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

This board is for users to request enforcement under the terms of the climate change article probation. Requests should take the following format:

{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request

| User against whom enforcement is requested          
  = <Username>

| Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
  = [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation]]

| Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so 
  <!-- When providing several diffs, please use a numbered list as in this example. -->
=<p>
# [<Diff>] <Explanation>
# [<Diff>] <Explanation>
# [<Diff>] <Explanation>
# ...

| Diffs of prior warnings
=<p>
# [<Diff>] Warning by {{user|<Username>}}
# [<Diff>] Warning by {{admin|<Username>}}
# ...

| Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) 
  = <Your text>

| Additional comments 
  = <Your text>
}}

This will generate a structure for managing the request including a second level header. Please place requests underneath the following divider, with new requests at the bottom of the page. For instructions on generating diff links, see Help:Diff.

For Requests for refactoring of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines violations only, comments by parties other than the requester, the other party involved, and the reviewing/actioning/archiving editor will be removed.

---

More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley

Result was WMC blocked 48 hrs.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley User requesting enforcement ATren (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [1] - PA; edit summary "clueless", directed at Mark Nutley. Text: "Face it, you really don't know what is going on here but are determined to push your POV anyway" [2] - incivility, directed at MN: "you should find an arera to edit that you understand" [3] - removal of MN's comment on enforcement page. MN was actually supporting WMC in a thread. Full text of removed comment: "Nor would i boris, i have asked Oiler to remove that post. My advice to Scjessey is to ignore this." (agreeing with Boris' condemnation of Oiler) Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) From the sanctions log page: "User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done. Exceptions are made for archiving discussions that have received no comments for at least one week, and for whole removal of comments from his own talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)" - violated in third diff (see my rationale below) "User:William M. Connolley warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, and to promptly refactor any unintentional typos." - violated in first diff ("clueless") Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I suggest a month-long topic ban for repeated refusal to adhere to this probation. Additional comments by editor filing complaint This is, what, the ninth request against WMC? I'm at least the 6th to raise a request (CoM, HiP, MN, AQFK, Cla68 have all filed before me - all editors in good standing). The three diffs I supplied are from today, so this is continuing behavior. @WMC: WMC has claimed below that the RFE page is not a talk page, therefore the sanction was not violated when he removed MN's comment there. But this RFE is a discussion venue, so WMC certainly violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the sanction. In addition, there was nothing whatsoever offensive or abusive in MN's comment, which was part of a larger thread involving 2 other editors. Such a comment removal would be suspect in any context, let alone on a probation enforcement page, let alone from an editor who has already been sanctioned for similar removals. ATren (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC) @WMC: what about the "clueless" diff? Perhaps you can claim a technicality on the the comment removal (dubious, IMO), but you still haven't said a word on calling another editor clueless. Do you concede that violation? ATren (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC) @Jehochman, do you have evidence of which member of this so called "viscous campaign by right wing bloggers" hijacked WMC's account and posted those offending diffs? We all put up with unfounded accusations (both on and off wiki), but that's no excuse to lash out at others. If editors can't be held responsible for their own actions, they shouldn't be editing. If an editor can't participate in a debate without insulting other editors, he should be banned. An example: my contribution history and motives have been repeatedly attacked on this page. The accusations are completely unsupported (and unsupportable). Does that make me a victim of a "vicious campaign", and by virtue of that, can I start calling people clueless and removing their comments? Where does it end? Do my "victims" then get a free pass, ad infinitum? It has to stop. Mark Nutley may not agree with WMC, he may even be wrong, but once WMC starts belittling him and hurling insults, it becomes WMC's problem regardless what disagreement started it. WMC must learn to be less disruptive even in the face of what he believes are hostile elements. It's his responsibility alone to control his behavior. ATren (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [4] Discussion concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley Statement by User:William M. Connolley I'm baffled by #3. But apparently retrospective re-interpretation of the rules forbids this, so I've restored it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC) As to 1, 2: there is a distressing lack of connection to reality about all this. No-one, it seems, cares that MN has got this completely wrong; that his timeline is simply incorrect; that he has been indulging in blatant OR and SYN. Face it, MN isn't listening to rational argument. But then again, neither are the admins here, sigh. So, lets go through it. MN wanted to say Pachauri defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035 based on [5]. Well, you can read that for yourself - it says no such thing. Moreover, it *can't* say any such thing, because of the timeline. 2009/11/09. RKP calls an Indian glacio report junk [6] At the start of December 2009. J. Graham Cogley notices that there is a problem with the 2035 date in AR4 WG II Criticism of the IPCC AR4#Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers. So there you are. MN is well aware of the Dec '09 date, as he has spent plenty of time edit warring over that bit. Which is why I suggested he was clueless. Because he didn't even know the dates of events he himself has been edit warring over. MN is *still* refusing to learn, and obsinacy at this level really is clueless: as his latest "evidence" says itself [7] Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”. The Indian "voodoo" report has *nothing at all* to do with the 2035 claim; MN is so blinded by his POV that he is unable to recognise this William M. Connolley (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Statement by ZP5 This diff history showing a disruptive pattern is here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC) WMC Request for Enforcement History showing disruptive and egregious behavior. This must demonstrate a pattern of disruptive and egregious behavior in the Enforcement Project for WMC. Request concerning William M. Connolley [8] William M. Connolley [9] William M. Connolley: on refactoring comments and civility [10] William M. Connolley [11] William M. Connolley [12] TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC [13] More incivility from William [14] William M. Connolley [15] William M. Connolley [16] William M. Connolley [17] William M. Connolley [18] Tentative disruptive request [19] @Admins, In the past before the probation, I examined a 20 day diff history sample of WMC's "no", "not" language with other negative comments about others contribution. The result was 34 findings, which average to 1.7 negative comments per day. So with regards to a 90/10 ratio, the projected results imply a greater impact than "snarks". The editor is a highly significant negator of others contributions (including snarks as an "I No" editor). Do this imply that "know" means "no" ... well the reference to the sources should decided. My faith in others says "no" and "know" are different. My opinion is that excessive negation creates a overheated environment rolling over to this RFE. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Clearly, there are other ways of interpreting this data. A viewpoint exists that the articles are generally reasonably high quality and fairly NPOV, but that a number of not very well informed POV editors are seeking to shift the arrticles away from NPOV by inclusion of less well sourced material with UNDUE weight. In the context of such a vewipoint diligent refusal of proposed content might well be a sign of a knowledgable and well intentioned editor who has been driven to the occasion curt remark by the continuation of this. As to which viewpoint is correct, I think the edit histories speak for themselves to people who take trouble to do some research. --BozMo talk 08:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I suggest interpreting as if negation is occurring, then it should be extra civil and self-aware of its impact, so as to avoid a creating negative environment. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley This idea of ATren (talk · contribs) [20] was much more reasonable than the current request. This is needless escalation. That ATren is trying to precipitate a month long topic-ban is not particularly surprising. Mathsci (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC) "That ATren is trying to precipitate a month long topic-ban is not particularly surprising." - I am unclear on your meaning here. Could you please clarify what you mean by this statement? Specifically, why do you feel it is not particularly surprising? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I had specifically requested that MathSci explain his comment above to make his meaning plain. It was a simple and polite request. This was his response. I can only assume that if his meaning was constructive that he would have been more than willing to come and make it more clear here. His bald dismissal of my request suggests, IMHO of course, the opposite. If I am wrong on that point I welcome MathSci to come and correct the record. --GoRight (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC) It was lucky that I was asleep so that I could ignore what appears to have been WP:BAITing and your own extraordinarily rude interpretation of my sleeping. Your message in a headline on my talk page, with its split infinitive, did not seem "simple and polite". Are you contesting my right to remove that message or are you claiming that my edit summary contravened certain wikipedia rules? At present you seem to be repeating the disruptive behaviour which resulted in an indefinite block before, lifted subject to assurances from you. Have you ever thought of trying to improve your article edit count, GoRight? That would be more helpful for this encyclopedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I have provided a reference to my request above for others to conveniently judge for themselves. If my request offended you in some way, I apologize. I choose to ignore this most current attack but if you (MathSci) would take this opportunity to clarify your meaning it would be most helpful in clearing this matter up. If my analysis above is incorrect I will gladly retract it once you have clarified your actual meaning. I don't believe that simply asking for clarification on what you meant by "not particularly surprising" is uncivil or baiting or even assuming bad faith. I would simply like to understand what you had in mind when you wrote that statement specifically so that I DON'T make any assumptions either way. Clear communications is important to avoiding misunderstandings and unwarranted animus, and reducing either of these should help to improve the editing environment here which is, of course, my goal. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Comment I did in fact ask WMC to self revert after he removed my comment, as he obviously did not then i believe he has in fact broken his parole mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Comment Given the fact that WMC has a long history of misconduct dating back at least five years.[21], a one month topic ban seems too lenient to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I vote we chain him to a fence and throw rotten cabbages at him. That's no less an absurd suggestion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Again, might I suggest a remedy here? I propose topic bans of increasing duration. If LHVU wants to start out at 72 hours or whatever, that's fine. I suggest, however, that the lengths of any future bans for this editor, if they occur, increase drastically in duration, from 3 days to one week, followed by one month, followed by two months, and so on until the behavior in question has been corrected. Obviously, the behavior is in need of correction. Note the vindictive motion by WMC in response below for an indication of his desire to self-correct. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Comment from clueless over here, WMC is once again wrong, please note the following Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen, and was asked about it in november He already knew the 2035 date was rubbish but stuck with it. mark nutley (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Sigh, you are playing word games WMC, Again please note the following, Ramesh recalled how IPCC chief R K Pachauri had scornfully dismissed doubts raised by a government agency about the veracity of the UN body's sensational projection about melting of glaciers. "In fact, we had issued a report by scientist V K Raina that the glaciers have not retreated abnormally. At the time, we were dismissed, saying it was based on voodoo science. But the new report has clearly vindicated our position I want a personal apology from the IPCC chairperson R.K. Pachauri who had described my research as voodoo science,” Mr. Raina told The Hindu over phone from Panchkula. “Forget IPCC, Dr. Pachauri has not even expressed regret over what he said after my report -- Himalayan Glaciers: a state-of-art review of glacial studies, glacial retreat and climate change -- was released in November last year So he knew in november the ipcc had cocked up, and still he called this guys work voodoo science, were exactly is this wrong in your eyes? mark nutley (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC) @Jehochman, how do you manage to post a paragraph in a remedy section about WMC, and only mention the diffs provided of his behavior as "a mountain out of a molehill". You consistently fail to apply the probation as it exists, which has served only to enable this to continue. After your previous GBCW [22] to this page, I doubt your impartiality. If you have complaints about other editors on those pages, open a request like everyone else. Arkon (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC) @SS ... Your question's premise is based upon the assumption that WMC owns (as sole editor) Wikipedia's POV and content, which is the primary issue here causing a disruption. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC) (moving from section below, per notice at head of section)Wikipedia functions very well outside of the Utopian ideal and always did on climate change. Unfortunately these sanctions have been given support without any real advertisement of the debate (so are certainly not consensus) and with a few misguided editors thinking they were a good thing and no proper general debate. This is such a different area from the other areas where similar sanctions have been imposed. Oh well! Let's all be "bend over backwards" civil to the talkpage POV warriors who time and time again don't even bother to read previous posts and bring up argument after argument. I even think WMC thought the sanctions might be a good idea which makes me seriously wonder about issues of judgement. Polargeo (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I am certainly minded to add "clueless" and similar to the banned expressions list for WMC, including in edit summaries. It is hard to see how this can lead to constructive dialogue. As for what's a talk page etc someone involved in the last lot is going have to answer that. And is it time for a "come off it and behave like and ordinary mortal" type action... hmm. Probably not from this diff list. --BozMo talk 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I feel we cannot allow the refactoring of another editors talkpage comments to pass unsanctioned, since it was not under one of the exceptions noted in WMC's restriction - and the argument that Enforcement pages do not fall under the ambit of the probation is simple Wikilawyering; personal attacks, and the like, would not be permitted either. However, I am not minded to remove WMC from editing for any extended period because I believe that such silencing of one of the major contributors would become (more) of the intended purpose of requests on the page than trying to return to a collegiate editing environment. My suggestion would be, following the 24 hour sanction previously, of a tariff of not less than 48 hours and not more than 96. It must be made clear to WMC and all those who are not willing to work within the terms of the probation toward a good working environment that they are the architects of their own sanctions - and thus they should be incremental but not punitive. There needs to be the probability of a return to editing within the near future. Frankly, 1 month blocks would be counter productive since some accounts may decide that they will attempt to destroy what little co-operation currently exists if they cannot be part of the editing team. Everyone should be, and is, welcome to edit here in good faith. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Calling a person clueless makes an assessment of their mental state and should not be done, especially in edit summaries which cannot be retracted. Describing on-wiki behaviour as lacking in WP:CLUE is different, but if you are involved in the dispute you shouldn't need to do it anyway, other editors who do have clue will be able to spot clueless behaviour without you having to put it on a banner for them. The usage in this case seems to be aimed at the person, so yeah, add "clueless" and whatever variants to the no-type list. Suggesting that an editor find a different topic area where they are more knowledgable can be OK at times, but needs to be done with care. For one thing, it's like saying you're the toughest guy in the bar - you never know who will come in the door next. For another, a currently banned editor made a habit of telling other people they didn't know enough to edit "his" areas and this became part of the evidence. In this case, the suggestion seems not unreasonable. MN always has the option to acquire the requisite knowledge. Removing someone else's post from a discussion page, whatever the prefix, when you are in a dispute should not be done unless it's something egregious. Uninvolved observers are perfectly capable of evaluating and if necessary removing posts. Since WMC is currently under a restriction on removing posts at all, let's just clarify that it applies to all discussion-style pages (generally anywhere where you end your post with tildes) and move on. Does that about cover it? Franamax (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Does that about cover it>> I think so. I think maximum clarity is lowest stress for us and whether what LHVU says was deliberate wikilawyer was in fact congenital pedantry is perhaps a benefit of doubt thing --BozMo talk 21:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, could you run that last bit past me again? :~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I think it means that if there's a choice between deliberate rules-lawyering on whether the page starts with Talk: or not, or confusion on exactly what the sanction meant, then we go with confusion and make things more clear. Some words may have got lost in the inter-tubes there, or actually just the "ing" is missing from "wikilawyer". As a congenital pedant myself, I always like to get the benefit of the doubt. ;) Franamax (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC) If folk are saying, "Let's make things clear" then I agree. If folk are saying, "Let's make things clear only" then I demur. WMC removed a comment by someone they are in dispute with, generally, over CC - and they are under notice that they may not do so. Comment removal, and the chosen adjectives, appear to violate the restriction placed upon WMC the last time he indulged in such practices. Let us make things clear, and enact a sanction under the restrictions noted for the reasons given. 48 hours only, since there might have been some confusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC) To the extent that WMC is relying on the "but I'm right" defence, which everyone knows is not wikpedish at all even if you are right, and also know is not well-expressed with "you're an idiot"-style edit summaries, I'm forced to agree with you. The regime also seems to be designed with escalating sanctions in mind. I would easily accept a 24-hours-plus-one-minute or 31 on this, though I quail at a double-up given the ambiguities involved. Franamax (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Mostly I agree with you, (your summary, above, was very helpful and spot on) but if the last block was 24 hours, I think 24 hours plus 1 minute, or even 31, sends the wrong message. Either it is sanctionable, or it isn't, and if it is, escalation is appropriate, because there have been a fair number of warnings. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) How would you feel about an RFC/U instead? Rather than nipping at the edges of a problem, why not deal with it completely? Jehochman Brrr 04:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I don't think they work. I've seen a fair number that blunder on for a month or so, during which much heat is generated, and at the end the user blithely ignores the findings (the fact that some dissenting views are generated appears to enable them to ignore the larger consensus that they have a problem that needs addressing) and continues with the disruptive pattern of behavior. For example, this one. I suspect that an RfC/U on WMC would be worse. We have an enforcement regime here and I think it is actually doing some good. Slowly, but it is. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The account filing this request does not appear to have engaged in any worthwhile article building in the area. Their contributions appear to be more properly characterized as disruptive. The request itself is overblown--making a mountain out of a molehill. Therefore, I oppose any sanction, as this would encourage further rules lawyering, and baiting. WMC's contributions in the area, while not perfect have been substantial and serious. Wikipedia:Content matters. Please discuss rather than imposing a sanction that is not supported by a consensus. Jehochman Brrr 02:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't that comprise a separate request then? (Like the one just below?) This system seems designed to consider individuals and individual articles, one-by-one, to get the mess sorted. WMC is a big boy, he can withstand a sanction or two in the process of getting his stuff together to the point where he's not crossing lines in dealing with what he deals with. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Franamax (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The one below is being rejected. It does not make sense to sanction the one expert who knows the most about the subject while giving a variety of tendentious accounts a free pass, and encouraging them to further their attacks against WMC. He's the target of a viscous campaign by right wing bloggers. We should not condone that. A warning should suffice here, then we need to turn to the primary sources of disruption and drop the hammer. Jehochman Brrr 03:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The lone expert is smart enough to be capable of cleaning up his act. Given that, targeting the gunsights becomes much easier. Consider that it takes some serious skiing to even get to where you can aim the rifle. (Sorry for the biathlon analogy, I could see one of the venues from my front door - what I mean is that it takes a whole lot of reading to get a handle on all this. :) No-one gets a free pass, this is just the first request where I chose to weigh in. My assessment was a warning result too, but if LHvU sees need for a sanction, I'll defer as noted above. One miscreant at a time. I've observed the serial provocation and I'm not unaware of the possibility of off-site exhortations, though when you say it's "viscous" I do have to ask what the Reynolds number is. :) Franamax (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Clarify that the little riff on "viscous" was much more a comment on my own obession with detail and interest in opportunities for wry, dark, or downright sick humour than it was with Jehochman's single typo/grammo. Franamax (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Okay, I really WP:DGAF. You guys do what you must. I personally dislike using short blocks on established contributors. People should be treated as adults. An RFC would be more likely to change WMC's behavior for the better. A short block is unlikely to do much except stir up drama. As I said, do what you must. Jehochman Brrr 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Franamax: Yes. WMC needs to tone down the abrasiveness. I know he can do it if he wants to. So far I don't think he's been motivated enough to want to. Jehochman: Escalating blocks will eventually get through. Or they will be escalated to the point that the disruption will cease. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The best way to get out of a death spiral is not to go into one. Escalating blocks often lead to a self-reinforcing trend that is bad for Wikipedia. Jehochman Brrr 14:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Usually. but sometimes it's best for the project and the editor that there is a parting of the ways if the editor cannot edit within our norms. What else do you suggest, given that there seems to be a persistent problem here? Please make a concrete and implementable suggestion for improvement of WMC's behavior. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I have enacted a 48 hour block on WMC's account, with regard to this request, per the above discussion. As ever, I welcome review and I will not oppose any admins good faith variance or lifting of the sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Personally I do not see the above discussion supporting this action. As far as I can see B, F & J were against the sanction and L and L in favour of it. Could someone recount for me? --BozMo talk 15:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see Franamax as opposed to a block entirely, my read was that Franamax was advocating 24h+1min or 31h rather than 48. That shifts things. Also, you didn't opine clearly, so I don't think I knew where you stood until just now. But I'll reiterate, I think we should propose the sanction and seek consensus, not just implement it first. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Agreed that next time LHvU please seek consensus if we are going to bother having discussion, including amongst people who may be in bed at different times of day to you. I think there was not very good listening between uninvolved admins on this one, and am concerned per J that all we have done is made a major move toward worsening things. On F, like J and I, I read F as saying "am prepared to defer to consensus"> but it gets a bit odd if three people prepared to "defer" to consensus have consensus declared against them by a smaller number. Not that I could not have been talked around but there are certainly other things to fix at the same time. Also we did not even get to topic ban versus editing ban. I am not proud of our performance here.--BozMo talk 19:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Well, I obviously was under the impression that we were discussing whether WMC had violated his restriction regarding refactoring other peoples comments and also his use of intemperate discriptions of others and their agenda's. I read that there was consensus that he had. On that basis I moved to enact the agreed sanctions, those that were detailed in those restrictions, after first requesting what sort of time scale we should impose. Having read the discussion I went to 48 hours since it seemed a sufficient increase upon the previous block, not as short as the last block + 1 hour suggested, and not the 96 which I had suggested as the upper end (I considered all the "requests" for 1 week/1 month to be punative, and did not factor them in my considerations). If anyone did have reservations about the potential block, I wish that they had clarified that and the basis of the reservations. As I said previously, I am not wedded to my sanctions and will not "refuse" a variation or lifting of the block - but I would be concerned how we are supposed to police these articles if we impose restrictions which we then apply to some editors and not others, sometimes, depending on the prevailing opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I share your concern. I just think we may possibly need to get crisper on "I propose this enforcement action" "I concur" "I disagree because" kind of phrasing so we can avoid this sort of confusion going forward. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Without imposing yet another layer of bullrocracy (my invention, please note when using in future) on these processes, the case of Mark nutley was closed with a proposed wording not enacted because there were too few responses to indicate consensus. We - me included - do need to sharpen up our act to be both transparent and clear in our opinions. And prompt. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I am certainly not minded to lift the block (although I would if enough people turned up and said so). In this particular case I think that we are in danger both of making ourselves look foolish and of escalating things. There is also a general problem of trolling on these articles lately: WMC has rightly pointed out the presence of a number of editors who have never made an original contribution to a single article in the topic except perhaps a revert, who are filling up talk pages with low quality comment. If we are to avoid looking stupid we need to show we are capable of addressing that issue rather than shooting the messenger when this is (undoubtedly uncivilly) pointed out. In general though my view on violations is that we should be probably more decisive and live with the knowledge we will make bad calls. If we are trying to work with consensus here though we should, as Lar said, be explicit. In this case LHvU you were not making a consensus block based on the discussion here, you were forming your own judgement and acting on it. I can live with that (especially for dismissing frivolous complaints which I personally think should be single uninvolved admin with one seconder). I can also live with the idea that no one admin should be involved in every decision here, and I don't like reopening things. But I have a problem with agreeing one process and living by another. --BozMo talk 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Is anybody here thinking that all the editors that filed enforcement requests against WMC, individually or collectively, can write a better article on global warming than WMC? If not there is a systemic failure in this probation if it leads to a result that sanctions productive expert editors of favor of less productive and less expert editors. If yes, I'd like to see any evidence... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Anything but stunned silence here? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Sometimes it's best to leave rhetorical questions unanswered. I think we already know your answer at any rate. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that someone or another opined as follows: while the "Science Team" (or WMC alone, as you specify) might do a better job (in terms of sourcing and clarity of writing, at least) on the areas that are purely scientific, it is just possible that the entire panoply of participating editors would do far better at fairly and harmoniously including all points of view, to the appropriate relative weights, in those parts of this topic that are not purely scientific ... what exactly would that accomplish in the context of this particular discussion? Nothing. So perhaps no one has articulated that view even if they themselves believed it. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Yep, given what else people seem prepared to believe, that there are those glibly believing what Lar put as a strawman is not impossible, but it is never going to convince someone who considers carefully what it might involve. Sure WMC knows his stuff and provides a good basis for almost every argument he gets into (and wins most of them). But to the point on system failure, WMC is his own worst enemy. A clone of WMC who didn't rub other people's noses in it (and there are a few others) would never have run foul of these sanctions. But given the time the community is prepared to spend on people who are 90% troll 10% contributor and probably only half way through puberty it is strange we cannot engage more productively with someone who is 90% contributer 10% snark and has a serious knowledge base. --BozMo talk 14:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I want to comment here very breifly, just as a concerned editor, and only to say that I applaud your efforts in this area. "Civility" has to be more than an empty word. Wikipedia is truly meant to function with an atmosphere of collegiality, courtesy, and respect, both in tone and in conduct. only then can we truly get the mixture of views and ideas which is one great strength here. thanks! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I'm going to second that. BozMo, I think in general you've been trying very hard to be even handed here and you're doing a good job. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) This has been up for a week since the executive action, closing now. Franamax (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby and enablers

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

Request concerning Scibaby and enablers

User requesting enforcement

Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Scibaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [23] POV-pushing against consensus by sock
2. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby Latest CU report
3. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive CU Archive
4. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby 592 (and counting) confirmed socks
5. [24] Scibaby enabler comparing concerned editors to pigs and dictators via literary allusion.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

N/A, already blocked sock master.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Adequate range blocks and active patrolling by neutral admins, checkusers, and all well-meaning editors. Strong warnings against editors who support obvious Scibaby socks in discussions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Scibaby (and/or related sockmasters) have disrupted the climate change articles for a long time. Undoing the damage has been left to a small group of editors supported only through cumbersome processes. In particular, apparently no "sceptic" editor has ever found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption "sceptic" editors have rarely if ever found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption (one case of a borderline sceptic editor has been found). As a result, a small group is left with both the effort and the risk of dealing with this sockmaster (or group of sockmasters). In particular, they alone carry the risk if an action is misinterpreted or in honest error. This is not acceptable.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[25]

Discussion concerning Scibaby and enablers

Comments by others about the request concerning Scibaby and enablers

I don't think this is remotely actionable. We're a volunteer project and we cannot order anybody to do anything. Handling scibaby stuff is something I do from time to time, but it isn't an important feature of editing the climate change articles. --TS 23:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

More aggressive range blocks are certainly possible, although we need to take collateral damage into account. More semi-protection is possible. Creating a more streamlined process for dealing with mass sockpuppeteers is possible. Coming to an explicit a-priori understanding that good-faith reverting of plausible Scibaby edits will not be interpreted as edit-warring is possible. Granting more leeway to admins to block likely socks is possible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this here? WP has well-entrenched rules to deal with socks. I see nothing proposed here that would enhance the ability of anyone to directly address the socks themselves. What I do see is a proposal to issue warnings to anyone who supports an obvious sock. It has been said many times that Scibaby socks are easy to spot. That may be true to some people, but not to me. If there are definitive signs, I don't know what they are. If I see someone new proposing something I think is positive, I intend to support. If it turns out to be a sock, I strongly object to the notion I deserve a warning. This sounds like a backdoor proposal to create an entirely inappropriate policy. I propose that this entire section be struck. To the extent it is sensible, it is redundant. To the extent it is not redundant, it is anathema.--SPhilbrickT 23:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WP's rules have not been designed for narrow-focus POV-pushing mass sock-puppeteers and do not work particularly well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does Scibaby do besides readding paragraphs about bovine emissions? The diff you provided above shows an apparently problematic edit, but doesn't seem to be a huge problem, such as blanking or mass moving of article pages like Willy on Wheels used to do. Willy on Wheels was a huge problem for awhile but eventually gave up. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

One point about Scibaby is that it's an extremely tedious and obsessive sock. It's also incredibly predictable. Elsewhere today I suggested that we might perhaps consider more frequent semi-protection of talk pages on some of his target articles, simply to stop his timewasting. --TS 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think semi-prot of talk pages is unreasonable. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Per TS... maybe edit filters are an approach to combat the bovine emission insertion problem and other well known areas of interest. ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been quite a bit of time since scibaby focused primarily on bovine emissions. Take a look at the "contribution" history of the latest 20 or so socks. Hir is still recognizable/predictable - but also still capable of surprises. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection of talk pages would be the best way forward, if the community agrees that the problem should be addressed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am worried in principle that with the talk pages and articles protected, there will be no place at all for IP editors to make a contribution. In practice I doubt this has much effect. I'm certainly not saying that if you semi a bunch of talk pages that, "the terrists have won." Ignignot (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This matter has been resolved.

Stephan, consistent with [26] consider this your "polite note" that I believe your comments regarding skeptics and what you see as their level of dedication to the integrity of the project seem to unnecessarily attack a number of editors in good standing and, therefore, the "refactoring or removal" of that part of your comment "would be appreciated". Let's all try to promote a more collegial environment moving forward. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. --GoRight (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Show me an example where a "sceptical" editor has ever disagreed with a Scibaby sock, or reverted it, or reported it at SPI, and I will refactor accordingly. Until then, my comment stands. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Let's not focus on the "enablers" portion. We may have a chance here of getting consensus on more sensible handling of Scibaby, and I'd not want to mess up that chance. --TS 00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC) @Stephan - I was unaware that reverting Scibaby was somehow an official litmus test for caring about the integrity of the project. Since Scibaby tends to promote a skeptical perspective on the issues it should not be surprising that the AGW proponents would be more active in trying to keep his edits out. However, it is Scibaby the user that is banned and NOT their POV so your comment is clearly inappropriate and an attack. It is a sad state of affairs when we can't even get the administrators to adhere to the civility restrictions which have just recently been proposed for these pages. Consistent with [27], the above notification, and Stephan's refusal to refactor his incivility I would ask that an uninvolved administrator refactor it for him. Specifically, the portion of his statement that I think is objectionable would be "In particular, apparently no "sceptic" editor has ever found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community." --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Agree with GoRight. Stephan should replace the words "maintaining the integrity of our community" with "reporting or reverting Scibaby sockpuppets." Keeping in mind that it's now wee hours of the morning in Germany, we should give Stephan a reasonable time to repond. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC) A perfectly acceptable suggestion and given the time I perfectly agree with giving him time to respond and am more than willing to accept that the time may have been a contributing factor. I have certainly been in the same situation myself. --GoRight (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Clarified. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed per Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Comment_refactoring

How many socks are you requesting enforcement against exactly? 57? 205? Heyitspeter (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I'm requesting action against the sock master(s). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I repeat. 57? 205? The one you list has already been blocked indefinitely [28].--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Broken record? As I said, I'm looking for action that is effective against the sock master(s). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I suppose we're both spinning in circles, so in that sense the metaphor holds. I asked you a question twice and you haven't answered twice.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Let me explain. Sock master: A real human being. Sock puppet: A disposable Wikipedia account created by the sock master (see there). I'm looking for sactions that are effective against the sock master (see there) and as a consequence reduce the disruption caused by the sock puppets (see there). Some examples of possible actions are listed above (see there), I'm sure this groups of brilliant brains can come up with more than I can after 5 minutes of thinking. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC) My problem is that your enforcement request shows examples from one sock master, Scibaby, who has been blocked, whereas you use the plural. You also appear to be requesting sanctions against "scibaby enablers." Who?--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC) My complaint allows for the case that Scibaby is several cooperating sock masters. The convention with the (s) is short hand for "sock master or sock masters, as appropriate" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC) In the interest of WP:SPADE, I suppose I should make myself more clear. This is what McCarthyism is. Please close this request and warn the filing editor.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I strongly object to this comparison. Please refactor or strike per Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Comment_refactoring. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC) The comparison is unambiguously apt. I honestly can't find any feature of McCarthyism that doesn't directly apply to what you are here attempting. Please bring any such incongruity to my attention.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC) We cannot put people into prison for contempt, we cannot force them to witness against other, we are not even asking them to witness. How is it like McCarthyism in any way? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC) You are attempting to instill in the community a diffuse fear of a faceless enemy (a "Scibaby [or] several cooperating sock masters"), are brandishing an as yet unrevealed list of names of people who sympathise with this faceless enemy whom you intend to penalize on that basis, and you are trying to take this unspecified opponent and unspecified list of names as a justification for the removal of restrictions on controls of said community. That is what McCarthyism is.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC) No. No. No. No. The last is debatable but irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• "In particular, apparently no "sceptic" editor has ever found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption." - Now that I think about this in the light of day hasn't User:Oren0 assisted with the Scibaby situation? I seem to recall him complaining about Raul's lack of attention at some point and that became a part of his rationale for RfA. Am I remembering incorrectly? --GoRight (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  [29]. Seems I remembered the RfA part correctly. Now I seem to remember Oren0 self-describing as a skeptic. Am I wrong on that point? --GoRight (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  [30]. See the fifth user box on the right. He considers himself a skeptic. So have I demonstrated that there has been at least one skeptic who has assisted "in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption"? I'll stop there. Perhaps you could refactor that bit just a tad more in light of this? But no matter how you refactor this it will still have a sharp elbow feel to it. Just something to think about. --GoRight (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  He certainly stood for RFA pledging to take up the slack on the Scibaby front after the main admin dealing with it was hounded off of the subject. Of course, actions speak louder than words - his entire log of blocked users is located at [31], of that, the only Scibaby sock appears to be Phaert Kut, who was tagged but not blocked by Raul, and while he reported one Scibaby sock right around his RFA, I see no other SSP or RFCU reports. Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  I can't speak definitively on his entire effort with respect to Scibaby and I won't bother to dig through his contribs for diffs. My recollection, which has been pretty good thus far, is that Oren0 was helping with Scibaby since long before the RfA came up, and that RfA was well before Raul resigned his CU tools. So the timeline is important for context.

  I don't think that this is a huge point to argue over other than it illustrates that rash(ish) accusations can sometimes contribute to the level of animus and discontent, regardless of whether that was the intent of the author, or not. I am willing to assume that was not the intent but this makes it even more important to point out so as to simply raise awareness of potentially inadvertent slights. I would not be doing anyone any favors to let these things pile up to the point where they actually DO become a big deal. It is actually unfair of me to go away mildly annoyed or disgruntled over these types of statements without saying anything because doing so deprives the good faith editors of the opportunity to at least correct any inadvertent slights in real time. --GoRight (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  I do recall reporting Scibaby socks. Some examples: [32] [33]. I have also blocked at least one. Quite frankly I haven't done anything with him lately because I haven't really seen many of them around and I've been editing much less. Oren0 (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Micropoint granted. Please take the above to read "in particular, only a single "sceptic" editor has, since time immemorial, found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption." I'll have to admit that I consider Oren0 sceptic (if wrong), but not "sceptic". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  What of this? Are you going to keep your word or not? I think the distinction between sceptic and "sceptic" is lost on most. And it's worth noting that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: I would lay a wager that others have at least reverted those socks, if not reported them. But going through the contribs seems pretty pointless. Oren0 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  Done. A sceptic is someone who does not take claims at face value, but rather insists on evidence. A "sceptic", on the other hand, can roughly be characterized as someone who applies the sceptic principle, in extremis, to positions they don't like (effectively demanding that things that typically require an advanced scientific degree to understand are explained to them at 3rd grade level), but blindly repeat all kinds of nonsense from cooky blogs, self-published websites and unqualified politicians and lawnmowers if it supports positions they do like. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Will you delete the added sentence or at least refactor to take out "borderline." Oren0's userpage has an infobox reading, "this user is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming."--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Actually i am a sceptic and i do believe i have reverted a vandal attack, dunno if it was sci baby though [34] so do i get a prize? mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Current disruption

To illustrate the problem: User:Frendinius is certainly not a new user. He is quite likely a Scibaby sock. He is currently pushing POV edits (some more subtle, some less) on a number of articles. In particular, he is pushing for the inclusion of two recent Scarfetta & West papers of limited applicability and essentially no weight into global warming. Can the neutral (and "neutral") admins here indicate if simple reversion of this obvious sock will be considered edit warring? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My advice would be to try to engage this one in case it's a false positive. When this one is blocked, however, treat its successor with considerably less indulgence. The signs are unlikely to show with such great frequency in innocent edits (not least because the style is disruptive in itself). Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 09:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That may or may not be true. It's a bit moot now, since the sock has been blocked. But that does not answer my question. I want a clear statement if the level of certainty for socking was sufficient to trigger the exception to edit warring (assuming we still have the exception that allows socks to be reverted on sight). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually the innocent edits are rather clear indications of scibaby, and a reversion to old established patterns. Of course i could be wrong, which is always possible, but from prior experience, i'd say that this one is scibaby with around 98% certainty. False positives are always possible of course, but the trouble is the amount of disruption that can be generated within the time it takes for a SPI case to run ... where upon of course a new socket gets generated, if it is not already maturing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is painfully obvious. Minor "fix up" type edits to get around the autoconfirm barrier are hardly unique to scibaby, but once the sock "matured" it slotted into the patterns smoothly.

For my part, I would say that reverting an obvious if unconfirmed sockpuppet falls under the vandalism exception. Questionable cases should be given the benefit of a doubt and engaged (though anything that makes this game more fun for scibaby should be avoided), and if an edit is taken up by an editor in good standing normal WP:BRD rules come into play as though that editor had made the original edit. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It feels as though such a policy is so open for abuse, and so inherently in tension with WP:BITE, that it would be better not to implement it. Something to think about.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You can take up the problems on the sock puppet policy page. It's what we do. The socks are all either identified by the classic duck test or, if the socking is more subtle, submitted to a sock puppet investigation. Feel free to express your opinion of the individual cases, and to gather evidence of any abuses. But for those of us who do care about the integrity of Wikipedia (and I include all reading these words in that group) the constant socking on the global warming articles is something real and any consistent opposition to the standard containment policy currently in effect would need very good grounds. As far as I'm concerned the only discussion on this page about dealing with socking, so far, seems to have been advice. 2over0's advice is well within standard policy. The fact that some editors don't take steps to deal with these malicious sabotage attempts is, to me, rather shocking. What are you waiting for? Why are you objecting to people taking steps to enforce Wikipedia policy? --TS 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What is shocking is that the bar has been moved once again. So-called "skeptics" have long had to defend accusations that they were socks of Scibaby; then when they obviously weren't Scibaby socks, they had to defend any edit made resembling Scibaby edits; now we've arrived at the point where even non-action against Scibaby socks is viewed as some sort of transgression. This is yet another example of how skewed this debate has become, when you have an enforcement request specifically trying to sanction editors for doing nothing. ATren (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'd appreciate it if you started over and removed your current comment (and I suppose this one as well) for its several inappropriate insinuations and general argument structure. Then if you still want to we can talk about policy, which, contrary to your enthusiastic claims, neither supports nor precludes 2over0's proposal.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't seem to have made my meaning plain. I'll try again, this time in more terse and precise language.

• Firstly, 2over0's advice is well within standard policy.
• Secondly (my personal opinion) the suggestion that there is a problem with employing standard sock puppet policy on the climate change articles is rather shocking.

Please disregard the prior comment, which appears to have given the impression that I was saying something else, possibly something rather nasty and inappropriate. I apologise for being less than precise in the prior comment. --TS 16:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• My position on Scibaby: First and foremost Scibaby and his sockpuppets are in violation of policy and to the extent that policy allows his edits to be reverted on sight (preferably AFTER being confirmed a Scibaby sockpuppet to avoid WP:BITEing newcomers) I have no problem with that and if he is making edits that I do not agree with I will even help with the reverting, where I see it in the normal course of my activities. I do not plan to make pursuing Scibaby some sort of obsessive compulsive activity on my part.

  Not all of Scibaby's edits are bad edits, though. And so, where he makes a good edit even if it is properly reverted per policy any other editor is free to come along and should they believe the edit has merit, PER POLICY, they are free to adopt the edit as their own and defend it as such WITHOUT being labeled a meat puppet of Scibaby. As someone who has had to defend himself against such ludicrous accusations I strongly object to that characterization.

  I also object to the apparent insinuations that anyone who sees merit in the occasional Scibaby edit should also be labeled as not caring about the integrity of the project. This contention is obviously unhelpful and I would kindly ask that others refrain from trying to make such claims.

  I could make the equally valid, or fallacious as the case may be, claim that to the extent those in pursuit of Scibaby are reverting otherwise good edits, which they are allowed to do per policy related to sockpuppets and banned users, they are likewise undermining the integrity of the project. The argument can be made in both directions, but making these types of argument in either direction is unhelpful in improving the editing environment, IMHO, and so they should be avoided. --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC) And yes, I just made such an argument but only to illustrate that they CAN be made and for the purpose of highlighting that they are, in and of themselves, unhelpful and counterproductive.

  That's a common attitude, but since Scibaby typically trolls and edit wars in favor of giving undue weight to extreme minority positions on the science, it's worrying that we encounter that kind of ambivalence so often. Editors who typically oppose the scientific consensus on global warming, and there are many such, have to ask themselves whether they're truly editing Wikipedia in order to properly reflect the science, or simply to push their own minority points of view into the article--either themselves or by sitting on their hands and criticising those who are taking steps to stop a banned editor who performs sabotage of a kind that--quite openly in apologias such as the above--they support. If the latter, then they do no service to Wikipedia. To the extent that there are editors who push this "well he's doing no harm" attitude into Wikipedia in these particular circumstances, they are enablers of the banned troll, and quite openly so. --TS 17:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  "To the extent that there are editors who push this "well he's doing no harm" attitude into Wikipedia in these particular circumstances, they are enablers of the banned troll, and quite openly so." - This is a rather strong statement. What part of my post suggests that I am pushing a "well he's doing no harm" attitude? Let me refer you back to: "I have no problem with that and if he is making edits that I do not agree with I will even help with the reverting, where I see it in the normal course of my activities." Do you actually have a problem with this position? If so, why? Policy does not require that all such edits be reverted, although it does allow that they can be, nor does policy prevent such edits from being reinserted by other editors who agree to take personal responsibility for them.

  If my statement quoted above is suggesting any sort of attitude, I submit that it is a properly focused attitude which both accepts and endorses the enforcement of policy while avoiding hysterically throwing the baby out with the bath water. Good content is good content no matter who first draws the community's attention to it.

  I fundamentally reject your premise that all Scibaby edits are prima facie bad edits. This statement in no way supports Scibaby, BTW. Scibaby unequivocally is violating policy and should not be making any edits at all, but once they are made that doesn't automatically suggest that the content in question is forever verboten anywhere on the project. Such a position is logically flawed, not in line with either the content or the banning policies, and as such it does NOTHING to protect the integrity of the project as is being asserted. Rather, it does quite the opposite IMHO. We evaluate content in its merits, not on who made the initial posting thereof. --GoRight (talk) By way of constructive feedback, personally I find the tone and the insinuations in your comment to not be in line with promoting a more friendly and collaborative editing environment.

I'm not aware of a single substantial Scibaby edit that, after careful analysis, turned out to be justified. Some look good on the surface, but if looked at more carefully, they all have extreme weight problems, misrepresent sources, or use unreliable sources. If you find an edit that really is good, there is nothing wrong with assuming it. But given the history of bad edits by Scibaby, I think the onus is on the reinstating editor to carefully check the edit with a proper sceptical (to the edit) approach. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not aware of a single substantial Scibaby edit that, after careful analysis, turned out to be justified ..." - With you being an AGW proponent I am not surprised by this statement, however others are certainly allowed to hold a differing opinion, I assume.

"the onus is on the reinstating editor to carefully check the edit with a proper sceptical (to the edit) approach." - I don't believe that anything I have said is in conflict with this, so we seem to be in agreement. --GoRight (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is it. The vast majority of all Scibaby's edits are facially trolling. There is a small minority that might be mistaken for good faith but poorly thought out edits, but they all push the same minority point of view, which isn't what we do at Wikipedia. The current stance of so many editors is not defensible. To the extent that they adopt this "well he does no real harm" stance, those editors are enablers. I apologise that I did not really think this through earlier, and so was rather lukewarm about the problems that stem not directly from Scibaby's edits, but from problematic behavior by those enablers in relation to those edits. We're here to write articles that correctly reflect climate science. not the warped propaganda of Scibaby. --TS 23:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto the above to Stephan.

"The vast majority of all Scibaby's edits are facially trolling." - I don't believe that anything I said contradicts this.

"The current stance of so many editors is not defensible." - I am unaware of any monolithic block of editors who hold or advocate pro-Scibaby views. Do you have some examples of such common opinions being shared by "so many editors"? Lacking such evidence this would appear to be a straw man argument.

"To the extent that they adopt this "well he does no real harm" stance, those editors are enablers." - Can you show me some examples where editors are claiming that Scibaby does no harm? Lacking such evidence this would appear to be a straw man argument.

"We're here to write articles that correctly reflect climate science." - This statement is incomplete and misleading. Where we describe the science it is true that we wish to properly reflect that, but of course this perspective only accounts for a small portion of the WP:RS with the majority comprising the social and political aspects of the topic, per WP:WEIGHT. --GoRight (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's make this concrete. The last thirteen confirmed socks of Scibaby are as follows:

• Waylon O. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Terminizer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Trensor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lunar Golf (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Xsten78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wellpoint32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JesseSimplex (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wilson and Two (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fred Gharria (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Clarke Simpson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Moral Equivalent (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Titulartitle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• AnodeRays (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

His sock Waylon O. recycles a long-dead zombie argument renaming an article and falsely characterizes a Guardian news article as "idle comment." The Terminizer and Lunar Golf socks are used to attempt to edit-war the following summary statement out of the "Criticism" section of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: "Others regard the IPCC as too conservative in its estimates of potential harm from climate change." The stated grounds; "No source supporting this claim," handily ignoring the extensive and authoritative discussion of IPCC's poor treatment of Arctic Sea Ice extent.

The Trensor sock removed the summary of Hell and High Water (book) as "Improper, poorly worded summary" without any further attempt to explain this removal. He used the Xsten78 sock to make three disruptive edits: remove the entire section on global warming from Precipitation (meteorology), edit war to restore a section from James Hansen that has long been excluded on grounds of due weight.

Wilson and Two and Wellpoint32 were used to troll various canards about the science onto talk:Global warming. JesseSimplex restored a bit of nonsense sourced to some blog or other and changed "reduce global warming" to "reduce the potential effects of global warming" in climate change mitigation.

Fred Gharria and AnodeRays were used to dispute the hacking of the CRU against the reporting of all reliable sources. Clarke Simpson and Titulartitle were used to push minority science views and promote a political agenda at talk:Global warming. I seem to recall noticing that Moral Equivalent accidentally made a valuable edit, but only because the quote attributed to Schwarzenegger was probably not made when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was signed into law but a year or two earlier. Moral Equivalent's stated reason was nonsensical, however.

So the argument that there is a legitimate political and social dimension which SciBaby is somehow fighting to restore is not supported by a view of this editor's actual edits. He's a disruptive troll, nothing more. His presence, abetted by some editors, is a detriment to balance and discredits any legitimate criticism of our coverage of the social and political issues related to global warming. --TS 13:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) Thank you for your perspective on how to frame Scibaby's edits. While it is instructive I shall again simply refer you back to my previous statement which remains true: "The vast majority of all Scibaby's edits are facially trolling." - I don't believe that anything I said contradicts this.

(2) "His presence, abetted by some editors ..." - Since you are repeating your claim I shall repeat my request for examples of editors who are abetting Scibaby. Lacking such examples this would still appear to be a straw man argument.

(3) "So the argument that there is a legitimate political and social dimension which SciBaby is somehow fighting to restore is not supported by a view of this editor's actual edits." - Another straw man argument. No one ever claimed that Scibaby had a "legitimate political and social dimension". This is your creation, not mine. My reference to social and political was within the context of the relative WP:WEIGHT of various WP:RS when compared to the scientific aspects of the topic which are represented by peer-reviewed sources. None of that has anything to do with Scibaby, although given the context of the discussion I can understand your confusion. I apologize for not communicating more clearly and I hope that this comment clarifies my earlier meaning.

(4) I suggest that we take this to your talk page if you wish to continue to hash through this. I think everyone agrees that Scibaby is violating the policies against abusive socking. Until you can demonstrate some widespread abetting for Scibaby I decline to accept your premise that such support even exists, much less that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Jehochman's proposal below: Unlimited reverts of suspected Scibaby socks is not a good idea and is a surefire way to drive new editors away from Wikipedia entirely. Do you really think it would have been acceptable to remove all of Chad Howard's comments to Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident? The accusation was stressful enough [35]. --Heyitspeter (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like this policy decision to take the form of an RfC if possible. That, or can someone direct me to a place of appeal in the event that it 'passes' in this forum.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

TICK TOCK. Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On the clock, but the party don't stop. Pretty obvious Scibaby puppets are being reverted into articles now. Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Scibaby and enablers

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I am not sure about the forum for this but having a more serious look at how we handle socks and trolls is needed at some point. --BozMo talk 07:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby is banned and any sock found should be blocked on sight. Describing anyone who subscribes to views expressed by Scibaby as "enablers" is unhelpful, unless there is evidence of collusion, since it should be AGF'ed as an individual expressing their viewpoint. Trolling, in any form, is a different matter and I agree that finding a way of minimising the disruption caused by such individuals does need review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably out of scope of this enforcement area to implement truly effective measures against socking itself (although I am taken with the novelty of using this EA as a pretext to implement such, and I in fact have outlined measures that I guarantee would be effective, I think I'll pass) Suggest this be closed no action, although I concur with LHvU that if specific trolling activities are raised, they should be dealt with if possible. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems the points above regarding talk page semi-protection are worth considering. Scibaby disruption/trolling of talk pages is a problem and within the scope here. Seems such action should be considered and either be supported by or rejected as unworkable by admins watching here. I see it as a partial solution. Vsmith (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that. But it is a step I would take very reluctantly. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Scibaby has been an ongoing problem. I think we can implement the following steps:
  1. Create a permanent section on this page where suspected Scibaby socks can be listed and resolved in an expedited fashion. We can email the functionaries list and get a couple of checkusers to watch the page. There should be no need to re-explain and go through the extended paperwork at WP:SPI each time. Scibaby can generate new accounts rapidly; we need a response that is equally rapid.
  2. As a rule, any accounts listed as suspected Scibaby socks may be reverted without limitation, and without fear of sanction. It is not edit warring to revert a banned editor. If such an account is later found not to be Scibaby, the removed material should be restored or kept out per normal editorial processes.
  3. Editors who have an unacceptably high error rate when listing accounts as Scibaby socks may be ask to desist from that activity.
  4. Editors may adopt any good edit as their own. If Scibaby starts making good edits as a form of disruption, these could be left in place, and the account(s) blocked. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, re #4, why not just unblock the Scibaby primary account then and instead just revert the bad edits? I could drive a freight train through the notion of "good edits". Franamax (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Makes sense to me. I'm a bit queasy about point 2, absent a process to undo mistaken reversionss if the ID in question is found not likely to be scibaby, but some collateral damage is an unfortunate side effect of our overall policies. Endorse. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse. If Scibaby starts gaming point 4 then we can review - although a policy of only adopting "really good" edits might suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Placeholder to forestall archiving, I may try to close this tomorrow or of course anyone else can do so anytime. Franamax (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber

All editors warned that the tolerance for WP:BATTLE and general gaming of enforcement requests is approaching zero.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) User requesting enforcement ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested JohnWBarber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [36] On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration , denounces Climate change denial as an "AGW-related op ed piece masquarading as an encyclopedia article... it would have been a wise move to put that one up for deletion at the same time to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other. It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold." [37] Nomination of Climate change denial with comment "A screen shot of this article should be used to illustrate Wikipedia policy on POV forks." Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [38] Notification of article probation by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Prohibition from any filing any further deletion nominations or participating in deletion discussions of articles in the climate change topic area. Additional comments by editor filing complaint As many have observed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination), this is a bad faith nomination explicitly meant to prove a point - namely that it would produce an "exercise in hypocrisy", to quote JohnWBarber. The article has already been through three AfDs which have produced substantial majorities in favour of keeping the article. JohnWBarber is clearly aware of this. He has offered only a minimal justification for deletion and no new arguments, so he clearly does not expect the nomination to succeed (and indeed it is failing overwhelmingly). This is a classic example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point - he has deliberately started an unneeded controversy which has so far sucked in 19 editors and counting, for no better reason than an apparent desire to score points. This topic area has more than enough unneeded drama and tension; self-indulgent posturing and point-scoring of this kind should be discouraged, as should abuses of AfD. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. Discussion concerning JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) Statement by JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) I'll have more to say later, when I have time. But I can address this immediately: He has offered only a minimal justification for deletion and no new arguments, An editor with a collaborative attitude, instead of a WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude, would take these two edits, to give just two examples, as airtight proof to the contrary. [39] [40] ChrisO can read English. Perhaps he can find where these two arguments, based on facts, reasoning, policy and common sense, have been brought up before. I'd like to see the diffs. so he clearly does not expect the nomination to succeed (and indeed it is failing overwhelmingly). Not only can ChrisO read English, but I strongly suspect he can tell time. It hasn't been even a day since the AfD started, they normally run a full week, and the vast majority of editors in the continental U.S. would either have been asleep or at work for all this time. The other AfD ran for seven days and received quite a few votes on either side. Why would I expect this one to fail? For these reasons, ChrisO's complaint strongly appears to lack good faith. I think filing frivolous, nuisance complaints here is or should be something admins should deal with. If I need to file my own complaint against ChrisO in order to have that (and his other conduct) examined, I'm prepared to do that. I'm also prepared to cite chapter and verse from WP:CIVIL on a multitude of comments by editors on that page directed at me personally (in ChrisO's case, specifically ill-considered accusations of impropriety [this complaint] and lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information [see #1, above]). Has ChrisO engaged in this conduct before? Shouldn't editors be told to avoid harassing other editors with frivolous complaints? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Well, looks like I've got a moment now to address some more of this. In the two diffs ChrisO cites, I don't understand what part of the general sanctions I'm supposed to have violated. Would ChrisO please point that out to me? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Franamax, thanks for taking the time to look at this. This is a curious statement: further behaviour which links the two disparate issues ("we must have one of: both denial and exaggeration articles; or none at all") - sanctionable. It's my opinion that editors who can't offer a good explanation for wanting one article and not the other are acting hypocritically. I thought it was adequately on-topic and useful to mention once in each AfD page. To continue an off-topic discussion on an AfD page, or any page with a hot controversy, could be potentially disruptive, if only because distracting (or perhaps if it riled up people unnecessarily). If that's what you meant, I have no problem with it. As I recently said on the newer AfD page, it might be worthwhile asking an individual editor why he or she voted one way on one page and another way on the other -- because the explanation could be very useful to the closing admin. I'm not sure I want to get into that now (I've made the AfD longer than I expected), but if I did, it would be very much on-topic, it wouldn't be disruptive, and there is no policy I know of for an admin to enforce. I appreciate the time all the admins have taken to look into this, whether or not I end up disagreeing about it (or worse). SPhilbrick, I think there's precedent for including AfDs in sanctions involving individual editors, so I don't see much difference with a general sanctions regime which the community imposed -- it's supposed to include pages related to the subject. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC) ChrisO's comments are worth thinking about (emphasis added): Specifically disruptive editing. I'm not assuming anything; the intent is very clear. In the first diff, JWB talks about nominating Climate change denial for deletion "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other". He talks about what he thinks that would show: "It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold." Then he nominates the article for deletion to prove his point that "editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other". His lack of serious intent is clearly visible in his very brief deletion rationale, which is basically the same as the failed rationales of the previous three AfDs. Yes, he advanced further arguments later in the discussion, but only after people had pointed out the WP:POINTyness of his actions. ChrisO sounds disappointed that I didn't live down to his initial expectations. If, as he thinks, I at one point had bad motivations, I should be punished for that. The idea that disliking hypocrisy is "unserious" is bizarre. Chris really should think more about hypocrisy, as I show below. The problem with all of this is that AfD is an inherently disruptive tool and should only be used with caution, especially where it concerns contentious articles. If AfD is "an inherently disruptive tool", it sounds like Wikipedia has a big problem on its hands, because we have AfDs all the time, at the drop of a pin. Does Chris think he and his ilk own the article and others can't mess with it? What else could his comment mean? It isn't as if Chris has some overly scrupulous attitude toward sharp debate: [41] [42] The idea that AfD "should only be used with caution", especially a contentious one, must be imported from some alternate universe, because nowhere is there any such advice to be found anywhere on Wikipedia. Nor is it common sense. In fact, in a collaborative environment, we're free to run ideas up the flagpole. Chris strains to find bad faith in my motivations, perhaps because he thinks my first comment about hypocrisy was directed at him and his POV allies. Of course, my statement was directed at POV pushers of any side and very broadly (hypocrisy is the other side of the same coin that POV pushing is on -- you can't POV push without being a hypocrite). No one was named, bad behavior was the target, and it was prospective, not pointing fingers at past actions. It was meant to get real POV pushers to stop in their tracks and think about what they're doing to themselves and to the encyclopedia -- something useful for this project. It should never be used to prove a point. Nominating an article "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other" is categorically point-scoring. Using AfD this way is an abuse, and does nothing to lower the temperature on CC-related articles. Given the tone of ChrisO's comments and the nature of his actions, ChrisO is not the most credible person to be worshipping at the temple of lower article temperatures. When I looked at the article's history, I found it had been a good long while before the last AfD. I also had a serious rationale for the AfD that I put in my opening statement. If there's any good reason to have an AfD, then it can't be sanctionable as a WP:POINT action. If admins had to figure out motivations for people who put up AfDs, how could they possibly weigh good and bad motivations together? If there's any good motivation, and it's obvious, the admin needs to assume good faith. Otherwise editors would be blocked for good-faith nominations because admins aren't mind readers. I had a perfectly acceptable good-faith reason for that AfD from the start, which I stated clearly at the top of the AfD. I would not have started it if I didn't. It should never be used to prove a point. No action on Wikipedia should be done only to prove a point or even primarily to prove a point. That my serious rationale was later demonstrated even more clearly a little later in the AfD discussion should have been a reason for ChrisO to be satisfied -- that ChrisO filed the complaint anyway shows bad motivations. ChrisO's eagerness to jump in my head to rummage around for a bad motivation is matched only by his ham-handedness in doing so. His eagerness to shut down debate and villify someone he disagrees with is inimical to Wikipedia, which depends on a collaborative atmosphere. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I'd forgotten about this complaint while concentrating on the one below, which Jehochman turned into a discussion about me. No one has a single reason for thinking I filed a WP:POINTy nomination, other than the comment on the other AfD, because (a) my comment at the prior AfD did not prove that that was the sole or major reason for filing the AfD; nor was it even inconsistent with the proper reason for the AfD -- concern about a WP:POVFORK violation; it isn't as if I can't have believed it was a FORK vio and also made that comment; (b) I gave the reason for the AfD in the first line of the AfD. That the reason is an acceptable, non-disruptive reason for an AfD is obvious on its face, whether or not you agree with it, and it gained support in the AfD itself; (c) I spent hours going over the reasons for the AfD, doing research, quoting specific parts of policies and reasoning -- it would be a bit much for a WP:POINTy act; (d) I have always been very concerned about POV in articles, something which LHVU knows first-hand from an argument I had with him on another website some time ago; (e) Jehochman himself knows for a fact how concerned I have been with POV problems I discussed POV editing less than six months ago with Jehochman both on his talk page [43] and mine. [44] and at ANI [45] and at ArbCom [46]. It is hard to understand how all of that can be disregarded, and if it is all going to be discounted, there needs to be a reason why. I have asked Jehochman and Franamax to explain their reasons for discounting all this. The impression I'm getting is that they have no reason that they can point to other than that they want to believe it. That's an assumption of bad faith. Other editors have raised some of the same points, and their comments have also been ignored. Now I see Jehochman is bringing up points he made in the discussion on my complaint against ChrisO, so it's as if that discussion hasn't really closed. I was about to post much of the following there before that discussion was closed, posted as the close took place, and so I'll repost part of it here, as it applies here: Jehochman wants to block me because I haven't edited mainspace articles enough on this subject. Please reread that last sentence. Even if that were a valid reason, an AfD discussion is a mainspace content matter just as surely as -- in fact, more surely than -- an edit deleting material in an article. I guess Jehochman assumes that this was somehow WP:POINTy because I don't seem to have had any interest in AGW-related articles. That's false. I have linked in the other discussion (in my response to Scjessey) to one of the talk page discussions I engaged in at the CRU hacking article talk page, a time when I was involved there. I'd made some other edits to that article, both in article space and on the talk page. Before the point was brought up here, I'd said in the AfD that I wanted to edit the Climate change denial article. Discussions like this one keep me from having the time or energy to do that, as I've stated before. I don't think, based simply on the research I showed I'd done in the current AfD, that Jehochman can claim I somehow have no interest in the subject or interest in an NPOV treatment of the subject, since I've evidently spent many hours on it and cited various sources on it. I've been reluctant to edit the articles themselves because I prefer discussion first. I view that as more productive than the inevitable edits and reverts. Quite frankly, if I had to do this over again, I would not have made the comment over at the "Climate change exaggeration" AfD that raised so many hackles. The comment wasn't personal or even specific to one side or even more off-topic than many of the other comments on that page, nor was it even disruptive, but it was simply more distracting than I realized at the time (I made it before I decided to nominate the other AfD). It was meant to provoke thought and do it in a light, humorous way, but instead it provoked anger from a group of people who are more sensitive than I realized (I'm assuming good faith of people who refuse to extend it to me). No one has objected to it on those grounds (the only objection is that I supposedly started the AfD because of it on WP:POINT grounds), but I now see it as counterproductive, in the same way as the comments of some other people on that page and this one. If there is any concern of Jehochman's and Franamax's or anyone else's that I haven't taken pains to address, why not just bring it up with me? You've already kept me from further analyzing and bringing up evidence about the awful Climate change denial article, but if there's anything else, bring it up. There's nothing inherently disruptive or WP:BATTLE-like in participating in and opening AfDs. It is part of what we are supposed to do here, and long discussions are inevitable on controversial topics. The complaint against ChrisO was made in good faith after looking at the general sanctions page and identifying conduct that that page says is particularly wrong on climate-change related articles. A frivolous, nuisance complaint is one that has no basis in fact. My complaint obviously did have basis in fact, and no one disputed that. If there is some other reason why that complaint should not have been filed, it isn't pointed out at any general-sanctions page (not that I've seen), and I had no way of knowing it was wrong to do so. There is no reason to block me for that. If the complaint is "retaliatory" simply because it was filed after ChrisO filed his, then filing a complaint first would immunize an editor from complaints. If it is so obvious that I shouldn't have filed that complaint, why has there been no explanation of that from any of the admins here? I have seen nothing but assertions. Jehochman talks about WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior, but when admin comes here and starts demanding blocks and making statements that could easily have been cleared up by asking me questions, and when admins don't respond to questions meant to better help me understand their reasoning, that's also contrary to a collaborative atmosphere. On the one hand, Jehochman complains that I just don't understand what I've done wrong (follow up comments by the subject that lack any sort of introspective qualities). On the other, he won't answer my questions and doesn't ask me any. If I don't understand why he's making certain statements and I'm asking him questions about that but not getting responses, how am I lacking "introspective qualities"? Who is it that's being uncooperative here? Jehochman, if you want me to understand your critique of my behavior, you're going to have to go beyond vague charges and actually explain where my behavior diverges from the explanations I've given for it. I think I've shown I'm very open to reasonable explanations and I'm willing to reconsider, but you haven't reacted to what I've said with enough discussion to help me understand you better. WP:BATTLE states, Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Have Franamax and Jehochman approached me in a "spirit of cooperation"? Have they "engage[d] [me] in polite discussion"? Why wouldn't that apply in this situation? I'm certainly trying to engage in polite discussion. The general sanctions page states, the editor in question [...], where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Discussion is the first step in that. Discussion implies interaction -- actually addressing the points I make and me listening and addressing your points. So far, it's been a one-way street. Any of my statements here do not preclude my changing my mind if you can show me where I'm wrong. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Franamax states, I don't see how responding to one AFD nom by nominating another article can be anything other than a POINT violation. See above and please respond to it. This looks like an assumption of bad faith, and an inadequate reason to impose a sanction. Apparently JWB doesn't even edit in the area. You're relying on Jehochman's unresearched comment for that. As I note above, my response to Scjessey in the ChrisO discussion thread points to the period when I was editing the CRU hacking article. This gives me the impression that you're simply ignoring my comments. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC) JWB I am carefully reading your comments (and those of others). If I choose to address any of them directly here on this page, it will be because they satisfy all of being: addressed to an issue which I believe has substance; framed in a way where I can respond without getting into a forest of debate; and in a spot where I think my comment could be useful. I'm not going to decorate the Result section with responses to your specific requests and I don't want to edit up here too much, I suppose you will have to trust that I've read and considered them all. Franamax (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Franamax, you have never yet stated a reason why my statement at the first AfD should be considered proof positive that the second AfD was a WP:POINT action. Given how certain you are, it shouldn't be that difficult to explain. In fact, no one anywhere has explained why. The closer of the AfD, even if that person says it was WP:POINTy, would not be able to prove it. It doesn't take a "forest of debate" to state your reason. When you say "framed in a way where I can respond without getting into a forest of debate" it sounds like you don't want any discussion with me at all. "I suppose you will have to trust that I've read and considered them all". But I've just made the point that you're making statements that indicate you haven't. For examples of my editing in the topic, look at Nov 24-25 here [47], Nov 27 here [48] and here [49] So you should be satisfied that I have been editing in the area. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC) If the research posted here and [[|User:JohnWBarber/Climate change denial|here]] is a WP:POINT violation, then anything is a WP:POINT violation. If filing a complaint which accurately cites behavioral violations and accurately conforms to the Probation description here is "retaliatory", then no one can complain about someone who complained about them, because no further reasons have been given for saying it's "retaliatory". If admins assumptions of bad faith are causes for sanctions -- and we have nothing else to go on here -- then the whim of administrators is all that matters here. I'd like to think this isn't the case. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Franamax, if I recall correctly, the total objections to my behavior are (1) the comment at the first AfD followed by filing the second one; (2) filing a complaint against ChrisO after he filed one against me. With your latest comment you continue to refuse to state why you believe the AfD was a WP:POINT violation. You refuse to state why filing a complaint about behavior that clearly violated the general sanctions had no merit. Simply stating your conclusion is inadequate. Especially after I asked for it. It's not just me you're not responding to, it's everybody who's stated they disagree. You've also left me with absolutely no guidance about when filing a complaint here is proper or improper. Am I prohibited from filing a complaint against anyone who filed a complaint against me? Or was there something else about the complaint against ChrisO that was wrong? I've asked you fair questions, repeatedly, and received no answers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC) @Franamax (17:07, 12 March) -- A "warning" sounds light, but combined with the lack of any justification whatever between the edits you object to and the policies you point to, it means I can't know what it is that I'm doing wrong. If I'm particularly to be singled out for any WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior, without any justification for it, you (and Jehochman) are simply setting me up for a future block or other sanction. If you state specifically that I have done something wrong, especially in your official capacity here, you must state why. If you do not state why when it isn't obvious, that is a violation of WP:NPA (Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. If the diffs alone don't clarify, an explanation is needed). If you refuse to provide me with specific guidance about not repeating a past mistake, you're not helping me or anyone else to avoid behavior that you're identifying as beyond the pale. Seriously, is your suggested sanction/warning supposed to simply keep me from filing another AfD on the topic (or filing one where a WP:POINT violation might -- somehow -- be alleged) or stop me from filing a complaint on this page against anyone who files one against me (or within a certain time afterward)? Really, how am I possibly to understand this? The impression I'm getting is that you and Jehochman make proposals to sanction me and do sanction me (in the ChrisO case) for reasons that you will not explain, therefore anything at all that I do could fall beyond the pale. This is not only inconsistent with good practice, it gives me every indication that you will treat me unfairly in the future, and this complaint from ChrisO suggests that an unfair complaint encouraging you to do this could be filed. Without you clarifying your unclear concerns, even a warning creates an unacceptable editing environment. Chris now suggests that "the request be closed without action, but JWB could perhaps be reminded to consider how others may interpret his comments and actions, and to act accordingly." As long as that is considered a "reminder" to a good-faith editor, and not a warning for violating policy or CC sanctions, it's consistent with my previous statement that I wouldn't have made the original comment that set this off (not that anyone has said the original comment by itself was disruptive). So a reminder would be just fine. But not a statement that I violated policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC) @Hipocrite: Was I being WP:POINTy by taking part in the discussions at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident or at Talk:Climate change denial recently? Was I being "retaliatory"? You might as well accuse me of that since you don't have any more evidence of it than that I was pointy in starting the AfD or retaliatory for filing the complaint. On the other hand, I can show in each case that I had plenty of reasons for doing what I did. It requires an assumption of bad faith to think so when you don't have proof. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) @LHvU - I don't think that it is appropriate for the admins to go looking for offenses that haven't been alleged after the fact as you comment seems to suggest. I don't believe that the probation enforcement requests are intended be a venue where ill-specified charges can be brought up in the hopes that something might be made of them. The requester's should be asked to make specific charges to be investigated, IMHO, but I guess the admins get to decide what is appropriate and what is not in that respect. This page is meant to facilitate the resolution of specific identified grievances not to serve as the launching point for fishing expeditions. --GoRight (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC) As I see it, the request is to topic ban JohnWBarber from AfD's relating to CC related articles - with regard to the ongoing AfD's noted. I am only saying that admins should not preempt those processes by taking a view on their appropriateness before the discussions are closed. Only when they have been closed, and the closing statements will likely influence any decision here, should they be reviewed. My comments upon PA's and the like is commenting that there is nothing like them that requires immediate action from admins here - we can afford to wait. I trust I have made myself clearer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Hmm. OK I think I understand your fundamental point better but something still seems out of kilter here. I agree that not preempting or prejudging the other processes is a good point. So I see your point about needing to wait for the outcomes. On the other hand, doesn't it seem odd to be accepting and discussing enforcement requests which are dependent on the outcome of future events? We seem to have run into some sort of time paradox here. We better be careful to get this right or the universe may suddenly implode or something!  :) Given this, the question becomes whether you and the other admins prefer to leave this request lying about on the off chance that actionable allegations materialize, or you close this request as no action and instruct that it be resubmitted at the appropriate time should conditions at that time warrant further investigation? --GoRight (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I think probably the latter approach is better. But I'm not yet sure. ++Lar: t/c 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC) @LHVY: I don't see your point at all. By that argument, you should bring edit warring to WP:3RRN to wait if the community decides it really is edit warring, and civility breaches to WP:WQA to see if the community thinks an alleged civility breach really is one. The potentially disruptive act - the pointy AfD nomination - has been done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC) @ChrisO - What portion(s) of the current probation are you alleging have been violated and how specifically are the diffs you provide supporting those allegation(s)? Also, you appear to be making bad faith assumptions about intent here. Do you have any specific evidence to support that? --GoRight (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Question for admins - Do admins have the authority to carry out the requested remedy? I don't doubt that ArbCom has this authority, but it isn't obvious to me that admins can do this. The article probation terms allow admins to place restriction on edits to climate change articles, but I think of AfD as a Wikipedia process page, and the fact that an Afd discussion may be about a climate change article doesn't make the AfD a climate article any more than an MfD of a Template makes the deletion discussion a Template. Yes, I realize the phrase "broadly construed" is included, but I assumed that was to make sure the umbrella cast widely over articles, so, for example, if there's a problem with an article about sea level, no one can say that sea level isn't technically climate. It also picks up talk pages, but I wouldn't assume it applies to any process page. If someone felt the need to file an ArbCom request, could they be prohibited from doing so if the subject matter had anything to do with climate? I don't think so.--SPhilbrickT 01:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I would personally say that the mandate applies in whatever project spaces disruption may be occurring. The obvious exceptions are the sub-spaces specifically devoted to discussing disruption, so the AN's and RFAR's are open to anyone if they really want to go there. WQA and possibly even 3RR are largely subsumed by this process. 3O is probably still OK. The key is whether the work is tendentious or not, and once or repeating over time. As I recall, the original set-up discussion was about "articles" but then I could counter with "broadly construed". The intent though, I think was to end disruptive editing on CC in general. Franamax (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC) It was previously claimed that climate-change related disruption on user talk pages is covered, so I don't see why AfDs shouldn't. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Without commenting on the merits of this complaint, I think it's clear that the admins here would have the authority to enact such a sanction if they wanted to. Oren0 (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see this activity as clearly disruptive enough (if it is disruptive at all) to merit any action. One of JWBarber's arguments was that recent apparent changes in public opinion appeared to be unrelated to denialism, and so it was worth checking to see if consensus had changed as to the significance of denialism. This appears to me to be a legitimate question. --TS 08:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC) @GoRight - Specifically disruptive editing. I'm not assuming anything; the intent is very clear. In the first diff, JWB talks about nominating Climate change denial for deletion "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other". He talks about what he thinks that would show: "It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold." Then he nominates the article for deletion to prove his point that "editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other". His lack of serious intent is clearly visible in his very brief deletion rationale, which is basically the same as the failed rationales of the previous three AfDs. Yes, he advanced further arguments later in the discussion, but only after people had pointed out the WP:POINTyness of his actions. The problem with all of this is that AfD is an inherently disruptive tool and should only be used with caution, especially where it concerns contentious articles. It should never be used to prove a point. Nominating an article "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other" is categorically point-scoring. Using AfD this way is an abuse, and does nothing to lower the temperature on CC-related articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC) To Franamax, it isn't a point violation if he believed that both articles should be deleted. A point violation would be if he voted to delete an article just because another article he wanted to keep was deleted. Voting to delete two articles that are thought to be similar is what one would expect. JWB's comments from start to finish also suggest that he does indeed think the articles should both be deleted. Ultimately I do not see any reason why people are assuming bad faith. Mackan79 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC) @LHvU: JWB essentially dropped himself in this mess by making comments which suggested to many people - including numerous uninvolved editors and admins - that he was engaged in point-scoring. Obviously, he insists that he was not. There is clearly no consensus on the matter and the AfD he started has now closed. There is therefore really not much point in pursuing this any further, as there is nothing useful that could be achieved by doing so. I suggest that the request be closed without action, but JWB could perhaps be reminded to consider how others may interpret his comments and actions, and to act accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC) True, his use of irony in the nomination was not a great call. The question I have is whether this reflects an underlying attempt to start a fire, or simply a bit of humor to keep things light. I agree with the advice in full. Mackan79 (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reading JWB's last statement, it is clear that he dosen't understand that making retaliatory AFD's and RFE's is problematic. It leaves admins with only the option to indefinetly topic ban him from this area - indefinite, as in untill he understands that WP:POINT doesn't take ignorance and civil verbosity as an excuse. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Except that it wasn't retaliatory or disruptive in any rational sense. Retaliation is raising unrelated matters against someone, and cannot possibly refer to when you say that in fact the person currently complaining about your actions was the one misbehaving in that situation. "Point scoring" is not even what WP:POINT is about, while only someone with a seriously misplaced confidence in their own perceptions could seriously conclude that JWB could not have believed this was an appropriate time to consider the deletion of this article -- so much that he must admit his own guilt. Seriously? This strikes me as much more overzealous than anything JWB has proposed, by a long shot. Mackan79 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC) With all due respect, how long is this going to carry on? The initiator has proposed above that it should be closed without action. I cannot see how we would still be doing something here. The involved editor does not deserve this; please let's move on. Mackan79 (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I think that unless there are examples of vandalism, personal attacks, and the like - none, it must be noted, which have been alleged - I cannot see how admins can act until the AfD is concluded. We will likely then need to review the AfD findings, determine if there is a cause under the probation to act upon, and then decide what if any sanctions to enforce. This is also not to say that this is not a good request, but one that likely needs the other process to complete before it can be properly reviewed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC) "I cannot see how admins can act until the AfD is concluded" ... agreed. And perhaps not even then, the request seems to be taking things rather far afield. But perhaps. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I am saying that I wasn't minded to look at it in any detail, since the AfD process will evaluate whether it was a legitimate request or not - no need to re-invent the wheel. However, if there are others who are willing to review before it is closed then fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I see no cause for sanction here (recognizing that I'm a little new at formally evaluating this stuff). There is no pattern established and no egregious single violation. The first diff which "denounces Climate change denial as..." I consider kinda like a userbox - thanks for letting us know where you're coming from on each and every manifestation of the core problem you perceive. The AFD nomination is fairly POINTy, although if the editor truly believes there is an injustice of some kind, a nomination 17 months after the last one is not unreasonable - for the very fact that if it is unreasonable, it will be crushed. If there is further evidence forthcoming where the two incidents are further linked, such as "symmetry" arguments in both places, I would reconsider a sanction. Summarizing, always good to know where someone stands; don't need to wait for outcomes of the AFDs to decide here; further behaviour which links the two disparate issues ("we must have one of: both denial and exaggeration articles; or none at all") - sanctionable. Franamax (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC) This has sat for a few days with no further comment. That's starting to feel like a close no action to me... let the AfDs run to completion (if they haven't already, I neglected to go check first). Perhaps a caution about the matter Franamax analyses regarding linkages? ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Wait for the closing admins comments - the presumption that this is a pointy filing has already effected the request below. I wish to see what an uninvolved sysop concludes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I think the filing below is transparent retaliation for this one. Had there been no subsequent retaliation (violating what Wikipedia is not, a battlezone), I would have supported closing no action. However, the combination of a pointy AFD with apparent retaliation, and follow up comments by the subject that lack any sort of introspective qualities make me feel that something should be done. JWB is just blaming everybody else, and not taking responsibility for his bad behavior. This topic area is under probation for a reason. Either we enforce the probation, or else it means nothing. Jehochman Brrr 14:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with Jehochman, but. The closing admin might just comment on the merits of the specific AFD, so I'm not sure what waiting will achieve. I don't see how responding to one AFD nom by nominating another article can be anything other than a POINT violation. The little party below, now closed, confirms it. But what sanction is appropriate here? Apparently JWB doesn't even edit in the area. A prohibition on involvement in CC project areas? Trout? Franamax (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC) The AfD has closed- as keep, unsurprisingly - with the closing admin specifically refusing to pass judgement on whether it was a valid nomination or not, just noting that there were such allegations and also some reasoned discussion that issues require addressing. So, what to do here..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Can we sanction the AFD closer for not passing judgement? :) Taking the two complaints together, we have an AFD nomination replied to with an AFD nomination, and a CCE request met with a CCE request. This really looks to me like battleground behaviour of exactly the type that should be strongly discouraged. I recognize JWB feels this determination is unjustified. None of the admins commenting in the thread below felt the request had any validity, as I read it. The discussion was over what remedy to apply. My opinion in this request was no sanction unless "symmetry" arises and indeed, it did so, in the form of a spurious CCE request. No other admin has given an opinion on this request that I can see. I'm now in the position of sanction on both threads, and J seems to feel the same. In the thread below, the proposed sanction was a CC topic ban of 1 week to 3 months, and the latest bid was one month. I'll take that or two weeks. The alternative is to close this with a warning to JWB that engaging in further WP:BATTLE behaviour in CC-related areas can result in a block by an uninvolved administrator. Franamax (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) If you are proposing a symmetrical CC topic ban on both editors, then I demur - on recent editing habits this will effect ChrisO substantially greater than JWB. Again, if the CC topic ban is to JWB only then I wonder what effect, taking the recent editing history outside of the AfD's, this will have. I would much prefer a general warning that the tolerance for WP:BATTLE and general gaming of enforcement requests is approaching zero, to all editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Symmetrical sanctions hand the advantage to the numerically superior camp, so I don't like them in general. In this case, the sanction would be to JWB only. It may not substantially change their editing, but it would forestall problematic behaviour that may arise and it would convey what "tolerance...approaching zero" will look like in practice. I'm good either way, sanction or warning. Franamax (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Why symmetrical? ChrisO didn't take any pointy or retaliatory actions, did he? Jehochman Talk 19:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I think it's just me not having been clear enough in my wording. No proposals are in the air at all for sanctioning ChrisO. Franamax (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC) (Shrugs) I think that was the basis of JWB's enforcement request against ChrisO, although the discussion was so quickly focussed upon JWB's supposed reasoning for listing it that it was never discussed. Whatever, it seems that Franamx didn't intend it and I didn't think it was on if it were. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC) For my own part, the quick focus on JWB's behaviour below was based on my initial assessment and confirmed by more detailed analysis. I still have the notes from the analysis but I threw away all the links after the thread was closed. I believe that ChrisO was acting well in filing this request and I see no reason to sanction ChrisO in the request below. (Permalinked because a 'bot will inevitably change what "below" means) Is this all because I'm not a god spieller? :) Back to the question at hand then. Franamax (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC) This has run out of steam, so I'm closing it with LHvU's suggested: All editors are warned that the tolerance for WP:BATTLE and general gaming of enforcement requests is approaching zero. Franamax (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Closed with no action. No action requested, discussion is continuing on article talk.

I've listed this article for temporary protection on WP:RFPP because of what looks like it could turn into a lame edit war over the tag. Perhaps starting a discussion here (not on the merits, but on conduct) might help to thwart the warring (which is, of necessity on an article under 1RR, by multiple parties). --TS 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I see a couple of reverts, but no more than 1 per party (please correct me if I am blind). Discussion is occuring on the talk page. If we are looking at conduct and not the merits, I see no breaches of the probation (yet). Arkon (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Not clear what the problem is. Would there be a problem if there *was* an edit war over the tag? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC) One edit followed by three reverts in less than six hours is far beyond my comfort zone in normal editing. On a 1RR article, in a probation, it rings alarm bells. Yes, I think edit warring over a tag is (as I said above) lame, and we should discuss this for a bit without the distraction of unproductive jostling and pushing. . --TS 23:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC) A tag war confirms a dispute exists on face value and the tag should stay, it's harmless. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Oh yes, in that case lets just tag *everything* with the least hint of controversy; what an excellent idea; pointlessly wasting page space is obviously harmless William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) No an ugly tag at the top of a page is not "harmless". Let's focus on our general readership, we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia for readers - not just to push a pov or play a game. Therefor when I observed an apparent consensus on talk to remove said "ugly and distracting tag", I removed it. It appears a bit prematurely perhaps. So, do we have a legitimate dispute, or a pov pushing battle? If it is a legit. dispute among neutral editors then resolve it. If it is simply pov pushing by spas then nix it and get on with legitimate editing. Vsmith (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Let's focus on our general readership That's why the tag is there. To let outside readers know that this article in in a different status than one without the tag. It provides useful information to the reader.--SPhilbrickT 20:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Two points; Firstly, this is not formatted per the template at the top of the page and may therefore be dismissed (I am going to wait to see if there are any more comments regarding that) and, secondly, the aesthetic ramifications of a page being tagged is more suitable for a meta discussion and if such (discussions regarding the) removals of templates from CC related articles were intended to highlight that argument then I shall be looking to see if there are any sanctions that might be enforced regarding abuse of WP:POINT - and if there are any indications that the "aesthetic argument" was a smokescreen to simply remove a template some editors didn't want there then I shall be seeking extended sanctions on all parties responsible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, will you be seeking extended sanctions if there are any indiciations that the "NPOV dispute" argument was a smokescreen to simply keep a badge of shame on an article that complied with all of our policies? Just wondering. Hipocrite (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see how that would work - someone is proposing that placing the template upon the page improves the aesthetic appeal..? My understanding is that it was suggested that the template was removed as aesthetically unpleasing, which I advere is not an appropriate reason for the action. The aesthetics or other issues with placing a template on a page should be discussed on the templates talkpage, or indeed the related policy/guideline page in respect of placing such templates on pages, but never on the effected page itself. My comments is that WP:POINTy actions on a page covered by a probation run a greater risk of sanctions even if the action does not relate to the probation subject - and if it is in fact done with regard to the probation subject, but camouflaged as a POINTy action, then even more severe sanctions might ensue (if proven). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC) No, sir, someone is suggesting there is an NPOV dispute when there is actualy not an NPOV dispute. If you determine that their POINTy argument that there is an NPOV dispute is designed to put a POINTy NPOV badge-of-shame on a page, will you be sanctioning them? Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Broadly editorial notices on main page articles are always a bad thing and we should not have NPOV tags simply because some editors have other POVs. NPOV tags in particular should never endure long term: consensus defines the NPOV of the article. Calling the notices distracting is right, and detrimental to the project but sometimes needed whilst a process is underway to sort a recognised problem. There is a recognised problem with the conduct of the talk pages in Climate Change but not with POV. "Ugly" is irrelevant and for template talk. And this thread should be close as it was not a proper request for enforcement. --BozMo talk 14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC) "consensus defines the NPOV of the article" No, it does not. Only reliable sources can define what neutral is. We as Wikipedia editors are simply supposed to repeat the bias of reliable sources. "There is a recognised problem with the conduct of the talk pages in Climate Change but not with POV" I find this comment very disturbing. Of course, there's a legit POV issue here and if you can't see recognize this, then I'm not sure it's a good idea for you to be involved in this probation. Even Jimbo agrees that there's POV issue here and goes even further than I do:[50] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC) No, I rather feel this comment is a misunderstanding on both counts. Consensus is what establishes the subjective application of policy to an article, and hence NPOV. There is nothing I can see in Jimbos particular comment to suggest that the article is not NPOV. And as for my involved I am an uninvolved Admin in the terms of the probation and don't have the time to get involved in the content issues. --BozMo talk 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Jimbo is seeing the current version of the article which I agree is WP:NPOV. There is no indication that he read through the revision history or talk archives to see all the POV pushing from both warring factions. In any case, you said, "There is a recognised problem with the conduct of the talk pages in Climate Change but not with POV " It seems to me that you just commented on a content issue and took sides with one of the warring factions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Good luck with that. I commented on whether a problem was recognised not whether one existed. I have not read the article, but AFAICT there is no general recognition of a POV problem, just some individuals who claim such exists. I wonder that this is unclear to you. --BozMo talk 17:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I don't understand what LessHeard vanU means. This thread informed ScJessey about the circumstances of an edit he had just made and he asked the protecting admin to revert that edit. That is a very good result and I consider this thread to have served its purpose in restraining sharp-elbowed editing on a particularly sensitive article. A Quest for Knowledge has often said he spent a lot of time on the neutral point of view noticeboard. In view of that, I don't understand quite how he got the idea that the pivotal, "non-negotiable" neutral point of view policy was in any way subject to the quite ignorable and superfluous reliable sources guideline (hint: it's intended for people who don't quite understand the meaniing of the word "verifiability", which is also a key policy). So many newbies, so little time, and so we end up arguing the meaning of policies that we ourselves created and expanded, increment by increment, with people who have failed to digest them and think they know everything. --TS 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC) No specific enforcement action is requested here and Tony indicates he is satisfied with the result, so this should now be closed. If there is specific behaviour that needs looked at (edit-warring that skirts 1RR) a properly formed request can be made. To stray to the merits of the tag, it should at least clarify whether it is title or content that is disputed. Franamax (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I was responding to the comments by Vsmith about consensus for 'removing "ugly and distracting tag"'. Never mind, the intent seems to have been missed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC) My 10¢ here: The tag has ended up being a "hostage tag" rather than a helpful tag. As i see it, i doubt there will ever be a resolution of it. If you were to ask the editors: "Should the tag be removed" - you get "no concensus". Were you to ask: "Should the tag remain" - you would get "no consensus". Not very useful at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, of course. It tags an 'NPOV dispute', not an 'NPOV dispute consensus'. --Heyitspeter (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC) So let me be more specific: I doubt if that particular NPOV dispute is ever going to be resolved. Thus the tag has no meaning whatsover. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I'm sure there are plenty of creationists who would like to slap an "NPOV dispute" tag on Evolution. For that matter, there are any number of people who dispute the content of Global warming, a featured article. But those are unresolvable disputes arising from fundamental(ist) ideological positions. This particular dispute is very much the same. It is clear that anti-science editors are not going to agree with pro-science editors any time soon. That being so, what is the point of the tag? To tell the reader that "someone doesn't like this article"? That surely can't be a viable basis for tagging it; would we accept the same people tagging Global warming, which I'm sure they'd like to do? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Of course, any issues with Evolution have nothing to do with the Climategate article which is not an article about science, but an article about a political and scientific conduct controversy. It would be more helpful if you came up with an analogy that fits the situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with having NPOV tags on articles. That's the nature of a wiki. Cla68 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC) You are correct. There is nothing wrong with having NPOV tags on articles. But there is something wrong in having NPOV tags permanently on articles, especially so on articles which have a large amount of editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC) So topic ban editors from both warring factions and let neutral editors work on the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Anyone can tag an article; no one may remove the tag until the dispute is resolved, but there have to be some checks and balances. The tagging editor has to come up with well-sourced suggestions as to why the current article is not verifiably accurate or neutral. Then we reach consensus, fix the article, and remove the tag. Trouble here is that we have no concrete suggestions within WP policy and guidelines, we only get asked to look at speculation and propaganda from uninformed sources far from the events, and there is no consensus that anti-science viewpoints should be given equal weight to established science. --Nigelj (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Well, that's not true. Whenever there's a violation of WP:NPOV, I always base my arguments on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and cite reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC) (To Kim) No, the nature of a wiki is that a few can NPOV tag the many. If we don't like it, we can find another website to mess with, including me. Cla68 (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Well, allow me to disagree. NPOV tags are not there to be used as pressure items - but to be used as a help in recruiting editors to resolve a particular issue. The easiest resolution here, should be to have a timelimit on such tags, for instance a month, if consensus cannot be gathered for or against a solution to the perceived problem within that timelimit - then some other dispute resolution should be tried. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC) There is a strong argument for saying that a tag, like any other article space content, should either be supported by consensus or removed. Certainly the existence of a minority of people who do not think an article is NPOV is not sufficient to imply a tag is needed. And the subjective application of Wikipedia policy, where the application is in doubt, has to be ruled by consensus (since consensus determines policy in the first place). But as I say, I have not read the article and do not know whether in fact lack of NPOV is agreed.--BozMo talk 20:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I tend to disagree in principle. I think the tag should remain unless there is consensus that it's wrong. If there is consensus that it was wrong, it shouldn't be readded unless a different issue is brought up. For this specific instance, although I think the tag is inappropriate until such time as the FAQ is corrected to note the error in the answer to Q5, I don't actually see consensus against it at any time. I could be wrong, as I haven't spent my life that much time editing this article, like some of the editors here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Agree that if the same process covers the tag as covers the content, then you may as well get rid of the tags. The tag is for readers, and indicates that there is not a clear consensus regarding the content of an article. Readers should be aware of this if it is the case, and at least in my view there should be a presumption in favor of alerting the reader. If the same process that got the current version of an article in place can also go directly to removing the tag, then it removes the last bit of incentive that the tag provides to really try to iron out the problems so that there are not significant complaints. But above that, the reader should know. Mackan79 (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC) When I last looked there seemed to be neither strong consensus for or against the NPOV tag. I'm not sure where that leaves us. There have been many attempts to change the title of the article, and so far they have not been successful. The basic article content has been stable for some time, subject to added content as the various inquiries progress. There appears to be a sizable minority of editors who consistently describe the article content as lacking in neutrality, but despite extensive discussion they have not been successful in gaining consensus on what needs to be done to resolve the problem. There is a quite diverse set of editors involved. Over the past month, excepting wikignome work, the following people have edited the article: Hipocrite, Arthur Rubin, Tony Sidaway, Heyitspeter, William M. Connolley, ChrisO, CurtisSwain, Cla68, Thparkth, A Quest for Knowledge, Dave souza, Moogwrench, ScJessey, Vsmith, Pytom, Enescot, Guettarda, J. Sketter, Nsaa, Nigelj, ScienceApologist, Rumping, Stephan Schulz, Jpat34721, Mikenorton, John Hyams, 86.7.19.159, Unitanode, Arzel, Grundle2600, Haeb, In addition the following editors have each made at least one significant comment to the talk page: Stuarth, 91.153.115.15, JohnWBarber, Q Science, 99.142.1.101, Sphilbrick, AMR, Wikidemon, Oiler99, 130.232.214.10, Thepm, Tarc, Macai, 130.232.214.10, Collect, Arkon, Splette, The Four Deuces, Bill the Cat 7, DeepNorth, NickCT, Ignignot, Jonathan A Jones, KimdDabelsteinPetersen, 72.192.46.9, 24.11.186.64, GoRight, Tilman, Junder1234, 95.103.140.64, Spoonkymonkey, 99.141.252.167, 173.9.22.85, Marknutley, David Crabtree, TMLutas, 128.243.253.112, Masudako, 94.193.96.114, Ronnotel, 64.244.99.100, Sirwells, Ucacha, K10wnsta, Psb777, Labattblueboy, 138.162.8.58, 86.7.19.159, 88.110.2.122, Farsight001 , HideTheDecline, 88.110.16.230, Itsmejudith, 69.201.160.76, Weaponbb7, Pontificalibus, 207.237.162.147, Evensong, JCBergman, Gerardw, 125.2.117.51, Jarhed, Oren0, Nil Einne, Robofish, 74.248.53.52, Lumos3, Jeni, Isonomia, ATren, Kittybrewster, 99.141.243.97, Greenbough, Plain jack, Smallman12q, Xanthoxyl, Weakopedia, Cardamon, 24.11.186.64, Textmatters, TenOfAllTrades, On2u2. This is a quite impressive number of page watchers, commenters and editors, and they represent a similarly broad range of opinions and biases. My first thoughts are that, if there are significant POV problems remaining, then there should be a strong enough consensus to drown out any opposition, resulting in steady improvement of the article. This steady improvement seems to be what is happening, but at the same time there is no consensus that the tag should remain. Perhaps it should not remain in the circumstances, but I don't know. Possibly a content RFC is the best way to take this. But I don't think there are any significant conduct issues involved, outside the recent mini edit war which prompted this thread. --TS 21:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) LHvU has opined that this malformed request may be closed and I concur. I believe it is beyond the scope of this noticeboard to consider appropriateness of NPOV tags, although inappropriate conduct of individual (or groups of) editors within the dispute may be considered. No such conduct has been presented here that is specific to the CC dispute. Placement of tags should be discussed either on the specific article talk page, WP:NPOVN, or in a more broad discussion. Thus, closing as no action requested, not actionable, no action. Franamax (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

TMLutas

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

Request concerning TMLutas

User requesting enforcement

ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

TMLutas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. Either me for WP:GAMING as you've laid out above or you for your accusation of bad faith. I've been trying to avoid sanctions... admits himself and TonySidaway to WP:GAME.
2. The relevant section is 2.1, 4th bullet point which explicitly disallows calculating impact. WP:GAME, begins a discussion to changes the guideline WP:RS#Scholarship that he could then apply to Talk:Global warming/FAQ 22
3. Since you, yourself took part on the losing side of the relevant discussion, (your last post was Feb 4 and you failed to respond to my Feb 7 response) WP:FORUM, engages in circular discussion to exhaust the editors to consensus
4. Let me repeat my position from last time. WP:FORUM, and repeats, explicitly
5. Yes, yes, only your side is entitled to those, and we've always been at war with Eastasia. Are you finished baiting me or are you going for the 2+2=5 when the party says so full treatment? ... So get on with the beclowning by all means Battleground mentality (WP:BATTLE) with personal attack
6. Paraphrase of the text to this point "Hee hee, americans sure are dumb. Let us mock them." WP:FORUM, provokes discussion

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Probation notice by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)
2. Edit summaries in reverts by William M. Connolley
3. Edit warring by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Other sanction

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

TMLutas (1) changes a guideline, (2) applies the guideline with the clause he added, and (3) engages in circular discussion using this change where he exhausts the editors to consensus. The consensus for the guideline was reach by exhaustion and subtly, which is now challenged (see here). The guideline ("sets of best practices that are supported by consensus" WP:GUIDES not end all pillars) are applied beyond their scope (see here). The application only barely reflects the guidelines. And together I believe this wikilayering and gaming is unneeded. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[51] ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning TMLutas

Statement by TMLutas

The true story starts in global cooling in this edit on December 22, 2009. To start the discussion of what is going on in March is grossly incomplete and should void this proceeding. I have made continuing references as to the history of this issue and its long nature. ChyranandChloe should have been aware of this and the extensive efforts I've made to patiently clarify existing rules so that the local majority on climate science pages ceases to use WP:RS to exclude peer reviewed papers entirely from Wikipedia due to some historically less than clear language in bullet point 4 of section 2.1.

I will give a point by point. Please bear with me because this is the short version.

1. I am supposed to have "admits himself and TonySidaway to WP:GAME". TonySidaway later clarified that he was not actually questioning my good faith with his statement "You don't get to make an end run around the neutral point of view by fiddling with the wording of guidelines". I accepted that and just let it drop. I responded strongly at the time as I viewed that statement as a set up statement in any attempt to go after me via sanctions.

2. The FAQ had been labeled as under discussion since February 3, 2010 (not by me) and had come to a conclusion on February 20, 2010. No matter what, Q22 needed to be modified. Either the discussion tag needed to be removed in case the discussion supported the current wording or larger edits needed to be made to realign Q22 with the WP:IRS 2.1(4). I sincerely had hoped that somebody else would have made the effort since the February 20th close. The result of the discussion was that individual papers published in reliable source journals were, absent special cases, to be considered reliable without a waiting period to assemble a citation index score (ie the impact or impact factor standard). Nobody had adjusted things at the global warming FAQ by the time that somebody, once again, used FAQ Q22 to justify blocking one of my edits on another page so I dove in to start a conversation to fix Q22. Somebody had to do it and nobody else was volunteering. This was no game, at least on my part.

3. TS said "I agree with the above. I think this is more a matter of due weight." in the relevant discussion and essentially ceded that the FAQ Q22 that he wrote that depends on WP:IRS instead of WP:WEIGHT was incorrect. Yet he doesn't go and correct his own Q22 work and comes back the next month and throws Q22/WP:IRS as a valid reason to exclude a published peer reviewed article that appeared in a journal that was itself reliable again relying on Q22. Somebody is trying to exhaust somebody else to consensus but it certainly wasn't me. TS has today shifted Q22 to a WP:WEIGHT justification and I'm perfectly happy with his edit and have gone in and removed the under discussion tag. Bravo to him. Or is this part of my sinister plot to exhaust TS? You be the judge.

4. A fuller quote makes it obvious that I am being accommodating here "Let me repeat my position from last time. I'm open to some sort of FAQ point on excluding new papers so long as there's some sort of rule or guideline that actually supports the exclusion mechanism." This is after going several rounds of asserted reasons why something was true that, after actually reading the rule/policy/guideline/essay, were not supported by the cited rule/policy/guideline/essay. A few rounds of objections that don't pan out as real objections and one does tend to repeat. It's unavoidable.

5. This is interesting because my own talk page is being cited as a page under the climate change probation rules. That's just strange and I think inappropriate. But let me explain anyway since I'm doing point by point.

TS in a prior edit in that thread attempted to define global cooling as exclusively a specific type of global cooling, an end to the interglacial and a new ice age instead of a more general definition of global cooling as, well, a planet that is cooling overall irrespective of mechanism. Cutting an argument's legs out from under it by changing the dictionary is the definition of Orwellian. It also upset me because that sort of action makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. I was not saying that TS was beclowning himself as a personal attack, rather that by adopting that definitional jujitsu he was beclowning Wikipedia. In the heat of the moment, the 1984 references popped out. Had I not been on my talk page, I probably would have toned it down a bit. I view this point as evidence that what's happening with this sanctions attempt is a 'kitchen sink' approach, an attempt to stack up as many accusations as possible in the hope that something will stick and some sanction will be assessed. Kitchen sink approaches are, by definition, an attempt at psychological manipulation.

6. The subject of the thread was the recent Gallup polling on global warming. The four prior contributors (that I could see at the time anyway) to the thread suggested that an appropriate response to the gallup figures were to A. improve the "Simple-Wikipedia" version of the global warming page, B. a suggestion that the stupid people would ignore this due to the Dunning–Kruger effect C. a straw man that climate change skeptics are advocating "teach the controversy" something I've never heard elsewhere and D. A me too agreement that it was indeed a situation where the skeptics were engaging in "teach the controversy". I guess I could have opened sanctions threads on them all but that seemed a bit excessive. Instead I let them know that they were not in a safe space where everybody agreed with them and they could let their hair down and say what they really think about those they disagree with. In fairness if they are sanctioned for this, I would admit that I should be too. To date, none of the preceding 4 user accounts have any sort of notice for their pending sanctions threads. Selective prosecution or more kitchen sink? It's both.

Regarding the notices, I did take the 2/0 warning seriously, calmed down, took a wikibreak and got a great deal more patient. No, I'm not perfect. That's usually not sanctionable, not even, I suspect, on probation pages.

It's hard to take seriously WMC's warning on my commentary reverting his reversion. He was reverting a section stub, calling it "reckless". I had been polling on talk for two weeks prior seeking anybody who would admit that they didn't want a section at all. Everybody insisted that they actually had specific objections to this or that proposed text but nobody claimed they were against a 2000s section to go along with the 1990s section (and prior). So I stubbed it and got told "rv: be bold, don't be reckless. Read the policy" which was not quite helpful. Until I visited this page today I was unaware that WMC has been repeatedly sanctioned for doing this sort of thing. It's unclear why this is included at all except as part of a kitchen sink approach.

As for the first notice. I took it as an entry into the club. All the cool kids were getting them. As the first notice says, you could get that notice without doing anything wrong. I'll stipulate that yes, I did know that this probation existed.

On to the additional comments: 1) guilty of changing a guideline (after 6 weeks of talking it out on the appropriate talk page), not sanctionable in my opinion. 2) guilty of applying the guideline with the clause I added (after waiting a couple of weeks to see if anybody would protest or revert in case I got it wrong), not sanctionable in my opinion. 3) not guilty of using circular discussion. There is a clear beginning (why do we need to wait to include studies?), middle (oh, WP:RS 2.1(4) looks a bit strange, let's talk it out in WP:IRS there and then go back and apply the results to get better process at global cooling and incidentally global warming), and end (you can no longer use WP:RS 2.1(4) because the result of the discussion does not support your POV. If you disagree, work it out in talk over @ WP:IRS). The accusation that I exhausted my dozen or so conversation partners is very flattering, if untrue. I have not achieved consensus except on WP:IRS and if you look carefully you will note that the statements of regulars there are quite influential for 'my' win. In truth the win is theirs. The challenge to the consensus started off as a direct edit to 2.1(4) that substantially changes the meaning of my addition without any talk at all. I reverted once and said to take it to talk. Hipocrite has started an edit war which I declined to follow, leaving his version up for now (see, I can learn). So far his challenge to consensus here and here do not seem to be going well for him. It's early days though.

I do need to correct myself as Q22 has now been revised to rely on WEIGHT and not on IRS so I guess that worked out as I hoped it would as well. As soon as I can finish with this business I will no longer have to refer to Q22 anymore as the problematic language is now only relevant to the current accusations. The problematic version of Q22 referred to the WP:IRS guideline, substantially quoting it. Of course any change to the guideline Q22 was trying to implement would have an impact on Q22.

I finally and most strenuously disagree that walking down this multi-month path was unnecessary (not to mention that the characterization of the journey as wikilawyering and gaming is tendentious and untrue). There is a real issue of confusion with honest editors having divergent opinions of what 2.1(4) really means and the confusion seems to be centered on what the word source means. In hot topics like global warming these divergent opinions lead to much heat and very little light. That needs fixing and no matter which way it breaks, a significant number of editors are going to be uncomfortable with the result.

Thank you for your patience. If anybody wants more detail, please ask and let me know where I should put it. TMLutas (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning TMLutas

TL:DR? TMLutas really needs to summarise his response. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

He's exhausted me already. --Nigelj (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I'm not quite sure how to make it shorter when I have going on three months of conduct pulled in and called to account. The substance of this very long fight boils down to one word's definition in WP:IRS (the word "source") and the ripple effects of how papers are excluded in articles like global warming. Shall they be excluded entirely or shall they shift over to specialty pages that are much shorter where such papers can be included with appropriate balancing text as per WP:WEIGHT. The AGW majority has been incredibly resistant to the second option. I view the dispute as a key pivot point to reducing the temperature around climate issues so that skeptics feel they're given a fair shake.

The name of much of the climate fight game is exhaust the minority so they give up in frustration. If someone doesn't give up, put them up on charges of trying to exhaust the majority. But anybody can say that. If you care enough to chase the links down, I'm demonstrating it. I don't think it's conscious on the vast majority of the participants. This is not an accusation of conspiracy. I think it's custom and habit because just throwing a forest of rules along with quick reverts at a poorly prepared skeptic works well as tactics. As strategy it gets you bad mainstream press and scibaby. TMLutas (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify an oft-repeated error, Scibaby did not start sockpuppeting in response to being blocked over global warming edits. He had been sockpuppeting with (at least) three accounts for over a year before he even made his first edit to a climate related article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a scibaby expert. This is new information for me. My mistake. The successful tactic is strategically getting Wikipedia bad press about how biased it is, to the project's detriment. TMLutas (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess there is an interesting point here, and you seem to be soliciting advice so I will give some. Bad press is not per sae to the projects detriment. If the bad press is for the right reasons it could well be to the projects long term benefit, and there will certainly be a gain in respect from some spectators if we don't follow trends in the popular press. The question of whether or not bad press is for the right reasons is probably the question of whether or not the scientific position taken by Wikipedia is correct. Wikipedia takes a "consensus of scientific experts" approach which will inevitably fail sometimes because a consensus of the scientific community is sometimes wrong (a long list would be easy to produce of scientific consensus being wrong). However I think scientific consensus is probably the lowest risk route for WP since the alternative of Original Research is certainly also going to be wrong, very likely more often as is the alternative of journalist "science". Therefore my own view is to ignore the bad press same as for allegations of pro-USA bias, pro-Israel bias and all the rest and keep the discussion on representing informed opinion. For me, the advice is your point would get more attention if you stuck to the claim that we are not representing consensus well because there is too much peer reviewed material to include all and we are introducing selection bias; rather than looking (by refering to a world which is motivating you) like you are on a mission against a majority because you have been convinced by press reports or blogs or similar. --BozMo talk 20:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge Honestly, I have no idea of what's going on with WP:RS. However, if WP:RS is being altered to WP:GAME the results of the ongoing AGW dispute, this is an extremely troubling event. Changes to policies and guidelines potentially effect the entire project - over 3 million articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why I've been very verbose about what I am doing, how the effects would play out given each major choice branch, and spent 6 weeks gently moving the conversation along until I did my edit. I fully realize the potential for cosmic foul up in doing a hurried edit. In contrast, Hipocrite's recent edit on the topic came without any discussion whatsoever. I've left his version up as he now belatedly is on talk and seeking to re-test my asserted consensus. It's playing out exactly as I would have predicted it would and I expect my position to be reaffirmed. TMLutas (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't comment here, but I suppose I'll make this metacomment referring to my response to LessHeard vanU's request. I don't think there is a conduct issue here. Although I would not subscribe in detail to TMLutas' characterization of the dispute, that's a minor quibble. --TS 13:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat with Tony. The tome that TMLutas presents here exemplifies the problem with his approach: go an at such length, and with such persistence, that your fellow editors lose the will to live. While I broadly agree with TMLutas on the substance of the issue at hand,[52][53] his approach is not optimal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"The tome that TMLutas presents here exemplifies the problem with his approach" - It's hardly a "tome". He is defending himself against an accusation that could lead to sanctions. Six specific points were brought against him; he has responded to each of them. What else should he have done? Please tell me "you defended yourself in too much detail on the requests for enforcement page" isn't now going to be an actionable fault. Thparkth (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

SBHB - Other then effectively sitting down and shutting up, how could I have carried my points in the face of the energetic and numerically superior opposition I faced? That's the burden that a well thought through decision to sanction me should carry. I've been experimenting with different approaches for years. The stuff that I've done that works to gain consensus with hard left wingers on subjects like Alger Hiss simply don't work on climate science pages. This, aside from being brought up on this charge, actually does seem to lead eventually to consensus. So give me something methodologically better and I'll go off and use it. TMLutas (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sphilbrick I read the first diff (Gaming), then read the whole section leading up to it. Yes, it's long, it's tedious, and it's argumentative. But it's also illuminating. I read an honest attempt by multiple parties (notably TMLutas and Awickert) to explore exactly what should happen when there are more reliable sources than can reasonably be included in an article. A real problem, without an obvious answer, and they made excellent progress. Then TS said something to which TMLutas took offense—I'd say over-reaction a bit with my detached perspective, but easy to understand in the heat of the moment. Even without reflecting the passion, the response wasn't out of line nor did it fail civility rules, and both parties moved on. Most certainly, it was not an admission of Gaming, which is the sole reason for the inclusion of the diff. I haven't read any of the other diffs, but based on the first one, I'd say we ought to be handing out awards for successful resolution of a thorny issue, not talking about sanctions.--SPhilbrickT 14:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment @Franamax - with respect to the cosmic ray paper, if you read the full discussion you'll see that the paper (which was a pre-pub) did not actually say what s/he insisted it said. And even after direct quotes were supplied to her/him, s/he continued to argue for the inclusion of the paper. Guettarda (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning TMLutas

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• '"...more detail"? - May the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster preserve us!
  I think some comments by Tony Sidaway regarding the alleged dispute may be beneficial, so I shall go ask him if he is prepared to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Looks completely guilty (only on the basis of above diffs) on both being argumentative for the sake of it (including paraphrasing opponents in an argument in a less civil way than they used) and raising the temperature. However, these are common offences to some degree and whether this is "more than everybody else" to the point of being sanctionable would take quite a lot of reading threads to make a judgement, certainly at least a warning. On the policy versus here certainly I don't like the changing a policy to win an ongoing argument and it is a bit moot when more people are active here than on the policy threads but on a first look perhaps we should assume good faith that he thought that was a proper process. --BozMo talk 13:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Given TS's comments I guess we should limit this to a warning about the specific issue of not paraphrasing other people's comments in a more inflammatory and less civil way than the comments themselves. --BozMo talk 14:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Good for me, but I would also think that the verbose among us ("hello, mirror") should be advised that over long discourses might be mistaken by others as attempts to WP:Exhaust the opposition and that such claims should be dealt with in good faith and an acknowledgement that shorter generalities would allow discussions to flow more easily and detailed responses to specific points may then be given if required. (Look how many bytes it took me to say that!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole IRS/FAQ22 thing looks to me like a pretty reasonable attempt by TMLutas to clarify an aspect of RS guidelines i.e. when to exclude a source/how to fit them in. There was perhaps faulty reading of consensus to change the IRS clause, but no-one complained after the edit and TML acquiesced when it was eventuaally reverted. After the wording has been there a few weeks, it also seems reasonable to begin applying it and TML accepted someone else's revised wording on the FAQ. The argument to include the cosmic ray paper on Global cooling was reasonable too, I confess I'm a little sympathetic to relaxing standards for individual papers on offshoot and smaller articles, provided the presentation is properly balanced.

Diff #5 is from a somewhat testy talk page discussion where TMLautas loses it a bit, but it's their own talk page and in January. Diff #6, that's not good, that's definite soapboxing. What about those of us who evade taxes, can't we be upset too? ;)

So concluding, I believe the enforcement request was made in good faith but its substance seems to be lacking. TMLautas seems to be concentrating on CC articles since resuming editing, but they're being reasonable and engaging in discussion. I would concur with a warning based around that diff #6 though, do not soapbox on article talk pages within the probation scope as it can be easily seen as a provocative tactic. Franamax (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we get a proposed close to do an up or down endorse/not on? I think I agree with Franamax and LHvU both. And yet, TML's point by point defense rang true for me. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ratel

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

Request concerning Ratel

User requesting enforcement

Mackan79 (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [54] Reverts to remove statement that "Climate change denial" is generally used as a pejorative
2. [55] Reverts same and other material less than a day later against another editor
3. [56] Again reduces lead of article, removing all criticism of the term and other material summarizing the article
4. [57] First comments that "pejorative" should not be used, because that is how deniers want the term to be seen
5. [58] Adds a template the next day, saying that discussion is stuck and so editors should move on
6. [59] Strikes my comment when I say that his comments are obstructive
7. [60] Adds a new section in his next comment saying that consensus has been established and the discussion is over
8. [61] States agreement with User:Nigelj who has commented that climate change deniers are simply wrong
9. [62] Responds to detailed post on why the article needs to clarify that this is generally a pejorative by commenting that the "crux" of the matter is that CCD is simply "a deliberate, organized and concerted effort to derail science, for ideological, or, more usually, commercial reasons."
10. [63] Reverts an editor who responds to Ratel's soapboxing with soapboxing of their own
11. [64] Starts section saying that the majority of the lead should be removed
12. [65] Receives detailed response about why the lead includes the material that it does
13. [66] Notes that he has removed the lead, including all criticism and other information besides a definition which does not mention that this is a pejorative, without providing any response or explanation

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. [67] Warning by Mackan79 (talk · contribs)
2. [68] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (same)
3. [69] Warning by Mackan79 (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

I am requesting either a 0 revert restriction or a page ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The problems are not just with Ratel's editing here, but those are the most significant. The statement that the term is generally a pejorative has been in the article since at least December.[70] In early January I posted several references for this point,[71] because someone added a tag.[72] Other sources have been posted here and here. It is also known that many sources criticize the very use of the phrase as inappropriate. Discussion is nevertheless a matter of pulling teeth, where Ratel (and a small number of other editors) make no attempt to respond to issues raised and simply post terse statements, often soap boxing, with no supporting sources. A long discussion with User:Dmcq in this section resolved a way to provide an adequate summary in the lead, but now due to Ratel's repeated reverting, we are back to two sentences that violate not just WP:LEAD but equally WP:NPOV by omitting all controversy over the term. Ratel's last comment, like his others, confirms that to him the article should simply describe a "deliberate attempt to derail scientific consensus," and that this to him is a neutral assessment of the topic.[73] This is disruptive editing, after warnings, that is hurting the article and preventing improvement.

Response to Ratel: I would be interested to see Ratel's evidence that I have been engaged in some sort of POV pushing campaign on this and other articles. He claims this with regard to the expanded lead that was added after extensive discussion and agreement with Dmcq.[74] He oddly supposes that I "despise" George Monbiot who, much to the contrary, I find to be quite reasonable. On Christopher Monckton my only participation was to strongly oppose the use of the picture seen here, which has now been removed. None of my three edits to Timothy F. Ball have been reverted. I believe my only edit ever relating to Ian Plimer is this. The claims Ratel is making here are, frankly, complete fabrications. Mackan79 (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To Jehochman: The issue is the following: 1.) On the first day, Ratel reverted twice against two different editors before posting any comment on the talk page. 2.) Quickly following were edits trying to summarily close the discussion.[75][76][77] 3.) After then first addressing the expanded lead and receiving a detailed response, Ratel simply ignored the response and reverted again.[78] 4.) Ratel has already been warned by 2/0 in relation to this probation.[79] What the content should say is not the issue; whether it is possible to work out what it should say when he reverts without responding is the issue. That he reverted a third time here, removing the product of a substantial compromise while pointedly ignoring the talk page, is the reason I brought it here. To answer directly, also, at least two of the listed sources specifically state that the term is pejorative, and many others suggest it. Discussion on how to address this would be very welcome; my problem is that Ratel's approach (reverting, ignoring, templating and adding sections to say the discussion is over) does not allow it. Mackan79 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also Let me say that I would appreciate if someone noticed the string of serious personal attacks in Ratel's response, brazenly false, and without a single diff in support. I have thought that this is discouraged. Mackan79 (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To Ratel's update: I commented that Ratel's actions were obstructive only after he reverted twice before commenting, and then responded to a detailed explanation with a template that discussion was stuck, so "please move on."[80] This gave me no choice but to note the probation and the requirement for good faith collaboration. His next edit, after striking my comments, was nevertheless to post a new section, insisting that I stop "beating a dead horse," and "let it go."[81] I responded here saying it was my last request that he not try to stop the discussion without any basis for doing so. He then continued to ignore the discussion and proceeded again to remove the entire lead that had been worked out in a multi-day discussion. My statement that I would "wait it out" meant that I would not revert, hardly a statement that I was somehow going to wait until everyone else left the page (?). To say that this excuses him in fabricating a series of completely false attacks against me is absurd. Also the prominent mention of Monbiot is because he is the only writer we have found who defines the term, a definition that I produced, and Ratel objects to this here for the first time. Mackan79 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To Jehochman: Would you clarify if it concerns you whether Ratel's comments on this page are true or not? He accuses me (and my ilk) of despising George Monbiot, an utter fabrication that I find particularly offensive. He adds that I am editing as part "of an anti-science, politically driven campaign." He adds that my "edit history is replete with edits to climate-related pages that favor the side of well-known denialists like Timothy Ball and Christopher Monckton, etc." He accuses me of "anti-science subversive attacks" on the encyclopedia. Are these acceptable comments without evidence? Mackan79 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of request

[82]

Discussion concerning Ratel

Statement by Ratel

I ask any admin present to please read the talk page carefully. You'll see that none of my actions is questionable, and that I have improved both the article and the Talk page. Mackan79's behaviour is what should really be under scrutiny here. This editor was opposed on the "pejorative" issue by not only me but several other editors, yet persisted and persisted in a dogged way in a situation where there was obviously no consensus for inclusion. His statements included threats to report opposing editors for alleged infractions and threats to "wait out" other editors and insert his version when we tire or lose focus. As to the lede, Mackan79 completely broke it by POV pushing in a not-so-subtle way, managing to expand it from the brief and clear explanation (that had stood there for about a year) to numerous paragraphs of woolly pap about someone he and other people of his ilk despise, left wing environmentalist George Monbiot, as if the whole idea of global warming denial is the work of this arch-enemy of the Right. Mackan79 is clearly editing the page as part of an anti-science, politically driven campaign. His edit history is replete with edits to climate-related pages that favor the side of well-known denialists like Timothy Ball and Christopher Monckton, etc.

The encyclopedia is frankly under attack by people with motives inimical to the spread of knowledge. The basic science of global warming is almost completely settled, ask any practising climatologist, but these anti-science subversive attacks continue and are getting more tendentious and persistent. Wikipedia needs to put all global warming-related articles into a special category that can only be edited by a restricted set of editors, or we face the danger of science articles being rewritten by non-scientists with flat Earth theories. What really takes the cake is when these fringe POV-pushing editors, hell bent on influencing science-related pages to show the fringe denialist theories in the best light possible, start using noticeboards like this to report editors who actually represent the mainstream scientific opinion, in a shameful and scurrilous effort to hijack the system and use it against itself.

On another note, I see that Mackan is a constant user, some might day abuser, of noticeboards and regularly reports people for opposing him in content disputes. Look at his edit history. This calls out for some sort of warning.

Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 07:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(response to LHvU) Lessheard, you mention my lack of AGF but what about Mackan78's comment to me that my responses on the Talk page were "obstructive" diff (that comment made when he started to lose the argument over 'pejorative'), and what about his threat to "wait out" diff other editors so that he gets his edit in no matter what the consensus is? These are signs of someone who is prepared to get his way, no matter what. The fact that we are discussing "pejorative" on this noticeboard is more evidence of his single-minded obsession with ramming his version through. And anyone looking at the lede he crafted, with its double mention of Monbiot (known as "Moonbat" to the denialists and a favorite target of ridicule for the Right), must concede that he is seriously POV-pushing and that his lede was inferior to what preceded it. On the larger issue of good faith, it is completely in keeping with the subject of the article under discussion to question the good faith of another editor. The whole article is about people and organisations abusing good faith to manipulate public opinion (arguably one of the most important topics on this planet at the moment, considering the consequences). Small wonder then that those who are editing to mitigate the seriousness of their crime against humanity should be of similar disposition, and face suspicion from other editors. ► RATEL ◄ 22:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, please also note Mackan79's use of the threat to "take this to the enforcement page" —before— I made substantial edits on the issue of "pejorative", simply to bully other editors. diff And now here he is, making good on the threat. For that reason alone, this complaint should be rejected. ► RATEL ◄ 23:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• To Lessheard, you say there was a consensus for inclusion of pejorative, and I breached that. Wrong. The word was added a few months ago and removed numerous times, and on the current talk page section discussing it more editors were against inclusion than for it. Hope this helps... ► RATEL ◄ 23:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Ratel

I've had concerns in the past about Ratel and WP:NPOV when it comes to climate change skepticism, so much so that I even asked him about it at one point. I think his intense personal feelings on the subject get in the way of his attempts to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise in related articles. Cla68 (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Context: Cla68 is on a campaign to get the pro-Denialist article Watts Up With That to GA status and "hopefully onto the front page of wikipedia" diff. Please note how I say above that denialists are using Wikipedia to "show the fringe denialist theories in the best light possible". Case in point. ► RATEL ◄ 05:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ratel, I'm currently personally working to get the DeSmogBlog to future FA status [83] [84], or at least GA status. Is DeSmogBlog a denialist website? Ratel, would you be willing and able to objectively improve and expand the Watts Up With That article to GA or FA status? If so, I'd like to see you join that effort and prove me wrong. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your additions to DeSmogBlog include the line "The National Post has criticized the blog, saying [of Hoggan], "Here's a totally unqualified small-town PR guy making disparaging comments about scientists he says are unqualified while he lectures the rest of us on the science." This is a cherry-picked negative quote from many positive available via, for instance, Google News. And do I want to help you promote an article on a denialist Watt's blog page? Er... no, pass. ► RATEL ◄ 06:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ratel, what does it matter what the topic of an article is? We don't take sides, remember? We're, as far as our editing is concerned, neutral, right? I believe you've just confirmed what I said, that your feelings on the matter are too strong to allow you to edit in a neutral manner. Cla68 (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You believe people with strong feeling on the mater are disqualified from editing on the topic? I look forward to you expressing this viewpoint in the future, and following it yourself. Hipocrite (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly people who openly try to deny recognition of a GA quality article based on the subject matter of the page are only "people with strong feeling" because to call them what they are would likely violate WP:CIVIL. I took a look at the page in question and it's a very long way from GA much less FA status but an editor's dreaming to improve should be allowed to proceed to the limits of their skill and enthusiasm. Trying to keep an article disqualified based on the subject matter of the article should be sanctionable even when GA status for this page is as far away as it is. TMLutas (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 is spot on. But when it comes to AGW articles, sadly things like AGF and POV are just hopelessly compromised. Nevertheless it is good to see that some editors are at least trying to act and edit honourably, neutrally, and uphold standards. All is not yet lost it would appear. Jprw (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest WP:DENY for future 'debates.' When an editor makes such a statement its probably best to highlight it with silence.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute with problematic POV-ish/argumentative language in both sides' versions. It is hard to separate the behavioral issues, if any, from the fact that AGW is accepted science whereas denialism is a peculiar cultural phenomeno concentrated in the US. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, could you point out which edits of mine you find problematic? We had a statement that was in the article for several months, and was removed without discussion. I have been attempting for some days to get editors to discuss whether we can really present this as a non-pejorative, neutral term for any position. Ratel maintains that the term is neutral, because it accurately describes what is in fact a disinformation campaign. This is like arguing that pinko isn't a pejorative because they are really communist sympathizers. He says the comparison should be to Holocaust denial or AIDS Denialism, but so far he cannot address that no reliable sources dispute either of those concepts, while numerous reliable sources dispute this one. Meanwhile, I have had an extensive discussion with Dmcq, the result of which I expanded the lead with sources to address his concerns and comply much more clearly with WP:LEAD. I made the proposal here, Dmcq agreed here, and I added it about two days later here. Ratel has now removed the material in its entirety twice, without engaging on the talk page whatsoever. He started templating on the second day that the discussion was over. So, the lead now presents the term as an accepted descriptor, and presents no controversy in plain violation of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, because Ratel is reverting while I am trying to pursue a discussion. He responds here by making wildly absurd accusations that he does not support with a single diff. I wonder how an editor would correctly work this out. Mackan79 (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that your edits were problematic, just that both alternates seem on a simple read to have their own POV problems in the language. I also wasn't commenting on consensus, and I haven't been close enough to the article to judge what the stable / consensus version is. I'm a little short on time and I think we'd be going down a rabbit hole to begin discussing here what the POV / content issues are though. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ratel, these guys [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] probably have this page on their watchlist. I don't think you've notified everyone who has edited that article. For example, JohnWBarber is active with that article but so far you haven't notified him of this thread. In any event, your editing should be able to speak for itself. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• This case seems like Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing as committed and experienced by many in these probational articles. The zero revert or page ban must be an appropriate sanction to allow for continued progress on the article(s) while letting the offender contribute productivity elsewhere. The sourced content in question could obviously be presented in a NPOV; however, the offender takes a POV and works for exclusion or suppression. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• "While AGF is not a suicide pact, I would suggest that long term contributors ... are due any and all AGF that is going" - You know, I'm pretty sure I coined - or rather, adapted - that phrase, circa 2005. Guettarda (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute. A number of editors seem to be getting rather worked up, but I wouldn't single out Ratel. Stephan is free to comment where he likes; if he doesn't have the confidence of the other admins they're unlikely to be persuaded by what he says. Conversely, if he does...

I would take this proposal, and the arbitration request arising from a minor quibble on who could comment in which section, as further evidence that a number of editors are harboring and fostering a battleground mentality. Very early on we acted swiftly and decisively to stamp out the abuse of this page as a battleground. Maybe the magic spell is beginning to wear off and it needs to be renewed. A general warning against battleground behavior would therefore be the best outcome of this request. --TS 18:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not agree that what we need is vague and suggestive statements about what may or may not be stamped out, without regard to any particular events. You do not say anything of the utterly baseless political soap boxing and political attacks by Ratel above, and frankly that says everything. The purpose of this page, I understand, is to ensure that we are able to work productively on these pages without battleground tactics. To say there is a content dispute, as some have, or to say that either side could be right, does not address the point. Is revert warring prohibited or isn't it? Editors will keep doing it if there are no consequences. Mackan79 (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This enforcement request is about the editors good faith behavior according to the sanctions, bringing in the battleground may simply be a battleground tactic. It's about good faith, that's what folks must be consistently be remind of. If the offender, didn't get the warnings, then time for enforcement. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Stephan Shultz

• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. And before someone moves this comment elsewhere, the same page also says For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. I think a stern warning is enough. I would also like to remind LHvU that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

@LHvU: Can you clarify what "zero tolerance for bad faith assumptions on other editors rationales within articles covered by the restriction" would mean?--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(responding here for clarity - and is not part of the admin discussion) Per my comments in the admin section, bad faith assumptions are specifically deprecated by the wording of the probation - and thus any action or edit or comment that alludes to another editors supposed intentions that is bad faith would draw firstly a warning and then a sanction. Editors are permitted to edit toward a particular POV, providing it falls within other policy (WP:UNDUE / WP:FRINGE etc.), without question as to their motivation other than to improve the encyclopedia. It is of course different in practice - POV's are often readily apparent - but openly acting in accordance of a bad faith assumption of other parties intentions is not allowed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! Might be good to be that explicit in the final wording (if it comes to that).--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Lessherd, can you show me where I've "acted in accordance with" a bad faith assumption? I have admitted here to finding my assumptions of good faith evaporating over the years in the area of climate change articles, but I don't think I have accused any specific editors, by name, on any page, of being in the employ of industry. ► RATEL ◄ 05:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did I imply that you said someone was in the employ of industry, and thus editing to a bias? What I said was, that you stated that some editors were editing to an anti GW bias, in accordance to some idealogy - e.g. "Mackan79 is clearly editing the page as part of an anti-science, politically driven campaign. His edit history is replete with edits to climate-related pages that favor the side of well-known denialists like Timothy Ball and Christopher Monckton, etc..." from your statement. AGF would be that Mackan79 is editing to improve the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This tangent is not helpful, please don't continue it

(note that [e.g.] Stephan Schulz's comments to this request are ipso facto violations as well) WP MEAT violation UPDATE: Ratel has explicitly admitted that he knowingly violated WP:MEAT with his canvassing of the current request. (He also admits to persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:AGF violations w.r.t. those editors he sees as deleterious to the public perception of AGWeditors "trying to insert FUD into climate-related article.")--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC) How does MEAT, which specifies recruiting "new users", apply to my heads up to previously involved users? ► RATEL ◄ 09:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I am not concerned with the "public perception of AGW"; that is the interest of my opponents in this debate. I am concerned that science-related pages of an encyclopedia are being used for political and corporate propaganda purposes, contravening WP:FRINGE inter alia. ► RATEL ◄ 09:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Refactored.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) WP:MEAT: See Ratel's contributions between 6:15-6:22 on 16 March 2010. --Heyitspeter (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Nothing wrong with giving a heads up to other editors of that article, since this incident concerns the article as much as it does my edits. ► RATEL ◄ 12:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC) It's the sampling chosen that makes yours a violation. Perhaps WP:Canvass is more explicitly germane. You've certainly violated both.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) By your or Wikipedia's standards? "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy". Jprw (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I wonder if you remember writing just up above But when it comes to AGW articles, sadly things like AGF ... are just hopelessly compromised.? Perhaps you might wish to ponder that in relation to your comments William M. Connolley (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) The evidence spoke for itself. But I agree that WP:MEAT may have been wrong -- maybe inciting GANG or CABAL? Jprw (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC) WP:MEAT is clearly not applicable. I'm fairly certain that none of the informed editors will blindly do Ratel's bidding. If anything, WP:CANVASS could apply. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Right, a policy that it seems he is aware of.[93] Mackan79 (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see how your link establishes that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't call it a "canvassing campaign" per se This would indicate he knows of the policy mark nutley (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC) No. It would indicate that he knows the word "canvassing", not necessarily WP:CANVASS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC) How about the discussion here? Also seems to show that the WP:Battleground approach is not new. Mackan79 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC) It does not mention WP:CANVASS either, though at least it alludes to policies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC) MEAT is about recruiting editors to influence consensus in content debates, which does not apply here; read it. CANVASSING is a guideline, not a rule. I suggest you read that guideline carefully too, because I have not transgressed that either (no appeals to univolved editors, not excessively cross-posted, not worded or written to influence the outcome). There appears to be a fair bit of grasping at straws going on here. ► RATEL ◄ 08:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC) If you want to alert the people who are watching a page then just stick a notice onto the article's talk page. That's a fairly neutral way of doing it and far less bother. If it is relevant enough for me to be involved I'm sure I'll be aware, otherwise I can think of better ways of spending my life. The latter I believe applies in this case. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks, good advice, I'll keep it in mind for the future. Not sure why the requesting user didn't do that though. ► RATEL ◄ 10:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC) For admins: this is being discussed here. --Heyitspeter (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ignignot

@Jeh: the flip side is that if you punish someone severely it can serve as a deterrent for others to not repeat the same mistake. Everyone knowing that they have a few strikes before anything serious happens to them is an invitation to come right up to the limit of what is permissible, because if they go over they'll still be ok. A barely complying editor means that other people will sometimes think that they are not complying, which leads to more arbitration requests. I have felt for some time now that the only long term solution is to have very harsh punishment with little or no warning. "Good" editors should know better, which means they need a wake up call. "Bad" editors will never get it anyway so you might as well avoid the hassle. Ignignot (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman writes below at 19:33, 18 March: We need to convince people to be respectful in disagreement. Disagree, but don't be disagreeable. If somebody has been warned and coached and still fails to get it, then apply a long term topic ban. Then Ratel, being disagreeable, writes on this page's talk page (00:41, 19 March): [...] user JohnWBarber (talk · contribs · count) summarily removed my edits He also removed a quote from a book [...] without giving any reason. That's what we're up against, every damn day. (edit summary: example of antiscience editing [94] I said in the edit summary that the quote was two long, so an explanation was provided from the start, and I then responded more on the talk page. No one can show that my edits or comments have anything to do with being "anti-science", the kind of slur that isn't helpful to improving the atmosphere around here. Jehochman was aware of Ratel's statement because he participated in the same thread. When another editor responded to Ratel's comment [95] Jehochman told the editor he should refactor his response.[96] No request was made to Ratel to refactor his comment about me. Instead, Jehochman suggested, vaguely, that Ratel leave his feelings "at the door" or edit elsewhere.[97] Jehochman's response below (19:33) doesn't seem effective in improving the atmosphere around here. It will be interesting to see if his vague response on the talk page will work any better. Other editors have noted in past complaints that an editor's ongoing behavior during the complaint was relevant to that complaint. Mackan79 has already complained that Ratel was calling him "anti-science" as well. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Go start an WP:RFC of Ratel if you like. I believe there may be grounds to do so, but I don't think this board can fairly deal with minor incivilities or long term patterns of editing. We simply don't have enough space or enough uninvolved participants. Literally every one of you could be sanctioned if we employed the standards you seem to favor against Ratel. Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You're the one who suggested to the editor commenting on Ratel to refactor comments. You're also the one who looked over the complaint I filed here with a fine toothed comb, and when I discussed it, wrote follow up comments by the subject that lack any sort of introspective qualities. Look: GSCC mentions ABF, NPA, CIV among the policies supposed to be enforced. That page states: Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian Seriously, is it your opinion that the words on that page are just bullshit? If you aren't interested in enforcing them, what are you doing here? I fully understand not wanting to enforce something too strictly, and I fully understand the idea that if everybody is violating a policy, the best thing to do is not to single one out. I haven't asked that you do so. Just do a better job of treating different editors with the same standard, and when it appears that you aren't, explain yourself well enough so that the different treatment is clear. Now I've left a request on his talk page for him to revert his comment. Instead of you suggesting that some other admin from somewhere start counseling him, why don't you do it yourself? You could start by treating him the way you treated the other editor and ask him to revert. He might have a more positive reaction to it than a request from me. It might help him stop committing many more infractions in the future, which was another point you made that I agree with. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, Jehochman, I just noticed this: If there are disagreements about those edits, civil discussion and dispute resolution is available. If on the other hand Ratel (or anybody else) resorts to incivility as a tool of furthering their position in this content dispute, then sanctions would be appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 23:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Well, he seemed to be using invcivility as a tool to further his position in another content dispute (related to the first? I'm not sure), having the effect of bringing in like-minded editors to revert the mean old anti-science editor, so it wasn't merely incivility. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Do it!. Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to explain whatever it is your point is. Preferrably elsewhere.Ok, it was on topic. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like him to just sanction everyone already and get it over with. I'd like you to be civil, but we're both not going to get what we want, are we? Hipocrite (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Watchmen reference is pretty apt - there are two groups whose relationship has broken down, and the way out was to give them something to fear and work towards overcoming. As above, a few examples and the threat of harsh punishment may bring most editors into line. Unless you were making a comment about a homeless crazy person (the person who said that line). Ignignot (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The first. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Some time ago, I suggested just topic banning everybody and let the articles be edited with a whole new crew. Feel free to point out where I've been uncivil and how. I'm certainly trying not to be. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't see how "Preferrably elsewhere." is incivil? Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, maybe an assumption of bad faith. I followed the link, couldn't make anything out of it and figured you were off-topic. Sorry. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think LHVU and Lar's general competence and fitness to rule on this is neatly summarised by their inability to spell Ratel William M. Connolley (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Ratel

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I checked the first few assertions of this report and was not convinced. Administrators, please don't jump to process this too quickly. Mackan79, can you point out the one or two worst diffs? The warnings you cited are a couple months old. I want to see diffs showing bad behavior directly violating those warnings, not squabbles about content. Removing "generally pejorative term" seems like a possibly good application of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Is there a reference cited somewhere that says it is a generally pejorative term? I didn't see a reference, but I might have missed it. Jehochman ^Talk 12:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have to say that I am rather startled that in response to allegations that Ratel acts in a manner that does not extend good faith toward editors whose viewpoints may vary from his own as regards climate change, that he comments upon both Cla68 (talk · contribs) [98] and Mackan79 (talk · contribs) (specifically the last paragraph) in terms that question the legitimacy of their contributions on the subject. Regardless of Ratals perception of the worthiness of other editors contributions to the subject, the article concerned is covered by the probation - which does note that edit warring is prohibited, and assumptions of bad faith also. I see Mackan79's diffs as clearly showing that there are violations of both (and Ratal violating the latter in his responses here). Under the probation, and Ratals continuing disregard for its restrictions, I should think that a short block, as well as a 1RR restriction and zero tolerance for bad faith assumptions on other editors rationales within articles covered by the restriction, might be considered; no more than 48 hours, and likely 24. Seperately, I support a 1RR restriction on articles covered by the probation, and a warning that further bad faith assumptions upon the part of editors who may be sympathetic toward a GW skeptic/denial viewpoint may be sanctionable.
  (To Jehochman)This part of the Request is to discuss whether the wording and spirit of the Probation has been breached, and to determine what actions to take. Your views as to whether "pejorative" should be included in the lede (which is a form of poetry, and not a good English variant of a word which may also describe the element known as Pb) should be made at the article talkpage or some other place. I would only comment that I checked back a few months on the article history, to determine whether Ratal was reverting new content, to find that variants of the use of the term "pejorative" within the article have been included over that period. Whether you feel it should be there or not, it seems that there has been a consensus, and that therefore it appears Ratal has been edit warring, and perhaps more, in an effort to remove it, contrary to the wording of the Probation, and therefore those actions need reviewing. I should be interested in seeing your comments in regard to possible violations of the probation by Ratal, and how they might be dealt with if found proven. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• (Response to Ratal) You seem unaware that there is a probation covering the article(s) you refer to - much like you appeared unaware that this section is for admins - and that indeed bad faith assumptions are a violation of them, as is edit warring. Your "rationale" for doing so is irrelevant. However, I have reviewed your talkpage history and found that you were notified. It is your responsibility, should you wish to continue to edit these articles, to comply with the wording of the probation. You have not so far, and it is my and other admins responsibility to determine what - if any - actions need to be undertaken to ensure future adherence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think a reminder might be helpful, perhaps, before applying a sanction. As a mitigating factor, Ratel's edits appear to be colorably justifiable by Wikipedia's content policies. I'm not saying they are correct edits, but that a reasonable case could be made that they are. If there are disagreements about those edits, civil discussion and dispute resolution is available. If on the other hand Ratel (or anybody else) resorts to incivility as a tool of furthering their position in this content dispute, then sanctions would be appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 23:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with J. --BozMo talk 07:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• (response to Stephan Schulz) While AGF is not a suicide pact, I would suggest that long term contributors such as Cla68 and Mackan79 are due any and all AGF that is going. [comment redacted] My understanding of AGF and "Comment upon the content, and not the contributor" would be tested by Ratel's comments outside of this probation. As for warnings, they have been given per Mackan79's diffs - and apparently disregarded (or at least refuted). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please post, concisely, the diffs of recent warnings (and counseling) and recent violations. Don't make me go through a hug pile of questionable diffs. Just point out the two or three most egregious. Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have mistaken me for a clerk, but I have nevertheless reviewed Ratal's contributions of the past few weeks and then reviewed the talkpages of articles he has edited (that is, both the talkpages he has posted upon and also talkpages of articles he has edited). No, I have not found any more recent warnings other than that supplied by Mackan79 - or any suggestion of a method of alleviating any editing problem. I am not surprised, however, because it takes someone with a very firm grasp of both the subject and Wikipedia policy, and a tolerance to scorn, to wish to argue a point with Ratal. I can provide further examples of Ratal's recent willful disregard of WP:AGF, but I would return to those diffs I provided in my first response when Ratal commented upon both Cla68 and Mackan79 supposed sympathies/agenda's as the motivation for the request. In doing so I would again draw attention to the wording of the probation and note especially the first bulletin point, which in part states, "Any editor may be sanctioned ... for disruptive edits, including ... assumptions of bad faith." which Ratal boldly (and not WP:BOLD, either) declares as irrelevant ("On the larger issue of good faith, it is completely in keeping with the subject of the article under discussion to question the good faith of another editor... ► RATEL ◄ 22:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)") This is fine, and Ratal is entitled to his opinion - but may not edit articles under the provision of this probation if he is intending to do so contrary to the wording (and isn't WP:AGF a pillar for the entire project?) My extended review of Ratal's approach to interaction with editors, and especially those who do not share his viewpoint, leads me to the conclusion that he operates under a WP:BATTLE mentality. I invite anyone to read Ratal's comments in this request and note the casual allegations of concerted efforts to reduce or remove the scientific GW consensus as justification for his actions. If you believe that a warning is sufficient to moderate Ratal's attitude toward other editors of this collegiate, consensual volunteer editing project, then so be it. I would be unsurprised, however, if the editor was again reported to this page by some editor willing to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fulminations for doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with LHvU's analysis of the situation, and endorse the proposed remedies. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I must oppose, at this time, because my concerns immediately above have not yet been addressed. I am concerned that certain administrators appear to be acting tendentiously. Lar, your insults against the "science club" editors make your involvement here counter-productive. I have no issue with LHvU's involvement, though I'd like my questions answered before I would consider supporting any sanction. Ratel is well-known to me, and I've had concerns about his brusque style. That said, I am not without hope that a simple warning or reminder might be sufficient. I am loath to apply rote or mechanistic counting of reverts to establish sanctions on a seasoned contributor who has made many productive edits. (I'd make the same argument if somebody proposed sanctioning Cla68 or Mackan79.) To LHvU's question to me: why not simply warn Ratel not to repeat the disputed action, and to instead use WP:NPOVN or WP:RFC to establish a consensus based on a wider selection of Wikipedians? The article talk page is dominated by two groups with opposing views. Any discussion there tends to devolve into bickering and the result on any given day depends on which group has more editors present, rather than a rational analysis of content and policy. Jehochman ^Talk 09:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  Eh? Editing tendentiously? That's a serious charge. Who are you referring to and in what way? Further, what supposed insults of mine are you referring to? Cite please, and make sure you demonstrate that they are insults, per se... You can do so on my talk if you wish. Red herring in any case. Focus on this case, not the admins participating. More importantly, being a big softie as I am, I normally agree with the notion of warning first. But when someone's response to discussion about issues is in effect, "stick it", it sort of makes the warning thing moot. Ratel got his/her warnings right here on this page, in a discussion he/she participated in and subsequently showed disdain for the very notion that there was an issue that needed resolving. But I'm willing to compromise. What specific sanction regime would you support that you think LHvU and I would support as well? Put it forward and maybe we can wrap this up. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, that will do. He only said an appearance of tenditious editing which was bad enough but if you up it another notch in reply we are in danger of making us look even more snarky than some of the involved parties. So instead of asking for proof and something back (a proposal) why not walk away showing you can ignore such stuff and answer what he asked for (whats the most recent relevant offence)? --BozMo talk 19:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm just a bit tired of the rhetorical style of smearing by suggestion. So when I see it, I call it. Jehochman knows where my talk page is, if he has a complaint, he can make it there, not here. As for the diffs you asked for, LHvU gave them: [99] and [100] Those are problematic enough to warrant a sanction of the sort LHvU proposed. They show battleground mentality and a lack of assumption of good faith, as well as disdain for the enforcement process itself (not that that's sanctionable, thank goodness, but it doesn't help show reasonableness). But I would repeat my offer, propose something that you think LHvU and I can get behind, and I expect we will, and that will be that, we can close and move on. Warning alone won't cut it. It would have at the start of this, but not after diffs like that. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. You are really sure these diffs are actionable? I have read them a couple of times. Both from his own perspective are calling a spade a spade. And where is the assumption of bad faith? I am sorry I just don't see it. I know I am a bit blind on these things but it depends what tone of voice you read the comments in (and the edit summary did imply the tone was to be taken with a grain of salt). --BozMo talk 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. See LHvU's analysis. Again, do you have any compromise that might find consensus? You often come up with good ones, instead of just saying no. ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not mind bowing to consensus but not seeing an offence makes it tricky proposing a remedy. --BozMo talk 06:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nod. I can see how that might be a bit challenging. :) Perhaps I'm the one missing something then. May I suggest you review LHvU's analysis (the latest version, starting with "I think you have mistaken me for a clerk"...) and explain why you feel that there's nothing problematic. Maybe we're wrong. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, had another read and can see your point. As far as I can tell LHvU is still refering to just the two diffs: [101] looks to me as though he is saying Cla88 has a clear POV agenda. I do not think saying someone has a POV is per sae an AGF violation but I do agree that there is a WP:BATTLE element to the tone. [102] is more serious and makes a set of accusations on motive which are possible to be made about an editors actions with no assumption of bad faith, should they be justified (I don't know either editor well enough to have a clue if they are justified). From my perspective the problem with them is again WP:BATTLE wording (despise, of his ilk, flat earthers etc). There may be a second problem if LHvU is correct that the attacks are largely unfounded and these are well established and respected editors. My first attempt would be to ask Ratel to withdraw these comments on grounds of WP:BATTLE. --BozMo talk 20:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The nutshell at WP:AGF reads"* Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. * If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence" - and I am unaware of any clear evidence being presented. To be fair to Ratal it does appear that they sincerely believe that anyone who does not edit in strict accordance to the scientific consensus does so at the behest of sinister (um, or perhaps adroit?) interests, and the difficulty seems to be convincing him that his understanding is flawed. I would re-iterate, Ratal's initial response to this request was to propose dismissing it on the basis that the other party edited toward a different viewpoint, was thus campaigning to remove the existing consensus, and may be supported by disruptive interests. If that does not flag up concerns on the ability of the editor to contribute in accordance to the restriction and the WP ethos then I am uncertain what diff or example I may bring to the discussion will. As I responded to Jehochman, let us constrain ourselves to warning Ratal about interacting with other editors who might not share their viewpoint in accordance to WP:AGF and the specifics of the probation, and to not give the appearance of having a WP:BATTLE mentality. If they are able to do so, then no more needs to be done. If, however, they are brought back here with further claims of such inappropriate behaviour (without poking, of course) then perhaps a block while a topic ban duration is discussed would be the initial response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok with me.--BozMo talk 07:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Personally (1) I have no problem with Lar's involvement or LHvU's and I am sure we all make off guard comments sometimes; it is a volunteer project and we are all busy and sometimes tired. Also they both seem happy with disagreement which is good. (2) With J I am struggling to see specific recent issues and bearing in mind that a block or 1RR are intended to be preventative not punitive and particularly puzzled by a proposed RR restriction in the absence of recent RR violations. More generally, I don't know of a good way to get everyone to tone down the bickering and think intervening too much is probably not helpful. Tools like coaching, recontracting and possibly even community service come to mind. For community service (if we could get the idea to take off) rewriting an article here for the simple wikipedia comes to mind..--BozMo talk 14:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Shackling Ratel, or any of the other experienced editors is a bad idea. We need to convince people to be respectful in disagreement. Disagree, but don't be disagreeable. If somebody has been warned and coached and still fails to get it, then apply a long term topic ban. I hate these short sanctions where the editor gets pissed off by the sanction, tests limits, deteriorates their behavior, gets a bigger sanction, and so on. That may be a fine result if one is trying to troll an editor until they implode, but if we are trying to help people (yes, that's our primary goal, to help), then we don't want to set off that sort of death spiral. Can an uninvolved administrator who sees problems with Ratel's behavior please go have a friendly conversation with them, and provide the necessary warnings and coaching? If heeded, no further steps are needed. If not heeded, then we go for a much stronger sanction, such as a three to six month topic ban. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Ratal is reminded of both Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation (regarding assuming good faith specifically), and is warned that further assumptions of bad faith will result in a prompt short block and a topic ban from Climate Change articles covered by the probation for a period to be decided. Ratal is encouraged to respond positively to other editors requests for co-operation and discussion, and to report any instances of possible provocation to an uninvolved administrator rather than reverting/warring. I hope this clarifies our expectations of compliance with policy, and the consequences of not doing so - and provides options should anyone test (deliberately or otherwise) their ability to do so. Comments welcome, but can we expedite this so we may conclude and move on? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Endorse as written. Moves to a warning rather than a topic ban, which I think addresses J and B's concerns, but does not minimize the seriousness of the non collegialness of Ratal's approach, which addresses mine. ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)