Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:33, 26 September 2010

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — General discussion (Talk)

Case clerks: Amorymeltzer (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk)

Archives

Numbered Archives

Topical Archives

Meta and preliminaries

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Archives

Archived discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Meta discussion.

Statements

Archives

Archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Statements

Discussion

This is the place for the normal discussion that accompanies a proposed decision. This section, to be used once the proposed decision has been posted, is for free-form, threaded discussion, starting new topics in a new section below. No word limit, but clerks and arbitrators will moderate excessive, contentious or off-topic discussions. Clicking "new section" above should produce a subsection within this section.

Archives

Archived discussions about the decision using the case format can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Discussion of decision

General discussion archives can be found at:

Proposed principles

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed principle" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the principle numbering when you create a subsection title here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.[reply]

P22 Enough is enough

I think that the addition of P22 is a good addition. Obviously, it remains to be seen how it plays out in the actual remedies, but I encourage the Committee to apply it seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P23 Evidence sub-pages in user space

My suggestion regarding this perenial issue, is for people to move their userspace submissions/collections to a subpage of the evidence page after they post their evidence. In such a way it gets archived/memorialized with the rest of the case, and does not become either an attack page in perpetuity or MFD'd when in might have some archival utility in the future. In which case we'd end up with pages of the form Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence/Extended Evidence by user--. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Finding of fact" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the finding of fact numbering when you create a subsection title here, and please do not discuss remedies here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.[reply]

F8.4 & F8.5 (technical)

They refer to 10.1 and 10, respectively. Is there a renumbering problem? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. 10>8.4 and 10.2>8.5. Now fixed: if you spot any others please let me know. Thanks! Roger Davies ^talk 08:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the votes on 8.5 need to be further clarified to refer only to parts 8.1 though 8.4 - that's what 'all of 8' referred to when those votes were cast. Besides, those votes make no sense if they're self-referential...

Also, there are references to remedy 21.1 that still need to be updated, currently in FoF 14.1 and in remedy 11.1, 11.2, and one of the two instances in 11.3 --Noren (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All done I believe. Roger Davies ^talk 08:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F16 ATren's battlefield conduct

I just looked through the ATren diffs on the PD page. For the life of me, I can't figure out how any of the diffs support the finding. I'd appreciate an explanation of some sort as to how WP:DISRUPT, WP:CIVIL or WP:BATTLEGROUND are violated in those diffs. An explanation of how this rises to a level worthy of an ArbCom finding would also be in order. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no response to my request for a justification for the proposed finding on ATren. I've just read through all the diffs for a second or third time and I still see nothing. Here's what the proposed finding states:

ATren (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

Shell, Coren and Roger Davies have voted to support. Specifically, I'd like to know:

Where are the violations of WP:DISRUPT?
Where are the violations of WP:CIV?
Where are the violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND?

I haven't seen answers to this on any of the ArbCom case pages, although 2/0 did have some late evidence on ATren and there was some discussion on it in 2/0's proposals on the Workshop page. These accusations seem over the top to me. Shell, Coren, Roger Davies -- can you explain? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are just a few (more recent) examples of the types of behavior this editor has continued to engage in - a lot of the 2008 and 2009 stuff does not seem to be included (compare this F to F22 for example). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I've now posted my review of the FoF and added a few more diffs. The key things here I think are the repeated accusations of bad faith and of partisan participation against people perceived as ideological opponents. Roger Davies ^talk 07:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, I feel John may have a point. These diffs [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] don't strike me as good examples of incivility. Could I ask you to revisit them?

As for the second set of diffs, this ("Stephan, what is your view of WMC's "Martian" reverts? Do you believe they were good faith edits? And if so, please explain your reasoning. ") strikes me as nothing but an honest question that does not deserve inclusion in a finding of fact. (Note that "Martian" here refers to Singer's writings about the Martian moons, Phobos and Deimos; it has nothing to do with martialistic).

This was personal advice given on a user talk page -- do we not allow editors a bit more latitude for self-expression on user talk pages?

This too was on a user talk page -- are we saying that no editor is allowed to comment on any user talk page in Wikipedia on perceived tag teaming, or to question the integrity of admin processes? In other words, that such comments should only ever be made as part of formal dispute resolution processes? If so, perhaps that could be emphasised a bit more clearly in a principle; though I am concerned that doing so may curtail editors' rights to self-expression too much. Some of what ATren was saying is, after all, pretty much the same as the arbitrators are saying in the principles, "Collective behavior of blocs of editors" and "Collective behavior of blocs of editors (alternate)".

This and this too were on a user talk page, and they refer to misconduct which the arbitration committee itself has included in its findings. --JN466 14:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JN: the thrust of the FoF is broadly right though we can, of course, all argue about the exact weight, precise meaning and specific context of individual diffs almost infinitely :) Roger Davies ^talk 16:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shows him drawing a very distinct line in the sand never mind that every administrator that he doesn't agree with is formally asked to withdraw except for Lar. I think this is part of the big problem in this area of editing, and it's not just Atren doing this kind of behavior. It has to be stopped by all if there is going to be peace in these articles. I think that it's to the point that maybe instead of naming names, maybe stating rules of engagement for these articles would be appropriate. Even if sanctioning some of the editors being named happens, there will be others to take their places which isn't good. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F22: KimDabelsteinPetersen

Question Looking at this one as written all the difs are real old, aren't they rather stale? Plus, if there is a battle atmosphere being presented, shouldn't there be recent difs from say 3-6 months, which is still old, be presented? I just don't see this one as being correct or at least helpful to stopping what is still ongoing. I guess what I'm asking is if an editor show battle mentality, wouldn't it be a continued problem not just going into the distant past to find something to make an FoF about? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I've been on a voluntary 1RR ever since Feb 3, 2010[14] (i think i bummed this in one occasion where i believed a BLP violation to take place). And on a voluntary topic-ban (talk, sanction board, etc. everywhere but here), ever since Aug 5, 2010[15], which will last until ArbCom closes this case (or beyond if they deem so).--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed remedy" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the remedy numbering when you create a subsection title here, and please discuss the associated findings in their own sections above. Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 2

"Climate change sanctions noticeboard superseded". If this happens, what becomes of the sanctions logged here? Some of them are still in force. Are they superseded too, or do they continue? Cardamon (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm specifically not counting warnings/cautions from CC probation when I say the following: At this point, only GregJackP's and Thegoodlocust's sanctions should be superseded. Any other editors should have continuing sanctions; that is, if any other users on this list of active sanctions may have either superseding or concurrent restrictions, then I think ArbCom should reconsider whether this is the right thing to be doing in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sanctions themselves should be reviewed, since some of them seem to have been applied with scant regard for what one might consider to be the normal process. This sanction against me, for example, was actioned 4 hours after the initial report in the middle of the night with no discussion or a chance to defend myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a sanction; it's a warning/caution - see also my first sentence (it's more of a restatement or reminder of policy to alert you that if you breach policy, you'll be sanctioned; it's not the same as an actual sanction). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up. The terminology had me confused. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy only replaces the noticeboard for the purposes of further imposition of sanctions; note that it states that the noticeboard "should no longer be used for future sanctions discussions" (emphasis mine). Any existing sanctions are not affected by it (although they may be by other remedies in this case, at least as far as individual users are concerned). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 3

"Scope of topic bans". Item (3) states that editors who are topic banned are prohibited " from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles." Should it be clarified that those editors may participate in such discussions and processes that directly involve them? In other words, if an editor is taken to AE for a violation of a topic ban, the editor should be allowed to defend their actions - I realize that they probably would, but it would probably be better to state that explicitly. GregJackP Boomer! 13:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When enforcing Community or Committee matters, administrators are expected (and should be encouraged) to use common sense and good judgement. For this area, merely checking if an alleged violation fits within the list is not good enough anymore; enforcing admins need to seriously think about the other factors for alleged violations (such as whether a particular enforcement action is best suited for the particular circumstances). That is, it's not needed in this particular case for this particular remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 3.1: Scope

Proposed remedies (3.1, for example) speak of "articles about Climate Change broadly construed". How broadly? A few weeks ago, I asked someone if he could compile a list of the articles in Category:Climate change and all its subcats. Among the subcats it turned up were Category:Tobacco in South Africa (a subcat of Category:Tobacco by country, which is a subcat of Category:Tobacco, which is in Category:Smoking, which is in Category:Smoke, which is in Category:Particulates, which is in Category:Climate forcing agents, which is in Category:Climate forcing, which is in Category:Climate change) and Category:Wolfmother albums (which is in Category:Stoner rock albums, which is in Category:Stoner rock, which is in Category:Cannabis culture, which is in Category:Cannabis, which is in Category:Smoking, which is...) To quote: When I killed the script it was busy working through New Jersey train stations.

While Stoner rock may, for all I know, be just as controversial as climate change, and who knows what pitfalls await unsuspecting editors who venture into the world of New Jersey train stations, I feel pretty confident that the arbs don't have these in mind for the topic bans or probation. Some sense of what "climate change, broadly construed" actually includes would be helpful. (Does it include articles about climate, for example?) Oh, and by the way, "climate change" is not a proper noun. Definitely should not be capitalising the second word. Guettarda (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer to be topic-banned from pages on New Jersey mass transit, broadly construed. And I'll accept 1RR on stoner rock. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all realise that Mediawiki categories commonly form a network rather than a hierarchy and that the network is something like a ring species in that you start out with one thing and end with something completely different. This doesn't mean that an admin cannot be trusted to interpret the term "articles about Climate Change broadly construed" without further guidance. If another admin disagrees, then they discuss it further and, if consensus is reached, the ban is modified or reversed. Other appeal routes also apply. --TS 22:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this thread is uproariously funny, and it has made my day. It also marks the first time I've had call to type "uproariously". -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Some of us take mass transit very seriously. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can cannabis combustion contribute to climate change? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the making of a game. What's the shortest distance between two articles, in terms of categories? Are there any two articles which cannot be connected via categories? Are hidden categories cheating? Is the game more interesting under the influence?--SPhilbrick T 00:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends, Tryptofish. If it's grown outdoors, with minimal chemical inputs, and it's consumed close to where it's produced, then not much. If it's grown in the middle of a National Forest, then you have to account for the tree and soil carbon lost when the land is cleared and tilled. If it's grown in high-tech indoor setups, then yes. Those things are major power hogs, since they're grown under high power lights that stay on 24-7. Guettarda (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC) (And, of course, we've got an article on it. Guettarda (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Theoretically cannabis should reduce CO2 emissions since people who smoke it will drive slower and less aggressively which increases their MPG. Perhaps if breathalyzers are made mandatory to start cars then we can also make it so that a minimum amount of THC is required as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per acre, I believe hemp is the most efficient plant for biofuels. My understanding is that it grows quite rapidly and so it should be a good CO2 sink in that respect. Perhaps Boris can weigh in since I believe biofuels are his specialty. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I asked. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a biomass crop hemp is competitive with maize. High-end yields for hemp are roughly similar to low-end yields for switchgrass and much lower than for miscanthus. Furthermore switchgrass and (especially) miscanthus have advantages in that there is substantial translocation of nutrients from stems to roots near time of senescence, greatly reducing the need for fertilizer and simplifying management. Perhaps this could form the basis of a Finding of Fact in the present arbitration. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More seriously: is Hadley cell, for example, about climate change? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as clerk, I'd appreciate it if this thread stays serious now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody have any answers? Shame, it would be better to know now rather than later. OK, then, does removing a Cl Ch cat count as a Cl Ch edit [16]? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Really *no-one* dares to even attempt to answer these questions? They will get answered somehow or another during the enforcement, so it would be better done now William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The normal way those bans are interpreted at AE is that removing a CC cat counts as a CC edit. As to Hadley cell, my view would be that it depends on the part you edit. T. Canens (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 3.2: Appeal of topic bans

It says that no one can file an appeal of a topic-ban until after 6 months after the close of the case. What if someone is topic-banned for only 3 months? Does that mean they cannot file an appeal? Or does that mean that every topic ban will be at least 6 months? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just something the Arbs didn't think of. Perhaps wording it as "6 months or the end of the sanction, whichever is earlier" or something like that would work. GregJackP Boomer! 23:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the question of scope (3.1) - the topic ban is defined as applying to both articles and their talkpages, yet some of the individual topic bans proposed specify that the ban is on articles, and not their talkpages. That's to say that some of the topic bans being voted on specify conditions that are contradicted by 3.1. Before someone exploits that to get around their topic ban the arbs might want to harmonize their proposals. Weakopedia (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 4

"William M. Connolley topic-banned (BLP)". This states, "User:William M. Connolley is banned from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person, where the person's notability or the subject of the edit relates to the topic area of global warming or climate change." It does not specify whether or not William is permitted to edit the talk pages of such BLPs, leaving the scope of the remedy unclear. Compare remedy 3.2 for example, which includes the clear statement: "He may edit their talk pages". So, BLP talk pages: yay or nay? --JN466 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this would contradict proposed remedy 3.1) "Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited (1) from editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (2) from editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; and (3) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles." I suggest that the Committee not pass Remedy 3.1 and instead state in each instance how widely the ban is to apply. NW (Talk) 01:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry: these wrinkles will all get reviewed and sorted out when we finish with the FoFs and start looking at individual remedies. Roger Davies ^talk 17:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 4.2

"Use of blogs". Does this only apply to blogs, or does it also apply to the other types of self-published sources mentioned in Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) and Wikipedia:Rs#Statements_of_opinion? If the latter, should the wording be made more explicit? --JN466 03:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies 11.1 & 11.2

"...to come into effect if and when this user returns to editing" ===

Several remedies are now qualified by "to come into effect if and when this user returns to editing". I interpret this to mean that the sanction period starts at the time the user does return. I'm not quite sure this is a good idea. Why should it make a difference if a user withdraws before or after the sanction passes? If s(he) withdraws after the decision, it will silently expire after 6 months. If he withdraws before, with this qualification, it will sit there gathering dust and be unpacked if and when (s)he returns. This certainly looks more punitive than preventative to me, as in "(s)he must serve the time". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't meant to be punitive. It was clumsily drafted, and is not passing. I'll probably withdraw my vote for it when I look at the remedies. Roger Davies ^talk 18:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed enforcement" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the enforcement numbering when you create a subsection title here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.[reply]

New proposals

Please remember to sign all new proposals made. Alternatives to existing proposals are best posted above in a section discussing that proposal. Please keep all disucssion on-topic to the proposal and don't drift off-topic into discussing other proposals. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC) This replaces the previous discussion.[reply]

Archives

Archived proposals can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/New proposals and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/New proposals2

Proposed FoF: ScienceApologist (SA) disruptive editing

SA recently redirected two articles Surfacestations and Watts Up With That? (WUWT). In the case of Surfacestations, discussion had barely started on the proposed merge and there was clearly no consensus for the merge. In the case of WUWT, there was no discussion at all. I guess I could file an enforcement request for these disruptive edits, as they are clearly reminiscent of the redirect and subsequent revert warring, again without discussion, that was used by a certain group of editors to try to make the Climate Audit article disappear. Like Climate Audit, WUWT and Surfacestations are two sites which take a contrarian view on man-made climate change. So, I think we have some agenda-driven editing going on here. ArbCom, please correct the behavior by SA. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of half-truths, untruths, and assumptions of very bad faith on my part by Cla68 are made here. I leave to you all to decide for yourselves what happened by reading the associated talk pages and a dozen or so spin-off discussions that took place all over the enforcement pages, ANI, and the talk pages of these articles. For example, to claim that there was "no discussion at all" about merging WUWT to Anthony Watts is easily shown to be false. I'd ask Cla68 to strike or modify this part of his comment at least. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that SA's editing needs to be reviewed. While you are at it, please look into the editing by 99.141.241.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) who has also been a cause of concern in the venue. There is background info at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive211#BLP.2C_SPAs.2C_a_proposal. See the info that was emailed to functionaries-en today. I believe most of you (arbitrators) subscribe to that list. Jehochman ^Talk 00:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you were referring to arbitrators being subscribed to that mailing list, Jehochman? It is a restricted list so most other readers/editors of this page would not be subscribed. Risker (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Jehochman ^Talk 08:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ScienceApologist merged and redirected the two web sites to Anthony Watts (blogger), in these edits he also expanded the Watts article four-fold by 19,000 bytes. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What info was emailed to functionaries today? Minor4th 03:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point of the functionaries list. Its for sensitive information not suitable for wider dissemination. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I didn't know -- and if it's so sensitive, why would Jeh be on here telling everyone to go read it? Minor4th 04:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Jehochman's exhortation was addressed to the active arbitrators. --TS 06:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. My entire comment was addressed to arbitrators. Jehochman ^Talk 08:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the only editor to agree with Marknutley at the time, please see my comment (Sept. 8) why, on balance, I think it was unnecessary to split this information from the article in the first place. It may help explain why ScienceApologist acted boldly and moved it back. [17] Wikispan (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it's certainly possible that ScienceApologist's editing in the area needs scrutiny, searching the Evidence page just now I note that there is only one piece of evidence related to his editing there. It may not be worth the Committee's while to spend much energy on this unless somebody comes up with a ready made finding that highlights glaring abuses that cannot be handled under the current probation through admin discretion, and cannot wait for the discretionary sanctions regime to be implemented. --TS 06:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla is deliberately omitting the other half of this matter - the starting of these articles. Surfacestations was begun by MN 2010-09-05T12:14:24 Marknutley (talk | contribs) (526 bytes) (begin article) as another deliberate provocation just before his departure. There was no discussion of the "un-merge" yet I don't see Cla complaining about that. SA is merely returning the status quo ante, which is entirely reasonable. Furthermore, the de-merge was discussed and decided against ages ago, perhaps a year. So SA deserves praise for fixing up MN's error, not condemnation William M. Connolley (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[18] It was discussed mark nutley (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I forgot to mention was that the WUWT article is currently in the queue for Good Article review. SA should have known that when he redirected it and the Surfacestations articles. Cla68 (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not properly discussed, as "Blimey, that was quick!" on the talk page rather indicates. And no: putting an article up for GA does not shield it from editing William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good article candidacy does not supercede normal editorial process. Jehochman ^Talk 08:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, it was in the GA queue, and not under any active review. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is in such a state that it's a position to be good faith nominated for good article status, it doesn't shield it from normal editing, it does shield it from being boldly redirected. Unless there is evidence the good article nomination was in some way made in faith on an article/subject that didn't otherwise merit it. It is obvious to any reasonable editor that doing that would be opposed, so discussion should have absolutely been first.--Crossmr (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also in the middle of peer review. Minor4th 14:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. WP:BOLD is not some kind of shield that let's you do whatever you want with no repercussions in every situation. While we often appreciate someone just going ahead and getting the job done, there are some situations where it is quite obvious that isn't going to help and this was one of them. Unless SA can give some evidence that the GA nomination and peer review were being done in bad faith this was purely disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:BOLD sort of is a shield that lets you do whatever you want - once. If other people don't like it, then you can't keep doing it. That's the rub. MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not is it? I couldn't go redirect Obama to Presidents of the United states and expect no one to say anything. As I quoted on AN/I (keep in mind Bold is a guideline, not policy to start with), it repeatedly instructs users to be careful. ...but please be careful Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly. and "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold," but "Be not too bold." Redirecting an article that is in a good faith state to be nominated for good article status is reckless and too bold, plain and simple.--Crossmr (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of attitude is, frankly, contrary to my entire understanding of WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT. There was nothing to prevent the GA nom or the peer review to be reapplied to the Anthony Watts article. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScienceApologist Has been highly disruptive within the CC related articles.

He has deliberately misrepresented sources. On Anthony Watts (blogger) a BLP

[19] Inserts the pejorative Denier into a BLP claiming the three sources are peer reviewed.
[20] User:Wenchell changes it to sceptic (note edit summary) and SA reverts Denier back in

The sources used by SA to call Watts a denier are being deliberately misrepresented. None of them call Watts a denier and only one is in a peer reviewed source. One is self published [21] and actually calls watts a sceptic. The second is from [22] it is an opinion piece from a extreme left wing online magazine [23] this source does not call watts a denier it calls his website a denier site. The third source [24] is also not a peer reviewed source and also calls watts a sceptic. This deliberate misrepresentation sources in a blp needs to be stopped now. Please read through this thread [25] were you will see SA not only continues to say the sources are peer reviewed but that he has not misrepresented them.

The use of selfpublished sources to insert a pejorative in a BLP is highly troubling.

He has also been disruptive on Watts Up With That? and Surfacestations

Creates redirect without discussion [Surfacestations]
Creates redirect without discussion on an article currently up for GA status Watts Up With That? A highly disruptive move.

After The Real Global Warming Disaster has passed GA status SA decides to reassess [26] please note the edit summary, reassessed to fail. A clear indicator of disruptive behaviour and POV pushing mark nutley (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a pity to have another section on this - oh well, I suppose everyone must invent their own wheel ~~in order to validate their existence~~. The claims of disrutpion are groundless. At Watts, SA was bold, but didn't edit war over it. What he did was reasonable, but people didn't like it, so it has been undone. There is nothing wrong with that. There is already an ANI thread over this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:ScienceApologist which says much the same.

Surfacestations is an even clearer case of SA doing the right thing. Because, as I've said in the previous section, MN / Cla are being deliberately deceptive by failing to mention that MN demerged it with no discussion only a little while ago. So MN's position, as I understand it, is taht he may make controversial demergers with no discussion, but anyone undoing that demerge is obliged to discuss endlessly before taking any action. The problem with that reasoning is obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely clear, what he did has NOT been undone. Only the 2 redirects have been undone, not the 23 related changes to Anthony Watts (blogger). Q Science (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q Science, are you saying that the edit weren't undone because they were good edits, or are you saying that they were bad edits and still need to be undone? SA WMC, could you please strike "I suppose everyone must invent their own wheel in order to validate their existence." That's the sort of thing that will turn into a diff in a finding against you. If you strike it, then it probably won't be used that way. Jehochman ^Talk 09:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SA can't, cos *I* said that (I did sign, but then QS rather rudely interjected, so it isn't obvious) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude. I was just responding to the content of that paragraph. [To everyone] What I am saying is that the edits merged 3 article together. When the redirects were removed, the merged content was not removed. As a result, the same data was located in separate articles. (After my post above, there was an edit war to fix this. The old text was restored 4 times by IP editors, no less. ClueBot removed the changes twice.) This is not a matter of good or bad edits, but of claims of whether the disruptive changes were "undone". At the time I posted that, they were not "undone". Q Science (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well with the different threads about the same thing I guess I'll make a comment here, if in the wrong section please feel free to move it to the correct location. MN said he was removing himself from this, at least that is my understanding. If I am correct than why is he starting this thread at all? Second, if I am correct, MN also is the one who started both of these articles so again why is it he that is bringing this complaint about another editor? From what I could see SA did do the redirects stating that he was boldly doing it and was reverted. He didn't undo the reverts so where is the problem? As for him adding more information to an article, other editors have since edited and not one removed what SA added, so again, what's the problem? Something needs to be done about the socking going on since I just saw this which is astounding to me. I've seen a lot of the confirmed socks of this editor at the SPI cases. That some of the long time editors to these articles can't seem to see that these new accounts and IP's that just 'appear' out of the blue are socks are not believable to me at this time anymore, sorry. You can help remove the socking by also reporting the socking or you can hide your head in the sand and make it look like others have a vendetta against, heck, I'm not sure what to call it anymore. I put on the AN/i a request to close the discussion there because of the threads clogging up this page about SA. I think these multiple threads about the same thing in multiple locations also needs to stop. I think they should also be closed/hatted. Suggestions from arbitrators? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting here because i am constantly mentioned here. I have withdrawn from CC articles, this is not a CC article. I posted the above findings because SA has deliberately misrepresented sources in a BLP, an error he refuses to admit to as he continues to insist they call a BLP a "Denier" and that they are peer reviewed, none of which is actually true. I added the most recent disruption as nobody else had added it to a proposal. There is no need to hat this, it just needs to be moved to the proposed findings section and left for the arbs to decide on a course of action mark nutley (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per ArbCom's request, I've begun working on FoF on the editors of interest. However, I cannot do it all by myself. I've started working on one regarding SA in user space.[27] Please help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) In my view ScienceApologist made a good faithed redirect, as he appeared to have reached consensus with other editors for the redirect. I suppose it would be fair to say that he should have given it an extra day or two for other people to chime in on the redirect proposal but I do not see anything deliberately provocative. This is not to say the redirect was or was not a good idea, it is to say that it was not malicious from an outsider's (my) viewpoint. I do think that ~~misuse~~ improper/debatable use of sources to label living people as denialists is worrying but I think there is every reason to believe that ScienceApologist will take on board these criticisms and tread more carefully in the area of climate change. There are other editors who have caused much more disruptive over a longer period of time and may require a finding of fact. However, I am not convinced that a finding of fact or sanctioning is needed for scienceapologist at this time. Although I do not agree with everything ScienceApologist does, I do think he overall is a good faithed editor who contributes productively to the encyclopedia in many different areas and I think that stronger evidence of long-term disruption in the climate change area is needed for a finding of fact to be justified.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Literaturegeek above. I think what SA states in his statement above and the corresponding conversation that follows, shows what appears to be the problems editing in the environment of the CC articles. I hope the arbitrators look at all of this and then take away what I see as the problem. It appears that any edit, no matter how small, is met with a flurry of demands and questions that should not be used to debate content changes. The use of policies and even our guidelines are supposed to help editors make our articles expand properly. I've seen this kind of behavior on many of the sanction requests and other boards and talk pages over the past since the sanction board was established. Sanctions are used to deter editors with a different approach than some editors would like so they take them to the board to show how they should be sanctioned which is usually discussed to death with no actions taken. The complaints that one side is sanctioned more than the other side was a constant at the sanction board. There were reasons for this, which is explained by the uninvolved administrators and even some uninvolved editors at the time. Watching all of this has been very enlightening to me. There are some editors who are new to the area of dispute that got there from either AN/i or the sanction board that haven't helped at all with calming things down. No, SA is not the problem here at this time. What is the problem is the same editors bring FoF up against their assumed opponnets to try again for a sanction that has failed in other locations. I hope the arbitrators will take notice of this problem too. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) To expand on my earlier comment in this section. I would just like to clarify something based on further discussion in below sections. Per this comment and other comments I am convinced that ScienceApologist's edits regarding adding denialist labels to BLP articles are done in good faith, even though I still have concerns with these edits. I have struck the word misuse in my above comment. It is really difficult for outsiders to get to the root of what exactly is going on on these articles and thus I didn't chose my wording carefully enough. I can see why ArbCom are taking their time with their decision.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed FoF: Tony Sidaway has engaged in disruptive behavior

Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) (and his alternate account Tasty monster (talk · contribs)) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] and unhelpful or tendentious editing [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49].

Proposed, based on my observation that Tony often removes reliably sourced text additions that he seemingly doesn't agree with and whose editing gives the appearance at times of being agenda-driven [50]. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the diffs, but I assume that Cla68 is unaware that I disengaged from editing Wikipedia articles on the subject some months ago and have no intention of getting mixed up in the subject again. --TS 00:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, what exactly do you mean by "some months ago?" This diff is from 3 August. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so literal-minded. Quantitively I have not edited in the subject area for many months. The 3 August edit was a single reversion of a ridiculously poorly sourced, and if you are honest, very provocatively sourced, edit. That kind of edit must stop. --TS 01:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have looked at the edits, I don't think there's a case to answer. Should a majority of active arbitrators think there is, however, that's good enough for me. --TS 12:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: BLP violation

Collapsing for readibility. This has run its course. Roger Davies ^talk 11:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway has violated WP:BLP [51].

Proposed, based on Tony's recent comment about Andrew Montford, the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion, and others whose opinions are mentioned in the book, many of whom, such as Hans von Storch, also have BLPs in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced. If anybody else thinks this is even credible, could they please speak up now? I'm utterly flummoxed by Cla68's representations. In case Cla68 is under any serious misapprehension, I have a great professional respect for Hans von Storch. That respect for a professional scientist does not extend to people who write on science while not themselves possessing any expertise in science. This speaks to verifiability. --TS 23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you stand by your statement that Montford "knows absolutely nothing about the science", that the scientists and others mentioned in his book are "opposed to science" and that their opinions can be used to show "ignorance?" If you respect Von Storch, then why did you say that his and other opinions expressed in the book are "opposed to science?" You know that Von Storch has criticized the hockey stick graph research to some extent, don't you? Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my statement that Montford knows nothing about science.
I do not claim that anybody mentioned in Montford's book is opposed to science.
I have read, and am completely aware of, von Storch's criticism of MBH. That has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that Montford's work is not reliable. If I read an article in The Sun that happens to quote Einstein on relativity, I do not conclude that The Sun is a reliable source, nor does my conclusion about the reliability of The Sun reflect on Albert Einstein. --TS 23:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, you actually said that the views of the book are "fashionable with those opposed to science." This actually may be true, but I can't decide because you offer no evidence to support this statement. If you'll find an article in a reliable source that describes "people who are opposed to science" and states that it is generally fashionable with these particular people to criticize the paeloclimatic, temperature proxy research which have produced hockey stick-shaped results, then I guess you might be right. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated below, Montford has some surface knowledge of the scientific papers, but apparently lacks or disguises any deep understanding of the science. His book promotes a point of view of ignorance, but that doesn't show that he's ignorant himself. I'll add that he is clearly opposed to mainstream science in the subject, and presents a distorted view of the science to promote a fringe position which has considerable political support among those ignorant of the science. This opinion in a WP:NEWSBLOG is that "A rich collection of unfounded beliefs is a common characteristic of those who deny – despite the overwhelming scientific evidence – that man-made global warming is taking place." It links to a verifiable example of Booker, another author Cla68 seems to be promoting, recycling debunked intelligent design arguments, another area where creationists worship science provided they can redefine it to overthrow mainstream science. They're opposed to mainstream science, but are they "opposed to science"? . . dave souza, talk 08:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but can someone clarify this for me? I am not a scientist, nor do I edit in this area, so what does the above conversation have to do with this case and any infractions being claimed here? How can a statement here on the PD talk be a violation of BLP in the first place with no names even mentioned in the dif? This section is most confusion and clarification would really be appreciated. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPTALK requires us to take care in what we write about living persons in non-article space, Tony has expressed strongly his views about Montford's misinformation opposing mainstream science. Whether the sources make Tony's words a reasonable inference is a matter for consideration, as is Cla68's behaviour in using this to attack Tony. A similar discussion took place regarding AQFK's talk page description of individuals as "criminals" even though that word had not been used by any sources, and no proper investigation of the individuals had taken place. . . dave souza, talk 11:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie: Well, there's definitely an identifiable living person being discussed. Personally, I wouldn't post something like that, or try to phrase it like this: "That's silly. How does an Amazon sales rank translate to reliability? The author is a retired accountant with absolutely no knowledge of the science no formal training in science. ~~All he has, it seems, are opinions fashionable with those who are opposed to science.~~ At best, we could use his book as a primary source ~~for works that attack established science from the point of view of ignorance~~."

~~Dave souza: The reason why that comment wasn't a BLP violation is because the UEA is not a person. Andrew Montford is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~

Thanks at least I now understand where this comes from. A Quest For Knowledge, What I see you striking seems a little nit picky and I'll explain what I mean. I take what you are striking here absolutely no knowledge of the science to mean that he is not a scientist in the context of the whole comment made. This comment you strike ~~All he has, it seems, are opinions fashionable with those who are opposed to science.~~ I'm sorry but I don't see a problem with it when taken in as part of the whole comment. That looks like looking for a problem that really isn't there to me. The last strike ~~for works that attack established science from the point of view of ignorance~~. I see this one as TS saying that the work is from a point of view of ignorance not him say that the person is ignorant anything. Sorry, just not seeing it when you read the whole paragraph. Editors have to be able to be able to debate things without worrying this much about their words being looked at from under a microscope. Listen, I think all of you need to take a look at what and why you are posting these FoF's and the difs you are showing to try to prove an editor, any editor should be sanctioned. What needs to be done is for a lot of you to start assuming good faith again, instead of the bad faith which is what I think a lot of these problems are arising from in part. Maybe just reading the comments without looking at who the comment comes from would help, I don't know. If this comment was made by Cla68, would there be a FoF about it and editors supporting it, I don't know but probably. The lines in the sand need to be smoothed over and erased. Everyone needs to start over again with assuming good faith first before responding to a comment, that's just my opinion of course, but I think if AGF was use a lot more a lot of these problems would definitely go away. And yes, I know AGF is not a suicide pact, but it's also very much needed if editors are going to decide to edit the same articles. This is my view of this anyways, at least so far. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed finding is absolutely without merit. TS made an innocuous comment responding to another editor's posting referencing Amazon rankings as a barometer of reliability. That is in no way, shape or form a BLP violation. Once again, Cla68 is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, using an administrative board (in this case the PD page) to "take out" an editor without proper basis. There is already a finding of fact in the PD concerning Cla68 behaving disruptively. I suggest that this section, and the other recent actions by Cla68, need to be added to the PD, and he needs to be appropriately sanctioned. He just doesn't "get it" that throwing around diffs and claiming "COI" and "BLP violation" is disruptive and is battlefield conduct. He not only is not desisting from this kind of conduct, but he is stepping up the pace of his disruptive activity. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie: Well, my post was more of a comment than a direct answer to your question. Whether this is a bona-fide BLP violation, I'd have to think about it. But I've learned to be very careful about BLP issues, and I'm just saying that that's how I would have phrased it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Baiting

Tony Sidaway has engaged in baiting, contributing to a battleground atmosphere on climate change-related pages. [52] [53] & [54] [55] & [56]

These represent three separate incidents. The second baiting incident (second and third diffs above) is explained here [57] and here [58] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no merit whatsoever to this proposed finding. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you may want to familiarize yourself with WP:BAIT, an essay that points to various policies. I looked at it before deciding to post this complaint. Here's a relevant passage: Disruptive, agenda-driven or disturbed editors may egg you on in the subtlest of ways, may come at you as a victim, as someone who cares or someone who's hurt. They may mix in inaccurate information or misquote you to compel you to respond. They may manipulate the civility policy as a weapon. In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. Then again, you may not think the diffs fit the bill. We'll see what ArbCom thinks. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything either. Maybe thicker skin is needed or the microscope to check every little thing needs to be thrown against a wall and broken. You seem like you are doing this because of the second and third dif you show. It was explained, give it a rest and walk away from it. I find these FoF's stretching patience already when there is nothing to see in them. To me TS didn't do any baiting but it's starting to feel like you are trying to get peoples attentions. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@JWB: No, none of the links are evidence of either baiting or battleground atmosphere. They just don't even come close. All are informational except one, which politely asks you back off from the CC pages for a while. To call that battleground or baiting is more than a stretch, and just simply making an accusation that is not true. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the trouble to look up the earlier case where John W Barber says I baited him by suggesting, on his talk page, that "you've stretched everybody's patience to near breaking point over the past few days. You're lashing out in all directions and this speaks to your judgement. Take a rest from Wikipedia, and try to remember that these are humans you're dealing with. They don't like to be taken for fools." [59]

The relevant edits by John W Barber are here. John abruptly moved from editing articles about poetry to making some very inflammatory comments about the behavior of people who were proposing the deletion of an article related to global warming. He subsequently requested the deletion of an article that he claimed was equivalent to the one that had been listed for deletion. Some related proposals were discussed on the probation enforcement page (approximate link which covers the timeframe, please do uncollapse and examine the retaliatory filing by John W Barber).

I find this tit-for-tat battling exhausting, because it's impossible to wind-down such a process once it has begun. At that time ChildofMidnight and Grundle2600 were in the process of being banned by various means, and I thought John's abrupt switch from editing poetry articles to sniping on climate change might have something to do with that. They do seem to have had some association on wiki. There's nothing wrong with that, but the switch from poetry to sniping seemed so out of character that I thought John might be pursuing personal matters.

The later comment on this proposed decision talk page related to the Barack Obama probation. I noticed that several editors, including most notably ScJessey but also including John Barber (using his username Noroton) had apparently migrated from the Obama articles. Forgive me, at the point where I posted that, I was referring to research I had done in December, 2009, around the time ScJessey showed up. John W Barber was at that point, in my current recollection, not a blip on the radar. But apparently the manner of engagement at that time did prompt me to engage in a little research. Of course it all came to a head in March, 2010, but at the time it was not clear to me that it all had to do with the intense hotbed in Obama.

I regret saying " They don't like to be taken for fools". From context, "they" clearly means "humans" and the implication is that John was being manipulative in listing for deletion an article that was well established (although if you look hard enough you'll find I have my reservations about it). --TS 20:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also regret this edit, which was part of a misguided attempt to maintain openness and parity on the climate change articles by informing every editor of the probation. While I was scrupulous in informing every single new editor, I think it was a terrible mistake because it immediately informed the new editor that he had entered a combat zone. That is no way to great a new editor. --TS 22:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I'd like to make it clear that I didn't "migrate" to this topic from the Obama articles. I have no particular interest in the climate change topic as a whole, although I am interested in anything of a scientific nature. I saw a news report about the data theft at the CRU on the BBC and looked it up on Wikipedia because I am familiar with East Anglia. I gradually got involved in the editing of that article because I was horrified at the apparent attempt by certain editors to use Wikipedia to exploit the data theft to promote what I perceived to be a non-mainstream agenda. I have largely confined my editing to that specific article and the talk pages of a few of the involved editors. My presence at that article had nothing whatsoever to do with editing I have done in the topic related to Barack Obama (a topic area I still contribute to). I am concerned that your comments make it seem as if I've been roaming around Wikipedia looking for a battleground to fight on. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to upset a good few editors by my earlier remarks on the apparent migration. No doubt if Grundle2600 and ChildofMidnight were still around they would also find fault with my characterization. So okay, I acknowledge that I could be quite wrong in my interpretation of the fact that several people previously sanctioned in an entirely unrelated matter later showed up and started going at it to varying degrees in this controversial case. My intention was to explain the otherwise inexplicable bad blood that obviously existed. --TS 00:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any CoM/Grundle involvement in the area of this topic I have inhabited (I thought they were both banned a long time ago). I have suffered from Noroton's attention for a long time and I've begged at WP:ANI for some sort of interaction ban to deflect his litigious focus, but as far as I'm aware he only appeared in this topic once it became an ArbCom case (I could be wrong as I don't monitor his edits). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just used the thingy TGA just introduced me to in the section below and it appears JWB edited at the CRU hacking article before me. I concede, therefore, that it could appear as if our presence were not coincidental (although it is). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here, let me see if I can help. [60] You just follow the links in that diff and you'll find a pretty good history of interactions. Don't say I never did you any favors. I have a feeling Tony may have seen that comment at the time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that several people previously sanctioned in an entirely unrelated matter later showed up and started going at it to varying degrees in this controversial case. Who? Where? Provide diffs, Tony. Or it's yet another personal attack, repeated despite it being pointed out to you multiple times that ... it's a personal attack (and it's baiting, and contributing to a battleground atmosphere). We're going around in circles. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of WP:BAIT, I see no evidence in support of the proposed finding with regard to baiting by TS. More generally, may I humbly^{[dubious – discuss]} suggest that this page has long passed its point of diminishing returns, and that the arbitrators proceed to a timely close of this case? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, Boris, here you go. I was going to look this over again before posting, but I don't want to keep you waiting. It replies to Tony's long post. It should be pretty simple to recognize badgering or egging someone on, but the context (starting with the bullets) should make it even clearer:

I plead guilty to abruptly switching from poetry-related articles to climate-change-related articles. This appears to concern Tony so much that he mentions it repeatedly. Although Tony assures us all that it's "out of character", I must admit that I've suddenly switched in and out of editing poetry articles for years. I'm not sure whether or not this calls for me to be topic banned from CC articles or poetry articles or both, but I'll just leave that to ArbCom to sort out. I don't know what Tony is saying in much of his long post above. Mostly it's one disparaging comment after another, without a diff or a fact to back up the vague personal attacks. While it isn't clear what I've done wrong, it's clear that Tony says I was doing something wrong. Somehow I wanted to get back at someone because ChildofMidnight was banned for a year by ArbCom? Is that right? Except that I recommended at the time that ArbCom indef block CoM instead. Somehow it was "personal" for me to get back into editing in the CC topic area on March 3, but Scjessey, who I'm supposed to have a vendetta with, had a complaint against him still on the WP:GSCCRE page on that day and I somehow neglected to comment there. [61] Yet it all had to do with the intense hotbed in Obama. Somehow.

Let's turn to hard facts, the kind of things that can be backed up by diffs and simple connections to clear policies that Tony violated:

March 3-4 -- I did make an inflammatory comment on an AfD page about a Climate Change-related article. I didn't realize how inflammatory it was, and I later said I regretted making the comment. I said at the time that it would be interesting to see the logical gymnastics if a similar article with similar POV problems were put up for AfD. I was in favor of deleting both articles, one because it was a POV fork benefiting one side of the climate-change controversies, the other because it was a POV fork benefiting the other side. So I nominated the second article for deletion. Tony tried to shut down the AfD (19:06 March 4), [62] I reverted the closure, [63] William M. Connolley reverted me and another editor immediately reverted WMC. I then took the matter to AN/I to make sure the disruption wouldn't continue.
March 4 -- Ten minutes after I filed the AN/I complaint (21:14), [64] Tony closed the thread (21:24) [65] (which was later reverted). Two minutes later, ChrisO filed a complaint against me at WP:GSCCRE at 21:26 (I've never thought the timing was anything more than a coincidence, but I want to show that things were happening at a fast pace at certain points).
March 8:
- 02:08 March 8 -- I then filed a complaint at WP:GSCCRE against ChrisO [66] for what I thought then and still think was bad behavior on his part for filing a frivolous complaint.
- 02:20 March 8 -- Tony comments on my complaint Despite my attempts to bear with John, this is a stretch too far. I replied that his comment wasn't helpful.
- 02:37 March 8 -- Tony Sidaway's first baiting comment on my talk page. this speaks to your judgement. Violation of WP:NPA. Let's say that Tony differed with me over something I'd done, and differed so much that Tony felt he should tell me he disagreed with what I'd done. Telling me that my action showed that my judgment was flawed was, in addition to a personal attack and an act of baiting, an action that contributed to the battleground atmosphere on the CC-related pages. Uncivil, too.
- 07:01 March 8 -- Jehochman, as an administrator sitting in judgment, started making wild statements that I should be sanctioned for filing the complaint (I've detailed his statements on the evidence page).
- 07:20 March 8 -- Tony Sidaway, renewing his baiting on my talk page: At I said, you're lashing out. You've readily illustrated that while purporting to do the opposite. Take a rest, if not from Wikipedia, at least from this area that seems to cause you to behave so oddly. Tony was piling on new personal attacks as I was being attacked by Jehochman on the WP:GSCCRE page.

At this point, Jehochman took up the personal attacks (detailed on the evidence page) and Tony left off. I think all this clearly shows Tony was helping to reinforce a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere with baiting and personal attacks on March 8 and with out-of-policy, disruptive reversions on March 4. He's been making personal attacks again, recently, on this page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: 6) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. From the "Casting aspersions" section on the P.D. page, where eight arbitrators endorse the principle. By itself, Tony's March 8 behavior wasn't enough to call "routine", but I think his behavior on this page in recent days amounts to that level of personal attacks, the specific policy being directly violated. Note also the final phrase: with evidence, if at all. It isn't enough to bring it up here, you also need to have evidence (either immediately or when asked for it). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Casting Aspersions" is one of the best parts of the PD, in my opinion, very much on-point and well-warranted. I think it's especially helpful, if enforced. I see nothing wrong with acting as if it has already been adopted, and enforcing it as such. But I just don't see any basis for applying the principle to Tony's behavior. It just doesn't rise to that level. Since you've already made your point, and this has been totally hashed out, I think this may be a good time to close out and put a hat on this discussion. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with below)But Scotty, I'm not done yet. You simultaneously say I haven't made my point ("I don't see any basis ...") and say I've already made my point ("you've already made your point, and this has been totally hashed out") and suggest "this may be a good time to close out and put a hat on this", except that what I'm doing is rolling out the kind of evidence that arbitrators are asking for on this page. See below. Perhaps other editors have additional evidence that I've missed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this disappointing in part because this is again bringing old disputes you had with editors here to this PD. You have helped or started with setting up the FoF's on this page against editors and it looked like at first that you were doing it as an uninvolved editor. Well of course that was until you answered my question in another section which you said you were either a victim of the abuse by the editors or you did the research. You talk about the sanction board complaints. Well I clicked it and saw that you filed two back to back complaints about the same thing. Maybe editors here should set up an FoF on JohnWBarber after all of this. I didn't know John had even edited an article in CC group of articles or I just forget, which is possible. But these continual discussions are, at least imho, close to if not breaching battle territory already. For the record, if anyone cares, I don't think TS should be sanctioned in anyway from what I've seen and I gree with ScottyBerg about this not rising to that level. I do think serious consideration needs to be given to JohnWBarber about the behavior here and if there is behavior elsewhere, that too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think your last point is important. One characteristic of this arbitration has been misconduct on the arbitration pages, as well as "mini-dramas" in which the arbs have been exposed to the kind of conditions that are prevalent in the CC pages. The arbitration is wrapping up now, but I hope that the arbs don't miss an opportunity to deal with the pressing issue of personal and content disputes being exported to enforcement pages, including this one. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with above) A list of the aspersions Tony cast in recent days. I've made the point that they're baiting, but I also want to make the point here that they're personal attacks, and show just how they're personal attacks by quoting them. I don't think I need to quote the specific parts of WP:NPA that apply to each one, but I'm happy to do it if requested:

(1) Personal attack: 17:30 Sept 11: [67] It is painfully evident that some personal grievances and vendettas from that topic have been carried over to this one. Against me, Scjessey, Thegoodlocust and two editors who aren't around any longer. [68]
- Tony challenged to provide evidence for the aspersions he cast: 18:10, Sept 11 (as copy edited, 18:20)[69] Vendettas? Funny, I can only find one. [...] But you put it in the plural. Have you found others?
- Tony again challenged: 19:22 Sept 14 [70] If you wanted to bring up two-year-old sanctions, avoiding vague, disparaging comments on behavior in the CC topic area would have been the way to do it, not producing a list of editors and attaching vague aspersions to them. I think when we get down to specific diffs and evidence, discussion tends toward rational discourse and tends to be less incendiary.
(2) Personal attack (response to last comment, above): 04:08 Sept 15: [71] All of you were sanctioned for disruptive editing and all of you subsequently migrated to the climate change topic area, and it is painfully noticeable that a degree of animus has been imported to this topic area thereby.
- Tony challenged to provide evidence for the aspersions he cast: 12:04 Sept 15: [72] In substance, you were hurling rocks with largely moderate-toned language. If an editor has repeated on the climate-change pages some specific behavior from past blocks or ArbCom sanctions or other sanctions, it's constructive to point that out to show a long-term, ongoing problem. Vaguely stating that a bunch of editors had a problem a year or two ago is not going to help ArbCom with anything, and the high-heat to low-light ratio should be obvious. But that fact is obscured by your declining to offer a proposal or even a diff. You said "animus has been imported to this topic area" but you give no proof of it at all. I know of only one case of it, and even there it's a very minor sidelight, and it was already brought up (with diffs). I'll just point out that disparaging other editors while refusing to provide proof is one of the behaviors at the heart of WP:NPA, and that it's being done on an ArbCom page doesn't excuse it. Your response is evasive and repeats the behavior I complained about.
  - Tony's response, noting Scjessey's conduct only, although the point had been made repeatedly that Tony's statements covered more than Scjessey: 12:21 Sept 15 (as modified at 14:55) [73] I made an observation based on a sanctions log, which I cited. The personal animosity resulting is, and was at that time, already the subject of proposed finding 19. Please moderate your tone.
(3) Personal attack: 20:49 Sept 24 [74] (A) At that time ChildofMidnight and Grundle2600 were in the process of being banned by various means, and I thought John's abrupt switch from editing poetry articles to sniping on climate change might have something to do with that. (B) Forgive me, at the point where I posted that, I was referring to research I had done in December, 2009, around the time ScJessey showed up. John W Barber was at that point, in my current recollection, not a blip on the radar. But apparently the manner of engagement at that time did prompt me to engage in a little research. Of course it all came to a head in March, 2010, but at the time it was not clear to me that it all had to do with the intense hotbed in Obama. In other words (A) My "sniping" had something to do with ChildofMidnight and Grundle2600, both banned editors. This is an attempt to smear me by association. I've stated that by the end of ChildofMidnight's ArbCom case I was in favor of an indef ban for him. I don't recall ever interacting with Grundle2600. (B) Whatever I'm doing here "had to do with the intense hotbed in Obama". Presumably a vendetta against Scjessey, although I've never sought him out or argued with him in the CC articles or elsewhere since I started editing CC articles in November 2009. (I have made formal complaints about his conduct here and tried to do it in a civil way. I think I succeded in being civil while under some duress.) The aspersion here is that I was engaging in that kind of battleground behavior. There is no evidence of that whatever.
(4) Personal attack: 00:52 Sept 25 (as modified 00:54) : [75] I've managed to upset a good few editors by my earlier remarks on the apparent migration. No doubt if Grundle2600 and ChildofMidnight were still around they would also find fault with my characterization. So okay, I acknowledge that I could be quite wrong in my interpretation of the fact that several people previously sanctioned in an entirely unrelated matter later showed up and started going at it to varying degrees in this controversial case. My intention was to explain the otherwise inexplicable bad blood that obviously existed. A non-apology apology. (1) He continues to associate us all together, (2) "several people previously sanctioned [...] started going at it to varying degrees" I never "went at it" with any of these other editors. (3) "No doubt if Grundle2600 and ChildofMidnight were still around they would also find fault with my characterization." Again, smearing by comparing Scjessey and me to two banned editors. (4) "My intention was to explain the otherwise inexplicable bad blood that obviously existed." Again, he doesn't specify between who, thereby smearing all of us with a broad brush. All without providing any evidence whatever. After being asked to do so.
- Tony challenged to provide evidence for the aspersions he cast: 03:10 Sept 25 [76] "the fact that several people previously sanctioned in an entirely unrelated matter later showed up and started going at it to varying degrees in this controversial case." Who? Where? Provide diffs, Tony.

Tony has repeatedly made personal attacks on this page, in violation of Principle 6 on the P.D. page. He's repeatedly been challenged to provide evidence. So far, he hasn't. He has made personal attacks routinely -- on several different occasions. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being explicit and not just posting diffs, but these are not personal attacks. If those kinds of remarks were to be used as a valid basis for complaints of personal attacks and sanctions, much conversation on talk pages would end, because people would spend much of their time litigating. I don't know what else there is to say, except to repeat that this discussion has lost all value and needs to be hatted. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty, it's in black and white (and some blue) right on the policy page, Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?, fourth bullet point: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. I don't think it's possible to be more clear. Do you need any more detailed explanation about how Tony's statements were "accusations of personal behavior that lack evidence". Nothing Tony provided was evidence enough for the accusations about personal behavior that he made. Actually, I think ArbCom members are able to draw the lines and connect the dots because I've (exhaustively) put the dots so close together. At this point it really isn't a question about whether or not Tony violated the policy, it's a question of whether ArbCom thinks it should enforce the policy in this case. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to raise a separate point. I'm not saying that this is your intent, but surely the effect of this entire section cannot help but be to discourage Tony's participation in the project pages and specifically his participation in this page. Sometimes such an effect is a good thing, sometimes not. For that reason, I think that it's important that an uninvolved administrator, preferably an arbitrator, step in on this and resolve the "TS series" of complaints. If they're valid, add them to the PD and take appropriate sanctions against Tony, including but not limited to banning him from this page. If they are not valid, then there needs to be a ruling saying so, and sanctions need to be taken against JWB, including but not limited to banning him from this page. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting suggestion: I'll think about it. In the meantime, can we have a moratorium on posting on this? It's counter-productive. I'm a bit puzzled though why Principle 6 should apply as arbitration pages are part of the dispute resolution process. Roger Davies ^talk 16:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any more evidence to add. Roger, in response to your point: Tony violated Principle 6 in four ways: (1) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior I've tried to show it was "routine" with examples from March 8 and three different days in September (counting the last two together because they took place within several hours); (2) his accusations were without reasonable cause; (3) far from helping ArbCom decide anything, the accusations were made in an attempt to besmirch their reputations, because it was pointed out to him that the smears were without foundation and he found no actual evidence to back them up, yet repeated them -- what else are we to conclude? (4) Concerns [...] should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. In other words, even if Tony had a sincere concern, that alone doesn't justify his statements, for which he needed evidence, or he shouldn't have brought up his accusations at all. Posting at the appropriate forum isn't justification enough, by itself. If he did this once or twice, or if nobody objected at the time, it's probably not worth ArbCom's notice (people naturally get hot under the collar here), but this is a different situation. I'm surprised you wouldn't want more evidence, at least from others. I haven't checked, and if it's happened a lot, elsewhere, then it seems to me it would be good to bring up here, now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed FoF: Viriditas battlefield conduct

Viriditas has engaged in comments that were uncivil and reinforced a battleground mentality. [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]

[86] "Yes, I believe I've informed you of that fact several times. It's good to know you finally learned something."
[87] After an editor with a mother-in-law who survived the Holocaust has indicated he or she is upset about use of the word "deniers" in this ArbCom case, Viriditas tells that editor "A little less emotional invective based on ignorance, and a little more research based on facts would be appreciated." and then ...
[88] ... tells that editor "No, you are espousing stubborn ignorance with every comment you make. [...] I am sorry that you don't understand that this is a real phenomenon, but we cannot make good decisions based on ignorance, only on facts." and then ...
[89] ... Viriditas goes to that editor's talk page to further berate the editor, first with this diff ("I'm not sure whether I should take you seriously or not"), and then ...
[90] ... with this one ("Please try to listen to yourself." and ...)
[91] ... with this one ("Well, maybe when you calm down and can compose a sentence that does not include an attack or an explicative, we can discuss it like rational human beings.")
[92] "And, let's not forget the primary reason certain media sources and AQFK misused these claims. The worst sources repeatedly claimed, over and over again, for weeks, that because a FOIA violation might have occurred, climate science as a whole was debunked. This of course, makes no sense, but to AQFK and other editors working alongside him, this was their raison d'être on the climate articles. If they could somehow show that the hacked, private e-mails, which were unlawfully released to the public, contained some kind of impropriety, any kind, this could be twisted and framed in such a way as to attack the entire scientific dataset on climate change. And, that is exactly what they tried to do. If this isn't the very definition of anti-science propaganda, I don't know what is. The problem is that AQFK is not alone, and we still have editors doing this on a daily basis on Wikipedia, and it needs to stop."
[93] "you're trying to make is that you feel that your job, your mission on Wikipedia, is to prosecute the scientists (whom you refer to as "criminals") for their non-existent crimes, using the worst sources you can possibly find."
[94] "When AQFK and others like him repeatedly claim that "FOA violations were found to be valid", over and over again, for six months, even after such claims have been refuted, we have a serious problem. And he's not alone, John. We see throughout this case, willful, deliberate misrepresentation of sources to push a POV. " [...] "Describing your edits and your time here as furthering and supporting "anti-science propaganda" appears to be an accurate reading of the problem."

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from FellGleaming:

This is a regular pattern with this user. In my only dispute with him, he began revert warring over a trivial dispute. I took it to the NOR message board and, when an editor from there supported my interpretation, he began attacking verbally them as well. When two more editors joined and we began thrashing out a compromise text, he started repeatedly section blanking the entire portion of the article: [95] [96] I won't go into that dispute further but I'll add a few more to the list of incivility remarks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Challenger_Deep&action=historysubmit&diff=385351010&oldid=385350064] "If you keep disrupting this talk page, you could be blocked for your bad behavior...Now listen carefully...stop disruptive this article with your tendentious edits"
[97] "It is extremely difficult to communicate with Fell in simple language".
[98] "Is this making sense to you? Now, you and I both know why you keep adding it. You keep adding it because this is the number one conservative talking point..." (which if it is, is news to me)
[99] "You reverted my edit and restored Fell's. You tag teamed...this is disruptive editing by the both of you" (this to an editor who regularly clashes with me on other articles)
[100] Here where he justifies his actions by saying he "felt sorry" for me.
[101] And this rather bizarre accusation that I'm trying to "promote an agenda to weaken US sovereignty" because I cited a Berkeley Law website that says the US didn't ratify the UNCLOS treaty...to support the article text that the US didn't ratify the UNCLOS Treaty.

UPDATE: In response to my posting this, Viriditas followed me to several new articles, posting threats and more "battleground mentality" responses both in article talkspace and my own talk page, and going so far as filing noticeboard actions against me: Some examples: [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]. I think such obviously retaliatory behavior speaks for itself. Fell Gleaming^talk 11:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic that the complete opposite of what you say is true. Your "evidence" here is purely retaliatory, as I've been posting about your edits on your talk page since the 17th,[107] and notified you of the ANI report I filed regarding your edits to the Challenger Deep article on the 18th.[108] In fact, I've become very concerned with your contribution history since that time, as I've found evidence of a serious, continuing pattern of a deliberate misuse of sources to push a single POV, and I've posted extensively about your edits on at least three different noticeboards, including Wikipedia:ANI#User:FellGleaming, Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Challenger_Deep, and more recently, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Endocrine_disruption. Yes, we have a problem, and no, it isn't me. Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a final response, I find it ironic that Viriditas justifies his conduct by saying he "posted to my talk page on the 17th", when that posting itself was a veiled insinuation against my sexuality. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only two edits by Viriditas to your talk page on the 17th (September, I assume) are [109] and [110]. I have no idea about your sexuality, but I cannot, after more than 20 years on the Internet, imagine a sexual preference, practice or orientation that can in any reasonable way be construed to possibly be insinuated against in either of these edits. Please clarify. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reviewed every edit Viriditas has made to FellGleaming's talk page from the 17th until the present day, and I cannot find anything remotely like what is being suggested. The first mention of anything related to sexuality is a recent conversation about Christine O'Donnell, and I find no insinuations in that discourse. FellGleaming must provide evidence for this or immediately refactor the comment making this allegation. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't look far enough back; the edit that's probably meant was made on the 8th. I doubt there is any solid evidence that people of different genders or sexual orientations prefer particular colors, but there is a popular stereotype to that effect, and it's hard to think of another reasonable interpretation of that remark, especially when, after Fell Gleaming responded that they probably picked the color after working on the article on the color mauve, this followup remark was made. I don't know what Viriditas meant by these remarks, but at the very least the remarks were personal and had nothing to do with the editing or improvement of the encyclopedia. This shouldn't be taken as support of Fell Gleaming; he hasn't acquitted himself well in what I've seen of the discussions around the CC topic,but in this case Viriditas' comments, at the very least, were unhelpful, and could be seen as adding to the tension and animosity. Woonpton (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could not be more wrong. My comments refer directly to the meaning of the user name, "FellGleaming", which is a literary reference to the magical sword of Narsil, reforged as Andúril. The quote about the color mauve is taken directly from Mauve#Occultism, a quote about recognizing the magical symbol of the color, "signs which fellow pilgrims alone might recognize." All this means is that I figured out the meaning of his user name. I suppose at the end of the day, a sword is phallic and the color mauve is vaginal, but that takes the metaphor much farther than I intended. What is interesting here, and I thank you for bringing it up, Woonpton, is that FellGleaming's very user name is a known symbol for fighting battles, and for me at least, the mauve represents the blood he has drawn from the body of Wikipedia and her editors. I hope that clears up any confusion. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for anything that could have been taken as a "veiled insinuation against my sexuality" and that was the only exchange I thought could possibly be taken that way, but if it's true that FG knew that it was about the username being a literary allusion, then I don't see what FG is referring to with the "veiled insinuation against my sexuality" remark. I guess I'd need to see a diff. Woonpton (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Horologium, an administrator, recently used this page to engage in incivility, turning this discussion page into a battlefield when he explicitly attacked editors who use the term climate change denial.[111] Horologium compared the use of the term to that of Holocaust denial and AIDS denial, and offered "a sincere, heartfelt fuck you" to good faith editors working to resolve this dispute. The term "climate change denial" is a valid concept in studies of climate change. For it's most recent appearance in the literature, please see Chapter 14 in the Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society (2011). My original findings of fact regarding the attacks on WMC and climate change science are based on similar findings in that book. Horologium's comments were totally unprofessional and unbecoming of an administrator. His comments increased the heat in an already turbulent discussion, rather than helping us find the light of knowledge we are all seeking. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not I who compared the use of the term to Holocaust denial and AIDS denial; that is implicit in the article you linked, Climate change denial, which states Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of the general phenomenon of denialism, followed by a collection of citations to op/ed pieces and an article in a failing news magazine. Note the wikilink, which explicitly compares the concepts. As to the book you linked, two sociologists have no more expertise in interpreting global warming than anyone else who edits here, and their use of the term does not make it any less offensive. If you believe that the usages are equivalent, then I have trouble assuming good faith, because that's just stupid. Horologium (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horologium, you wrote: "As the son-in-law of one of the few Jewish survivors of Bialystok and as an extremely close friend of someone who has been HIV+ for 29 years, I find the comparison of people who don't agree with the current consensus on climate change with Holocaust deniers and AIDS deniers to be repugnant in the extreme, and I offer a sincere, heartfelt fuck you to anyone who finds the comparison to be apt."[112] That comment did not contribute to a civil resolution of the topic under discussion, but rather distracted away from it. No one here, on this arbcom case, has compared "people who don't agree with the current consensus on climate change with Holocaust deniers and AIDS deniers". Furthermore, the term, "climate change denial" is not considered an "offensive" term, and it is widely used in the literature to describe the movement composed of lobbyists, think tanks, and oil companies. This is a fact, regardless of whether you think it is true. I did not deserve to be told to "fuck off" for the second time[113] and I would ask that you try to keep polemical attacks to a minimum. As arbcom has stated on the case page, we are here to work together in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Please try to remember that in the future. Viriditas (talk)

we are here to work together in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Indeed, and when an editor gets a little hot under the collar, we're supposed to quit baiting him. You just baited him here and then went to his talk page to bait him some more. We're not supposed to use an editor's vulnerabilities against him (unless they impede the project in a big way). If you don't see that, you need to have someone in authority, like ArbCom, explain it to you in whatever way is most effective. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "bait" anyone on Wikipedia, nor do I have a history of doing it. John, you might want to look at your own behavior here a bit closer, as you're accusing people of your own misdeeds. This will be my last comment on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←This "finding of fact" is an absolutely disgraceful abuse of this page. With all due respect to those affected, "denial" is not a word claimed by people who have been affected by either the Holocaust or AIDS. A "denier" is someone who eschews overwhelming factual evidence because it doesn't fit with their own ideology/position/philosophy/whatever. If someone ignores overwhelming scientific evidence, they are "science deniers". "Scientific skepticism" refers to the natural caution of a scientist, not the blind refusal to accept what is patently obvious from overwhelming evidence. The continued insistence that using the term "science deniers" is derogatory (and this has cropped up in several FoFs aimed at individual editors) is wholly inappropriate. It is a factual term with plenty of support in reliable sources, just as "anti-abortionists" is the proper term for the self-described "pro-lifers". I urge ArbCom to look at JohnWBarber's behavior on this talk page with respect to these frivolous complaints against editors who don't share his "climate change skepticism". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually think "denier" is anti-semitic, although Horologium is hardly the first person to be offended. [114] (that's from footnote 23 in the Climate change denial article). But it's beside the point. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you believe is "patently obvious", Scjessey? Even the IPCC itself doesn't express absolute certainty that global warming is anthropogenic, and they are much less certain on the subject of effects and ideal responses. A "denier" is a person who believes the moon landings were faked. A person who believes the evidence for catastrophic warming doesn't justify multi-trillion dollar responses is simply skeptical. Fell Gleaming^talk 09:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real desire to use this forum to debate the topic, but I will observe that your comment "even the IPCC itself doesn't express absolute certainty that global warming is anthropogenic" is an example of how "skeptics" attempt to frame a debate to suit their ideology. Nobody says "global warming is anthropogenic", but rather scientists unequivocally state that human activity has had a major influence on climate change based upon the analysis of a gigantic body of empirical evidence. Denying that the conclusions drawn from that scientific analysis is a form of denial (hence "science denier"). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure about this one to be honest. I don't have enough knowledge of the editor and don't have the time necessary to do the research. One thing though that I do find concerning is the difs that are in the update from FellGleaming that there might be a problem with proper use of sources. There have been a problems using sources incorrectly in the past so I think this should definitely be looked at to make sure there isn't a problem going on here too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appear to have been draged in to this so I shall commment. Viriditas has accused me on an ANI of tag teaming. This is clearly a false accusation [[115]]. It is clear to me that the user is highly combative and disruptive.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<od> John Barber's source is rather interesting, but not so much for the article itself, but from the comments. Amusingly, WMC makes the first comment and he admits that "deniers" is in reference to holocaust denial, but seems to assert his right to still use it - these people know full well that they are being intentionally inflammatory. David Archer is also in the comment section, another Real Climate contributor who's been cited to prove that the GW articles are well-made. It really is such a small world. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went yesterday to read the dif given by Slatersteven to the An/i board. First, I recommend the arbitrators to take a look at the discussion there. Slatersteven, I sincerely think that your name got caught up in the anger and stress involved in this situation and that the use of 'tag teaming' was not meant to be derogatory though I obviously can't be sure of this. This is again another problem being discussed about the use of sources from my read. What is doubling troubling about it is that after the referrence was questioned in one article, FellGleaming took it to another board where discussion was still ongoing, no major problem yet, but than FellGleaming thought it was wise to take the same ref to different article where the conflict rose in heat value in a major way. I've seen this kind of frustration show itself with good editors in other article like Chiropractic. For the life of me, reading all the difs supplied, I cannot understand why anyone would take a ref that is under major dispute at two locations only to bring in a third discussion about the same disagreements whether the source is being used properly. This would frustrate a lot of editors and this is again the type of things that has to be stopped imho. I think if you read the dif about from Slatersteven you will understand what I am trying to say but not saying too well (it's early for me, need more coffee). I will take the time I think to check out the FoF on Viriditas that the arbs supply if I have the time. I am concerned that the anger being seen by some of these editors being brought up for FoF is because of long drawn out battles taking a toll on them like this one here shows. Editors are human, so we can expect tempers to flare and patience to wear thin esp. in a long ongoing dispute like this when one side of the editors stays pretty constant and the other side changes editors regularly. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC) TheGoodLocust I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to show but may I suggest you refactor or remove it as not very useful to the discussion.[reply]

I would also point out that I informed the edd that I did not tag team [[116]] (as did others [[117]]) and he refused to retract it, and in fact went on to re-state the accusation [[118]]. As to fell, yes there may be issus here and I would sugest that his actions are looked at as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CrohnieGal, you wrote (10:06, 22 Sept): Editors are human, so we can expect tempers to flare and patience to wear thin esp. in a long ongoing dispute like this when one side of the editors stays pretty constant and the other side changes editors regularly Actually, there are editors from various perspectives who have been around for many months, so I wouldn't focus on one side or the other with that observation. And over time, editors are expected to be able to hold their temper in contentious situations or channel their anger into dispute resolution or walk away. Other than that, I think your point is a consideration that arbitrators should be incorporating into their decisions. I think they normally do and probably will here, but I don't always see evidence of that on this PD page. My evidence against Viriditas is pretty concentrated on one day or so of comments here, and if that's all there was, or if the rest of the evidence was any weaker, I wouldn't have suggested this Fof. (As it is, it would be better to have even more diffs.) Similarly, the case against ATren is incredibly weak, as is the case against AQFK (as is the charge that GregJackP wrongly sourced information). These Fofs should show editors violating policy on multiple occasions (so that a brief problem with their behavior -- unless it's particularly bad -- doesn't get treated like an ongoing problem that an ArbCom decision is necessary to fix), and the violations should be clearly spelled out when they're not obvious (so that the ArbCom decision looks fair to as many parties as possible). Temporary flare ups of anger (often at the clearly outrageous behavior of others) or temporary mistakes in judgment (fed by the battleground atmosphere for which others are far more to blame) shouldn't be what an Fof is founded on. Editors who escalate an already bad situation with even worse behavior (as Viriditas did in recent days), editors who continually misbehave and editors whose misconduct is particularly bad are the ones who need to be named in the Fof. ArbCom can set the bar just about as high or low as it wants (Newyorkbrad seems to want to set it very high indeed; Roger Davies and Shell want to set it low, as I prefer), as long as it sets the bar at the same height for every Fof to jump over. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ JohnWBarber, yes I agree editors are supposed to do what you say in your response to me about editors being human. Unfortunately, during the heat of a debate sometimes you can get caught up in that debate too much to think of the alternatives of using the other DR's and walking away is not something done when you are trying to debate your reasonings. In a perfect world this would actually be great and this is something that editors in this area need to now take into their thoughts early or get sanctioned to make them do so. As for your last section about the arbitrators setting the bar high or low and you wanting it to be the same height, I don't think that's is true. Every editor edits differently thus by default, the bar is going to be different. For example of what I mean, some editors edit a variety of topics or articles while others only edit a specific set of articles or topics. The one thing though that I think is important to this is the arbitrators also seem to know quite a few of the editors involved in this dispute so that also is going to be thought of when they make decisions. Maybe thinking of this being settled by setting the bar at the height shouldn't be used for multiple reasons other than my examples above. This sounds more like what editors are calling leveling the playing field when complaints were that more from one side than the other is being sanctioned. What I am curious about, is what kind of history you have with some of these editors you keep bringing FoF's against. The reason I am curious is because of your addendum above showing that you had something going on with Tony Sidaway back in March of this year and now you are adding difs to show why he should be sanctioned now, at least that's the feeling I'm getting from your behavior on this page. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misunderstood you point so I would like to clarify. Are you saying that we should apply diferent standerds to different users based upon what articles they edit?Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well to answer you Slatersteven I'd have to say yes but also no. What is am saying to put it quite bluntly which I've trying to avoid saying outright above is that what I mean is that the bar should be different for editors who are POV pushing, advocating due to outside influences, WP:SOCK and so on. I'm not say the bar should change for established editors though who are not following policies and guidelines. Does this clarify my comment for you? --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I partialy disagree. Socking is already coverd and if proven can be dealt with. Your other concearns seem to be too subjective to be fairly enforceble, who would determine if some one is POV pushing based on some percived outside influence (and how would you prove said influence?). Seems to me you will just have a lot more of the random ANI's such as the one I have been subject off when users lose thier temper and have a hissy fit. Also if user is an experianced and esablished user there is less excuse for poor activiy, not more. An experianced user knowes the rules a new user is inexperianced in the rules, and thus may not apply them in a way that we would consider acceptable. What you seem to be saying is that the more knowledge a user has about the rules the more lee way we shuold give them when they break them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@CrohnieGal -- "set the bar" means "set the standard" [119], maybe even a standard for figuring out which circumstances call for relaxing the standard. When I see bad behavior that doesn't look like it will end unless ArbCom does something about it, I put the diffs here. If I already know about it, it's because I was likely the victim of it, but in other cases I've researched it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess the addendum against the user TS about baiting falls into the category of you being a victim of it. We can't use revenge to have sanctions put against other editors because you feel like you've been victimized. TS explained some of those to you I remember him telling you why your other name was the first on listed. You were upset when he originally said it and I guess you still are which is a shame that you can't let it go. It wasn't that big of a deal until you made it one. Sorry, but that's how this reads to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not saying what I want clearly enough, sorry. The POV pushing from outside influences, at least to my understanding of what is known, is that blogs are involved in getting editors to come to these set of articles. This has been brought up at the sanction board and also multiple ediors talk pages in the past which leads me to believe that this can be proven that recuitment(s?) have ocurred. To being able to prove that someone is being influenced by outside blogs I would think that the editors in this case watching the different blogs or at least read them, would be able to see if the blogs are trying to influence article writing. Then if a slew of new editors arrive or whatever, there would probably show a correlation between the blogs request and what the editors are saying/doing. Maybe some of the regular editors who know about this can clarify this better than I am able to. As for the established editors, I agree and thought I was say what you did here, "Also if user is an experianced and esablished user there is less excuse for poor activiy, not more." I am definitely did not say this, "What you seem to be saying is that the more knowledge a user has about the rules the more lee way we shuold give them when they break them.". Established users should know proper policies and guidelines and should therefore follow them. I just mean there are acceptions at times when an established user fails to. Again, please don't get me wrong, but right now what I've been seeing at this talk page is editors words and/or comments being looked over through a microscope and sometimes looking at the past actions today seems to take things with 20/20 hindsight views. Am I clearer now? I really am trying to be. If you need more, how about we take this to my talk page, or yours to finish it so we don't clog up this page? If needed we could bring the important parts, in agreement, back to this page for full review by the others or just put a dif for the others to see what is said. In closing this for right now from me, I agree for the most part in what you are saying. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of off-wiki efforts it may be useful to (re)consider this evidence in reference to the off-wiki campaigning problem - in particular, consider this "How-To Guide"--Noren (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this as I've never seen it before. I've only seen comments about this and bits and pieces of it. I hope the arbitrators take notice of this here as it explains a lot in my opinion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed FoF: WMC battlefield conduct and inappropriate editing of articles related to RealClimate

William M. Connolley has engaged in inappropriate conduct in the article about RealClimate, of which he was a founding member, and other articles related to the topic of RealClimate, including edit warring and removal of reliably sourced text without discussion [120] [121] [122] [123] [124]. In at least one case, an administrator intervened to stop the edit war [125].

Proposed, based on the discussions below about yesterday's edit warring at RealClimate and The Hockey Stick Illusion. Cla68 (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator did intervene, but the log indicates that he appeared to have been concerned by possible sockpuppets. He made no warning to WMC for edit warring that I am aware of, so I don't think the implication of wrongdoing is quite correct. It is true that WMC should have discussed rather than reverted, and he should not have used the "undo" tool. However, there appears to have been ample previous discussion. These were questionable additions to the article, and all appear to have been discussed previously on the talk pages of both articles without a consensus to add. The fact that something is "reliably sourced" does not mean that it automatically warrants inclusion in an article. There appears to have been a reasonable basis not to include, but I think that this needs to be hashed out on the talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he did start a discussion, and asked the anon to join in. Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is my opinion also with what is said above. Also this went to the sanction board where the uninvolved administrator closed it with; "Cla68, you are free to ask WMC to do anything you like. That does not mean that he has to listen to you, nor does it necessitate a post on this page. If you wish to request enforcement on this matter, please use the standard form at the top of this page to do so. NW (Talk) 8:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)" You didn't follow through and refiled the complaint opting for the arbs to take care of the matter which is what I think I and others have been saying, too much running to sanction boards rather than discussing the matter on the talk page. I really think this should have no actions and this type of forum shopping needs to stop. FellGleaming filed a complaint right before your's against WMC with the uninvolved administrators saying no action (for different reasons) is need but that FG might require some action toward their behavior. I feel that a lot of these FoF's are aimed at getting rid of the enemy type of things which also shouldn't be going on. Does the difs that 2|0 put in that section about the COI board need to be up here too? I'm sorry but this is looking like revenge or or getting rid of the enemy. Most in that thread didn't agree with this which I find problematic too, I hope the arbitrators will read the thread that started this FoF. Just my opinion of watching all of this and reading the thread below with only part of the info in the above FoF which just seems one sided. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning the previous COI discussions, some dating back at least three years.[126]. I can understand WMC's cynical attitude after seeing how he had been dragged into enforcement boards again and again. His attitude doesn't help, but I definitely sense a concerted effort to target and remove him. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) - A number of the FoF sections filed seem to have this problem, where old issues are being re-litigated in the hope of getting certain editors "removed from the playing field". When frustrated editors are forced to defend themselves, the new diffs comprising their defense are often used to strengthen the case against them. Classic baiting. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbs have indicated they are interested in seeing a larger pattern. Minor4th 19:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a pattern of frivolous FoF filings emerging, just as it did on the RfE page. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor4th, I think the arbitrators can see a pattern emerging right here on this talk page. I didn't look at the other pages of this case but if it's anything like what's been going on here, they should definitely see a pattern of who is doing what, as I've read here and elsewhere, to level the playing field. I agree with the above by Scjessey and I said so in a section above about what I have be seeing in this regards. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposed FoF: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) COI editing and NPOV violations

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) has engaged in violations of WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia policy, by editing RealClimate in a manner that constitutes advocacy and violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline [127] [128] [129][130][131]. In promoting the RealClimate point of view, William Connolley has added the RealClimate blog as a source, often as a SPS in BLP's [132], [133],[134], [135],[136], [137] and questionable wikilinking to RealClimate [138].

Minor4th 19:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to doublecheck the links, or at least explain them better. I'm not seeing how adding a link to a NASA source is an SPS when it mentions RC, and at least one of the BLP diffs doesn't seem to be a BLP article. Ravensfire (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not all BLP's and it's still a SPS even in the non-BLP articles. Blogs should not be used as references except in very limited circumstances (such as discussions of the blogs themselves). Even greater care should be taken when the editor using the blog as a source is a founding member of the blog and has a personal interest in promoting the blog. Minor4th 19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then separate them or something so it's clear what you are saying please. It's hard looking at these FoF's from an outside view, all the help with clarifing something like this would be helpful. Why do you come to the assumption that the reason the blogs are used is to promote his blog? From what I've been reading, the blog site gets a lot of attentions already. Look how many have said they read or have read this blog just during this PD talk page. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you had better propose a remedy then that William should be topic-banned from editing the RealClimate article, and be banned from using it as a source in WP (with posts to talk pages allowed). --JN466 00:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think before something goes to that, your should both look at the multiple times that WMC was brought to the COI board about this very thing and the results of the conversations there. Just a suggestion, because this has been brought to the COI board before and he was ruled not to have a COI by unimvolved editors, the dif is located in a couple of locations about FoF's for WMC and the discussions. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few more reverts by WMC in RealClimate, including deletions of criticism sourced to Die Zeit and The Guardian: [139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149] etc. --JN466 03:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedy: William M. Connolley restricted to 1RR

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) is restricted to 1RR in the climate change topic area, for one year.

There is a long enough history of persistent edit-warring to justify this (see finding 6), and the edit-warring has continued unabated throughout these proceedings, and still continues. It is also one of the most conspicuous ways in which the "uncivil and antagonistic behaviour" mentioned in finding 8.2, which appears to be passing, manifests. --JN466 00:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FoF 6 is badly broken - it was written by Rlevse and includes many edit wars that aren't actually edit wars at all William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedy: global 1RR on climate change pages

All users are restricted to 1RR in the climate change topic area, for one year.

There is too much reverting in the climate change pages. Probably, a global 1RR all over wiki would be good, but putting one on to the climate change pages would be a start William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed FoF: FellGleaming multiple violations

FellGleaming (talk · contribs) has used dubious sources [150] to advance his POV [151]; violated BLP (e.g. [152] (note that was done *after* Cuccinelli's investigation had been rejected by the judge, see Talk:Michael_E._Mann#Cuccinelli); edit warred to remove material purely because he doesn't like it [153] (see Talk:Frederick_Seitz#Deleting_info); misrepresented consensus to bias discussion [154]; and repeatedly engaged in bad-faith tendentious wiki-lawyeing to defend his favoured versions (e.g. Talk:The_Gore_Effect#Removal_of_sourced_content).

Note that FG was censured by the CC panel [155] [156] and was given a final warning to avoid aggressive posturing. He has previously been blocked for edit warring on Cl Ch articles [157]; and been annoying other people elsewhere [158]

William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had one in with FG in the past. I think he may have some POV issues. As well as a tendancy to wikilayer rather a lot (often from a mistaken interpritation of those rules).Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a rather odd exchange with FellGleaming (See User_talk:VsevolodKrolikov#Multiple_reverts). He was trying to get me to self-revert an edit he didn't like on Watts Up With That? by claiming that I had violated 1RR twice in two days. The odd bit was that he wouldn't produce any evidence, and got snarky when asked for it (probably because he didn't have it). I don't know if it's a particularly egregious thing to have done, but it did involve a misinterpretation of the rules and an attempt to use procedure instead of discussion (he also spurned an invitation to discuss the content on the article talkpage). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vsevolod's memory is faulty. He demanded diffs and he got them [159]. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I had been mostly cleaning up (typos, source formatting), I asked ("Could you provide diffs of the reverts you are counting" is not demanding) for diffs and the reply I got was "Come on now, you can count as easily as I can", followed by an accusation that I was misrepresenting my edits (and when I objected, he accused me of having a "battleground mentality"). This forced me to waste my time going over my own edits in detail explaining how each one was not a revert. FellGleaming finally provided two (not four) diffs, and at least one was clearly not a revert by his own earlier inadvertent admission. As I said above, I don't know exactly how egregious people might consider this, but I was struck by the difference between a very civil warning, and the subsequent absence of AGF, and the misrepresentation of policy and fact. At the time I didn't know he had history. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FellGleaming pursues a global warming denial agenda. He pursues his POV by attacking a series of related articles and, by removing support for a proposition in tangential articles, then go back to the main article and say that there is no support for the proposition in related articles. See also WP:COATRACK. For example, here is where he attempts to attack a bio article on climate change expert Joseph Romm by adding poorly sourced and unbalanced information [160]. He then tries to remove Romm's name from this article: [161] (see this: [162]) Full disclosure: I am a friend of Romm's. That's why I noticed FellGleaming's behaviour. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Full disclosure: I am a friend of Romm's. " SSilvers, even WMC agreed that Romm isn't a "scientist". When polar opposites as he and I agree on an issue, you can bank on it. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FG's comment is irrelevant, and he is trying to change the subject to divert attention away from my evidence of his behaviour. But, for the record, Romm holds a Ph.D in physics from MIT, he is a Fellow of the AAAS, he has written extensively on climate change and energy in scientific journals and reports, and here is a list of major news sources in the U.S. who agree that he is a physicist and/or climate expert: [163]. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that even the person bringing this complaint against me disagrees with you is irrelevant? And I don't have a problem with calling Romm an energy expert. He's simply not a scientist; honorary AAAS membership notwithstanding. And I didn't remove him from the article; he's just no longer in the lede. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FellGleaming has an extremely aggressive editing style that makes it difficult to work cooperatively with him. He will argue a point over and over on an article's talk page, and when he doesn't get his way he deletes large swaths of material that he dislikes with a summary of "As per talk, deleting non-encyclopedic content."[164] I've also encountered what VsevolodKrolikov calls "misinterpretation of the rules and an attempt to use procedure instead of discussion" on many occasions. His talk page discussions often employ an odd sort of circular logic that basically goes "the source that supports that statement isn't reliable, because a reliable source wouldn't say that." In my view his editing behavior is far more destructive than most of the editors cited in the current FoF listings. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from FellGleaming

William's complaint is a bit odd. He claims this source [165] as dubious, which presumably means unreliable. However, the quote cited is accurate, a fact William doesn't dispute. The underlying fact -- that RealClimate was founded to be a proactive source of information on climate related stories -- has been widely reported. Given William, as a founder of RealClimate himself well knows this to be accurate -- complaining that the source is "questionable" appears to be simple Wikilawyering to build a case against an editor he disagrees with. The article content certainly wasn't harmed.

Charge #2 is that I "advanced my POV", in this talk page comment [166]. This is even stranger. He challenges a fact as irrelevant (a fact first added by another editor besides myself, by the way). I explain why I feel it's notable. He claims my explanation is a violation. If an editor's explanation of why he believes an article should take a certain form is a crime, then I respectfully submit that anyone whose ever made a talk page comment is guilty. My statement that it should be included is no more "POV pushing" than his statement that it should be excluded. His is worse, in fact, as I detailed a specific argument as to why the material was relevant, whereas his justification for removing it was the unhelpful, "take a look at the website", followed by his personalizing the debate with the statement "This is so obviously your biases showing through that I'm amazed that you can write it. You are deliberately inserting your POV into this article, which is a disgrace." [167]

His third charge of a BLP violation is nearly a month old and over 1000 edits ago of mine. If he truly thought this actionable, it's odd he didn't report it then. The material is properly supported by sources. In fact, when he near-instantly reverted the edit [168], he didn't call it a BLP violation, he simply said "please see talk where this has been discussed". The talk in question was a two-week old thread [169] that as I read it, had no clear consensus either way. And, of course, even had consensus been reached, it doesn't remain indefinitely. But the larger problem with William's accusation is I believe it's clearly made not to improve the content, but simply to attack me. Consider. A several weeks-old edit, instantly reverted by him. What's the point of dredging this up, especially given its clearly not a BLP violation? Is he simply once again trying to squelch editors whom he disagrees with? Fell Gleaming^talk 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

(this may need to be re-updated depending on how the thing pans out)

FG has now been blocked for 72h [170] and threatened with loss of talk-page access [171] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrap it up

Could we be finished now, please? Jehochman ^Talk 01:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...and propose that the best thing to do is eliminate the individualized sanctions and simply pass a discretionary sanctions case. ANY violations by any parties mentioned here and then of any parties not mentioned after receiving one explicit warning should lead to a topic ban for 90 days...next violation 1 year and a third, an indefinite topic ban. Any violation noticed would need to be posted so all administrators can see it at either AN/I or the Arbcom Enforcement Noticeboard. Set something like that in concrete and trim the fat out of these proposed decisions and we'd all be better off.--MONGO 02:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been drafting a section entitled "Endgame" but Jehochman beat me to it. The sanctions against individuals don't mean much in the long run because there never has been and likely never will be any shortage of aggressive editors on this topic. It's a mirror of the real world (with a side dish of editor recruitment by certain blogs). I do appreciate the effort that the committee is taking to look at individual editors. But this is a lot of work on something that will be of little long-term benefit, when the committee has many other demands on their time. Unless the committee has something up its sleeve in the way of a novel policy or sanction that will be broadly applicable, it's time to put this thing to bed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some utility in ArbCom pointing out which editors have been unhelpful. This sets expectations and calibrates norms. However, there is no need for exhaustive treatment. After pointing out the most egregious cases, any remaining or future cases can be left to arbitration enforcement. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a finding of fact on individual conduct is very powerful. An individual who is named in such a finding is encouraged to take responsibility for improving matters going forwards, even if he is not then named in any remedy or enforcement measure. --TS 14:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I very much view a Finding of Fact in individual cases as being a sort of strong version of an RfC/U, and it is hoped that the FoF in itself will promote the sort of improvement in conduct that is desired by the community. Actual remedies should be really be directed toward the more egregious conduct, such as edit warring and multiple BLP violations. Like politics and religion, the topic of climate change is bound to have an editing atmosphere that is somewhat volatile. Remedies directed toward individuals will have no appreciable long term effect on this atmosphere, but tightly-controlled probationary measures enforced by a rotating group of uninvolved administrators definitely would. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can set as our goal that climate change will not have "an editing atmosphere that is somewhat volatile." There's really no reason why the editing of articles about a relatively well established science should be held hostage by those who import external political disputes. --TS 15:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "volatile", I mean "subject to flare-ups" rather than continuously problematic. You've talked about imported political disputes before, and I'm not sure what you mean by it. The only imported disputes I am aware of are personal or ideological, not political. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to what the Committee in its draft finding 2 calls the "Many disputes relating to the climate change topic area [which] have been polarizing and embittered because of the great importance that many people, on and off Wikipedia, give to this topic area." It's rather similar to evolution in the respect that the science is well established (overwhelmingly so in the case of evolution, but the basics of global warming are also very well supported) but there are all kinds of weak challenges to the science that can only be explained by the political implications various people apply to the science. The same kind of conspiracy theories recur as in critiques of evolution, the same allegations of fakery, and the same kind of agendas are alleged, despite the exceptional scientific support for both. --TS 16:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what you mean. Yes. Agreed. Hard to know how to avoid that. Ill-informed politicians wield considerable power and generate considerable media coverage, and Wikipedia relies on media coverage for sourcing. Scientists have to work hard to get coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't rely on mass media coverage for sourcing on scientific matters. If we did, there would be a lot more creationist nonsense and we'd be parroting lies from the media about autism and vaccines. People come here for the facts and we get the facts from the most reliable sources we can find. --TS 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is true for the most part; however, my editing in this topic has been limited largely to the CRU hacking article where politics and media coverage have had more influence than science (rightly or wrongly). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. The main problem with that article was that for a long time the standard of reporting in the newspapers was abysmal. It's improved a little now and the official inquiries have helped to clarify matters a lot. --TS 17:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And the problem was magnified a lack of true reporting coupled with an abundance of opinion in the months immediately following the data theft. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Important point I think, wikipedia is not a "Reader's Digest" of mainstream newspaper articles when it comes to scientific topics. There are some that still do not yet fully appreciate the importance of this statement. If the reader falls into this category then I suggest that you read this principle which will be approved in this case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Encyclopedic_coverage_of_science Bill Huffman (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest pointing such editors to WP:WEIGHT, and in some case WP:FRINGE. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly understandable that everyone would love to see this finally draw to an end. But wrapping it up should not be a euphemism for punting. I think that some (not all) of the editors who responded after Jehochman's opening post have been engaging in an echo chamber of "let's not sanction anyone now". Just give everyone a pat on the head, and say next time we're going to get serious. I'm not trying to convince the editors who commented, but I hope that I can convince the Committee that it would be a failure of nerve to do so, a failure to really prevent further disruption, and a big let-down to the larger editing community. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with that sentiment. Let my comments above not be understood to be supportive of the notion that there should not be strong sanctions directed at individuals in this case. --TS 17:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...this arbcam case has been a tit-for-tat...don't think for a minute I can't see that there haven't been infractions, some somewhat egregious even, but if we had a discretionary sanction case and really enforced it, I bet named parties would alter their game plan. I know this worked at the 9/11 arbcom case...the POV pushers were all sanctioned or simply stopped editing for a year, allowing several related articles the peace needed to get them to FA status...including one that had been a complete battlefield. That case made the wacky cease and desist so I think the sane that work on CC articles would probably conform if they knew they be topic banned for anywhere from 90 days to indefintitely...set that in stone, enforce it immediately and watch things calm down.--MONGO 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. As long as the sanctions are enforced in a fair manner. If they are used as another means to defend the house POV against all comers, they will not solve the problem. ++Lar: t/c 11:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on that? What is the "house POV" in the global warming articles? I see a lot of articles, some on secondary subjects, and a lot of noisy editing. Please explain your comment. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) - Certainly egregious violations that harm the project should attract sanction, but many of the proposed statements (such as the one noted by Bill Huffman) should go a long way toward informing editors of how the topic is best tackled. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) There are about half a dozen more FOFs to follow. Shell has limited connectivity at the moment but as soon as she's back in the saddle we'll get them posted. Then, the remedies need looking at but that shouldn't take too long. So overall, things are probably winding down. Roger Davies ^talk 21:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of this post..."This page is 385 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussions into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance."...--MONGO 03:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what is being stated above. I also find the comment by MONGO an interesting idea too. I remember the constant AN/i discussions about the 911 articles and how things disappeared for the most part after the case closed from that board. So maybe his/her suggestion should be taken as an idea on handling things. As I said above in an earlier statement today, I also am seeing a lot of the problems being generated by the facts that on one side of the issue is a pretty constant set of editors that are under the limelight right now being up against the other side that the editors change and expand quite frequently. I'm not sure why this one side has more and different editors on it's side unless it has to do with what the editors here on this talk page and also the arbs have made mention on the PD about outside blogs influencing this. If that is the case then maybe the editors who are known to be brought from the outside, the spas of this case, need to be dealt with. We can't allow editors to come in from the outside knowingly to raise havoc like this to our article work. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Mongo's idea is interesting. However, I'm not familiar with that case so I'm not sure if the dynamics there are the same as here. I also agree with your general assessment of the situation. There's been a lot of talk of "COI" on the part of one editor, but your suggestion that some of the editors may be SPAs motivated by outside blogs is interesting, and would explain some of the behavior we've seen. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO's suggestion has merit, though the 9/11 situation was a bit different in that it was reality v. nutters not scientific inquirey v. head in the sand. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, waiting for voting on the proposed decision is turning into even more of a joke than waiting for the proposed decision itself. Before we hit the six month mark for this case, might it be quicker to just hold new arb elections and find some who are available? Weakopedia (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies for the horrible timing of my computer problems (touched off by nothing more than a 30 minute thunderstorm no less). Things are still up in the air, but I do have solid access to email and a few IMs due to owning a smartphone. If you think there's something I've overlooked because of my limited access for the past week or so, please drop me a brief pointer in the right direction. Shell ^babelfish 09:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to arbitrators: Principle / finding / remedy / clarification / whatever on WP:NPOV

WP:NPOV says In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. Based on this, some editors have inserted references to the majority view in articles about books or films that argue a minority view on climate change. Others have objected that the article isn't about a minority view per se, but is about a film or book about the minority view. Accordingly they have deleted such references to the majority view (see here for a current example).

The arbitrators already have passed principles relating to neutrality, coverage of science, and the like, so could they please expand on these just a bit and clarify the boundaries of WP:NPOV with regard to films, books, etc.? I suspect that most of us would appreciate the guidance and could live with whatever the decision happens to be. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68's edit is an improvement in terms of WP:NPOV, and fixes a clear case of WP:SYN. That the programme argues against scientific consensus is evident from its reception, which is summarised in the lead. The lead already refers to "the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide", and summarises scientists' criticisms, which are covered in full in the article itself. --JN466 02:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but I'm requesting a general statement about the boundaries of WP:NPOV rather than an evaluation of one specific edit (or article). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the arbitrators would support the idea that violations of WP:SYN are not allowed to ensure that we inform our readers that an article's topic may be a minority view or idea. Swindle isn't the only article where that has happened [172] [173] Cla68 (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this is something where editors often go too far in playing the role of independent de-bunker, rather than informing readers about the reliable source coverage of such works, in a way that does not accord with the simple meaning of a "Neutral Point of View" (or indeed our other policies). If critics of a film point out that it makes discredited or minority claims, then that is something we should cover, while attributing those views to the critics who make them. The amount of criticism we present should reflect the weight of opinion. What seems to happen instead is that editors insert statements about majority opinion which may or may not directly address what the author said; it simply comes down to one editor's opinion. Frankly, some editors also seem to feel the need to note that views are minority views over and over, every time something is considered a minority review, rather than waiting and presenting a coherent response to the work as a whole. In the example you show it seems to involve editors wanting to clarify for the reader that this is a minority view book, in the first sentence. I think that discredits Wikipedia; we should not be interrupting the very first sentence of an article to inform the reader that the thesis of this book, as we perceive it, is not widely held. I'm not sure if it's something where ArbCom can help, however. Mackan79 (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. --JN466 02:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why editors would be concerned about articles like The Great Global Warming Swindle, which are about books and so forth that are clearly intended to advance a fringe point of view. I'm not sure how this can be addressed. The dangers of such articles is that they can become coatracks to either promote or attack the point of view of the book, blog or whatever that is the subject. I do think that such articles need to make clear that the subject of the article advances a fringe point of view, so as to not mislead the reader. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This the nub of the issue; if a WP editor were to make such a statement then it would be seen as WP taking a stance, unless it is from a review of the book, which is against NPOV. Even placing such a quoted reference in the lead is problematic, unless that reference is the primary source which establishes the notability of the subject. If the author describes the book as either skeptic, denialist or whatever, then they can be quoted in the lead. The point is, without the third party source, Wikipedia editors may not infer (or state) what viewpoint the subject holds and whether it is mainstream or otherwise for the subject matter. That is policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think that's a problem, since most of the works we're talking about go out of their way to challenge the status quo and, in cases such as the Global Warming Swindle, to vilify an entire field of science and its practitioners. It isn't difficult to find support for the statement that they're advocating fringe points of view--indeed the authors usually regard this as the main selling point of the work. --TS 16:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fine, but not what it appears that ScottyBerg was saying in his last sentence. Due care in article writing should find the references which denote the character of the subject, not WP editorialising. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that editors should engage in OR. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I raised in relation to barely notable fringe topics like The Hockey Stick Illusion, which can attract eulogies in nominally reliable sources such as the mass media, while still without any mainstream reliable sources. Fortunately the situation there has been improving, but during the interim period Wikipedia can get used to present an unquestioned fringe view of the topic the book covers, in clear breach of NPOV. A question of whether patience should mean tolerance of misinformation. . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book has an amazon sales rank of 31,967. That makes it more than "barely notable". NPOV means that we reflect published opinion in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources. I don't see any good reason to suppress positive reviews. I am equally sure not all reviews were positive. The thing to do is to say who liked it and who didn't, and leave it to the reader to make up their minds as to what that means. We don't make up the readers' minds for them. --JN466 21:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's silly. How does an Amazon sales rank translate to reliability? The author is a retired accountant with absolutely no knowledge of the science. All he has, it seems, are opinions fashionable with those who are opposed to science. At best, we could use his book as a primary source for works that attack established science from the point of view of ignorance.--TS 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time it was evidently a struggle to find reviews at all, the article was padded out with passing mentions and one glowing but uninformative report in the intelligent design house magazine, Discovery News. We don't mislead readers into thinking that fringe publications have mainstream acceptance or "equal validity" just because they've been ignored by the mainstream – or at least we shouldn't. . . . dave souza, talk 21:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I said that an Amazon sales rank translates into reliability, justifying using the book as a source, then you are gravely mistaken, Tony. It was the notability of the book that was being questioned. And actually, despite the high amazon sales rank, I concede that there are fewer mainstream sources about it than I had expected to find, so I shouldn't have brought up the rank. I thought it had made more of a splash in the media. --JN466 00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside: Mackan writes we should not be interrupting the very first sentence of an article I'm not so sure it's really an interruption. WP:MOSBEGIN supports the idea that context may be put into a first paragraph. I think a good case can be made that when the subject is a nonfiction work about a controversy it's important enough for the reader to know from the first paragraph that the documentary POV is in the minority. It's a question for the article talk page, though, not here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Boris' point about NPOV policy extending into (nonfiction) creative works that are essentially about controversies (such as the documentary film in the example and books about controversies) is a very good one (to a degree, so is Mackan's, although lesser-known works sometimes get more coverage from fringe or minority sources, skewing the critical reaction -- in those cases, we should emphasize the reviews that reflect majority opinion when referring to how the work covers the controversy). But I don't think WP:NPOV as currently written covers this situation, and I don't think that ArbCom should step into that. We should change WP:NPOV. If anyone wants to try, tell me and I'll show up on the talk page to support that kind of change. In Boris' example, it's no big deal whether or not the first sentence mentions that the documentary reflects a minority or fringe opinion. (Personally, I think waiting until the fourth paragraph of a four-paragraph lead to say it's a minority-opinion documentary is wrong, and I'd switch the order of the third and fourth paragraphs, but again, it's no big deal.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way this by Tony Sidaway is a clear violation of WP's BLP policy. Tony states that the author of the book has, "absolutely no knowledge of the science" and that the book gives opinions "fashionable with those who are opposed to science." Tony adds that the book could be used "as a primary source for works that attack established science from the point of view of ignorance." Obviously, there are several problems with Tony's statement beyond it being an outright violation of BLP:

1. Does Tony even have a copy of the book? He doesn't appear to.

2. Tony implies by his statement that he (Tony) knows the science, but that this clown who wrote the book doesn't. The problem is, this guy wrote a book but Tony hasn't (as far as I know). Tony, however, is a semi-anonyomous Wikipedia editor who, as evidence I presented above on this page shows, edits with an agenda. Apparently, this gives Tony license to decide which book authors "absolutely" know the science and which don't, as Tony does know the science.

3. Who is "opposed" to science? I don't know anyone who is "opposed" to science. To blanket accuse people whose views you don't agree with as "opposed to science" is classic ad hominem. In fact, I've never seen a better example of such an ad hominem attack given by anyone in my four and a half years of editing Wikipedia.

4. The book contains opinions by a wide variety of scientists and others, such as Hans von Storch. Von Storch is one of many scientists who have criticized the hockey team's research, to varying degrees. I didn't realize that von Storch and those others were "opposed to science," but I guess you, Tony, know better than I do.

5. The "point of view of ignorance?" So, Tony, anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant? Do you really feel that that is a helpful attitude to have in a controversial subject when cooperation, collaboration, and compromise are what needs to take place? In fact, I think that your attitude may get in the way of progress on content discussions. What do you think? Do you think that any bloc of editors who think this way might, as a group, also cause problems in a controversial topic area? Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I submit Cla's above comment as a prime example of baiting and pointless grandstanding, and a good (or rather bad) example of his tendency to rely on wikilawyering and misusing BLP as a cudgel instead of constructive dialogue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or was Cla68 responding to Tony's baiting? [174] Is it baiting when you bite back? I dunno. Let's just call it all a tangent, but if Cla68 wants to, he can add this to the proposed Fof for Tony Sidaway. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the idea so much, I added a "baiting" section to the proposed Fof. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think I'm being baited here, and for that reason I will once more absent myself from this case page. The arbitrators and clerks know that I can be reached on my public email address, tonysidaway@gmail.com . I absent myself for two reasons: I have contributed nothing of much worth for several days now, and discussion of my comments is becoming a distraction. I would like to make a comment on the anonymous user Cla68's claim that I am "semi-anonymous" but that would not be a nice thing to say. I am not anonymous in any way at all. --TS 23:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)_{I returned after two days --TS 22:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Tony, there are, of course a number of people out there that I disagree with, including politicians, commentators, sports figures, etc, but I would never come on Wikipedia and say that they "know nothing" about a subject that they have commented on, that they represent some faction of people who are "opposed to science" or whatever or that their views could be used to illustrate "ignorance." For one reason, I wouldn't say this because it's a BLP violation. For another, I have no authority to say this on Wikipedia, as we're not supposed to take sides here, and why would I presume that I know more than they do? If I did say something like that, I should expect to be called on it for the reasons I've listed above. If we start making comments like that on-wiki about the authors of reliable sources that we might or might not use in articles, then I think we've definitely strayed into advocacy for one side over another. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Asserts facts not in evidence", and indeed wrong. An RS is not a RS because it's printed on paper and sold on Amazon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 does seem to have "strayed into advocacy for one side over another" in persistently promoting the validity and usefulness for facts of Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion. Tony's comment is a bit hyperbolic – Montford has some surface knowledge of the scientific papers, but apparently lacks or disguises any deep understanding of the science. His book promotes a point of view of ignorance, but that doesn't show that he's ignorant himself.
For example, on pages 24–25, Montford presents a schematic diagram from the 1990 IPCC report as showing "the scientific understanding of the time". The graph shows Medieval temperatures dipping below modern levels around 1330, but Montford says "it suggested that past temperatures had been warmer than today in a long period lasting from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries." Is he not very good at reading graphs, or has he failed to read the IPCC report page 202 which discusses this regional "exceptionally warm" period "about AD 950-1250"? Or is he setting up the reader for the exciting revelation on page 33 that in the 1998 "Hockey Stick" graph showing only temperatures back to 1400, "The Medieval Warm Period had completely vanished.", as though the graph could show a period before the graph starts.
It may read like "a compulsive detective story", as one review stated, but it's not a viable source of factual information.
Cla68 plays the "Does Tony even have a copy of the book?" card, but doesn't seem to have read the book carefully himself. This discussion exemplifies the difficulties of dealing with undue promotion of fringe views on Wikipedia. . dave souza, talk 08:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we continue to describe scientific research, its conclusions and its summaries as a 'belief' system, and editing as if you 'believe' in mainstream science as a POV or an agenda, then we're going to get nowhere. P9 Encyclopedic coverage of science seems quite clear to me and has lots of support votes. The problems are, am I misunderstanding it or are several other people here, with their talk of the 'house POV' etc? If it says what I think it says, does it lack the teeth and corollaries that would make a lot of this endless discussion redundant? At the moment, the goals of anybody whose aim is merely to Teach the Controversy - to maintain the FUD that nothing is certain in climate science - appear to be well served by the structures in place. --Nigelj (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you about the value of "Encyclopedic coverage of science." To me it is typical of arbcom's failure to come to grips with the problems in the CC pages, its timidity, and its tendency to issue vague, Delphic generalities that are divorced from the reality of the CC pages. This principle does absolutely nothing to address the recurrent problems that arise with books and blogs that advance fringe positions. Totally nada. It's almost as if arbcom doesn't want to offend anyone, so it is straining to produce a decision that sanctions a few people but otherwise doesn't rock the boat. Arbcom has similarly failed to address the pressing issue of content disputes being imported into enforcement pages, though in that case it can be forgiven because there was nothing, I think, in the Workshop on that problem. But it has arisen recently, right on this page, and can be addressed. I've asked Lar to address his "house POV" remark and I'd like to see what, if anything, he has to say to elaborate on that. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been on the back of my mind now for the last few weeks about whether CC skepticism is a fringe or a minority viewpoint. I haven't quite decided, but right now I'm leaning towards minority, especially when WP:FRINGE cites examples such as perpetual motion devices, astrology and conspiracy theories of fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a clear boundary. Some of the contrarian views are fringe and some are small-minority. This raises an important point in that there's not a single, coherent minority view but a broad range of views, many of which are mutually contradictory. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:UNDUE "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points." The hard part, to me, is what makes an article "specifically about a minority viewpoint", relative to this area. Does an article about a book qualify? Does an article about a specific person with a specific view qualify? From the Jimbo quote in that section, I think the significant minority bullet applies to the skeptic view as a whole, but some of the specific views are more FRINGE-y than others. The harder part is that this can change based on the focus of an article. What the public thinks vs what science things can really change which skeptic views are more fringe, but in no case should any of them, or all of them as a whole, be considered anything more than minority views. I think that if any article presents a skeptic view, it must also cover the specific aspect of the majority view it contradicts, clearly point out it is a minority view and how they differ. Ravensfire (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Applying WP:FRINGE

Minority viewpoints are by Wikipedia definition fringe viewpoints. I've yet to see a counter-example. WP:FRINGE is written to be intentionally broad. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but who decides it it is in fact a minority viewpoint? I see a lot of sceptics in the MSM these days, perhaps not as minority as some would have you believe? mark nutley (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Who decides are reliable sources. It is generally agreed that the mainstream media is not a reliable source when it comes to issues decided by scientific consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the laws of thermodynamics are not decided by public vote, but you're right that the fact of this real-world coverage should be covered in Wikipedia articles. But it should be covered for what it is, as reported by authoritative mainstream texts. --Nigelj (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete and utter rubbish SO, but quite indicative of your side's mindset - declare the other side fringe so you can marginalize and mistreat them. Is atheism "fringe" too since it is a minority viewpoint? Is brane theory "fringe?" Quit abusing wikipolicy to justify "fringe" behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flabergasted that you seem to be arguing that AGW is not the authoratative mainstream. I'm not sure but it appears that you're arguing that anti-AGW is not fringe. Please clarify. Bill Huffman (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your surprise is unsurprising. Some parts of the AGW theory are indeed "authoritative mainstream," (e.g. CO2's properties regarding IR), but other parts are only as "authoritative mainstream" as long-term repetition from a vocal minority affects the perception of reality (e.g. computer models, paleoclimatological reconstructions). Of course, what I said had nothing to do with that, I was talking about how minority doesn't automatically equate to fringe - an equation some find necessary. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The global warming denialist camp is marginalized in the relevant academic field quite aside from the historionics going on at Wikipedia. As to whether that qualifies as a "mistreatment", well, WP:RGW. "Atheism", writ large, is a pretty sweeping topic. The general consensus of reliable sources dealing with, for example, history is that there is no evidence for a theistic component to history. Thus what's been termed "practical atheism" by religious polemicists is not a proper "fringe view" according to our definition. However, there are a vanishingly small number of atheist theologians (though there are some). In the context of theology, atheism absolutely is a fringe viewpoint. In the context of climate science, global warming denialism is a fringe viewpoint. In the context of the Republican party, it certainly is not a fringe viewpoint (nor is, arguably, creationism). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, there are many papers which WMC et all have decided are "denialist" are therefore unfit for wikipedia. I'm rather curious if Phil Jones of Climategate fame will now be regarded as a skeptic since his latest paper [175] is giving greater credence to the oceanic cycles that I and others have demonstrated are a far better predictor of global temps than CO2 levels. Activists make both poor scientists and wikipedia editors. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a wide variety of papers published all the time. Some are great and some are totally worthless. In general, careful analysis and consideration needs to be made before determining whether a particular paper is reliable or not and how exactly it should be discussed in Wikipedia articles (if at all). The vast majority of WMC's commentary on the subject of climate science at Wikipedia has been of this sort and there is considerable evidence collected that those opposing his involvement have had an extremely poor understanding of the data and science behind much of the most meaningful content found in sources and ultimately in the article space of Wikipedia. Undeniably, the best references rely on recognized experts to do the careful work of separating chaff from the wheat, but lacking a credible expert verification policy here at Wikipedia, we rely instead on the judgment of third-party reliable sources that have commented on the particular papers, authors, and subject material. I find it disturbing indeed that you are crowing about what you have "demonstrated". Phil Jones demonstrates his ideas in the journals where such demonstrations belong. If you'd like to advocate for your understanding, please do it in those contexts and not at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of text translation = WMC et all get to determine which science is "worthless" and which isn't. That is precisely my point and precisely the problem. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and get your work published in a peer-reviewed journal. Then we can discuss whether it is worthy for inclusion at Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need, such work has already been published; it simply hasn't been published by WMC's friends and colleagues and/or it contradicts their agenda, which is the one and only reason such research isn't "worthy" for inclusion in wikipedia - and it will never be "worthy" as long as their stranglehold continues. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange to me. But here's what it seems that you're saying. Scientist are conspiring to warp our perception of reality. Some of those scientists have infiltrated Wikipedia and are carrying on their conspiracy here! Have I got the jest of it? Do you have a theory as to their motivation? Thanks, Bill Huffman (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's how you read it - that is the meme that your group keeps on propagating. I've made it abundantly clear that I don't think there is a "conspiracy." This is mostly a case of mass hysteria caused by groupthink/confirmation bias combined with a healthy serving of the Dunning–Kruger effect and an activist mindset. It really is rather fascinating from a psychological perspective, but in the long run this will really hurt science and science education. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you would like Wikipedia to right the great wrongs that this activist groupthinking self-confirming ignorant bunch of scientists is doing to science and science education. Is that about right? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed "writing great wrongs" is the hallmark of the activist mindset. Unlike some here I have no illusions that I've saving the world. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me, it's them? Okay. I suppose that's why the climate science textbooks all agree with the editors you are opposing? That's why many of the editors you are opposing have been published in peer-reviewed journals and you have not? Got it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The "stranglehold", as you put it, is a classic one that exists in WP:MAINSTREAM reference works. You may think it unfair that the stranglehold exists in academia and that Wikipedia is reflecting that stranglehold, but that's what we're supposed to do. From what I can see, what you are calling "WMC's friends and colleagues" are the scientists who have done the hard work reflected in the scientific consensus that exists about climate change and its causes. The published works of these people will be determining most of the scientific content about climate change on Wikipedia and their detractors will be marginalized. If you don't like that, Wikipedia will be a very unpleasant environment for you. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, when I say "friends and colleagues" I mean precisely that - not some generic "climate scientist." I believe this is pretty much been shown to be the case. Notwithstanding your essay quoting, my point stands and stands ignored - science that is opposed to the activist mindset is not welcome in the global warming articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of climate scientists agree with the IPCC statements. A "generic" one you would choose at random would be statistically likely then to not be engaged in "opposing" the "activist mindset". WP:WEIGHT is not an essay. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "vast majority" depends on what questions you ask, who you ask and who is doing the asking. Has the earth warmed since 1900? Very likely - and much of that early warming was due to the sun becoming more active after the Little Ice Age. Does CO2 cause warming? Again, very likely, but how much, and more importantly how much from the theoretical and unobserved positive feedback effects? As I said, it depends on what you ask - properly questioned I'm sure I'd come off as a 100% supporter of the IPCC's (Michael Mann's) theories. There are many many factors involved in such things, but rather irrelevant - we can either allow all papers a chance to be in wikipedia, or continue the one-sided self-promoting positive feedback loop as it currently is, which convinces people through incomplete knowledge that AGW is the received truth and all contradictory scientific evidence is "fringe." TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Good Locust, I don't think that I've ever edited any climate change related article. Your assertion that I'm part of any group related to climate change or scientist is false. From the opinions that you've expressed, I think that you should probably stay away from editing any climate change related articles. It doesn't appear to me that you're capable of editing without reflecting your own fringe POV. Bill Huffman (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting Michael Mann=IPCC as you are doing is the stuff of conspiracy theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it appears most of your 907 edits over 3 years are to the "Derek Smart" talk page (whoever that could possibly be) and related pages. As for editing the climate change articles, nope I not going to edit them at all, perhaps in a few years when wikipedia realizes how incredibly wrong they've been to coddle certain personalities, but even then I'm not sure if I want the hassle of appealing an indefinite topic ban when I'm sure some people will say I have a COI since I "lived" the history of the climate change articles. As for editing without reflecting my "fringe" POV, you may or may not have noticed, but there has been no evidence submitted that I edited the climate change articles to insert fringe material - some of us are capable of editing in a NPOV manner even when we have strong opinions on a subject. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the abstract of that paper, and an editorial on it here, to keep things real since it's been mentioned out of context. --Nigelj (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)SA: That's not true. Our article on the Fermi paradox lists 17 explanations. So you're saying that one is a majority viewpoint and the other 16 are all fringe? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what your antecedent is and I fail to see the parallel between global warming and the Fermi paradox. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SA: The antecedent is "I've yet to see a counter-example." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the proposed resolutions to the Fermi paradox are taken seriously enough in academic circles to be considered anything but WP:FRINGE in the Wikipedia sense. Indeed, the general attitude of scientists, even those heavily involved in SETI, regarding this question is simply, "Don't have any idea." ScienceApologist (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There are two things. Fringe ideas, and minority ideas. Both of these fall into our article guidelines dealing with undue weight. Fringe ideas are the ones that really need extraordinarily solid sourcing to be included, minority scientific viewpoints...not so much. I disagree with SA that they should be treated identically, though there are similarities in how they should be treated. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they should be treated identically. I just said they're covered by WP:FRINGE according to the definitions provided at that guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to cause a ruckus here SA but did`nt you get into the poop over you reading of fringe? mark nutley (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not my understanding of why and how I got "into the poop". ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me this is partly an issue of semantics. It's true from my reading that Wikipedia:Fringe theories covers things that might not be called Fringe science in normal discourse. The way to handle each case would generally need to be considered on its merits and the guideline itself somewhat makes it clear that they aren't the same and we need to be careful how we word things in the article. As SBBH has pointed out, as with most things it's somewhat of a continuum, there is clearly no hard and fast line. Mentioning they are covered by the guideline is okay but I would be careful about calling everything covered fringe science or fringe, in general in wikipedia discussions since it's the kind of thing that may cause unnecessary offense and ill-feeling leading to unproductive discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I've read about this is skeptical. Therefore the overtly anti-skeptical DeutscheBank report is interesting. But there isn't much reason to read Wikipedia articles that pretend the skeptics don't exist, no matter how many Wikipedia acronyms may support them. Art LaPella (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If i'm not mistaken, every single one of the sceptical views presented in the DB document is present and discussed in the CC topic area. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, if you go looking for them. Art LaPella (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? What would be the alternative? We can't include these into the top-level articles - since there it would be WP:UNDUE. We can't do a "debunking"/"common myth" article, since that is not what Wikipedia is about. Most of these can be found via Global warming controversy though - or directly on the articles that concern the sub-topic itself - for instance you will find the Medieval Warm Period claim in the Medieval Warm Period article, the solar variation claim in the Solar variation article and so forth. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikilawyering answer is that UNDUE refers to "reliable sources", which in turn mentions "mainstream publications", which you have debated over and over. The simpler answer to "What would be the alternative" is the evolution article, whose last section is mostly about creationism. Art LaPella (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the Global warming? We mention several (fx. solar variation) of the sceptical positions on it, arguably significantly more than any other comparable encyclopedia. The lede to global warming contains a paragraph directly addressing the sceptical position (which is more than the evolution article does). In fact if you sum up the amount of cover of scepticism in Global warming then you end up with as much or more than the coverage in the evolution article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have previously defended the Global warming article, finding other articles of the type I had in mind has been much harder than I thought it would be. So I need to back off. Art LaPella (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be correct to describe someone like Richard Lindzen as a fringe figure? I doubt it; according to our biography, the man is "an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology". Or David Deming? Fringe, within Wikipedia, is equated to pseudoscience. This is different from significant minority opinion -- where, according to WP:NPOV policy, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them 'due weight'." The press gives this minority opinion considerable notability, and (arguably) stronger representation in its overall coverage than it enjoys in scientific discourse, but this fact in itself is something that we need to cover, and communicate to the reader. So, no, a significant minority opinion is not by definition a fringe, or pseudoscience, opinion. --JN466 03:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When it comes to climate change, yes, it would be appropriate to characterise Lindzen's views that way. For that matter, when it came to Vitamin C, it was appropriate to characterise Pauling's views as fringe. Prominence in one area does not always translate very well into other areas. Guettarda (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would depend on what views of Lindzen's that you are talking about. Lindzen's research/papers go from mainstream to tiny minority (Iris hypothesis). His views on the science as expressed in various Op-ed's is fringe when speaking academically, and probably tiny minority if we're speaking about the political sphere, and minority if we're talking within the public opinion sphere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is an MIT professor, not an Erich von Däniken, who is a fringe "archaeologist", and pseudoscientist. Same with Hans von Storch, another skeptic -- these are professors of meteorology at reputable universities, and they are a part of academic discourse. Can we agree that that is not what Wikipedia calls "fringe"? --JN466 04:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Has anyone compared him to Erich von Däniken? (otherwise id suggest that this is a strawman) But to get back on track - if you can find a scientific paper by Lindzen that is argued to be pseudoscience - then i would be very very surprised! There is a difference between scientific discourse (where Lindzen at the very least is minority to mainstream) and public discourse (where his views are minorty to fringe). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "He is an MIT professor" - and that means that we should discard expert opinion in favour on that basis? Linus Pauling won two Nobel Prizes - that still doesn't make his views about Vitamin C mainstream, not even for the time in which he was making them. Guettarda (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - He is an MIT professor of meteorology, so he has academic expertise and a scientific publication history in this specific field (as has von Storch, for example). This means that their views, where they differ from the mainstream, represent a minority opinion within the scientific discourse which deserves coverage in line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, rather than a fringe opinion that stands outside the scientific process and can be omitted altogether in articles on the science. Could we agree to that? --JN466 05:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but you seem to be going on a strawman here. Lets see if we can capture it: Has any of Lindzen's scientific views been considered fringe? Is his scientific views ignored? (btw. von Storch is pretty much mainstream on everything so a rather bad comparison). Very tiny minority views are in the fringe category though, --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Absolutely; his scientific views have been demonized as fringe, because you guys have demonized my views as fringe, which are largely similar to Lindzen's. Here is a fantastic paper of his which echoes many of the things I've been saying throughout this arbitration: the greenhouse effect is oversimplified to sell it to the public, the models are hypothetical, exaggerated and unreliable, and that natural factors aren't properly being factored by the IPCC (Mann). These views are articulated in his published paper; they are not allowed in wikipedia. If they were to be allowed then they would certainly be put in the most marginal spot possible with much hemming and hawing about how he is wrong. As I've said all along - some views are simply not welcome in the current climate. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but your views do not match Lindzen's.(example: [176]). Mann is not equal to the IPCC, nor does the IPCC reflect Mann's opinions [confusion of cause and effect] (which is another example of you diverting from Lindzen). The paper that you link to is a political/social science paper, in a rather fringy journal. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        First off I never said my views were exactly the same as Lindzen's. My tongue-in-cheek reference to the IPCC's views being equal to Mann's is essentially due to the self-promoting behavior he exhibited as lead author - extensively quoting his own work while ignoring or marginalizing work that contradicted his own. I believe one of the criticisms of the IPCC in that latest internal review was that lead authors shouldn't be acting like that since it is a COI (As above, so below...). Finally, and I really mean this, thank you so much for proving my point with your dismissal of Lindzen's paper - you people get to decide which views are scientific, "fringy" and whether or not they deserve inclusion in wikipedia. That's the rub of the matter; you deny it is the case, but then you demonstrate it for all to see. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        (e/c)Try not to do "tongue in cheek" statements. As for the scientific part of the paper, most of it is already in our articles. Lindzen's Iris hypothesis has its own article, and is mentioned in global dimming, Physical impacts of climate change and others. Various estimates of climate sensitivity is, obviously enough, in climate sensitivity. Other parts are in Attribution of climate change, Ocean acidification etc. Lindzen's view presented in the paper is tiny minority, and it is amply presented throughout the climate change topic space. [and try not to go to far - i haven't dismissed his paper] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh Kim, Lindzen's strong criticism of the IPCC and AGW gymnastics is not well represented when it is even mentioned at all. Yes, Lindzen is occasionally mentioned in some articles, but it is pretty clear that your group is not neutral enough to represent his views (which you have called fringe) in a fair way. Readers would be better served by reading that paper that I linked rather than our simplistically-written global warming article.TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Energy and Environment is pretty fringey (not ISI listed), with real-world issues over its peer-review (for example, Pielke Jr. regrets publishing there). It's not wikipedia editors who orchestrated that.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        In case you haven't read the climategate emails; several of them deal with marginalizing specific journals, papers or people that are skeptical of global warming. In this case, all you have to do is look who wrote the article to understand that it may not be giving a fair view. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Could you leave the conspiracy theories at the front-door please? Every single official inquiry into the claims you make, has dismissed them. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what so we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board..." -Michael Mann (WMC's friend) to Phil Jones [177]. See no evil, hear no evil, whitewash all evil? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, but do you think that there is anything underhanded in boycotting a journal, that demonstratively published badly peer-reviewed papers? (this was the reason that half the staff left that journal). Since you appear not to be trying to discuss the Arb case - but instead are trying to promote your own POV of the subject-area (from which you are topic-banned). I will stop responsing to you, since this isn't getting any further. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        lol nice spin Kim. Boycotts are public not privately coordinated efforts to marginalize a journal because it publishes papers opposed to your ideology. Gee, and those people who "quit" the journal, I don't suppose they'd be the ones that Mann was telling his friends to talk to? Naaawww.... TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actions of people external to Wikipedia are manifestly irrelevant to our task as encyclopedia editors. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The whole thing above somewhat deals with what I was saying earlier. You can call Richard Lindzen whatever you want, preferably not anything since it isn't relevant. Some of his views are covered by WP:Fringe theories, again they may not all be considered fringe in normal discourse. The fact that his views are covered by the guideline doesn't necessarily mean we completely ignore them in science articles, the guideline it self says so. However we have to be careful not to give them undue weight. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bingo! ScienceApologist (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is little risk of giving Lindzen's views due weight much less "undue" weight. As for SA's assertion that outside actions of individuals are irrelevant that is usually the case, but there are always exceptions - when you have two close friends; one coordinating the reputational destruction of journals ideologically opposed to them in the scientific world and the other friend working hard (with others but in this case obviously not coordinated) to make sure that same ideology is marginalized and misrepresented then those actions should be considered both for their COI implications and also along the lines of that old maxim, "a man is known by the company he keeps." TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The so-called coordinated "reputational destruction" of peer-reviewed journals by two "close friends" somehow involving Wikipedia is, in my opinion, first-rate conspiracy-theorizing that is on par with some of the claims made by people who edited electronic voice phenomenon. You aren't the first person to claim that there was a conspiracy involving Wikipedia to discredit a pet theory, and you'll hardly be the last . ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow, that was clearly not what I said - why is it that you guys always misread what people say and insert "conspiracy?" Is it because you want to make everyone else look like kooks? I'd suggest you reread what I said, but it is pretty clear no matter what I say it'll get misread with charges of "conspiracy." TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote was an opinion about the words you wrote. In my opinion, you're stepping over the line from misplaced worries about a conflict-of-interest to out-and-out conspiracy mongering. That's my opinion, mind you. The words are there for all to read. They'll make their own judgment. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I obviously said was that when someone emails their buds to marginalize a journal because they don't like that they are willing to publish papers skeptical of AGW then the deeply close friend/colleague of that person has a COI and serious "association" problems - esp. when covering that person and related scandals. I've quoted one of his damn emails for crying out loud. Is this a conspiracy of reality? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is eerily similar to the Discovery Institute's claims regarding the Sternberg peer review controversy. This is the same group who also claimed that Wikipedia was guilty of "coordinating" to censor their pet ideas: [178]. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SA, the emails are for all to see, I've shown a portion of them. You keep on trying to associate my side with other unrelated topics to try and distract from the facts. This reminds me of that old adage, "When the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if the law is on your side, then argue the law; if neither are on your side then slander the opposition." You are being quite transparent here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one claiming a coordination on the part of evil scientists, not I. If you think I'm slandering you somehow, feel free to hire a lawyer. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence sub-pages in userspace

Just a reminder that per longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the evidence has been submitted and/or the case closes, the sub-pages should be deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Thank you for your understanding, Roger Davies ^talk 07:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you have posted this...this should be part of the normative arbitration process...anyway to set this in stone?--MONGO 14:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disinterested in BLP's?

Just a comment that, in the language used as denoting the appropriate tone when writing (BLP) articles, the term "disinterested" is used. I feel that dispassionate is preferable, unless of course ArbCom are advocating a style exampled as "Eric Fudgecake is a Professor of Linguistics at Halabamabashbang University, Utopia. Probably. Whatever." I think less passion is better than less interest in a subject, when it comes to editing? LessHeard vanU (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, well made :) Roger Davies ^talk 07:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further examples at Proposed Finding of Fact 8.5 William M. Connolley's edits to biographies of living persons, and Proposed Remedies/General Remedies 4.4 Biographies of Living Persons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's not really correct. As per the OED, 'disinterested' means '1. not influenced by considerations of personal advantage', 'dispassionate' means 'not influenced by strong emotion'. Dispassionate editing would lead to the example you give above, disinterested editing is what we want.--67.161.94.10 (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. Which version of the OED are you looking at? Mine (v4.0) gives "Without interest or concern; not interested, unconcerned" as the first meaning of disinterested and doesn't give the text you mention at all. The SOED definition is just "Not interested, unconcerned". I suppose, in the context of the high passions here, dispassionate fits the bill better and is less ambiguous. Roger Davies ^talk 10:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Disinterested" means not influenced by a personal view, or personal interest in the sense of advantage; neutral; uninvolved. It's not the same as "uninterested." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For info Roger Davies ^talk 11:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. That's directly at odds with what I was actually taught in school. Maybe it's an American usage? Guettarda (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That M-W page is interesting. Prescriptive grammarians (at least in the U.S.) have wanted to keep the distinction in meaning between dis- and uninterested, and I always assumed it was a settled difference, but obviously it has been used the other way. I say "disinterested" should stay so that Wikipedia does it's part to maintain the useful distinction, thus promoting civilization. The "Synonyms" section on this Dictionary.com page indicates "disinterested" (implies a fairness arising particularly from lack of desire to obtain a selfish advantage) would be a more precise word here than, say, "impartial". [179] The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary recognizes only the "fair" definition. [180] Then ArbCom should ban from its official statements the uncivilized "incivil", which M-W doesn't even recognize (and Wictionary tells us is "rare" [181]), in favor of "uncivil" which M-W tells us has been around since at least 1553. You can never be too careful in upholding civilization. But if ArbCom members think the preceding statement is too WP:BATTLEGROUNDish, WP:SOAPBOXy or WP:UNCIVIL, I take it back. I take it back! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that I was only guided by my understanding of disinterested, which is a more judged version of uninterested - that someone by choice has no interest rather than by lack of exposure. Whatever (hah!), I think dispassionate is more apt under these circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the portion of the decision I drafted, I used "disinterested" in the sense SlimVirgin describes. If there is any ambiguity about what the word means, then I agree that a synonym should be substituted, as Roger has done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "disinterested" is fine. The point is that one must edit these biographies in a manner, ideally, lacking in personal feelings for the subject, one way or the other. "Dispassionate" is also fine. Since violations of this finding will tend to be neither "dispassionate" nor "disinterested," I'm not sure it makes much difference. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broad, indefinite topic bans for individuals

A slew of indefinite climate change-related topic bans are now being considered for a number of individuals, some of which seem misdirected and/or unnecessarily harsh. The remedy has been proposed for me, which I think is peculiar because I have very few edits in this topic (in fact, I have only contributed significantly to the editing of a single article concerning a matter of data theft, not climate change). I am concerned that individuals are being judged as a group, with a lack of regard for specifics and a whiff of guilt-by-association. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover,it doesn't solve anything over the long term. There's no shortage of aggressive editors in this area and there's no reason to think such a shortage will develop in the future. If anything the opposite, given certain chatter in the blogosphere. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it won't solve anything. I see no way back into this topic area for many editors who have become totally engrained in their positions. Indef bans and placing the topic area under arbcom sanctions worked in Scientology, a topic that is quite comparable in the amount of emotion and blog coverage associated with it. --JN466 15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the situations are entirely comparable, except to people who spend a lot of time in-universe with Scientology disputes. Wikipedia is a bubble. By this site's standards, date delinking disputes are of comparable magnitude to the dispute over climate change. Is Scientology the subject of a consensus statement of concern from the National Academies of Science of the U.S., Brazil, India, South Africa, Canada, Italy, the U.K., China, Japan, France, Mexico, Germany, and Russia? Is it routinely a major political issue in elections and national and international legislative sessions?

The current list of topic ban candidates seems to suffer from a desire to sanction a roughly equal number of people from each "side", an approach which I think is based on faulty assumptions. The idea that, say, Verbal, Minor4th, and Mark Nutley have been equally "disruptive" on climate change articles seems questionable at best. The cynical side of me thinks that if we wait a week or two, the pendulum will swing back and we'll see another, different set of proposed remedies, but whatever. MastCell ^Talk 15:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not trying to fix the climate, we're trying to fix a Wikipedia topic area. ;) --JN466 21:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea. There should be more names added though. Anyone who has edit warred or been uncivil more than once in this topic area should be topic banned. Minor4th 16:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Mastcell that the editors listed are not equal in terms of the amount of disruption, but that just indicates that the threshold is rather low -- not a bad guiding principle, but there's a lot of work yet to be done if the threshold is so low. Off the top of my head, without regard to which "side" these folks fall on, the list should include ScienceApologist, FellGleaming, Viriditas, Rd232, Guettarda, Jehochman, Tony Sidaway. I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of -- tried to think of more on the skeptic side, but they are mostly either listed or banned already. Minor4th 16:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's behaviour of mine that you consider disruptive, I would very much appreciate if you raised it with me. After all, you can't address potentially problematic behaviour that you're unaware anyone sees as problematic. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that a 'one size fits all' remedy doesn't make much sense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I like the flexible "Appeal of topic bans" remedies (either 3.2 or 3.2.1). But the AQFK and ATren findings look even more outrageous if accompanied by a six-month-minimum topic ban. I haven't seen where Roger, Coren or Shell have defended their weak case against ATren at all or where Coren and Roger have adequately answered the questions about the AQFK finding. We now, finally, have an adequate Arbcom remedy for William M. Connolley's behavior, and the idea of reapplying for permission to edit the topic is actually brilliant because it gets to the heart of the problem: editor intentions and attitudes. We've seen right on this page, right up to the present, that some editors haven't adjusted their attitudes. I guess Remedy 1 (or 1.1) is supposed to address future problems. Maybe with the strong language elsewhere on the PD page it will be adequate (it authorizes admins to act first and then the action can be appealed to A/E or ArbCom, and that alone should help; but we'll still have a problem with biased admin actions). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you're smugly gloating over one of your perceived opponents (WMC) getting what he (in your opinion) deserved, while in the same breath professing "outrage" over "biased admin actions" directed towards those that share your own point-of-view...well, that attitude pretty much speaks for itself. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't smug, and it isn't gloating. ArbCom's Fof 8.2 ("William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic") had no corresponding remedy that looked like it might pass until now. Other remedies regarding Connolley's behavior in that area weren't getting support (see Remedies 5.1-5.5; the majority-approved BLP ban would not have addressed this). It isn't "gloating" to say WMC has had a problem with attitude -- it's what Newyorkbrad said in his comment at Fof 8.2. I pointed out the strength of the idea that an editor with problematic behavior would be allowed back in after giving assurances or demonstrating (or both) that the attitude has changed. That's a lot better than just waiting six months or a year. The new proposal offers editors a constructive way to get back to editing the topic, addressing both the editor-interaction and content problems ArbCom identified. Your comment doesn't actually help ArbCom or anyone else better understand the topic of this discussion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be brought to the arbitrators attentions

Though Mark Nutley has voluntarily walked away from the Climate change articles I think that the latest of what has been happening should be shared. MN has been blocked twice this week which can be seen here at his talk page and here. Both were lifted but the last one is the one that is concerning. There is a discussion going on here. I don't know this administrator at all but this last unblock was done without even talking to administrator Vsmith which I find strange, esp. with the comments made with the unblock about Vsmith who is another administrator I don't know. Rodhullandemu is the administrator who unblocked MN for both of these blocks. NPA & civil are important policies but I don't know if this was a problem with different ways of saying things sounding like it is breaching policy or not. Toddst1 did the block so he could probably give more insight than I can about this. But the second block and unblock is very troubling since it has to do with copyright issues. MN has had major problems in the past and now he is block then unblocked for a copyright violation which if memory serves has happened before in the past. For the unblock to be done so quickly, without first talking to the blocking administrator, MN should not have been unblocked without the unblocking administrator first getting all the information, which means talking to the blocking administrator. Rodhullandemue assumed that Vsmith was involved which Vsmith explained that s/he was still uninvolved. Vsmith has been apparently watching things and knew MN from previous behavior problem. Anyways, because of the seriousness of this I thought the arbitrators should be aware of it. Thanks for reading, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith has defended WMC and attacked his ideological opponents for about 6 years now. He has the magical power to detect the slightest wrongdoing from global warming skeptics, which isn't surprising since he edits the global warming articles extensively. He's clearly an involved admin in every definition of the word and should be prohibited from acting as an admin in the area or involving people who edit the area. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on here, but I don't know that that admin is involved in this topic. If this chap is overstepping his remit as an admin then presumably it can be handled. The source cited by Thegoodlocust purports to knowthe religion of all Wikipedians, and says atheists outnumber Christians on English Wikipedia by nearly 2 to 1 [182] which if true,means that most Wikipedians other than me are exceptionally open about their religious beliefs and hardly any Americans ever edit Wikipedia. That's obvious nonsense. --TS 21:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikichecker is a commonly used tool Tony and I've never heard anyone dispute its edit analyzing abilities, especially with the odd argument that one of the other tools looks at the religion of wikipedian editors. On a side note, for that tool I'd imagine that they are checking userpages for userboxes. There are several reasons why atheists would show up more than you'd expect from the general population: younger people tend to be more atheistic, more educated/intelligent people tend to be atheists and tend to be online more which probably attracts them to wikipedia, and atheists tend to be more militant about their beliefs and therefore more likely to advertise with userboxes. You can't do a straight up comparison between the general population and wikipedia's. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polling silliness

I have never heard of Wikichecker before and I have no idea how it works. But how can it know my religion or yours or William Connolley's? It clearly purports to dispense information that it cannot conceivably support. If it is used by anybody, ever, on this wiki, to support any statement by anybody, then those people doing that must stop doing it now. --TS 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fucking with me? I already explained how the religion segment of that site probably works. You aren't making sense here Tony. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fucking with you. If the site works as you describe it, and I've no reason to doubt that it does, then it knowingly dispenses the most spectacularly unreliable information. You have to understand that this is a third party site that I've never heard of. It tells me that atheists outnumber Christians on Wikipedia by 2 to 1, so I don't know how I can trust anything else it might say. Couldn't we use Wikipedia's own database to source the information you want to give? I think that might be more trustworthy. --TS 23:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacular unreliable? It simply compiles the information that is available - if someone declares their religion then they are added to the list. As I said, there are many factors for why wikipedia (and the internet in general) is more atheistic like 95% of internet users being under 30 - and younger people are far more likely to be atheists. It is good that you don't take numbers at face value, you have to separate the wheat from the chaff, but all of these figures have their advantages and disadvantages - there isn't really a more practical way to take of religious pulse of wikipedians. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Both blocks were overturned. One ~~or perhaps both~~ admins may have been motivated by the climate change battlefield, at least this appears to be the view of some people commenting on the talk page. The first block was clearly not a personal attack, at worst it was slightly incivil, certainly not warranting a block and concensus on AN/I did not support the block. Mark said an editor had a "bee up his arse". ~~The second block for a copyvio was done by an admin who edited the article and was potentially involved~~. The copyvio ~~has been disputed~~ appeared to have some merit but it did not look deliberate, the text had been altered but not sufficiently so to differentiate the text from the original source per WP:PARAPHRASE. Perhaps the admins are just having a bad day or else or perhaps they block people too quickly in general. Mark is very likely to be topic banned from climate change articles, so I see no benefit in this discussion continuing and probably spiraling out of control. ~~Although he has demonstrated some problems and is not a perfect editor, I see no justification for hounding him off the encyclopedia~~.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I have struck some text in the above comment and updated the text per discussion on my talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC) (ec)[reply]

I`m a tad disappointed in Crohnie here truth be told, i have asked her on her talk page to actually tell the entire story, not the condensed version which makes me look crap mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I told you on my talk page that if I was misinformed with this posting that you could come here and tell your side of it which you didn't do, at least not that I've seen (I do have to catch up on the recent comments here though). I would suggest that editors should read our discussion on my talk page for context of the discussion. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio issue is relevant here because this is not a first offence - MN was blocked for a week in May for a slew of copyvio problems. The current edit may be more plagiarism than a copyright violation, but even if it's a bit of a grey area, given his past problems MN should shouldn't be dancing anywhere near that line. Guettarda (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And blocked by...wait for it...Vsmith! If someone were to look at that wikipedia search I provided, especially the requests for adminship, it is certainly interesting who consistently shows up at the top of the "support" column - isn't that right Guettarda? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RHaE's unblock of MN is definitely very dodgy, as is his description of Vsmiths conduct as "appalling" [183]. Since the article in question isn't a Cl Ch one, the entire business only belongs here due to the participants. Contrary to TGLs assertions, Vsmith isn't "involved" at that article. It isn't clear whether RHaE has been careless or worse; but the lack of talk is suspicious.

RHaE declared, to Vsmith, that "you had become involved in content, as I see it". This is odd, because all Vsmith did on the article was correct a spelling error [184] and another [185]. RHaE knows that, because Vsmith had already pointed it out to him. On that basis, RHaE overturned a block for copyvio, for which MN had previously been blocked. But RHaE made no attempt to discuss this, and still won't answer questions on his talk page. Perhaps he will here instead William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect [186] he has edited the article well before now. Why not explain instead you constant removal of content from this article? Why do you do it? It is outside your normal range of article edits after all, what possible reason do you have for focusing on this article will? mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how is that different from reverting an invalid move and then protecting the effected article? Your evidence says that makes an admin involved, yet another admin makes a couple of procedual actions (disregarding Mn's diff above) and then blocks another contributor and you say that they are not involved? Where is the consistency? I also thought you were for outside admins reviewing others sysop actions, but, as ever, only when it accords with your preferred viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@LHVU: The difference is obvious: that the move wasn't invalid. It was in fact perfectly valid; the fact that *you* made the judgement that it was invalid is involvement. You made a very heavy-handed intervention i a content dispute to protect your "side"; please don't try to muddy the waters here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in fact making it clear that your consideration on whether an admin is involved is entirely in respect on whether it is in accordance to "Your sides" (capitalisation intended) preferred viewpoint. Your view on my action in the one instance noted has not even been repeated by the usual chorus (except one). The cloudiness you perceive is formed by your vision, and not by the comments of others. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was even more obscure than usual. No matter: we disagree on this matter, and that is unsurprising. But I notice that you have carefully avoided the issue in this case, which is: was Vsmith involved. Naturally, I value my opinion, but oddly you seem to value mine more than yours. Please remedy this and do give us *your* opinion. Also, perhaps you could address the issue that RHaE is so blatantly evading, because he has no possible answer: the absence of any attempt to discuss with Vsmithnprior to unblock. Come on, don't be shy, we're all listening William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting only upon your differing interpretations upon "uninvolved" where the circumstances were similar but the viewpoints effected are not - I have not concerned myself with the specifics of RH&E's actions or interactions with Vsmith. As for me being listened to, in the unlikely event that there is more than a very few I am certain that there is one who is not doing so - since it does not reflect their own valued opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MN: I removed your copyvio, as explained on the talk page Talk:Echoes_of_Life:_What_Fossil_Molecules_Reveal_about_Earth_History#Synopsis William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - and your diff is your edit, not Vsmiths. Here [187] is Vsmiths edit - and I encourage everyone to look at it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is late here; I am tired, cold and impoverished. I am currently going through my remaining photos and uploading them to Commons while I am still able to do so. I have no opinion in the climate change disputes, and wasn't even aware of the topic of the article for which Marknutley was blocked for copyvios; all I saw was the edit history of that article, and I came to the opinion that the blocking admin was obviously involved, and I see from above that there is an argument that this is the case. However, I do not intend to get involved further here, because I have no desire to swim through unnecessary treacle with one arm tied behind my back. Rodhull andemu 22:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an answer, it is an evasion. You have, now, reviewed the edits that Vsmith made - yes? And had time to consider, now, whether your previous hasty judgement was correct - yes? And your considered opinion is? And also - your excuse for not attempting to contact the blocking admin? You haven't even pretended to address that little issue William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not the slightest intention of being dragged unwillingly into an Arbitration case which has as much to do with my unblock of Marknutley as the flowers that bloom in the spring, tra-la, and it seems unnecessarily combative of you to push the point; I'd advise you to examine your own motives here before taking this further. I unblocked Marknutley based solely on the article history I saw and nothing else. If you really think otherwise, please provide evidence from your MI5 mindprobe|, or stop making unjustified assumptions. Meanwhile, as I have already said, I have better things to do than share the drama stage with those who will not let it lie. Rodhull andemu 23:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part of the problem was the fact that discussion began without an explanation as to how the edit was a copyright violation but did include a knock at Mark.[188] To make matters worse, the dispute lasted only one hour and 17 minutes long before WMC went running to an admin.[189][190] Also, I might be mistaken but I think that WP:CP is the proper venue for escalation, but there didn't seem to any attempt to discuss the issue there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- And I, for one, will not be badgered or bullied into anything; I'm from Yorkshire. If ArbCom think I should answer, they will let me know. Until then, I'm finished here. Rodhull andemu 22:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Looking at the article history and article talk page, the article Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History started by Mark Nutley appears to have nothing to do with climate change, how did 3 or 4 climate change editors end up on that article in a content dispute? Is this a sign that even after topic bans are placed on editors that if they go to other article topics personalised battle fields will just migrate?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the case here, but WMC has followed my contributions in order to revert me or take the opposite position. [191] It is part of his pattern of bullying behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the article on the book is not about climate change, it appears the author has written in the past a book about climate change, which may explain things.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... Anyway, back in early May I noticed an article about a book that appeared interestin - I started a bit of cleanup with 3 edits [192] then noticed a potential copyvio problem and removed it [193] and after further checkin [194] then after discovering other CVs on other pages I blocked Marknutly (at 01:42, 5 May 2010 - see his block log) for a week for copyright violations. I had added the page to my watchlist (now at 15,044 pages). Then when an edit removing a possible copyvio - per the edit summary[195], showed up on my watchlist, I took a look. I found that while not a direct copy/paste vio, it was a very close paraphrase and quite questionable. After looking closer (and correcting 2 spelling errors along the way - guess I'm obsessive) I made the decision to block considering past copyvio problems by the user and the fact that he had immediately reverted the questioned content back in. When content is removed for possible copyvio the issue should be discussed - not reverted back in. I had commented on the talk page while reviewing the issue [196] and blocked Marknuyley for a month for copyright violation second block for copyright violation.(see his block log) The block was undone 37 minutes later with no attempt made to discuss the issue with me either before or after. The lack of discussion or even notification is a violation of common courtesy. This issue is totally unrelated to the topic of climate change and the current arbitration, both of which I have been studiously avoiding per my own sanity. I thank Dave Sousa for letting me know this was under discussion here. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15k watched pages eh? That must be hell to keep up with and lucky you caught Mark's transgressions in that mess both times. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually from 30 min to an hour to scan for vandalism twice daily. Quite a bit longer if substantial edits have occurred. Most are short stubs and/or obscure articles rarely edited. Vsmith (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury! My illness means that I generally wake up about 3pm local time, and although to some, most of the day has already gone, my watchlist is about 3k, and that is mostly BLPs; which takes at least 30, and up to 60 min, to review properly. After that, I can sit back with coffee until about 6pm at a much slower and more manageable pace. I then head towards my one meal of the day, for which I can budget £1.00, and manage it about 8:30 pm.; occasionally, this might involve a dessert, even if it's only a cheap yogurt. But sugar is a useful energy product, even in limited quantities. But from 9:40 pm to whenever, I do my most useful work, fuelled by a £2.79 bottle of white cider and 20 menthol cigarettes. When those run out, as they now have, I stop, so goodnight. Luxury, I say again. Count your blessings, and please give a thought for those less fortunate than you. Looking forward to Christmas? I'm not; it's just another day to me. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 00:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the rant by TGL way up there^: Yes I have made many edits to global warming and related articles - mostly back during the 2005 kerfluffle. I have edited with WMC and argued intensely with him in the past, we both have science backgrounds and an interest in science topics. And likely some of the edits I made way back then I'd likely do differently now ... Wikipedia evolves, the environment is quite different than 4 - 6 years ago. But, more to the point the article in question has no relation to climate change topics. Vsmith (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith you are the 8th most prolific editor of the global warming article (not the talk page). If memory serves and the pattern continues then I suspect most of those edits were reverts, often in sync with the rest of the top 10 most prolific editors of that article. Let's cut the bull, you've shown up at nearly every major arbcom case or RfC involving WMC for 6 years - including the recent ones. You guys have all either nominated or voted adminship for each other [197][198][199][200][201][202] and you expect us to buy that you are "uninvolved?" When you say that most of your edits to global warming were back in 2005; I simply don't believe you - show some proof for such an assertion. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And where did I say that I was not involved in the global warming article or in the climate change category? That's not what this thread is discussing. What relevance are adminship votes from 05, 06 & 07 to this discussion? And since 2007 I've made maybe 20 or so edits to the global warming article out of the total of 200 or so your tool shows since 2004. Don't know why I bother responding to this irrelevant off topic chatter. Vsmith (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make it plain that I'm not from Yorkshire, although in my opinion parts of Yorkshire would feature in any discerning deity's plans for elysium. --TS 23:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec's) I would like to apologize for not informing the editors that I named when I first posted this. I planned on doing so but got called away from my computer and someone else had done it for me. Please accept my deepest apology for not making it known that I mentioned you. This apology goes to Vsmith and Rodhullandemu, I am really sorry to have taken you by surprise with my posting of this. I thought it was important to add here because I knew of the prior problems with MN and sources. I will try not to do this again in this way. Again, I'm sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of editors contacted me on my talk page as they felt that I had misinterpretated the situation and they were right, I had misinterpreted the situation. Interested editors can read about it on my talk page. While I still think a mountain was made out of a molehill which I guess is symptomatic of the battleground atmosphere and hostilities I don't like to pass opinion on situations wrongly and leave things hanging. I think all the main parties involved in this latest dispute were at fault, Mark for failing to admit his summary was too close to the original text of the source thus escalating the drama, WMC for being too quick to seek a block and the admin too quick to block. This drama took 3 to tango and was unnecessary in my view. The other block for a personal attack by another admin was unwarranted as it was not a personal attack. These are my views. Sorry for dragging last nights drama back up, just wanted to clarify things.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Literaturegeek, I think that it should be made clear that Marknutley didn't insert 'his summary', he inserted directly copied text in which a few words were replaced. I posted a side-by-side comparison (reproduced below) of Marknutley's edits and the publisher's website on Mark's talk page; at the time I was unaware of the parallel discussion here.

Online source	Marknutley's text (first addition, reverted in again)
In 1936 a German chemist identified certain organic molecules that he had extracted from ancient rocks and oils as the fossil remains of chlorophyll--presumably from plants that had lived and died millions of years in the past.	Seventy years ago Alfred Triebs identified organic molecules, which he had extracted from rock and oil, as the fossilised remains of chlorophyl presumed to be from plants that had died millions of years in the past.

As I said on Mark's talk page, making trivial changes – replacing In 1936 with Seventy years ago, fossil with fossilised, presumably with presumed to be – but keeping the exact same sentence without explicitly indicating (with quotation marks) that one is copying another writer's words is emphatically still plagiarism. (This sort of very minor modification probably also means that Mark's text is a derivative work from the original copyrighted text; Mark isn't free to license his derivative contribution under the GFDL, and should clearly indicate the non-free text for that reason as well.)

If Mark has a history of improper copying, then that is something that admins (and now Arbitrators) who find these sorts of things should be aware of when considering whether or not a block or other restriction might be warranted. Starting from a direct cut-and-paste of a book's introduction or publisher's blurb is never the right way to write a book summary for an encyclopedia article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a cut and paste, i was reading from the book while typing. Hence my saying it was a WIP. No copyvio was intended and none has occurred, look at the last edits on the article. I honestly can`t believe this is dragging on so much, talk about a witchhunt mark nutley (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The seventy years ago bit I think is ok but all of the rest was too close to the original and was a copyvio. The fact that some attempt was made to differentiate the text makes me think it was sloppy but done in goodfaith. This looks like a one off that has got way more drama than warranted. He did copy and paste some text back in May but he was a newbie editor, only with us for about 4 months. I doubt this is going to happen again. He is already almost certainly going to get topic banned based on Arb voting records. What more do you feel is necessary? The real concern is why is everything anyone does wrong on these articles always such immense drama to almost everyone? This is the real issue and Mark is not completely immune from this criticism.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more confident assuming that this wouldn't happen again if it hadn't happened before, and if Mark appeared to take his current act of plagiarism more seriously. He still doesn't seem to understand that what he did really was inappropriate copying of someone else's work; it's irrelevant that he did it by retyping with incidental changes rather than by Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V. That the topic seems to be peripherally related to this Arbitration case is moot — I would be just as concerned if this were another editor with a similar track record. (And, indeed, I have been involved in cleaning up after – and banning, where necessary – serial plagiarists in other subject areas as well.) By May 2010, Marknutley had been with us for more than four thousand edits; even if Wikipedia's standards were appreciably different from those of academia, business, or even high school – which they are not – Mark wasn't a rank newbie and shouldn't have been caught by surprise by our policies on plagiarism and copyright. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right there was allegations of one editor following Mark to that article and deleting several of his contributions which were not Copyvio, then an admin blocking too rashly. I tried once understanding all of the facts to criticise everyone fairly without saying he did worse, she did worse etc. What I see is a battleground where one side tries to get the other side sanctioned. To be honest, yes these incidents will concern ArbCom like copyvio but their primary interest is stopping the battleground atmosphere. They want everyone to stop arguing and fighting. Your selective view of the drama on this situation could be interpreted as battleground, so you are attacking yourself as much as Mark. What is needed on these pages is more "yes I did wrong and you did wrong", lets forget about it and get back to building an encyclopedia based on wikipedia policies, like WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nutley has openly admitted that he was "reading from the book while typing." That's an open and shut case of copyright infringement. He should certainly advised never again to copy non-free content into Wikipedia. --TS 23:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is already almost certainly going to get topic banned based on Arb voting records. What more do you feel is necessary? - for people to realise that it is impossible to work with MN. Even now, he won't admit that was a copyvio. Even now, you're basically saying that anyone who argues with him is as guilty as he is. This "a plague on both your houses" stuff is unthinking, and wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this because misusing sources, copyright violations and so on are serious breaches in policy and academia. I don't care about all the other noise being said here. The fact is that this was a copyright problem and MN not admitting it shows that this may still be a problem because he still doesn't seem to understand that what he did was wrong. In school if you did this kind of thing what do you think your teachers would do about it? Do you think they would pat you on the head and say don't do it again or do you think you would get a failing grade or worse? People, forget all the outside stuff being discussed, there have been discussions about this kind of misuse of sources on the very PD talk page and it's not acceptable by anyone, no matter what side you seem to be on. Stop the this side vs. that side arguments about it and just think about what is shown by TS showing that the two are almost identical. Add in that MN admits that he was typing it directly from the book and this become a slam dunk, a copyright violation. Maybe some kind of proposal from the arbitrators is needed about this that goes as far as to say this is not acceptable anywhere in the project. Common sense should tell us that but from the discussion above maybe it needs to be said. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text WMC removed a few days ago was short. It was not an unmarked verbatim, but a close paraphrase, and the source was cited. The relevant guideline here is WP:PLAGIARISM, which includes the paragraph, "It can also be useful to perform a direct comparison between cited sources and text within the article, to see if text has been plagiarized, including too-close paraphrasing of the original. Here it should be borne in mind that an occasional sentence in an article that bears a recognizable similarity to a sentence in a cited source is not generally a cause for concern. Some facts and opinions can only be expressed in so many ways, and still be the same fact, or opinion. A plagiarism concern arises when there is evidence of systematic copying of the diction of one or more sources across multiple sentences or paragraphs. In addition, if the source is not free, check and make sure that any duplicated creative expressions are marked as quotations."
I agree that the paraphrase was too close for comfort, and that Mark urgently needs to read WP:Close paraphrasing, but it isn't the egregious deal editors here are making of it -- he made a good-faith, but insufficient effort to reformulate. He is not the only editor to have made such mistakes.
The earlier edits removed by Vsmith in May were clear copyvios, and absolutely unacceptable.
Mark needs to appreciate that he is still not doing enough to steer clear of copyvio and plagiarism charges. It is better to use an occasional verbatim, and mark it as a quotation using quotation marks, with the source cited, than it is to do a poor job of reformulating. Mark should probably look through his contributions history to tidy up any similar faux pas that may still be slumbering in our articles. --JN466 13:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here wasn't really the actual edit - it was the response, especially given that MN has had similar problems in the past. We just can't afford this kind of thing - case in point, the Darius Dhlomo issue. Guettarda (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my talk page where discussion with MN takes place, he says it's still a work in progress which I think he is putting the info into the article then making the changes afterwards which I advice him is not a good idea and that he should work sections first then put them into the article. I got no more responses from him after my comment so I'm not sure if I was correct about my comment. You can see it at my talk page here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

harsh but unfair

As one of the main issues is that whatever we do it won't work then lets be harsh but unfair. Perma ban all usrs from the articles in question who have reverted more then twice in one day. Impose a subject wide 1RR restriction (perimenatly) and permeantly block any user who breaches 1RR after that point. No this is not a joke, but it is an example of about the only thing that wouold work (assuming the fears expresed by many of the users is true, which I think it is).Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, all that would do is slow down the conflict, not diffuse it. And we would have the same endless debates about reverting socks and BLPs we have now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps slowing it down (or accepting there is nothing we can do about it) is the best we can do. Its clear that there is indead off wiki campigns to alter pages to suit agendas (a bit childish if you ask me, its not as if any one takes wiki that seriously). Under those circumstances even if we block all users mentioned here and do nothing else (as others have pointed out) someone else will repalce them. Effectivly its a war of attrition with an inexustable supply of canon fodder (how Haig must envy us). So at the end of the day the only answer is eaither let them fight it oout, have these silly debates every so often, or put them all in a field and bomb the basterds.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very strange argument. Why is being unfair likely to settle any disputes? Its clear that there is indead off wiki campigns to alter pages to suit agendas - not at all sure what you mean here. Could you provide links? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding since I started being an editor is that the project wanted and needed experts in different fields, like this one. Is there anyone else concerned about the possibility that most of the experts in the science field of Climate change may now be banned? What happens to the articles? It's been shown undeniably that there has been off wikipedia blogs recruiting to get editors sanctioned as this "How-to-guide" dif shows and this one that I just heard about. I was aware from comments and the PD page that there are off project blogs interference but this dif provide by Noren above was my first look at it actually being shown. I don't know if there are other blogs doing this but I guess checking Wikipedia Review wouldn't hurt to see if there are discussions going on there about this case and if so, who is involved. Are there any editors here who are members there who can check on this and provide difs if there is something important to this case? I am aware that off project stuff isn't supposed to be brought on project but with this case I find it extremely important because the PD is looking like it's going to reward the off project behavior by doing what they wanted to happen to begin with. If arbitrators haven't looked at this reference, I would suggest they do so to see what is going on over there at pediawatch.wordpress.com. I just think that the PD should be fair and that not all that are named are equally wrong in all of this. I am also concerned that too much thought is being given to the edit warring with too little thought given to more serious breaches of policies. Thank you again for considering my opinions, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in many cases that come to ArbCom there are off wiki issues between rival factions related to a topic. ArbCom knows this to be true because they often see material that is submitted privately that needs to be deleted or suppressed. Unfortunately, there is not much that ArbCom can do about it except to advise users to follow up off wiki with the appropriate authorities as needed, and to keep it off wiki. Any other approach would take too much investigation to give any thing approaching a fair remedy. (Meaning that there is often a long tangled history between people that come to Wikipedia and dispute with each other.) So usually, ArbCom does not explore off wiki activity in the level of detail that you want to when drafting the case (with occasional exceptions if it specifically addresses sanctionable on site editor conduct.) See my comment below for the reason that I support indefinite bans for this group of editors. (my opinions based on my prior experience as a member of arbcom. Of course other arbitrators may see it differently). FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the term unfair to aknowedge before the first reply that those affected by it would consider it unfair. After all (it seems to me) its the other side causing the trouble, so why should those who only want to make wikipedia better be punished as well, goes many of the arguments. It will solve anything, but it might discourage those who want to edit war to push agendas. I don't think its a perfect answer but is I think the only one that will have some impact on this. However I am not aware of what solution was tired (and seemed to work) on scientology relatesd pages, but I am not sure its quite the saem situtation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some of the points raised in this section, in a new section below[203]. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban scope

What about, say, Template:Global warming? That's neither an article, nor a talk page, nor a Wikipedia process. Does that mean that it is not covered by the topic ban? T. Canens (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck in getting an answer. There is a pile of unanswered questions at the end of the "Remedy 3.1: Scope" section William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logic would say it is covered by a CC topic ban in my view. Editing it would look like looking for loopholes in the remedy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I think clarification may be helpful and there may be some cases where I can understand there would be confusion, in this case I would have to agree anyone who edits it then tries to argue it isn't covered should rightfully be smacked down for wikilaywering. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to preempt those wikilawyering in the first place. T. Canens (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If there is an easy answer to this question, then one of the many watching arbs should just give it. If they don't answer, then the assumption muct be that there is no easy answer, in which case asking isn't wikilawyering William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an easy answer: it's any directly or tangentially related article or topic attracting editors arguing the same stuff from either new or old angles, or engaging in the same interpersonal/ideological battles. That's what broadly construed means. Roger Davies ^talk 10:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what about Hadley cell, Greenhouse effect, Atmosphere, Carbon dioxide, Methane, Antarctica, Suess effect, Photosynthesis, Rice, Windpower, Royal Society, NASA, Ocean, Walker circulation, El Niño-Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Current, Hurricane,...? I think it will be quite hard to delineate the topic, and it is essentially impossible to delineate the topic on a per-article basis without massively overshooting the target. In addition, most of the more technical articles have been fairly quite, if only because non-experts simply are not aware of them or do not understand the implication of the concepts. Do we need to extend topic bans to articles that never have been a problem? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Customarily, topic bans are a ban on contributing content related to the topic. So, any edits to any article, template, image, or related talk page that introduce material related to the topic would be a violation. For example, introducing material about the topic into an article about a politician would be a violation of the ban despite the person not being in any category related to Climate. That is the reason that we can not merely give a complete list of WP entries that fall under the ban. But obviously, entries related to Climate would fall under the topic ban. And yes, preventing the problem from being introduced into more articles is one of the goals of the remedy, so we define the topic ban as "broadly construed" for purposes of enforcement. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 11:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"But obviously, entries related to Climate would fall under the topic ban." - that's not obvious to me at all, and seems to be a horrible idea. Why not articles related to biology and ecology which are just as affected by climate change? Or to politics or building codes? For all of these we can construct reasonable connections to climate change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FN has failed to distinguish Climate from Climate Change. Not an easy mistake to make, but a possible one William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the frequent number of mentions of "change" in the Climate article, including a section named Climate change , (the concept of change is include throughout the article for example see Record), and also for example in the Climate model article, I don't see how an editor can edit about Climate and avoid bumping into content that could be in conflict. Also, articles about climatologists are in conflict at times and need to be included in the topic ban for it to be effective in stopping the constant disputes. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 13:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that we all live in the climate, the topic touches everything. Go for a site ban then. "Could be in conflict" is not an operational definition. Stradivari violins may sound so good because the climate in which their wood was grown was colder, so an edit to a classical music article "could be" in conflict. On the other hand, updating Köppen climate classification is unlikely to be connected with climate change or the surrounding controversy. "Stopping the constant disputes" is an admirable goal. As stated by several other editors, even complete removal of all current editors is unlikely to achieve this goal. And what's more, the overarching goal is not to stop disputes, but to build a better encyclopaedia. If you want no disputes, restrict the topic to Barney the dinosaur, the allowed content to "Barney is cute", and lock down the Wiki (in fact, you could do away with the Wiki in favour of a static web page, much cheaper to operate). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate the problem, Stephan's attempted example of the Koeppen classification as an article that is "unlikely to be connected with climate change or the surrounding controversy" is in fact considerably wide of the mark. See e.g., [204][205][206][207] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, I defer to Boris' superior knowledge in this domain. But that does not affect the main point: "could be in conflict" is not a useful criterion, and there are edits to climate topics that are not significantly connected to climate change or the climate change controversy, just as there are non-climate edits that are. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FN;s stuff is all besides the point, and should be ignored as ignorant. RD has provided an answer, which is clearly all we're going to get attracting editors arguing the same stuff from either new or old angles, or engaging in the same interpersonal/ideological battles. Thus Hadley cell isn't covered, by RD's defn, at least not at the moment William M. Connolley (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are no objective criteria that could be laid out without being susceptible to wikilawyering. Instead, I'd suggest a few subjective rules of thumb:

By making the edit, are you attempting to say something about climate change or about a person with a notable connection to climate change? If so, avoid making the edit.
If you were to ask a disinterested but knowledgeable and reasonable person which topics were closely related to the article you wanted to edit, would there be a strong possibility that they would mention climate change (or global warming, etc.)? If so, avoid making the edit.
If a topic-banned opponent in this dispute were to edit the same text you want to edit, would you feel like you'd have a solid basis for accusing them of violating the topic ban? If so, avoid making the edit.
When in doubt, ask someone who will not just tell you what you want to hear -- preferably one of your more reasonable climate change opponents; barring that, a disinterested third party.

Run these rules of thumb past the scenarios offered above and see if there are any that are truly still unclear. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible topic bans

This would work as follows. ArbCom puts some editor X under a flexible topic ban for, say, BLP articles. ArbCom appoints Admin Y to be the mentor who implements the flexible topic ban for editor X. Admin Y familiarizes him/her self with the FoF on editor X in this ArbCom case. If editor X wishes to make an edit to some BLP article, the mentor can approve, disapprove, or ask clarification what exactly the editor wants to edit and make a decision based on that. Admin Y could also require editor X stick to a 1RR or 0RR restriction while editing. In case of violations of an agreement, Admin Y is authorized to block editor X.

I think this is a better solution for some editors who are capable of making good contributions to certain topic areas who nevertheless have not behaved well in disputes with editors who have different views regarding climate change. Count Iblis (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship arrangements are very difficult to put together at the best of times (limited pool of admins prepared to undertake such a role). Specifically, it is probably undesirable in this instance because of the likely pressure the mentor would come under to revise calls (ie "you should/shouldn't have let editor X make edits k.l.m" ) and the intense partisan scrutiny that such arrangements would likely attract. Roger Davies ^talk 10:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Roger. And more debate and conflicts about the value of the edits of the people being topic banned is not the best way to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 10:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problems, but I think there are solutions here. You can think of ArbCom putting constraints on this system, like the mentor only being authorized to let the editor edit under 0RR. This would solve three problems. First: There obviously wouldn't be much of an issue with other editors objecting to the edits and contacting the mentor about the permission to edit; in case of objections they can revert and that then also ends the editor's involvement in editing there because of the 0RR. Second: Because of this effective veto, the mentor won't give permision to edit in the first place, unless being reverted is unlikely. Third: the factionalist mentality can be better addressed via the discretionary sanctions, I'll explain this at the end of the last paragraph below.

There is a limited availablity of mentors, but I think the arrangement I'm proposing here is of a different nature than other mentorship agreements. Also, we're probably only dealing with a few editors for whom this is appropriate. The mentor won't have much work to do. Away from the polemics in the climate change area, there won't be much of a hurry to make an edit, therefore the mentor doesn't need to promptly consider editing requests.

If e.g. William were topic banned this way, think of William filing a request to edit some very technical article on some aspect of climate science. Clearly, approval can wait a week. Now, suppose that some editors can't put their WMC-obsession aside, follow William and revert him on that technical article. Obviously, applying the discretionary sanctions would then be in order. It is, of course, not likely that this will happen, so it may be a way for people get rid of their factionalist mentality. Count Iblis (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has any such revert of a highly technical nature occurred in the past by any "obsessed" editor? Is this a matter of clapping hands to keep elephants away? Collect (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. But if this issue is moot, that's another argument why a mentoring agreement of this sort would not cause trouble. Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I see that there are new proposals on the PD that names editors with per Remedy 3, which starts here, that are being voted for. This may be a stupid question but what does this mean for the editors? Again, sorry if this is a dumb question but I don't understand if it means a month or indefinite or anything in between. Thanks for any clarifications to this,--CrohnieGal^Talk 13:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed "Remedy 3" ban in this case is an indefinite ban on having anything at all to do with the topic on-wiki, with the possibility of an appeal as defined in either Remedy 3.2 or 3.2.1, whichever passes. --TS 13:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) - I have assumed it means an indefinite topic ban, which seems extraordinary given the wildly different issues and standards of conduct between the individuals named. I raised concerns about it in an earlier section. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, past attempts to make editor remedies very specific to the person was a failure on several levels. Deciding between 3 months, or 6 months, or 9 months, or 1 year bans on numerous editors needlessly adds complexity to cases, and are difficult to quantify adequately without doing a full review of each editor (a consistent problem is poor quality of evidence submitted by the community which does not necessarily fully address the underlying problems). Indefinite bans that can later be lifted is a better since it lets users comeback if they are viewed as able to edit collaboratively in the topic area rather that picking an arbitrary period of time for the ban. This idea fits better with the preventative nature of the ban. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But such a system is extraordinarily unfair. In this case, we have identical remedies proposed for individuals whose behavior ranges from minor WP:BATTLE/WP:NPA violations to in-your-face WP:EW/WP:DISRUPT/WP:BATTLE/WP:NPA/WP:BAIT orgies. The guy who stole an apple from a market vendor is getting the same ~~punishment~~ remedy as the guy who stole millions in an armed bank robbery that left a trail of corpses. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the issues here go beyond a simple inability to work cooperatively with other editors. In several instances we've seen editors with a deep philosophical belief system that conflicts with Wikipedia standards on sourcing, and/or with a cockeyed view of Wikipedia standards. These editors can almost instantly demonstrate that they can work with others, if it's on articles on noncontroversial subjects, and then they can return to these articles and wreak havoc again. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will the decision be structurally biased?

I think that we need to step back and examine the overall impact of the decision as it is currently shaping up. Roughly equal numbers of penalties are being meted out to the science-knowledgeable editors and those that favor greater emphasis on skeptical and fringe subjects and points of view. My concern about this approach, which I understand is common in arbcom decisions, is that the effect would be inherently and structurally one-sided. There are a very limited number of technically competent people willing to edit Wikipedia, but a virtually unlimited number of technically incompetent, ideologically driven people more than happy to weigh in on these articles.

The intent is to achieve a perception of fairness, but the actual outcome is to remove the majority of climate science-knowledgeable editors. Because of the unending supply of nonexpert skeptically-oriented editors, some motivated by outside websites, that would inevitably mean that the CC articles will shift in the direction of pseudoscience. More articles will appear on minor blogs/books/documentaries pushing the "climate change ain't happening" minority/fringe viewpoint. There will be more POV pushing, civil and otherwise, with far fewer technically competent editors around to challenge them. There will be more eroding of sourcing standards. There is the potential for great harm to the encyclopedia.

What we're seeing here is a fundamental weakness of Wikipedia being exposed, which is its vulnerability to fringe POVs and its structural hostility to experts. No, experts are not, inherently, polite people. They are not prone to collaborate with nonexperts. That's a fact of life. We are seeing that played out in the CC articles.

While some may feel that it is OK to "level the playing field" so that editors with minority points of view get treated with greater respect and more politely, in the long run I feel that achieving that aim by excluding scientists from these articles will damage Wikipedia and add to its reputation for inaccuracy and unreliability.

I hope that the arbitrators take all of this into account, in their effort to make this case go away. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my experience, ArbCom never deliberately adds proposals to cases in order to balance the results of case, or to give a level playing field. Rather, in order for a dispute to need the assistance of arbcom, two groups of editors are in a dispute with each other that can not be resolved because the Community is also divided on the best way to manage the situation. If this was a problem as simple as you describe it, then it would have been resolved already (or at least not need the attention of ArbCom). FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, this is a very complex situation. I'm not trying to imply otherwise. I just looked at the decision and it occurred to me that if topic bans are imposed as proposed, it is going to have an unequal impact. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until we know for sure that the proposed findings and remedies are complete, and even then only when we know which are likely to prevail, I don't think it's wise to characterize the proposal.

That said, it looks to me as if only the most troublesome editors have been targetted for exclusion. If I looked at those who are likely to be excluded, I think I'd probably find that a majority of them have shown little or no knowledge of the science. Expert editors, with the exception of Dr. Connolley and Polargeo, aren't really mentioned as yet. The most problematic behavior identified seems to be inadequate treatment of the biographies of living persons policy, incivility and personal attacks. It's become a bit of a battleground.

What may be less obvious is that quite a few expert editors have been working away quietly on some of the climate change articles without attracting adverse attention, and we can only hope that in due course such experts will feel encouraged to bring their expertise to bear on the formerly controversial articles. --TS 17:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 853: / Line 853: @@
 FN;s stuff is all besides the point, and should be ignored as ignorant. RD has provided an answer, which is clearly all we're going to get ''attracting editors arguing the same stuff from either new or old angles, or engaging in the same interpersonal/ideological battles''. Thus [[Hadley cell]] isn't covered, by RD's defn, at least not at the moment [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 18:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
+I'm sure there are no objective criteria that could be laid out without being susceptible to wikilawyering.  Instead, I'd suggest a few subjective rules of thumb:
+* By making the edit, are you attempting to say something about climate change or about a person with a notable connection to climate change?  If so, avoid making the edit.
+* If you were to ask a disinterested but knowledgeable and reasonable person which topics were closely related to the article you wanted to edit, would there be a strong possibility that they would mention climate change (or global warming, etc.)?  If so, avoid making the edit.
+* If a topic-banned opponent in this dispute were to edit the same text you want to edit, would you feel like you'd have a solid basis for accusing them of violating the topic ban?  If so, avoid making the edit.
+* When in doubt, ask someone who will not just tell you what you want to hear -- preferably one of your more reasonable climate change opponents; barring that, a disinterested third party.
+Run these rules of thumb past the scenarios offered above and see if there are any that are truly still unclear. [[User:Alanyst|alanyst]] <sup>/[[User talk:Alanyst|talk]]/</sup> 18:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 == Flexible topic bans ==