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

Collapses

Suggest that we collapse/hide requests (as is common elsewhere) as they are dealt with. Suggest that the admins and others who participate not be the collapsers, leave that to uninvolved folk who come by later. ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Eventually these get archived off presumably. ++Lar: t/c 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It does not yield the prettiest layout in the world, but I gave us Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Archive navbox based on AE, and set MiszaBot to autoarchive at 7 days. Both can, of course, be tweaked as desired. As none of the archives exist at present, it is just a sea of red. They just have a link to the sole archive over at Obama probation, so that box may be a bit of overkill.

Also, I would appreciate it if someone else were to check my syntax in case I missed anything. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! I'm afraid I can't check the for you syntax as I don't use MiszaBot myself but it looked good from the outside. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Y The bot just ran - threads successfully archived. One week feels about right for how this board is going so far, but it is easy enough to tweak later. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Section titles

Suggest that maybe we need to put something in the section titles to distinguish one from the next or else we have multiple copies of the same title. ++Lar: t/c 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit notice... Should? Can?

Should there be an edit notice? That big template at the top maybe could go in a collapse box if it won't work well in an edit notice (I think edit notices are nifty so I have one User talk:Lar/Editnotice )... but I'm not sure it would work with a page that has slashes, the page would be at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Editnotice ... A quick test didn't show it. ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for WP:AE, but displaying the template in the page header is also fine.  Sandstein  22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I don't understand edit notices very well, then. :) Maybe just collapse the template but leave it in the header. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify warnings

So there's a probation notice on a bunch of talk pages, there's discussion of an editnotice, there's an example of a general EW warning by 2/0 [1] which claims no authority from CC probation. These are all good, but they don't constitute the actual "warning" mentioned in this probation, right? The wording is the editor in question shall be given a warning...counseled on specific steps.... This to me can only imply an individual warning, as in user talk page or somewhere where you can demonstrate the editor must have seen the warning. Presumably this would have details on the problem and some attempts at communication. Note this is entirely separate from common-or-garden edit-war blocks or protections, but for this special enforcement, I thought individual notice ended up as part and parcel. Franamax (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The warning is Template:uw-probation, which can be referenced with: {{subst:uw-probation|PAGE NAME|Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation}}. This is already documented in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Notification of probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To constitute 'official' warnings, they must be logged. Whilst you don't have to use the boiler plate template to issue an official warning, you should make it clear to the user in question that they now come under the sanctions of the probation. Once this has been done, it must be logged at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Notifications. I got the impression that GoRight's warning from the enforcement page was an official warning, but as nobody has left a warning on his talk page and it hasn't been included in the log then I suppose it wasn't. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I did copy the text of the warning to GoRight's talk page but I didn't know about the logging requirement. --TS 11:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just copied the text and diff of the warning to the log. Hopefully that closes the loop. By the way, since GoRight had demonstrated awareness of the probation regime prior to his disputed edit, I think the notification requirement was functionally satisfied even if he had not been formally templated/warned. Isn't it the case that notification is intended to ensure that editors can't say "but I didn't know" when potential violations are raised? If so, I think the requirement was effectively met in this case without needing a formal notification. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

They need to be aware that from that point forward, they could be subjected to sanctions, not that general sanctions merely exist. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. -- ChrisO (talk

Clarification

What should be done about things like this? Previously we've just removed the comment as a straight-forwards breach of WP:SOAP, but with the new "regime" i'm confused as to whether i should file a report, give a warning - and whether i should remove or hat the text. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I should note that the same editor vandalised WP:NPOV itself a short time ago. See [2]. Since s/he has just come off a block, a further block is probably needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is a warning or a block doesn't really matter to me. The clarification needed is more on what the correct "new" way of handling incidents like the above is. These kinds of rants are rather common on climate change pages - so a clarification on this would be appreciated. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question has just been blocked for a week. I don't think there's anything in the probation that would prohibit normal refactoring of talk pages, per WP:TALK#Editing comments, which allows for the removal of "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". If an editor restores such material I'd advise against trying to delete it again. However, I think repeated instances of talk page soapboxing should be reported to the enforcement page as a form of disruptive editing, which this probation prohibits. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement action appealed by GoRight

For the record, GoRight (talk · contribs) has appealed the latest enforcement action against him. Please see WP:AN/I#Appeal by GoRight.

Question: is AN/I the right place for appeals, or should they be appealed elsewhere? What is the standard practice for the existing Obama and Palin article probations? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:GS/CC says that sanctions should be appealed to ANI.  Sandstein  19:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I missed that; thanks for the clarification. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

At least I got something right. --GoRight (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A question about trolling

Why do edits like the following, from WMC, go unchallenged?

It was a scibaby sock, and is now blocked. You were correct. GR is an SPA so doesn't like the way they are put to the hiss of the world; he'll just have to live with it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I happened to notice it as I was reviewing the sanctions page, and it seems little more than trolling to get a rise out of GoRight. I would have challenged it, had it not been a bit stale, so I decided to simply ask the question here. It seems that those (like Connolley) who believe that AGW is incontrovertible fact, are given much more leeway in such things, at least at first blush. UnitAnode 19:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It would have been more honest to point out that you've added the bolding - it wasn't in what I wrote. As to the text: this is an attempt to explain (to TS, as I recall, though I could be wrong) why he has accidentally rubbed GR up the wrong way. "It was just an SPA" is commonly used as a justification for devaluing an account; indeed, TS used it as a justification for a revert. GR is an SPA (this isn't in dispute; it is self-admitted). Nor does GR object to being called an SPA (he can't, obviously). He just objects to the opprobium that SPA's invariably meet with William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, It's still a bit sharp elbowed, though. Up your game. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought GoRight's complaint about the loose use of the term "SPA" was quite valid, but I also think the essence of William M. Connolley's response (which was echoed by others in a slightly less stark fashion) made a good point. Lar put it as follows: " if you don't want to be called something, don't be that thing." William's way of making the same point skirted the bounds of civility in a way that is probably not appropriate in the context of a process that is intended to dampen down the tendency towards warfare on the global warming articles.

I would urge all participants in the editing of global warming articles to be on their best behavior, for the sake of Wikipedia. In particular, we should all know to be on our best behavior here. A little less "sharp elbow" and a little more civility would make the editing environment of the articles more pleasant, attract fewer trouble makers or at least make their behavior stand out by contrast, and reinforce the trust and good faith we must all build in order to realise the ideal of a collegial editing process.

This is especially important lately since many people are coming to the articles after being told untruths about how our global warming articles are edited. They're understandably angry and it's our job to absorb their criticism and correct misconceptions. I've seen some great examples of patience and forebearance from all parties, and I think we're so close to seeing a lasting improvement in conditions. I would hate to see that spoiled by careless words. --TS 12:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just add the William Connolley turned up on my IP-address user page and started acting as if he owned Wikipedia. Fortunately, I've edited Wikipedia and I know he was barred as an admin - but isn't there some kind of rule about impersonating someone with authority? At the very least, if I had been a newby, then this was far from the welcome an experienced editor like William should be introducing people to Wikpedia with. 89.168.179.31 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Request time period

Hi, Can someone point me to guidance on how long a request should stay open (is there even a guideline guidline). I notice that ArbCom requests must stay at leaste 48hrs. As I never have made a request, I am concerned about observations from other request which were closed on technical matters ... I would like to see the guidelines here. Sorry if I the missed obvious. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement pages on Wikipedia are simply pages to bring behaviour to the attention of administrators that infringes on various sanctions that either the community or Arbitration Committee have placed on an article or editor. There is no time frame - if the administrator is satisfied that the behaviour merits a further sanction (e.g. a block, page ban, editing restriction) then they are free to close the request whenever. Look at it like this; if an uninvolved administrator sees this behavour themselves they simply take action there and then - they don't go and request enforcement - This is why we don't have a time frame because some requests may be actionable straight away. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think if we're going to have these requests structured formally, we need to have some minimum time periods here, and some agreement from more than one admin. The one that you closed (with sanctions) in less than 20 minutes probably moved way too fast. Especially when there are other ones on the page that have been open for a day or more with no sanctions contemplated.... ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think waiting until the subject responds should be the minimum (except for something exceptional), and if the proposed resolution is a general sanction, such as 1RR on an article for all editors, then the request should be open at least 48 hours to give a range of editors the chance to comment. Jehochman ^Brrr 02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Article-level sanctions are not allowed under the terms of the probation, just sanctions on individual editors. The probation reads: "Any editor may be sanctioned", my emphasis, and requires individual notification of the sanctioned editor(s).  Sandstein  11:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see "at least until the subject responds" except for (a) really really egregious stuff, as you say, and (b) where the subject wanders off editing elsewhere clearly ignoring the request despite notification (which could be cleanly covered by saying "until the subject has had a clear chance to respond") William M. Connolley (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, listening to the other party is a basic requirement of justice in any proceeding - audiatur et altera pars. In the case of a formal request on this board, no sanction should be imposed until the subject responds, unless he continues with the sanctionable conduct after being notified of the request.  Sandstein  11:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If, as Sandstein suggests, article-level sanctions are not covered by the wording of this probation, I suggest that we update the wording to correct the error. We're not just facing naughty users, here, but a systemic problem pertaining to a set of articles. Sometimes we have to say "we don't identify a single culprit, but rather the editing environment is breaking down and so this article-level sanction is imposed in order to encourage civil discussion and discourage edit warring by multiple parties." --TS 12:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the wording is very clearly tailored to individual editors, with individual notification requirements and what not. To expand it to article-level sanctions would need a new community discussion and consensus. Some might feel that unlike individual sanctions, article-level sanctions ought not to be imposed as a discretionary measure by a single admin.  Sandstein  12:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log you'll see listed already two cases of article-level sanctions: 1RRs posted at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. The same admin who imposed those could quite justifiably have instead imposed full protection on his own cognizance ("unilaterally" to use a fashionable but emotionally loaded word) so I see this less onerous alternative as a matter of common sense, and would hate to see such sensible actions thwarted by appeal to unnecessary bureaucratic notions. We should not stand in the way of administrators, who are watching and posting on the talk pages in an administrative capacity, taking necessary steps to foster civil discussion and the development of consensus. That's a big part of what they're supposed to be doing. --TS 12:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. See below where I broke it out separately. Let's thrash this out and get to an agreement to do this, it's needful. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Decisions and logging

To ensure fairness and prevent hasty actions, I recommend that sanctions be proposed by one uninvolved administrator, and then confirmed by a second. The second would close the thread, log the sanction, and notify the subject. This way we develop a bit more consensus to be sure that sanctions are proper before they are activated. (Normal one administrator actions to block per usual policy would still be possible if a speedier response were required.) Jehochman ^Brrr 03:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would we do this? If an uninvolved admin sees behaviour themselves then they can sanction - they don't have to report it here so why should we require 2 admins to close a case when it's reported here? It doesn't seem logical to me. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a very substantial change from the community-endorsed probation, which provides for discretionary (i.e., unilateral) sanctions. I don't see a reason to change this now. Of course, in complicated situations, admins will normally leave a request open for some discussion before acting, but that is not required. There is always the possibility of an appeal if a sanction is imposed too hastily.  Sandstein  11:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that if a problem is reported it is quite likely to be ongoing, and therefore may need a rapid response. Taking Jehochman's approach could introduce unnecessary delays in such circumstances, so I don't think it's the best way forward. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. An admin can say "hold up, this is being discussed" to freeze things, without imposing actual sanctions, pending consensus. If someone persevered in the face of such a request, things would go much harder for them. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I read the proposal too fast but my support for it was based on this process assumption. If the action is a good one, a second admin will surely voice support quickly. I don't understand the resistance here, Ryan... you seem to want to act unilaterally, in great haste. Better to act with consensus (or at the very least a second voice in support), with all deliberate speed. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well what's the point in the sanctions then? What you're advocating could be done on AN/I for each individual editor without probation. The probation that the topic is now under gives administrators the right to impose sanctions as they see fit. There isn't a discussion requirement. What would you say if I went and sanctioned an editor off my own back without it even coming to the enforcements page? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is to put a process in place that works well. While it "could" be done on AN/I, sans templates, with the usual large horde of dramamongers and hangers on, instead of admins and other editors who have shown some interest in working this area, it wouldn't work well, if it worked at all. I sense most folk here are not comfortable with your approach, and want longer times before imposition in non emergency situations, and more discussion, not just a unilateral action. I could be wrong, here, and I am sure discussion will bring that out. But if we are going to have unilateral imposition of sweeping sanctions with less than 20 minutes of discussion, and no chance for the person affected to even speak up, I am afraid I will switch to opposition of this regime, and will start reviewing your actions with a view to reversing them. Shoot first and ask questions later, if at all, is not a good approach.++Lar: t/c 15:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question; What would you say if I went and sanctioned an editor off my own back without it even coming to the enforcements page? I'm content to let discussion run a bit when it comes here (not 48 hours as a minimum though), but if administrators see disruptive behaviour worth sanctioning, then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to impose sanctions. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I implied this answer already... if you acted against an editor in ways that are not normal (not run of the mill blocking for edit warring or whatever) but that are contemplated by the regime in place here, (that is, they would be enabled once defense offered, consensus had been achieved, and so forth) and you did it rogue, on your own, without working the process here first (which is what I think you're saying), I'd take it to AN/I and ask for reversal. If you persisted in the face of consensus that what you were doing was wrong, I'd consider stronger action such as an RfC/U or a recall, or an arbcom case. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Above, Sandstein said "discretionary (i.e., unilateral) sanctions". Discretionary doesn't mean unilateral, it means regulated by one's own discretion or judgment. That means it is up to your judgement when it is appropriate to immediately impose a sanction, verses when discussion would be beneficial first. Use that judgement. Prodego ^talk 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I'm outta here - I'm not investing any more time when you're already making threats of shopping me to ArbCom. The whole point of discretionary sanctions was to give admins more leeway - what your advocating is exactly the same as we had before. Anyway, I know when it's time to leave. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on please, both of you. What is the normal practice with the Obama and Palin article probations? Are you involved with them? I suggest that you should seek to follow the same approaches and standards as with those probations - not least because they've been in place for some time and will already (presumably) have worked through these issues. Plus it would be a good idea anyway to have a consistent approach across the board. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable advice. I think Ryan's misreading or overreacting a bit here, though. Unless he really actually wants carte blanche. Which I don't think he does. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference, these 3 (CC/Obama/SP) are worded mostly the same, with the exception that the CC set has the extra sentence "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." included. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Even without article probation administrators can exercise their discretion in a unilateral way (although a careful admin will ask for discussion or review depending on the circumstances). Article probation is supposed to have more teeth and streamline things, so it would be awkward if the "prior notice" and "after discussion" makes things harder and slower. Our experience with Obama article probation was that most people were okay with the templated notice once they realized that participants on both sides were getting them. In some arbcom-imposed sanctions only administrators were allowed to give notices, and notices were generally a sign that an editor was crossing the line. With Obama probation the notice is supposed to alert all editors new to the page that there are some special rules, so the notices is worded in a friendly way and is explicitly not a claim of bad editing (though in practice, people are a lot quicker to warn an aggressive new editor than a copacetic one). Regarding enforcement, it's pretty clear that an editor must know about article probation before being sanctioned under it. Maybe half or fewer of the actual sanctions came through the article probation path. Others came through AN/I, AIV, 3RR, or an administrator who happened to be watching the page and acted without citing the specific policy. Finally, on the subject of logging, editors who templated each other were pretty good about adding the names to the list of editors on notice. The list of sanctions imposed was compiled by unofficial volunteer clerks (me, mainly) because most administrators were too busy to maintain that page. As a result there were a number of sanctions (I would guess 1/3) that simply didn't get logged there, and a few false positives, e.g. editors who were sanctioned for vandalizing other pages but happened to have also been difficult on the Obama pages. There were one or two cases where people objected to some additions to the list, and some very minor edit warring over that, but in general the keeping of the sanctions log itself was not a major battleground. Climate change probation will probably be a little tougher to enforce because the conflict here is more subtle and involves lots of experienced editors, whereas the vast majority of sanctions under Obama probation were SPAs doing very clearcut things like vandalism, blatant trolling, and sockpuppetry. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Individual vs. article sanctions

Started a separate section for this to avoid muddying other topics.

It has been pointed out that the enacted provisions only provide for individual editor probation/sanctions, not article probation or article 1RR restrictions. As Tony said, above, that is an apparent oversight, and we should correct it, rather than standing on formality and not doing what will help matters. I'm not sure how best to effect such a change (my suggestion is to just "do it" and note that we are but that's me, I'm a descriptivist as far as policy goes) ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to see individual administrators changing the standard rules of editing. If an article needs 1RR, that is something that should be thoroughly discussed here, or possibly at WP:AN, before any action is taken. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am curious, is this and example of changing the standard rules of editing? --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... if we're talking about one admin unilaterally imposing, yes, I agree, not a good idea without more discussion than that. BUT, if we're talking about a more robust discussion/consensus process here (which I advocate, as do you I think), then I think this board can impose such on articles within scope. ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that this page is a good venue to discuss such sanctions. The community at large set this up to handle problems. Anybody interested in editing these articles or administering them is likely to find and watch this page. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If we want admins to have the authority to impose discretionary article-level sanctions, which are not now covered by the probation, we need to get explicit community consensus for it through an open process. If we want article-level sanctions to be imposed after discussion and consensus, we might just as well stick to WP:ANI.  Sandstein  19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously admins are now, as we speak, imposing article-level sanctions, and I'm not convinced that we need further discussion on this. Such sanctions can be appealed to the admin, or here, or via dispute resolution. And more to the point, they're being accepted by editors on the relevant articles because they're seen as sensible steps that are in the interests of Wikipedia and fair to all. On whether this forum is no improvement on WP:ANI, I think it is, so far. There has been far less drama here and the decisions are focussed and progress quickly and without undue fuss. For the future, we also have a permanent, centralized record of the process by which the global warming articles are being tamed. This will be useful as a knowledge resource for other problem areas. --TS 10:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, and that works fine as long as nobody complains. The idea of article-level sanctions is very reasonable, I think, but we really need to get consensus for it first. As an arbitrator in the event of a complaint by a sanctioned editor, I would not be very sympathetic to a few admins deciding on their own, in this relatively quiet corner of Wikipedia, that they have the authority to unilaterally impose general sanctions on editors working in a particular topic. We have seen from the rejection of WP:Discretionary sanctions - which I proposed - that the community does not like this.  Sandstein  17:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that Tony's "accepts" is a bit overstated. I object to rules such as the one I point out above that impose consensus only editing and lock in a particular version of anything that has ever been contested on a given page. I am just not willing to test the resolve of the admin in question because the underlying point that precipitated the restriction is not, generally speaking, worth the risk of a block. When I asked that similar sanctions be applied fairly on other articles I was rejected. The haphazard setting of article level rules is a problem. You almost have to start every conversation on a new page with "so what are the editing rules for this page again?" --GoRight (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What you see as haphazard I see as administrator discretion with reference to the editing conditions and available resources. To insist on exactly the same article-level restrictions on all articles covered by the probation seems unnecessary; ideally, only those on which edit warring has happened very recently and would otherwise be likely to resume should be considered for this restriction. --TS 09:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection: Global cooling

We don't have a place to ask uninvolved admins to look at edit wars with a view to protection or other action to quell them.

The reason I raise this is because we now have on Global cooling what must be the lamest edit war ever: over the inclusion of a section containing only a title and a {{section-stub}} template. Perhaps just a calming word on talk will do. --TS 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We already have a long talk section; in fact we have the same thing, several times over. TML just doesn't like the answers William M. Connolley (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of places to ask: WP:ANI, WP:RPP, WP:GS/CC/RE, etc. I'll take a look at it.  Sandstein  17:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't seem to have a formal way to ask on the latter page. The only template we seem to have is for behavioral stuff concerning a single editor. --TS 17:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

TS, just because there is a template for editor sanctions does not mean that editors may not open threads the normal way.  Sandstein  17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I don't know whether I may do something as an admin in a dispute that involves William M. Connolley, since I have made content edits to the article about him, William Connolley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Best to ask somebody else, unless Mr Connolley does not mind my taking action.  Sandstein  17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The dreaded cornflake of interest strikes again. --TS 17:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fairly safe to assume that S doesn't know much about me, or he wouldn't have written the above. User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats refers William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I considered protecting it last night, but decided that the edit history was better described as one new editor making occasional undiscussed changes + one editor aware of the probation frustrated by long talkpage conversations. I offered the latter advice at the time and warned them for 3RR just now, which has some hope of restoring a normal editing environment without protection. And TS - so far as I am concerned that is a perfectly acceptable and even praiseworthy use of this board. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you've seen [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the solution to that problem is confidence building. We're all too quick with the accusations and the snide comments, too slow to trust, and that's what turns controversial editing situations into arbitration cases. --TS 23:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, again

GoRight was unblocked with some kind of promise to be good; I forget the exact wording, but good he isn't being. He is now indulging in wikilawyering again over a photo he doesn't like [4] (also elsewhere on that page) and edit warring the pic out [5] (oops, and another revert since I filed this [6]) while claiming a spurious BLP exemption William M. Connolley (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The image in question comes from a clearly WP:SPS (i.e. it was uploaded by some random individual to Flickr). Flickr exercises no editorial control over the content uploaded, nor does it have a reputation for fact checking such things. As such it clearly fails WP:BLPSPS. Since there is no way to verify that this actually IS a photograph of Monckton (as opposed to some imposter), or that it has not been manipulated in some way so as to disparage and denigrate the man with an clearly unflattering image, I claim that it is obvious that this image violates WP:BLPSPS and as such is a clear violation of WP:BLP and it must be removed immediately. --GoRight (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole parcel of pictures in that group on flickr:

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/matmcdermott/tags/lordmonckton/

They're obviously of Monckton and some of them are nicer than the one GoRight doesn't like. GoRight, do you see any of those as acceptable? --TS 00:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a matter of whether I like them or not. It is not a matter of whether this truly is Monckton, or not. These ALL would be absolutely clear violations of WP:BLPSPS and therefore a violation of WP:BLP which requires violations of that policy be removed immediately. As such the issue is non-negotiable. --GoRight (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that I have reported this matter to ANI. See [7]. --GoRight (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, I agree the photo is not flattering, but it seems pretty clear that it is Monckton, and that it has not been altered in any significant way. It's not a BLP violation; it's just a poor photo that we should try to replace. I think you should self-rv and stop this fight. There are many more significant things to focus on. ATren (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is or is not Monckton is irrelevant here. Whether it has or has not be manipulated is irrelevant here. Neither of these are for us to determine per WP:RS. WP:BLP requires only the most reliable sources be used on WP:BLPs and images uploaded by random people onto a photo hosting service fail that test miserably. That's all I have to say here. I intend to keep enforcing the WP:BLPSPS restrictions, per the WP:BLP mandate that violations be removed immediately and without regard to WP:3RR until such time as this ANI makes a final determination on this matter. --GoRight (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting take on matters. Did you know that our policy on images of living people is to encourage sourcing from flickr and the like? --TS 00:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is true then it needs to be reconciled with WP:BLPSPS because as it is written now WP:BLPSPS does not allow for this. To quote:

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)."

Emphasis is mine. This seems clearly unambiguous. Please take any further discussion to the ANI page. I shall not respond here further. --GoRight (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Really, GoRight, I'm at a loss here. Claiming BLP on a photo is something I've never seen. Maybe if there were obvious signs of manipulation or something like that, you might have a point, but this is just completely unsupportable. The image is not good, but it's not a violation of anything. ATren (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of SPS as quoted above is unambiguous and it clearly covers images. Flickr is not a back door for including disparaging material into BLPs. If I am wrong I am sure that I will hear about it. Either way I seek to have neutral parties at ANI to make the determination. I shall abide by any community consensus that is reached at that venue. --GoRight (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a crap photo--really we could do better, even from the others in the same batch at flickr. There are one or two showing him in profile, and with a suitable bit of blow-up-and-crop, we'd have a decent picture. I don't really see that this would answer GoRight's concerns as expressed, but maybe a compromise could be reached. --TS 01:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for finding an alternative image. Another editor has already offered to look for one. But GoRight's claim of BLP is just facetious. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Or factitious. --TS 01:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps fictitious would be closer to the mark. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think using an image from Flickr raises BLP issues, particularly when there's no dispute that it is an image of Monckton, but any time there are three or four CC-licensed images available, and someone deliberately or otherwise selects the least-flattering of them, an editorial decision has occurred. Something is being said about the subject, BLP is definitely in play, and it's reasonable to ask about that person's motivation. Thparkth (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not what GoRight is claiming. He is claiming that a pic from Flickr violates WP:BLPSPS. I'm going to suggest that GoRight doesn't like the photo and that he is wikilawyering to get it removed by straining the interpretation of wikipedia policies beyond any reasonable interpretation. I'm going to suggest that this is exactly what got him blocked the last time. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked the photographer to allow us to use his images under a free content licence, and he agreed to release that one. That's all there is to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, I see now that all the other images of Monckton in that pool are, though CC-licensed, no-commercial and no-derivative. Still though, that just means the editorial decision has been taken by the photographer (who was apparently protesting against Monckton and so hardly neutral) rather than a Wikipedia editor. Thparkth (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't actually need a photo right now. We could wait until a more suitable one becomes available. Just a thought. --TS 02:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't object to finding a better image. But it's exasperating to find us, yet again, chasing our tails because of GoRight's incessant wikilawyering. This has to stop. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that my good friend ChrisO intends this statement in a pejorative sense of the term "wikilawyering". As such, I would again ask him to review WP:NPA for a third time. --GoRight (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I see this discussion has derailed into a discussion of the photo, which should be on the article talk page. You miss the point: the issue is GR breaking his unblock conditions by editwarring and wikilawyering William M. Connolley (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would file this under "testing the limits." Not promising, but not actionable at this point. --TS 11:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: "Use the correct venue for these complaints, please. This talk page is not for complaining about other editors." [8]

Talk:Global warming#FAQ A22 edit war

Would someone else mind closing that section and editing the FAQ appropriately? The discussion seems to pretty much have exhausted itself, but I am afraid I have an opinion. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dismiss the three pending cases

I propose that the two three pending cases (one of which was opened by me) be dismissed. They've all stalled and nobody seems to think further action is merited. Holding them open in these particular circumstances is unnecessary. --TS 18:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some uninvolved admins come in and actually look at these cases, closing them if that is the appropriate action William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware of these edits

Content disputes should be handled on the talk page of an article: Talk:Criticism of IPCC AR4. Address the content and not the editor.

I'm not raising a request for enforcement at this time, but I would ask admins frequenting these parts to keep a close eye on Criticism of IPCC AR4 and in particular edits made by User:William M. Connolley including those of early January. The initial edit is extremely POV, and probably constitutes OR to boot (per talk page there). Furthermore, blatant factual inaccuracies (IPCC criteria for non-peer-reviewed material, contradicts cited material) are included to support the POV. (for the record: I am not philosophically opposed to WMC on climate issues) ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I think Jay,ax is going to look very silly here. His claim of blatant factual inaccuracies is, itself, blatantly factually inaccurate William M. Connolley (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC) My search of the relevant documents initially turned up the exact same thing as Jay has commented on. I used the "site:" command in Google searching for "peer" at www.IPCC.ch and my first find was at page 10 of IPCC Meetings Session 28: "The credibility of the IPCC reports is based on the fact that they summarize and integrate existing research, which itself has been scrutinized through publication in peer-review journals." Now, I recognise that WMC is correct and other parts of ipcc documentation say that peer-review is not necessary to put material into the IPCC report, but with this much confusion and contradiction all round it would be nice if sober heads were worn by everyone. I am not philosophically opposed to WMC on climate issues either, but I do have serious concerns about the article and others in the same suite. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing Talk manners

I reverted a Collapsed talk here [9], [10]. While collapsing can be beneficial in some instances to keep discussions on topic, like any other tool, it can be abused to prematurely shut down discussion and obscure the talk with a spin (possible disruptively). I've looked for guidance for appropriate collapsing; however, there's little available ... is there any? I guess collapsing (and archive boxing) are primarily a notice board process, which has carried over to talk pages. Seems like most folks will not dispute reverted collapses on talk pages, while administrative notice board actions have higher formalities for "incident closure". Article talk is somewhat different from incident closure because the remedies differ for NPOV content v.s. admin actions on users. Would folks agree, that if collapsing or archiving talk is abused ... this could be a basis for an enforcement request? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. You edit comment isn't even close to acceptable: rvt disruptive close is pointlessly provocative William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify the point ... It was to prevent a disruption to talk that was progressing productively. Can you (WMC) accept that closing without talk or motion (and second) can be disruptive? What would be an acceptable reason to reopen the discussion? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is pointless. Your edit comment *asserting* that the collapse was disruptive was itself disruptive. However, if you want to witter on in that thread a bit longer it will do no more than waste a few electrons and clutter up the talk page pointlessly; I don't think anyone of moment is going to bother talk there much. We can let it die it's obvious natural death and bury it later William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me invite you for faith in the point that article can make it to peer review quality. I agree reverts in themselves can be disruptive; however, here ... peaceful talk has prevailed. Now this talk thread (before disruption) was about abusing the collapses ... would you agree this tool could be abused? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue what you mean by "article can make it to peer review quality". It looks like gobbledegook to me. The article is already WP:FA which is wiki's highest standard. Any tool can be abused; I haven't abused it; you have acted disruptively by pointlessly aggressive reverts and edit summaries. This discussion here appears to be pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Take it as a warning on a talk page, since I am not invited to yours. (FA was nearly 4 years ago, and the article talk page take tag invites improvements, unlike you have.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Zulu, whenever you feel a discussion is prematurely collapsed, just revert it with a neutral edit summary and leave a note on the collapsing editor's talk page. If he/she refuses to stop collapsing talk page discussions that you want to keep open, report it to this board for admin review and possible action. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To Zulu and to Atren, whose comment seems to have been removed, and I don't really have the energy to figure out why: please do keep in mind that there is the question of how things should be, and then the question of what can be done in the environment that exists. As things are, you may be right that it's damned if you do and damned if you don't in certain respects. Nevertheless, one of the worst things someone can do is to make unfocused complaints, as these have almost exclusively the effect of giving the impression that a.) you are too emotionally involved, and thus likely at least part of any problem, and b.) you are not willing or able to focus on specific issues at hand. Unfocused complaints, meaning complaints that are not made specifically in dispute resolution with hard evidence to back up clear violations of community standards, are really one of the worst things editors can do to themselves. Which leads to the correllary, that unless you are making focused complaints in dispute resolution, then you should really be making every possible effort to work in good faith with other editors, completely untainted by any concerns you have aboout their conduct. Is it easy? Certainly not, but that is pretty much the way Wikipedia works, when it works. One aspect that can be impressive is that if you do this, you will often find that people start working much more cooperatively so that the complaints become unnecessary. Optimistically this is because you've succesfully created a good faith environment. Cynically it's because you're no longer providing cover for obstruction. Doesn't really matter in the end. Apologies if this sound like a lecture; obviously it's just one editor's view, provided to any extent you find it helpful. Mackan79 (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mackan, I am not emotionally involved whatsoever. I really don't care about this issue. What I do care about is the rampant double standard that is not only accepted but seemingly encouraged when dealing with editors in this topic. I care about the mockery that Wikipedia is becoming as a result of the unapologetic POV pushing on these articles. When JPatterson makes TWO edits to the Email Hacking article, he is article-banned for a whole month; when WMC disruptively removes talk page comments and calls other editors a "waste of time", he not only gets a pass, but editors who report him are reprimanded. That's ridiculous.

And, yes, I am starting the process of building evidence. See User:ATren/sandbox. But collecting such evidence takes time, and it shouldn't have to be this way. This isn't Conservapedia, no matter how hard some editors try to make it so. ATren (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mckan79, I agree with you. I presume you are talking about these [11], [12], [13], [14] removals (3RR are these)? Anyway, I've expressed my intent to improve the enforcements by talking here [15], which seems to be aligned with your comments. I have yet to file a complaint here becasue the process seems shaky to me nor the the action progressing with accepted warning. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why has the "Griefing" section not been removed as an attack?

Okay from reading the essay I gather that it describes a certain mode of disruptive activity on Wikipedia. That being so, why isn't this matter being raised, with diffs, on the project page? As it stands, it appears to of to be there solely to act as cover for a personal attack on an individual who, although he is not explicitly named, is clearly identifiable. So again,why has this attack not been removed? --Tasty monster 18:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've (re)done it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Eyes needed?

Ok, so I reaaaaalllly don't want do a request for enforcement. Seen some heads roll for doing just that. BUT, could someone please take a look at this talk page section and review the behavior? Arkon (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This has also been discussed at User talk:2over0#User:Jpat34721. I've asked Jpat to desist from reopening settled questions (see User talk:Jpat34721#Unbanned from Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident). Unfortunately he seems to have rather unwisely reignited a dispute that would have been better left alone. I should add that I've not otherwise been involved in this latest dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, it was the behavior of Hipocrite (the reporting user in the thread you mention) that prompted this from me, but I welcome any and all eyes. Certainly couldn't hurt. Arkon (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rules of the game

Some admin attention is needed to stop the nonsense on the project page from degenerating further.

However, I'd like one specific point cleared up: is off-wiki evidence permitted? If it is, then I think some people who post on WR and misc blogs are going to look very silly. If it isn't, then can an admin go in and strike all the material related to off-wiki posts William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally not, as behaviour off-site is largely irrelevant. Further, we do not want to unfairly disadvantage people who choose to use the same identity here and elsewhere. For instance, I do not blog as "2over0", so nobody would be able to bring conflict of interest or pov-pushing charges for my off-wiki statements that people who claim violations of the second law of thermodynamics are deluded, engaged in fraud, or both. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think if person X posts here saying "see what I said at my blog" as a response to someone, it is perfectly valid to treat that as if person X said it here... that is, the offwiki exception doesn't apply. You don't get to say nasty things elsewhere, point to them with a link, and then say "neener neener, that wasn't said here so you can't touch me". We've had some of that, I think, and it's Not On. ++Lar: t/c 05:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So it's perfectly fine for someone to give others a slagging on an external site as long as they make a pretense of civility here? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that it's perfectly fine or not, but that's not at all what I said. Please review it and let me know how to make it clearer... what i said was that you shouldn't say stuff elsewhere you are not comfy saying here and link to it and then claim it doesn't count because you didn't say it here. That's dirty pool. And unless I'm much mistaken, it's a tactic WMC has used more than once. Or so his detractors claim. I think they even gave links. Clear yet or do I need to try again? ++Lar: t/c 05:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So then the crux of the objection is not that he said it, but that he linked to it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The crux of the objection is neither of those things, actually. It's that he is apparently trying to avoid being judged for what he said by saying it wasn't said here. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lar that in that case the linking editor would effectively be making the statements here. Exhorting or organizing misbehavior here might also be an exception, depending on the circumstances; EEML might be relevant. Generally, while we can try to require it here, I think expecting civil rational discussion everywhere online has been a lost cause since at least 31Sept. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can see that. It bothers me when certain so-called "respected admins and content contributors" give people a reaming in offsite forums and then dissimulate here. I accept that we can't outlaw hypocrisy, though I still don't like it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking over, I *think* all the off-site diffs refer to the complain which was closed no-action. If that is so, and none of the diffs concern the currently open report, can you confirm that none of those off-site diffs are being taken into account in formulating teh current close? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For my part, the external links were not considered. They are, quite simply, irrelevant to this case. I am not sure they need to be removed, though, as I think this board needs to be fairly open in terms of allowing evidence and would not like to set a precedent. I will defer to the judgment of others in this instance. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think folk should stop linking to their own remarks unless they're willing to stand behind the remarks (in both content and tone) as if they had been written here. I'm not so sure what's confusing about that view although SBHB seems to be trying to spin it around to complain about people having views that they articulate offsite, period... or maybe it's only people having views that conflict with his, or something. I can't speak for anyone else but if I say something, and it's a serious comment, not a jocular remark, I'm willing to stand behind it, because if I wasn't, I wouldn't have said it. You won't ever see me saying "you can't hold me to what I said because I said it somewhere else". ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If they aren't being considered in 2/0's close that will do. @Lar: consistency William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Feel free to explain further (here, or stop by my talk if you like) ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruption by CoM

I draw your attention to the disruptive and distinctly non-consensual page move by CoM Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#Article_move. If he won't learn to behave (and he doesn't seem to be in the least repentant) sancitons will be required William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)^{[Inappropriate under WP:TPG - The front page is the place for this.]}

Please move this to the talk page for discussion, or else contact the user in question (Child of midnight? I'm guessing because I don't speak acronymese) and tell him of your concerns. Dispute resolution, you see. --TS 22:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The article has been move-protected now, so this is probably moot for the moment. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

CoM has not heeded the message of his recent RfC - well summarised by the closing administrator - and seems to be targeting WMC because of some old grudge. He might end up with a lengthy block. Mathsci (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why has this not been removed? We were clearly told this page is not to discuss other editors. I tagged it. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of action on open enforcement requests

It seems that the 2 existing complaints against WMC are not being handled. Should we ask for uninvolved admin input on AN/I? ATren (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Working on it, thanks. I think the giant refactoring thread may need to be added to the main probation page, as this seems to be a recurring issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about this, Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Collapsing_Talk_manners .... I'll be happy to move it up front. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That one informs the discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Edit war at Talk:Global warming, which might lead to some advice for talkpage discussions being added to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation itself. Given how often this issue comes up, it could be useful to have some more specific guidance than the talk page guidelines. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Divisive bickering

I think this needs to be raised. Recent filings and responses to them on this page have taken a sadly all-too-predictable partisan path, with people apparently taking sides in the same way we've seen on the talk pages, sparring for advantage, which itself led to this probation.

I don't yet propose action, but I want to give uninvolved admins a chance to remind everyone involved in this page that it isn't to be used as a weapon in trench warfare. If that's all that's going to happen, then on balance it will have become another locus of the ongoing problem and, in my opinion, we'd be better off just tossing it back to the Arbitration Committee. If editors are going to engage in that kind of bickering they might as well do so under the noses of arbitrators who have rather less patience with nonsense than the average administrator. --TS 00:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate what Tony says above. In a case like this, the winner is the first side to stop rising to the provocations of the other. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Usually the diffs say it all (like sources) and the editors bring in a NPOV. I'll agree there is a elephant in the room folks seem to ignore. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be cryptic. Name the elephant. I certainly don't know what you're referring to. --TS 01:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dumbo. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nellie? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

LHVU? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm/silliness aside (how is it helpful, guys?) I suspect ZP is alleging the elephant is WMC (and/or the allegations of control of this area by WMC (and allies?) that have been raised), but I could be wrong. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you are right Lar, @ WMC Why would LHVU be an elephant? nellie and dumbo i get, not lhvu :) mark nutley (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon! It is a small "v", with the rest capitalised... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Locking of articles for edit warring

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Lawrence Solomon

Recently two climate change probation articles have been locked with the reason cited as edit warring, I spoke to the two administrators involved and noted to them that the articles were under probation and that I thought that considering the probation on the articles that if they were in need of locking, full protection for edit warring then they a report should be made as regards the editors involved as edit warring and article protection are two of the main issues that the probation was created to stop. Here on the 24th the article Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was locked for edit warring by admin User_talk:JForget . The admin User_talk:2over0 also locked Lawrence Solomon another climate change article on th 22nd January for edit warring here . I have asked both admins about the fact that locking articles under probation is worthy of a report here and I have requested this of both administrators here . Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you indicate which two articles you're referring to, and for convenience point to the discussions with the admins? --TS 01:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for any other articles, but I think it was improper to semi-protect Talk:Global Warming. Ips and new editors can't even leave a suggestion to improve the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was locked because of relentless edit warring by IPs. Which you did nothing to help stop William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's credibility and the need for public support

I'm a former Wikipedia editor with about 2,000 edits, almost all of them copy edits that improved articles. I don't have 16 hours a day to learn Wikipedia policy to the point of becoming a Wiki lawyer like Sidaway and Connelley, who use the rules to maintain their personal hold on some articles and shut down anything and anyone that they don't want to hear. When that fails them, they indulge in insult, tag-team and arbitrarily decide what constitutes reliable sources. In the case of climate change articles, they try to create the idea they have raised the standard of "reliable" to that of peer-reviewed. I read the CRU e-mails dealing with manipulating editorial personnel on journals and discussing article referees I hold a PhD in History, and I can tell lousy scholarship and peer review manipulation when I see it. As well, the wheels have already come off the claim that the IPCC is a sort of peer-reviewed Gospel. The Himalayan glaciers claims are not a small part of the report. They are actually cited in the Nobel Prize citation to IPCC and Gore. Now we are seeing citations in the IPCC report to WWF and Greenpeace documents, and the head of IPCC is under pressure to resign. I hardly call that "settled science." In fact, I call settled science "religion", and believe that people who try to enforce religious dogma on others to be anti-scholarship. So I'm gone. People like this have moved Wikipedia from an encyclopedia written and edited by ordinary people to one that is controlled by a cadre of full-time agenda-pushers. People aren't stupid (despite WC's insults to the contrary). Wikipedia depends on public contributions of money and effort, and its credibility rests on the idea that it's collective wisdom. Wikipedia is in trouble.69.165.150.81 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nobel Peace citation reads, in full, "The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." No glaciers there, Himalayan or others. Retreating glaciers are mentioned in the presentation speech, in general terms that are not affected by the detected error.[16] --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you are one of Connelley's defenders and tag-team partners. "The detected error" is a claim, now refuted, based on a non-scientific claim by a conservation group, laundered through various press, that the Himalayan glaciers that provide water to some 40% of the people of the world would be gone by 2035 because of man-made global warming. The government of India, using real science, has proven that this claim is bunk. This is not a clerical error. It is sloppy science, facts deliberately chosen from dubious sources. And, of course, the crux of my argument is ignored, one item is pulled out and addressed in a rather dubious and tricky way, and the agenda-pushing goes on.

And here's the presentation quote: "The ice is melting more rapidly in the Arctic, the desert is spreading more quickly in Africa, the glaciers are shrinking in the Himalayas." It doesn't say "some" or "a few" or "many". Any reasonable person can see exactly what they are talking about: the now-debunked IPCC claim, based on a WWF publication and a New Scientist quote from a scientist who now says he was misquoted, debunked by his own government's top glacier scientists, that the Himalayan glaciers are disappearing.

When it's the IPCC report, it's a "detected error." When it's a failing by people who argue that the science does not seem settled at all, these people are "ignorant," "septic," etc. I see no one cares that people like me are leaving Wikipedia. I doubt many of the agenda-pushers really care about the project. 69.165.150.81 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a place to seek probation enforcement, not a soap box. Nor is it a place to accuse Wikipedians of good standing of being "tag-team partners". Modify your approach or find yourself the subject of an enforcement request. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He has the right to put his point across, try to be civil and not just throw threats at people. mark nutley (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? The IP just used this enforcement request page as a soap box and to make bad faith comments about other editors. Nobody has "the right" to use this page for that sort of thing. That's totally unacceptable, and even actionable. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of our new colleagues have strange ideas about their 'rights' on Wikipedia. I've also seen people claiming their right to 'post' their views onto Talk pages and of course to add them to the articles too. --Nigelj (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually when he first posted it was up above, in an enforcement section were he had every right to say his piece as you have done and i have done on several of these enforcment actions. I don`t know who moved it to it`s own section but it certainly started off in the right place. So yes he does have the right, he also has the right not be be threatened by you for speaking his mind. mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong about the section being moved (see the History) and what you say about "rights". -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong [17] Response from Kenosis: my views --mark nutley (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP posted these comments here themselves. Whether or not they existed before is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Appeals

Whats the best way to appeal the enforcement cases here? I assume first to talk with the closer, after that where should it go ... to ANI? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure you will get a lot of sympathy at ANI unless it is on grounds of something flagrant. The probation terms give a pretty strong position to the admin who closes a decision, basically to allow argmuments to stop so we can move on. --BozMo talk 22:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok for flagrant cases. Maybe appeals are possible after a concerning pattern of closure? I guess ArbCom might hear something, if it were discussed here first. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess yes, it would have to be arbcom. I can never tell what they will take as cases but in general again everything in probation is intentionally stacked towards shutting down discussion which is not about improving the articles. The fact that some people want to carry on arguing does not distract from the process here; that someone flags a probation violation and an uninvolved admin closes the discussion as soon as all is clear to them. The pages are not for any other purpose, and not for everyone to express their view on everything anyone else has done. To explain further, underlying this IMHO is that it has been impossible in general to discuss reasonable improvments to the Climate change articles on talk pages for a very long time because there is too much argument about shifting positions. The articles have ended up in places unclear and personally I think the bios are not respectful enough of living people. But I watch the argument always deteriorate into partisan sides. --BozMo talk 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, by being "stacked towards shutting down discussions" then probation would lend itself to Wikipedia:WRONG. Thanks ... seems like the productive thing to do, is all to work together and have probation lifted. Its not clear when this will happen, seems like maybe after a round robin of enforcements, and the really bad actors self select themselves out. This probation may go on for months. Too bad for Wikipedia. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few probations that go back years. I'm certain this will end up being one of them. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Closing the Probation

Seems early now, but as a side, it would be good to frame some goals for when to achieve closing this probation. Say maybe when enforcements complains stop occurring for some period, maybe? Or, maybe something else? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we'll know it when we see it. From the Obama article, editors weren't too eager to lift probation even after a period of a few months without any major cases. But I wouldn't place any bets on this subject becoming less contentious anytime soon on or off Wikipedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This has to stop

These quick "article bans", "topic bans", and all that on the anti-AGW crowd, while quickly proposing "Close as no action" on blatant civility violations by WMC. This one-sided enforcement has to stop immediately. UnitAnode 16:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Given what's been done to Gavin Collins, this probation is being shown to be almost entirely one-sided. It has to stop, or we need to take this to the arbitration committee for clarification. UnitAnode 19:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Commentary from others

I wonder if people are taking account of the quality of actual article-space contributions. That would explain quite a lot William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Casting aspersions on people's work probably isn't the best plan for you right now. UnitAnode 17:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You must understand that topic bans will always be more likely applied to editors who adopt a non-neutral approach to editing Wikipedia. Editors who do not subscribe to the overwhelming scientific consensus and evidence saying that humanity has played a significant role in recent global warming are adopting a minority (perhaps even fringe) position. Continued attempts to push this minority point of view into articles related to global warming and climate change without respecting the neutral point of view are disruptive. Furthermore, these actions are intensely frustrating to the editors who support the majority (and frankly, neutral) position. The result of these frustrations can be incidents involving incivility. WMC is very familiar with both the subject and the science in this topic, so it is understandable that he would be particularly frustrated by the activities of those pushing the minority agenda. He is, therefore, more easily provoked into making the odd comment that offends. He has been warned about this behavior, and if he doesn't do better to curb this sort of thing he will doubtless have his ass kicked. But the provocation and POV-pushing is a serious problem that must be stopped. Proponents of minority positions that deny science must not be allowed to use Wikipedia as their propaganda tool. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, suggesting that fringe applies to "Editors who do not subscribe to the overwhelming scientific consensus and evidence saying that humanity has played a significant role in recent global warming are adopting a minority ... position" is the type of unreasonable POV that is contributing adversity to these disputes. I suggest you reconsider. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You may think whatever you please, but these are the undeniable facts. There are editors trying to push a fringe view, and this frustrates neutral editors. It is similar to the problem at Barack Obama that was, for a while, the target of Birthers. My feeling is that there would be a lot less incivility and edit warring if Wikipedia didn't have to deal with fringe types. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to highlight this post for whoever it was that claimed that no one had brought the Truthers or Birthers into the discussion. I knew I'd seen people do it before, and here's an immediate example. UnitAnode 18:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an apt analogy. This topic attracts all sorts of fringe types. Just a few moments ago, a Truther posted on the CRU hacking article, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Minority positions that deny science" is just a blatant mischaracterization of the problem here. And please let one of the administrators who keeps shuffling off the WMC complaints as "no action" respond. I think everyone is well-aware of your position, Scjessey. UnitAnode 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  And what is that supposed to mean? My position is that Wikipedia must remain neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  It means that you are blatantly mischaracterizing your opponents' position. It also means that you've many times jumped into content disputes on the pro-AGW/they're-just-harassing-WMC side of discussions. UnitAnode 18:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Minority positions that deny science is actually the exact problem. I think everyone is well-aware of your position - yes, and you are fairly predicatbale as well William M. Connolley (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  "Predicatbale" only in that I'm very tired of your attacks on good-faith editors, and want to see something done about it. UnitAnode 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  Scjessy, science does not run on consensus, politics does. The evidence of AGW is dubious at best as seen by the code released from CRU. To say that those who deny AGW are in a minority is not even remotely accurate, thousands of scientists say AGW is not real, yes climate changes it always does, weather man has anything to do with it is not proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  LOL is that what you really think? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with Unitanode, the "minority position" discussion belongs elsewhere, not here, and propose to tag or remove if it continues. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you would say that. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on editors. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey on this. I've been around here for a while and have viewed the incessant pushing he speaks of. The so-called s(c/k)eptics have been trying every trick in the book to push their views and distort the reality of anthropogenic global warming and the scientific consensus that has developed. That consensus and the evidence it's based on is even stronger now than when I first hit it five plus years ago. WMC and others have been tirelessly keeping the Wiki articles covering the science of global warming on track and based on the science. Back in Oct. 2004 I made my first Randy in Boise edit to greenhouse gas article, something about water vapor... Anyway, guess who promptly reverted the edit ... yeah him. What was my reaction? As a newby, I first said what??? then backed of and evaluated. I was wrong with my edit due to simply not knowing the details - so I brushed up on the science of global warming and joined WMC and others in debating the fringe view pushers in the climate wars of spring 2005. Quite a switch, considering my background in geology (even worked for an oil company at one time). Now, five years later it's the same old song. Newbies read some blog, listen to a ****-wing radio talk show, read some news reporter's blurb ... and becomes an instant authority pushing the anti-science fringe view. And it gets most tiresome. I can excuse those Randys, but their edits must be corrected. And there is a deeper problem ... that of scibaby and others purposely promoting denialism. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. This is not Conservapedia or the Urban Dictionary, people do not have the 'right' to put their ill-informed or badly motivated opinions onto the pages. Stopping them doing so, at the same time as reviewing all the new science and commentary as it comes out, and so keeping the articles up to date, is hard work. People with a one-note drum or a one-string fiddle cannot be given the same 'rights' as those who actually know what they're talking about. --Nigelj (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I see now, some are more equal than others, four legs good and all that nigel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good, perhaps you're beginning to get the idea of WP:WEIGHT – NPOV is not Foxfairandbalanced. . . dave souza, talk 20:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

VSmith, your biased generalizations have little to do with the current situation. Most of the current conflicts are not about the science, but the refusal to document current controversies. The problem is that pro-AGW editors unashamedly push their POV on these pages and refuse to consider even the slightest deviation from the way they wish to see this material presented. The AGW POV pushers currently own these articles, and the content reflects it. ATren (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest considering that we need constructive suggestions here, not just complaints. Even if complaints are valid, they can't be the end-all. So what is the request? I personally believe that 2/0 is making a good effort to be neutral here, which is to say I don't see him leaning in any direction much more than the general consensus (and I think that lean has some basis in WP:ENCYC). I think he's making a good effort to articulate his standards, which already puts him at about 7 out of my possible 10 points. I have no complaint. I am concerned on the other hand that BozMo has shown too much frutstration with one side, too much camraderie with the other, and for that reason may be adding fuel to the fire. So I'm going to register my view that anyone can comment, but I don't think BozMo should be evaluating these disputes as uninvolved. That's my suggestion, perhaps I'm alone, but I think if others want to improve things they should make theirs. Mackan79 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• My main problem is with 2/0's quick "recommend no action" on the on-going civility problems from WMC, while also supporting a draconian 3-month article ban on the other side of the content issue. UnitAnode 22:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the divide and conquer approach will be more effective. I agree (admittedly just my opinion) that the Gavin Collins sanction is too harsh, that something ought to be done to encourage William M. Connolley to cut back on insulting other editors, and that 2/0 appears to have acted inconsistently. However, linking all three of those issues together makes it triply hard to deal with. Concerns of administrator bias, page ownership, etc., are much harder to resolve than individual issues, particularly on the talk pages where they are said to be occurring. My prescription would be to welcome Gavin Collins back here in a few weeks once he's ready to start fresh, to gather thoughts about William M. Connolley in an RfC or some other structured discussion and then ArbCon if necessary (or has that already been tried?), and to assume the best of 2 / 0. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I think, when boiled down, my concern is actually one-fold: this probation is being applied in an entirely one-sided manner. The multiple underlying issues are merely symptoms of this larger problem. UnitAnode 22:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
      • If you have concerns about 2/0's enforcement actions, then you have a number of options. If you honestly believe that he is consistently adminning in a biased and inappropriate fashion, then you could consider a request for comment to solicit some input from outside the echo chamber. You can take the case to ArbCom. Everyone could make a small personal effort to reduce the level of poisonous, snide, venomous combat on these pages, and then maybe more admins would be willing to spend their volunteer time helping 2/0 referee it. There are potentially a number of ways forward. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• I feel there are two major problems within this range of topics, from what I have seen in my brief participation on these pages. The first is to do with content, and the bitter struggles to include/exorcise content that reflects negatively upon the "established" pov that climate change is backed by reliable science; skeptics wish to promote all content that criticise and diminish pro GW arguments, on the basis that such challenges undermines the fundamental argument for climate change - witness the very recent Himalaya Glacier Melt debate (You published that the glaciers would be gone by 2035! Wrong!! Which means your "science" is wrong!!! Which means global warming is wrong!!!! ADMIT IT IS ALL A LIE!!!!! - and nobody noting the vast amount of unchallenged data that points to the conclusion that glacial retreat appears generally correct), and this is acerbated by the refusal of the pro-GW orientated editors to allow such "controversies" or viewpoints any meaningful inclusion in articles relating to global warming - mistaking the purpose of an encyclopedia to that of a scientific publication (encyclopedia's use science to explain the facts, but also record the controversies and pov's that inform the interest within the subject). Not only are the two parties unable to establish a npov, but they immediately seek to place any third party as within one of the two camps and then reject/advance that viewpoint according to their own interests. As such, the subject remains a battleground. The second problem is the attitude of the two groupings - generally they show little or no respect either for "the other side" nor the conventions of the venue (except where they believe it promotes their "cause"). The incivility, gamesmanship, non-observance of guideline and policy, poor conduct, and - ironic to the point of pain - attempts to have sanctioned those of one side for behaviour they themselves commit remains a serious problem. There is, in my view, little or no appetite to change it, either.
  My opinion is that regardless of whether the editor in question is devoted to The Truth or the truth that the majority of interaction on talkpages by content editors is actionable under WP policy. None of the major players in either camp are reflecting well upon the part of the community they believe they represent; there is harassment, personal attacks, copious bad faith, gamesmanship, sock and meatpuppeting, and overall an atmosphere of poisonous distrust of all but fellow travelers. As I noted, there is not one group that can claim (justifiably, since I am sure they will claim it regardless) that they are only the victim of this abhorrent behaviour. The reasons why this probation was placed upon these group of articles remains abundantly clear - the historical contributors are incapable of creating encyclopedic content without them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I find it rather difficult to follow your reasoning here, you don't seem to be giving due weight to due weight. We should properly show the majority expert view, and also show significant minority expert views where appropriate. As for the Himalayan glacier issue, it's been clear for some time that the IPPC paragraph concerned does not reflect the majority expert view, and the way that this occcurred has recently become a bit clearer. This is properly reflected in the article. Please assume good faith. . dave souza, talk 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it isn't properly reflected in the article and if you had participated in the struggle to actually get that included, and WMC's removal of a section that had been in there since 2005 as some sort of "revenge," then you might have a different point of view. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - LessHeard vanU - I have a list of 7 possible editing problems with these articles here, of which my biggest personal concern is "not written to be informative". You may think censorship is the problem, or perhaps you feel that the root of the problem is the rejection of any discussion of "politics". This latter point has suddently become much more significant now we know how very political the IPCC has been and, perhaps as a corollary, how many serious errors there are in the AR4 document. I'd be grateful if you were prepared to add your name and views to my list. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Responses: Due Weight within an encyclopedia article is a tricky concept - you have to look outside the cold statistics and note what is being discussed. Within the science of climate change, skepticism is a minority so small as to regarded as insignificant by most - however, skepticism drives a lot of the mainstream (non-scientific commentary) and thus needs to be discussed within an encyclopedic article. For instance, the article on the Catholic Church does not exclude everything outside of its history, its hierarchy and the current holders of important offices; it also includes its (alleged) sexual scandals, its viewpoints on contraception in relation to expanding populations, its attitude to homosexuality, the rights of women (and their role in the church), etc., etc. even though these concerns do not reflect directly upon the primary focus of the establishment, nor the vast majority of its work. In short, the encyclopedia should reflect the concerns of the general public with the subject - which concern may not be representative of the viewpoint of that community. My view is that one group wishes to emphasise the concerns, and the points that give rise to those concerns, far in excess on their impact upon the scientific and world viewpoint (because they see that as a means of altering the perception of the science?) while the other group wishes to ignore the public debate as far as possible and concentrate on the scientific community values only in an apparent effort to diminish the impact of the public debate and thus its ability to deflect the message of that community. Neither of these editors are inclined to give sufficient ground to the other pov that a neutral article might be. So that is my problem with Due Weight in these articles, neither party is prepared to accept the others determination and neither are they interested in how third parties - no matter how patiently they explain the problem - may suggest a middle way; so determined are they that the others side arguments are minimalised.

(@MalcomMacDonald)I will take a look at the 7 points, and comment if I think I can add anything useful. However, my views on the subject are not as important or useful, I believe, as my efforts to try and enforce good practices and compliancy with policies, guidelines and probations so that the existing editors can produce a group of articles that are accurate, informative, and encompass the entire debate relating to the subject. If the existing editors are incapable of writing those pieces, because they are too entrenched in their WP:BATTLE mindsets, then perhaps there needs to be fresh input from other article writers who should be kept free from being influenced by the "bad old pov warriors". Most of the data is already here, after all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that thoughtful response, LessHeard vanU. I think we're in agreement that when dealing with the science of global warming, due weight is given to the majority view that anthropogenic global warming is occurring to a significant and serious extent. Minority views should also be shown where applicable: the nuances of various positions tend to get lost in the polarised political debate. Thus scientists introducing new views are having to be explicit that these don't overturn the general consensus. In dealing with social and political controversies, we should be clear about the majority scientific view, and really should base the article on third party sources describing these controversies. The difficulties I'm seeing are that most sources are engaging in the debates, and some editors seem to feel strongly that the views in these debates overturn the science. As for dealing with these controversies, there are articles devoted to them, and a concise summary style section is included in the main article about the science. Not dissimilar to, say, evolution. We should certainly cover the concerns of the general public with the subject, presenting the majority and minority scientific views of these concerns proportionately. We should also cover the political and economic influences raising these concerns. What we need is sources, as ever. . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that pretty much sums it up; the science generally holds up the argument that human activity derived climate change is occurring, but the readership comes to the article from many different viewpoints and it is not enough to deny skepticism as anything more than a fringe view - as it does get much more public airing than its premises might suggest - unworthy of consideration within the article. There are as many RS available for the fact that some are skeptical toward the concept as there is a paucity of good science references to evidence that viewpoint; we can source the science, and we can source the counter arguments - it should be easy to find a middle way to encompass both, no? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, but then the pertinent question becomes: Isn't this already done? We have a myriad of articles on climate change, and iirc there isn't a single tiny-minority opinion that isn't described somewhere on the relevant article about that opinion. True fringe views aren't, that is correct. Perhaps they should be, but the question is where and how.

The major problem (imho) is not the lack of description or mention, but rather that some editors insist on putting information into articles where it is completely out of focus, and extremely undue weight. (goes for both "hoxers" and "catastrophists" [note: general description of two extreme outlier views]). A minority view on the carbon cycle, which is an integral part of the basis for the science about climate change, is relevant on the article on the carbon cycle - not on the main Global warming article. A discordant view on mitigation of global warming belongs in the article about Mitigation of global warming not on the main Global warming article etc etc. Global warming is a whole spread of sub-articles of sub-articles, who each get summarized upwards to their respective super-article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

<ec> Easy to find a middle way to encompass both for someone with expertise on the subject, such as WMC, but commonly very difficult to do without synthesis. We can find "skeptic" arguments and put together published science as a counter argument, but publication of such counter arguments tends to be in blogs. While science blogs by expert authors are usable as selfpublished sources, that tends to increase arguments on talk pages. Some editors see such experts as part of the conspiracy to deny denialism, and so untrustworthy. We can hope that more reliable commentary on the issues will be published, but unfortunately much of the press coverage is superficial if not actively misleading. Which, of course, reflects the political dimension of the controversy. . . dave souza, talk 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The science and rationale for the pro GW community is indeed readily available in RS, as compared to the "information" provided by denialists/skeptics - but it appears that there is fairly available sources to the fact there is a vocal minority who criticise the larger community and its interpretation of its science. Noting that, and not commenting upon the imbalance between sourced date on one hand and mostly opinion on the other, seems to me to be a neutral way of evidencing the conflict within the world community - from which links to more specific examples where appropriate. I would be interested in the response of uninvolved third parties to that viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble basically comes from the MSM (unintendedly (i hope)) presenting a False balance picture. When they report on an issue, they will go and find someone who disagrees.. Now that is all fine, as long as we get presented a picture of what the proportional view is for each side (is it 50:50, 80:20, 99:1 ..), but the MSM doesn't present us with such. So the public ends up with an impression that there is a substantial minority viewpoint.[18] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This kind of argument is disruptive, because skepticism is either legitimate or must be treated as legitimate. The UK's chief scientific advisor, professor Beddington just said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. And that's especially relevant to us, writing articles. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>Well Kim, since you like science so much, here is a paper, far newer than the one you just posted, that says the liklihood of publication bias regarding AGW is essentially 100%. Any comments on this? Did you want to add this to the global warming article or shall I? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's written by climate skeptic Patrick Michaels of the conservative Cato Institute, and formerly of the Greening Earth Society that was setup by the coal industry to provide doubt about climate change science. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And the IPCC report was written and promoted by people who stood to make millions from the new carbon credit industry - and the Cato Institute is libertarian. Just sayin'. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you reference that without resorting to blogs and unsubstantiated claims? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course I can, but unlike Scjessey's obvious BLP violation against Patrick Michaels, if I were to name names and provide evidence then I'd be banned for making BLP violations. That double standard again. :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, sorry no BLP violation there. Try reading a bit on Patrick Michaels, everything Scjessey said is verifiable. Note that that isn't an endorsement of him actually saying it, since i normally find it unproductive to go down this particular aisle of debate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> No, Scjessey said he was a plant from the coal industry to cast doubt on AGW. From what I read he publicly stated that he needed money and an energy company collected donations for him. If he was being paid to be a skeptic then it would've happened before he got the money - causality does not work backwards in my universe. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Three problems Thegoodlocust. First of all that it isn't peer-reviewed (E&E is a social science paper - with a rather bad rep. for PR), and thus isn't a good source for science. Secondly you are misrepresenting what the paper is about, it is not on "pro/contra AGW". Thirdly the article doesn't address the same problem as we see in the MSM. It concerns whether new research has a likelihood of lowering or raising expected projections of global warming (ie. AGW is implicitly assumed). The premise that Michaels says should be the baseline - that papers should have equal likelihood, is faulty, since most scientists actually believe that the IPCC is underestimating projections [19], thus there really should be a higher likelihood for raising projections. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you reference that without resorting to blogs and unsubstantiated claims? TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i can. Perhaps you'd want to notice that Hans von Storch & Bray (the info from Die Klimazwiebel) are publishing their survey results; See Energy and Environment for details on the PR status (specifically Boehmers comment); and of course you'd just have to read the paper you linked to assess the rest of my comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second, you are linking a wikipedia article that you are your friends have essentially controlled since its inception? Umm....really? You knew I'd check right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I did a quick google search, and this says that E&E isn't a social science journal - it says it is interdisciplinary, which does include both social and natural sciences. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

@LHVU: There are as many RS available for the fact that some are skeptical toward the concept as there is a paucity of good science references to evidence that viewpoint; we can source the science, and we can source the counter arguments - it should be easy to find a middle way to encompass both, no? - are you looking for global warming controversy? The reasons why this probation was placed upon these group of articles remains abundantly clear - the historical contributors are incapable of creating encyclopedic content without them. - don't believe you; the content *has* been created without them; the probation has left, e.g., the GW itself quite untouched, because no-one has suggested a way to improve it (and the current unrefactorable state of the talk page guarantees that no agreement is possible). and this is acerbated by the refusal of the pro-GW orientated editors to allow such "controversies" or viewpoints any meaningful inclusion in articles relating to global warming - you've missed criticism of the IPCC AR4 then. Other errors abound William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is perhaps the essence of the difficulty in understanding the encyclopedic nature of article presentation to that of the scientific communities perception of the matter - the controversy is a fork of the main article, yet the main article is where those whose awareness of the subject is informed by the knowledge of there being a controversy will turn to. Should there be an article called The science of global warming, so the scientific communities near unanimous viewpoint may be placed without significant opposing viewpoints? I suggest that the major article(s) within the subject need address the controversy (that is, the claim of suppression or inflation of information tending toward a pro GW slant) in far greater, and neutral, detail than it now does because it reflects the general public's perception of the debate.

I am aware of both the global warming controversy and the criticism of the IPCC articles, since coming to these pages. They serve a purpose in detailing aspects of the skeptic/denialist sentiment specific issues with the subject of climate change - they should not be used as a process by which content contrary to the perceived consensus of the scientific community should be solely presented (even if linked to, under a sentence or two from the main article). The general topic article(s) need address both the science and the counter opinions per WP:Due weight of the public's understanding of the issues.

The inflexibility of some of the editors working within the scientific communities consensus of opinion as regards editing these topics is exampled, it seems, by you, WMC. Your failure to countenance the validity that there is a legitimate place within the main articles to address that there is substantial criticism and denial (under whatever basis, no matter how unsound) because it rejects the near totality of your own peer groups determination of the issues does as much drive problems regarding editing issues as does your intemperate and frequently childish resort to belittling other editors and their viewpoints rather than attempting to engage them. As such your opinion upon my efforts, likely based upon your prejudices and lack of confidence in being able to construct effective counter arguments, is irrelevant to the matter of acknowledging that part of the problem is the efforts of editors including yourself have been working against the ethos of consensual, collegiate and npov editing. You might not be able to comprehend the need to inform the public neutrally upon all major aspects of a subject, generally within the main topic, but you could make the effort in recognising that there are those that do, in good faith. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you summarize the above a little more clearly and concisely? It's clear that you don't like WMC (which is hardly news), but I'm having trouble understanding specifically what you want to see in terms of content. Your opening remarks sound like you want us simply to parrot back to the public what they expect to hear, but I doubt that's what you really mean. At least I hope it isn't. 00:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk • contribs)

I don't know WMC, and I don't therefore have an opinion on them as a person. I understand that their real life background is in climate change research, and recognise they are well informed as regards that aspect of the debate. I find WMC's apparent stance (among others who I know even less about, individually) that because GW denial is based upon poor or non existent science then the lack of credibility disallows noting the fact of skepticism within climate change to be in error, and I have serious reservations regarding WMC in particular and some other "pro GW" ability to conduct themselves in the appropriate manner when interacting with editors with a skeptic viewpoint.

No, we don't parrot back the public's perceptions (sourcing it would be a nightmare, anyway); we address it. All of it. The science, and its acceptances and its mistakes, and the skepticism and its reliance (on inexpert) opinion. Notable achievements (the various Protocols adopted) and major errors (2035 Glacial disappearance) should be note neutrally in the body. Make the article reflect the reasons why the majority would wish to read it, a comprehensive review of the issue - not just the science. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you've read Criticism of the IPCC AR4 I'm sure you'll appreciate that the 2035 typo for glacial disappearance was not about the science, but about the IPCC report wrongly using the WWF and the mainstream press as a source without properly following IPPC rules. If it becomes established as a "major error" then it should be covered in Global warming controversy. How much summary style coverage is appropriate in the article about the science should be discussed at Talk:Global warming, but complaints that this hasn't yet been addressed seem a bit premature. . . dave souza, talk 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

One persistent meme of those who currently control these articles has been "too early", when anything critical comes out. UnitAnode 14:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

One persistent meme I've noticed is a tendency for some editors to assume that the Daily Mail is right when it proclaims that an error in a paragraph of a huge scientific/political report overturns the whole of climate science. Perspective can take a little longer, Wikipedia is not news. . . dave souza, talk 14:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

My Simple Take

Much that's been said above is true, but as has been said, the positions of the editors (and their attitudes) won't change because of this probation. Now, what this probation should be doing, at least in my eyes, is getting rid of those that got us here. If there are diffs provided that show that the editor in question isn't following the probation, topic/page ban. The problem becomes that when certain editors are -not- sanctioned for their behavior, others see this as free reign to act the same way themselves. Particularly those on the 'other side'. The current enforcements are just leading to further escalations, and the eventual arbcom case that this was meant to avoid.

Proposed solution: Handle enforcement requests checkmark style. Example: This diff is either civil/uncivil. If the checks end up on the wrong side of probation, topic/page ban. The only way this can work is if there are a set of standards, which is applied equally. This is not currently happening. Arkon (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The checklist approach is a bit too bureaucratic for my taste. I'd prefer stricter enforcement of the probation. In turn the strictness would be ameliorated by escalating rather than initially severe sanctions: say, stern parental warning -> temporary page ban -> topic ban -> block. In this way every infraction would be addressed but people would get to decide where on the sliding scale of enforcement they're willing to see the light. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The checklist approach would instantly select calling other editors "septic" as being out of order. This would avoid having to ban people for saying "but I'm not skeptical", thereby committing a different and even graver crime, that of expressing an opinion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned this on 2/0's talk page, but one thing I am seeing here that I have not seen in other areas, even very contentious areas, is the pattern where editors are banned for expressing a view too many times. This seems to be the assumption here, that if someone keeps saying something, then we just need to get rid of them. I'd note for one thing that it's quite a broad interpretation of ArbCom's ruling, that editors can be sanctioned "for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith." I suppose "disruptive" can mean anything, but I certainly don't see "persistence" listed. I also notice the advice to "Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article." This is being interpreted to say that editors should avoid making repeated comments even if they are directly related to bettering the article, and even where discussion on related matters continues. In the end, I think it creates perverse incentives, particularly to stone wall as far as possible to show a strong consensus against a particular editor, after which that editor can no longer make the argument without risk of being banned. It gives editors little incentive to compromise. Of course I realize that editors get tired of explaining the same point over and over, but I don't believe that banning should immediately be on the table simply because an editor doesn't immediately have success. Certainly ignoring should come before banning, and only if the editor abuses the silence should any other options then be pursued. It's a matter of respecting dissent, but also of angling people toward productive compromise, rather than toward obstructive and confrontational tactics. Mackan79 (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In the Cold Fusion case Arbcom did indeed topic ban an editor for a year for behavior somewhat resembling what you are talking about. Cardamon (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't follow that case, but I doubt it's the type of thing I'm talking about. If the content is plainly unencyclopedic, or the methods are disruptive, then sanctions are appropriate. It isn't even really a type of behavior I have in mind; I'm simply noting that if you get too far from what can fairly be termed "disruptive" conduct into prohibiting the expression of viewpoints, it can make the process too susceptible to gaming that aims to exacerbate conflicts rather than working, out of necessity, to resolve them. Mackan79 (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the issues in the Cold Fusion case were similar, although I suspect your view of them would differ from mine. One of the issues was whether, if there is substantial consensus among scientists about a scientific subject, Wikipedia should write about that subject from the point of view of that consensus. I believe that it should, and that this follows from the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Significant bodies of opinion that differ from the scientific consensus should be written about too; we can do this because Wikipedia is not short of paper, but they don't have the right to be written about from their own points of view. Some debate can often be helpful or even necessary in deciding what to write in article space. However, such debate is just a means to an end, and Wikipedia is not primarily a platform for expressing viewpoints, not that you said it was. There seems to be a considerable degree of consensus among climate scientists that global warming is occurring now, and is largely caused by human activities, so we need to write from that point of view. There is also a significant amount of dissent, which also needs to be written about; we should do so from the consensus point of view, in a neutral tone, without mockery. Cardamon (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all fine, I'm just not sure it speaks to all or most of the disputes that we're seeing. To say that AGW is accepted fact doesn't tell us how to write a BLP about an AGW skeptic. It doesn't tell us how to write an article on Climate change denial, or even whether there should be an article like Scientific opinion on climate change rather than perhaps an article on the science of climate change, and an article on the debate about climate change that discusses various "opinions" (where does opinion fit into the scientific method anyway?). An editor was just banned for pursuing his view on this latter question, where to say that Wikipedia should not promote skepticism of AGW does not really address the issue. The editor doesn't appear to be an "idiot," which strongly suggests to me that something in the process is going wrong. My point is that the questions are often more complex than whether Wikipedia should be pro or anti-AGW. I don't know that I'm disagreeing with you. Mackan79 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to disagree with an aspect of that conclusion, that WP should write from the consensus scientific view, because Wikipedia does not write to be read by that community, but by the general public and WP:NPOV - a Pillar, not just a policy - notes that we should reference everything dispassionately and allow the reader to follow the sources and form their own opinion. Even if the evidence is overwhelmingly (as it seems) for global warming the risks of appearing to be an authority in the matter rather than a compodium of references is that if mistakes are made (even sourced mistakes) then the encyclopedia's reputation falls with it. Appearing as an authorative source also does not gel with being an open editing environment, since not all editors will agree (in good faith) with that viewpoint and the temptation to use that percieved authority to disseminate other facts (such as a classmate being "teh ghay") becomes greater. The scientific consensus should, I feel, certainly guide us but it would be a mistake to simply adopt it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A practical problem is that there isn't a single minority view that can easily be summarized, but a wide range of views that each are held by tiny minorities: one says temperature changes are due to variations in solar flux, another says they're due to cosmic ray fluctuations, another that they're due to mysterious variations in low clouds, another due to variations in ocean circulations, another that Earth's atmosphere doesn't actually have a greenhouse effect, another this, another that. Each of these are tiny-minority views with the possible exception of "natural variability" of unspecified provenance. How do we summarize each of these tiny-minority views without overwhelming the majority viewpoint? In the main GW article we discuss cosmic rays and solar variation because they're the ones that are taken at least semi-seriously by the scientific community (and in fact we give them far and away more weight than in the literature). But what about the other dozen or so tiny-minority views? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. The scientific consensus is a consensus as a result of over a hundred years of research comprising thousands of papers. Most of the minority views have vanishingly small support in the scientific community, as well as being mutually contradictory. As far as public perception is concerned, it is certainly an important topic, but should not inform an article about the actual theory of global warming. I don't think that this contradicts WP:NPOV. Hal peridol (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That "most of the minority views have vanishingly small support in the scientific community, as well as being mutually contradictory" is quite normal. Science develops both through gradual changes AND radical revisions. In the xase of the first one can expect a consensus, in the case of the second one can expect a fierce debate with the majority defending the status quo. If the consensus/majority position changed into dogma while the alternative views of minority were excluded the science WILL STOP being science! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.189.3 (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that you could expect a fierce scientific debate, rather than a fierce political and ideological debate, were this one of the rare cases of a shift in scientific paradigm. Hal peridol (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If the scientific debate is supressed or constrained and the conclusions have tremendous economic consequences the debate must spill into political arena. General public wants to know what is going on. There is a reason why the court trials allow both sides to speak and that are open to public. The true science benefits from public scrutiny because scientists are corruptible human beings same way as everyone else. They are not superhuman, they are not angels. And do not forget who is paying for the reasearch and salaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.189.3 (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

To SHBH; there is no need to detail every aspect of skepticism/denialism - just note that there is quite a lot of it, and most of it is based on opinion rather than good research.

To Hal peridol; the public's perspective should not inform the article, but it should inform what the article addresses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that Wikipedia needs any special leaning towards science, it deals with science topics quite well within its current policies. As far as scientific opinion of climate change that deals specifically with scientific opinion and as far as climate change consensus is concerned that deals pretty well with the public side. A science only matters leaning would remove the second article and a leaning that said science didn't exist as a valid enterprise only what joe public says would eliminate the first (plus every single maths article except perhaps Monty Hall problem which would now say you shouldn't switch).

As to removing editors for being persistent, I guess I'm one of the people that refers to because of my complaint about someone going on and on and on and on and on and on (I could go on for a few more pages but I think persistence can be disruptive). My complaint is that they did not follow the dispute resolution process. An experienced editor should finally come to the conclusion that they are not getting anywhere on a talk page, preferable a while before they start throwing around allegations like being stonewalled. They should then either accept the consensus or follow the next step in WP:dispute resolution. And when they have exhausted their steps they should stop. Going on and on is disruptive behavior and drives away good editors. If a mediation is set up I will only accept it if it is time limited and the editor agrees to accept the conclusion under pain of sanctions, otherwise it should go to ArbCom. There is no point going through the months of stuff they pointed out they did when someone set up a previous fruitless mediation for them never mind the various RfCs, all of which seems to have been totally ignored. Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at theAfD referenced from a VPP discussion about forking and here just in for example is exactly why I'd want strong assurances that the results of any mediation were adhered to. I wonder where that talk page will be in six months time. Dmcq (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Undoing administrative closes

This is just a general note that when an uninvolved administrator closes a thread, it's closed. Twice now, editors have reverted an admin's closure of an enforcement thread. Even by the abysmal behavioral standards of this page, that is over the line. To the editor's credit in the most recent case, they self-reverted. This is a general warning that if complainants continue to revert administrative closures, I will block them. Regardless of how strongly you feel that you're right, there are some absolute-minimum behavioral standards that need to be in place here. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)