improved if he were to contribute in full compliance to not only the wording of his restriction(s), the probation, and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but also the spirit. Of course, if you feel that I am not acting in what I sincerely believe is in the best interests of the encyclopedia then I have nothing more to say - it would be a waste of both of our time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (after e/c, mixed msg, maybe) Noo, The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia, full-stop. The camaraderie and mutual respect are choices we make, they are not overarching goals. The content is the once and future king. If we punish anything, it's degrading the content. You can argue that WMC degraded content two hours early, and for that he has been blocked from editing. Franamax (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * LessHeard vanU, I'm not saying you're not sincere, I'm saying that these little slaps on the wrist have obviously not ended the disruption and that stronger action is required. A 48 hour ban is more appropriate and if this editor continues to be disruptive, the penalties should continue to escalate (4 days, a week, 2 weeks, a month, etc.) until the disruption has ended.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "If we punish anything, it's degrading the content." Would that it were so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Franamax: The camaraderie and mutual respect are choices we make Actually, a more modest goal is that editors are supposed to be allowed to edit the encyclopedia without having to put up with an editor's repeated violations of WP:BATTLE and WP:DISRUPT. To get closer to that ideal, we need admins to enforce policy with some degree of effectiveness. William M. Connolley's lengthy record of WP:GSCC sanctions and blocks strongly indicates that isn't happening. Why do you suppose that is, Franamax? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly because he's strong on the science side and his head tends to explode when interacting with those less scientifically literate? That should be a manageable difficulty. We need editors who don't only approach CC as a social science. Like I said, I agree with the sanction, within a factor of four (upwards). And SBHB, note my choice of "punish" rather than "prevent". "[D]egrading the content" is often a subjective judgement, but yes, an awful lot of people are intercepted at the door and asked to leave quietly (as in RBI). Whether or not the results meet your own expectations, not for me to say. Franamax (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have specified that my comments were in regard to the present sanctions regime, which by design makes no reference whatsoever to content. And yes, I'm aware that vandals are blocked, etc. But we have reached the sad state where people have been taught not to "waste" their 1RR on such things as correcting factual errors. Hardly a recipe for improving content. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly because he's strong on the science side and his head tends to explode when interacting with those less scientifically literate? I believe one of the edits in question was whether or not to label some sources "conservative". "glowing reviews" or "positive endorsements" was the proper wording for some book reviews. Scientific literacy had nothing to do with that explosion. We need editors who don't only approach CC as a social science. Does that sentence indicate that you treat William M. Connolley with kid gloves that you wouldn't treat other editors with because there's one standard of behavior for editors you value as scientifically literate? Personally, I haven't found the more scientifically literate editors any more valuable than other editors on CC articles that are not primarily about the science of climate change. Other than helping with some background material, there is no advantage. But if scientifically literate editors believe they can get away with behavioral violations that other editors will be sanctioned for (because admins feel we need editors who don't only approach CC as a social science), then there's a distinct disadvantage -- for Wikipedia. I assume you didn't mean to imply you've got one behavioral standard for the scientifically literate and another for anyone else. I hope you'll make that clear. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC) correction -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that editors like WMC know they will get preferential treatment, so they don't feel compelled to follow the rules. Any other editor with 10-odd requests against him (a significant portion of which resulted in warning or sanction) would have received significant sanction by now, likely a lengthy topic ban or even a lengthy block. Indeed, several editors who have fewer warnings have received longer sanctions. So what's the incentive for WMC to change? If all he'll ever get is the occasional 24-48 hour block and nothing more, I think he'll continue to repeat the behavior - he's already demonstrated that twice since this probation began. As Cla has said, what is needed is an escalating block length for each transgression until the problem is solved, one way or another. This is not a criticism of LHvU's close (I think any action is better than none, and LHvU's decision respected the admin consensus) but simply an opinion that it will likely not work.
 * As for WMC's contributions, I think editors must be judged by their overall net contribution to the project, not just their article content. If an editor is so combative that he drives off other potentially good editors, then their net effect on the project may not be so positive; it may even be negative (if it were possible to quantify such a metric). ATren (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * JWB, if you assumed I don't hold a different behavioural standard for some editors, you're pretty much wrong. I have a deep respect for the editors who make this engine turn over, and I don't count myself among them. I know how to read a scientific "letter" and I know about four editors here I could go ask for clarification on the fine points of cosmology or atmospheric chemistry (plus some RefDeskers I could ask amything at all and get a great answer) - I'd rather see them all hang in there, same as the gnarly but excellent editors in history or geography or literature topics. We force people to use secondary ionterpretations, but we need them wut' can understand the primary interpretations too. Yes, there is a double-standard for me, if that thought comforts you. Remember that you can always acquire the requisite knwoledge of science, history, geography or literature so that you can stand as an equal, it's a volunteer site after all. The crossover from science to society is just a management task.
 * All that said, my recent thinking is to ask WMC to voluntarily exit from participation on one article of his choosing for, say, a month - then demonstrate how it's quality has declined in his absence. Franamax (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Franamax, I can't remember -- which was the more scientifically literate position, glowing endorsements or positive reviews? Is it more scientifically literate to keep or delete Climate change denialism? Does science tell us whether or not "Climategate" is the proper name for the article? Ultimately, those are political (or political journalism or maybe even library science) questions. Many of the other conflicts in this area are also not conflicts about the science. If you are going to be granting more leeway to editors -- or even one editor -- on one side of those questions than the other side, you would violate the spirit behind our policies on neutrality, and you would also give incentives to editors on the favored side to cause disruption that will goad editors on the other side to react with similar misbehavior and get longer blocks and more topic bans. To repeat: You 're actually would be giving editors an incentive to be disruptive. It also amounts to a a kind of POV pushing by proxy. The less disruption and the more calm reasoning we do (except for some occasional levity), the more our consensus decisions on content can be reasonable and accurate, which is the only real way that Wikipedia's consensus system can address Boris' concerns. (It does require patience.) If you can't refrain from putting your thumb on the scale in what amounts to a POV war, don't participate as an admin here. If I've mischaracterized anything in your position, please correct me. It would be interesting to know if any other admins have the same position. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I think the above sounds more like an accusation than an argument for where Franamax's position on granting leeway would inevitably lead. I'm not making an accusation, and I'm withdrawing the phrasing that sounds too much like one or adding clarifying words in italics. The purpose here is to help think through an idea. I'm busy this holiday weekend, and if I miss something, I hope this explanation adequately makes the distinction clear. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember that you can always acquire the requisite knwoledge of science, history, geography or literature so that you can stand as an equal, it's a volunteer site after all. Just what do you know about what "requisite knowledge" my professional or academic or avocational background gives me in this or any other area of the encyclopedia? And who are you to characterize it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Clarification accepted. The wording [...] comforts you. Remember that you can always acquire [...] with the first, snarky "you" referring to me, led me to believe that the second "you", three words down the line, also referred directly to me. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I grant leeway to those editors who I feel bring extra thought to the proceedings and/or bring an ability to spew forth sourced verbiage which I can then read and pronounce as a good thing. There are many such editors. In some cases, when those editors get upset I try as quietly as possible to get them calmed down and back to the typewriter, where the bread and water is provided free (for a small shipping & handling charge). I'm interested in your extrapolation of "thumb on scale", how many data points are you drawing that curve through? (An old joke from when we used to say "Test facilities? We have hundreds. We call those 'customer sites'." ;) I've not attempted to influence CC content that I'm aware. My only foray was to indicate at the CRU-hack article that I intended to split the POV tags between article name and article content - and hey presto, a few weeks later it is renamed and appears to have no tags at all. Thumb on the scales indeed. (Oh yes, do keep in mind that "you" is both singular and plural in English, and I'll apologize if you thought I meant you as in the you pounding that particular keyboard, I meant y'all:) Franamax (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Leeway extends only so far. There are nine archived GSCC complaints with "William Connolley" in the title in addition to the 10th one still on the complaints page. I've mentioned the list of sanctions against him in the GSCC log. There's been commentary in dead-tree publications about this editor's Wikipedia history. His violation of the 1RR sanction seems brazen, having done it twice in a short period and at about the same time filed a 1RR complaint against another editor that is very obviously without foundation. Continuing to extend leeway to the point where an editor may be willing to get some short blocks in order to keep doing the bad behavior is hurting the encyclopedia. Over on the complaints page, KillerChihuaha has just used the same leeway argument regarding Dave souza, whose user name is not in the title of any of the complaints in the archive. Except that in KC's reasoning, the leeway is peripheral to the main argument, it isn't the backbone of it or extended through a long string of different cases. I'm interested in your extrapolation of "thumb on scale", how many data points are you drawing that curve through? I was pointing out where your leeway justification inevitably strays, not to specific past or present actions on your part. It's your thinking I'm addressing, not your past actions, and if that isn't clear above, I'll refactor. (Looking it over now, it isn't as clear as I thought it was, and I'm crossing out that sentence.) If one or more editors are to be given leeway because of their expertise, and if the editors with that expertise are on one side of a political issue (where expertise is not even decisive), Wikipedia is hurt -- whether or not an admin means to "put a thumb on the scale". It isn't hurt much if the leeway-granting is minor and rare and the leewayed editor stops the problematic behavior, but that isn't the case here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * nine archived GSCC complaints with "William Connolley" - exactly my complaint. Every complaint has an x% chance of sticking, essentially regardless of merit. So whoever whines more wins more. And if you think the low-blow, factually ridiculously wrong comments by Solomon and his ilk have more value because they are printed on paper, I can only hope you are referring to the increased value in outhouse usage. Bringing those up disqualifies you as a serious commenter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, now, Stephan. The point was that this editor has taken up a lot of time and attention, and the long list of archived complaints and outside published commentary are evidence of it. The point wasn't that every allegation is true. Sometimes (not often enough) I think something is so obvious that I don't have to spell it out, but I think I could've been more clear there. The list of sanctions and the specific behavior I've mentioned are evidence that a lot of it is true. If Every complaint has an x% chance of sticking, essentially regardless of merit is a serious comment, then you and I definitely have a different idea of what a serious comment is. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If WMC has any sense he will walk away from this hellhole and never look back. Ultimately the articles will end up the way the Wikipedia "community" wants them to. If that community wants well-sourced articles that accurately reflect academic thought, that's what they'll get. If that community wants articles where the science is sourced from the popular press, where global warming is "just a theory" and there's a raging dispute in the scientific community, they'll get that instead. At the moment the tilt is clearly toward the latter approach. Editors who are scientifically literate in this field might want to stick around for a little while, but in the end we'll probably just find another hobby. It's a big world out there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a large difference between "academic" and "scientific" thought. WMC left objectivity at the gate a long time ago, and his pattern of disruptive edits is not helpful to the Wikipedia content or community. FellGleaming (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks like a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith, please take care to be civil about other editors. The big difference I see between "academic" and "scientific" thought is that the former is a general field, the latter a specific subset relating to, well, science. Which is a relevant subject on the articles where I've seen a pattern of constructive and well informed edits. Diffs needed if allegations of disruption are being made. . . dave souza, talk 18:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) WMC has a continuing pattern of POV pushing and COATRACK forming across his edits. The most recent I saw is a good example, where, overriding a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page, he subtracted a block of text on the grounds the source was a blog, and thus not a WP:RS:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That&action=historysubmit&diff=354362908&oldid=354362715

Sounds superficially plausible. However, not only did it go against WP:CON, but this very brief article has three other blog references which are critical of the article's subject. WMC found no problem with them, but only the source which is critical of his viewpoint did he choose to delete. Further, the entire issue of WP:RS is a red herring in this case, as the source (a UK journalist) is merely explaining how he chose to use a particular phrase. Did WMC actually believe the source was unreliable in this case? Obviously not. It's a continuing pattern spanning thousands of edits; rather than attempting to improve and balance articles, any person who is critical of WMC's personal views on AGW must be discredited at all costs. FellGleaming (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, a blog by a journalist who promotes fringe views on global warming, and who at present is the subject of a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission for misrepresenting a scientist he interviewed and so promoting a false impression of the science of climate change. Certainly a questionable source, a matter for editorial judgement. The article itself seems to be promoting those minority views, doubtless that problem will be resolved in due course. Please assume good faith and accept that WMC believed that was an unreliable source. Without checking out the other blog sources, remember WP:SPS allows careful use of blogs in some circumstances. . . dave souza, talk 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is flawed. The journalist was merely explaining he had used WUWT (the article's subject) as inspiration.  WP:RS doesn't even come into play in this case. Do you honestly believe the journalist is lying when he claims he reads the WUWT site?


 * WMC's reasoning is clear. Journalist blogs are "reliable" if they agree with him.  Journalists who disagree -- even those who work for large mainstream news outlets -- are "unreliable".   Even this wouldn't be so bad if the point in question was a fact where a blog's lower level of "fact checking" would come into play.  But in this case, that's totally irrelevant, and WMC's only motivation here was to ensure the only remaining comments about the article's subject would be negative.


 * Finally and most importantly, is his issue of ignoring consensus in this case, as the text in question had just completed being discussed on the article's talk page. FellGleaming (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Franamax: I think that's a great idea. SBHB: False dichotomy and assumes facts not in evidence. ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

AEB (fools)
To the suggestion that the problem is that WMC doesn't suffer fools gladly ("his head tends to explode when interacting with those less scientifically literate"), well, welcome to the club, WMC, you are not alone in that sentiment. He is not the only person with that challenge but others manage to find ways to contribute successfully. Perhaps what WMC needs is a consigliere. Someone to intermediate for him, someone who does suffer fools at least a bit more gladly. This is actually something that has been suggested before, for various academics who have valuable contributions in their specialty to make. But failing that he has to learn how to get along. Content is king but he can't poison the environment for almost everyone else, even including many of those who agree with him about the science. ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Somehow I find it ironic when someone declares "content is king" and yet fewer than 10 of their last 500 edits are in article space. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that less than ten of my last 500 edits were substantive article contributions and just above I expressed the primacy of content, I suppose you're referring to me then? Have either of Lar or myself gotten in the way of improving the 'cyclo lately? Or are we doing what we can to help it move forward? Franamax (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're being too modest. I make perhaps 150-200 of your last 500 edits as being in article space. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Minus the new classes that are given Number the Stars (which has some deep breakage I need to figure out) as a reading assignment and dude who wants to respell Fertilisation? Nope. Thanks though. I won't list the various other "things" I keep an eye on but they are sadly oriented toward various people-problems. I do want to find a new focus for doing actual writing, not quite there yet. Franamax (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Boris, do you also find it ironic when content editors comment on behavioral issues? Neither is ironic. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * SBHB: False dichotomy. I can support content being king while not choosing to focus on content creation myself (at this time) The way to get good content is to make sure the whole enterprise runs smoothly and is focused on content creation, and that may require some to contribute other ways than purely banging out content. WMC, despite his knowledge, seems to be hindering that process more than helping it. You might be better served by reading what I say rather than taking swipes at me. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * he has to learn how to get along Unfortunately, as of this point we don't have conclusive evidence that he has to learn that at all. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still ruminating on the idea that those who contribute content, "according to the available reliable references are "expendable", because any other good contributor can use the same references and arrive at much the same content". I wonder what these articles will look like after the politicos and 'social scientists' have driven off all of those who actually understand the material, and so have the topic to themselves. --Nigelj (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Any single editor is in theory expendable. In actual practice there are some editors who have expertise or contributions that are so significant or so good that losing that editor is a measurable blow, and finding another editor who is "equivalent" would be a non trivial task. But viewing this at the single editor level misses the forest for the trees. What matters is the totality... no editor gets a free pass, regardless of the level of positive contribution. We make allowances, but we have to balance the needs of the entire project against the contributions of one editor and if an editor is being so disruptive that they are a net negative, something needs doing. Even if they are irreplaceable in their subject area. Unfortunate but this is a larger project than any one subject area. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is running the ledgers? And is your last sentence apropos anything? As I see it, we have editors with significant contributions all over the project, but who have less than perfect patience with idiots in their own field of expertise. I've not really seen anyone here who is valuable in a small field, but is disruptive overall. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The community as a whole runs the ledgers, in theory. And we are writing an entire encyclopedia here so yes, that remark was apropos something. As for your feeling you've "not really seen anyone here who is valuable in a small field, but is disruptive overall", I suggest you haven't been looking very hard. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you haven't been looking very hard. WMC has significant contributions outside the climate change articles. He has contributed featured images, he has been one of the best 3RR enforcers ever, and he has edited articles from Plato and Gravity to Thomas Hobbes. I suspect he has more contributions outside the climate change area than several "sceptics" have in total. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but that doesn't directly refute whether WMC is on balance disruptive overall, I'm afraid. I thank him for his positive contributions and I do not thank him for his negative ones. So you've not addressed the point. ++Lar: t/c 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, to me it shows that you came to a conclusion about the balance of WMC contributions without even being remotely aware of the scope of his contributions. Of course, being unbiased and neutral, you immediately reassessed the situation, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would that happen? The revisionist tending editors will not be able to propagate their viewpoint providing that there is one editor who not only understands and applies WP policy and guideline, but also complies with it themselves. Consensus, which is what determines what ultimately is included or not within the article space, is not a question of numbers, loudness, or even durability, but reference to the available reliable third party sources. We do not require editors to understand the primary source being quoted, or even the secondary source that originally notes it, since if it is the orthodox subject point of view there will be numerous third party references that can be understood - and let us be honest, the general readership is more likely to understand the explanation of the report upon the paper rather than the report or paper - for the encyclopedic minded editor. Indeed, some of the internecine wars over the validity of some paper or publication misses the point; editors do not make the decision over whether one opinion carries more weight than another, the reliable sources do. As long as you can point to a reliable peer reviewed third party source, then the content cannot be deprecated. How intelligent and well versed in the subject matter do you need to be to understand that? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus, which is what determines what ultimately is included or not within the article space, is not a question of numbers, loudness, or even durability, but reference to the available reliable third party sources. Like Stephan, you must be new around here. Glad to make both your acquantainces. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I almost buy that idea, but I'm going to leave it at the checkout counter. This isn't like writing about a traffic accident where you just need to read some newspapers. Complex topics need explication, so familiarity with the subject matter becomes important. Not necessarily at the doctorate level, but familiarity. Especially when deciding on appropriate weight, mere existence in a RS doesn't signify "truth" or even validity. Science is built on disproving other people's work and outdated ideas tend to get left behind without a specific source saying "no-one in the field gives that any credence at all nowadays". Social aspects, sure - if you're writing about what newspapers said about the CRU emails, you just need the newspapers; if you're writing about the content of the emails, say the tree-ring data, you need to have some idea about what tree-rings are. Experts aren't essential for that, but they sure make life a lot easier. Franamax (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's try to apply this 'anyone can do it' philosophy to Negligible function. --20:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "but they sure make life a lot easier" - except when they don't, like in the case when an expert's downside is so large that there are literally half a dozen admins spending weeks of time trying to figure out how to accommodate this editor's refusal to adhere to even the most basic civility standard. And I'll note, the latest attempt, the token 24-hour block recently administered, has not conveyed the message. Not surprising. ATren (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If I may suggest it, I think section headers with profanity may not invite the broadest desired participation. Mackan79 (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The header originated as a subsection of a Request on the mainpage, and since it was an honest expression of the editors reaction it was appropriate then - since the discussion has diverted into general philosophical it might be appropriate to change, but check with the originating editor. In essence, when it was created it was appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually thought it was a bit more off-putting on the enforcement page, considering it should especially be protected from developing an environment where editors won't feel comfortable participating. A lot of us may be pretty bull-headed, but we should try not to make it a pre-requisite for commenting.  A conversation that starts with "What the fuck" doesn't sound like it's going to be respectful to differing viewpoints.  Obviously this single header isn't a major issue, but I'd nevertheless suggest it be changed by an admin, as I don't think editors are really entitled to control the section headers. Mackan79 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * does have sysop privileges, and he created the header. Why not drop him a request on his talkpage? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WTF? ;) I moved the thread here, then Tony S changed the heading, unless that Olaf Davis is messing with time again. I'm still chuckling that Tony's whole contribution to the discussion was to say "fuck". :) Franamax (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets"
It's not clear what the point of that section is, given that it won't be used as a basis for running checkuser or any other concrete action. So far it has only been used for joking around. (I heartily endorse joking around, but still and all...) Can it be deleted? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Archive it, manually? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Creation of the section was the outcome of an enforcement action. Let's remove the jokes manually to an archive. If after waiting some additional time we find no use for it, let's archive the whole thing. ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Joking? I wasn't joking. You can see by Lar's response that he's making a mockery of Wikipedia and urgently needs to be blocked, preferably indefinitely. Earnestly, Jehochman Talk 21:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar's approach sounds about right. I created the section when closing the relevant section, but did not participate in that discussion as I did not have any brilliant brainstorms beyond the current WP:RBI. If we get some use out of it, great, but I would say give it another two weeks or so before reclaiming that space. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jehochman: April Fool's is a couple days in the past now, joke's over. 2/0, sounds good to me. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * April Fool's? That was purely a coincidence.  But I can see that there is no chance of The Truth&reg; being heard, so let's remove the subsection as you suggest.  But remember, I've got my eye on you! (/me points at Lar/Scibaby) Jehochman Talk 02:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The self report is gone already, and the rest of the section, if no other use comes of it? Wait a couple of weeks and then archive it, as 2/0 suggests. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK, someone reported a suspected sock, a real one, not a joke. What now? I don't see any CU doing anything about it. (I'm not currently active as a CU here due to my role as an Ombudsman). So is this section working, or ???.... The report was several days ago, it reports an ID, but gives no detail and isn't signed. We may not need an SPI level formal report but a bit more to go on may help the CU if one turns up. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason i marked it there was because there apparently weren't any CU's active, and that this one comes up extremely high on my scibaby detector. The current scibaby SPI is 2 days overdue. Which imho isn't good, since there always is a chance of false positives - and letting these be under suspicion for that long isn't (again imho) OK. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going to have that section work - then either the SPI report needs to be dropped (and something similar needs to be here), or the documentation needs to be low, otherwise the "paperwork" simply gets too tedious. If CU was fast, then the section would have no meaning... It is only because its slow that i've marked up the user, so that the revert i made couldn't be confused as editwarrring. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree we need low paperwork. But I think a bit more than just the ID might be good. Like a diff or 2, and a signature of who reported it so if there are questions they can be raised. I also agree it's not good to let stuff sit. There's a CU election coming up, I'd encourage those qualified to consider standing. ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I forgot the signature - that would be an oversight... i did follow the procedure requested there though. Diffs make rather little sense with Scibaby socks - since the contribution history is usually so small that it can be overlooked easily. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind signing it, as a personal favor? Thanks. To the larger point, so far nothing's happened. Is that enough to conclude this section isn't needed? Should another sample be taken? Do we try flagging down a passing CU? If this section doesn't work we should scotch it, and instead ask to keep open a Scibaby page at WP:SPI instead, (which I realise now I suggested back when this subpage was being mooted... but then I was an active CU at that time) ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Signed. I think that if we want to change this, then the "enabling" thread should be reopened or rediscussed in a new one. There is a problem here, and it is one that is rather frustrating. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)