Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — General discussion (Talk) Case clerks: Amorymeltzer (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk) & Risker (Talk)

Meta and preliminaries

Arbitrators active on this case

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

Archives

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

Statements

Archives

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

Discussion

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

Archives

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

General discussion archives can be found at:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

Proposed principles

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

P22 Enough is enough

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

Proposed findings of fact

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

F22 Minor4th

Collapsing for overall page readibility.  Roger Davies talk 20:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen that a FoF was added about me regarding disruptive behavior and incivility. I have not had a chance to look at the diffs yet, but I will generally say that I cannot disagree that there have been times my editing contributed to an already contentious and battleground-y atmosphere. I also cannot disagree that there are comments that I have made that could well be considered uncivil or snarky or just could have been phrased more politely. So, without having looked at the diffs, I really cannot take issue with the finding. That being said, in the interest of fairness and in the interest of overall resolution of this case -- I am nowhere near the top of this list on the issues of disruption and incivility. In that regard, I would hope that there are going to be several additional findings about several additional editors whose behavior also has been disruptive and uncivil to a greater extent and over a much longer timespan than mine. I will give this some time to play out and may add some proposals about other editors to include. Also, I will accept whatever remedy is imposed on me without quarrel, so long as similar remedies are imposed on similar editors. Minor4th 23:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. The finding number on ATren's section is F24 and needs to be changed below. I don't want to do that myself since I have been warned about changing headers and hatting comments. Minor4th 23:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC) As I read it right now, ATren is #23 and this one is #22, so I've just changed the title to this section accordingly. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Hmm. This is what's showing for me: 3.2.23 Minor4th disruptive behavior 3.2.24 ATren disruptive behavior 3.2.25 Hipocrite disruptive behavior 3.2.26 Cla68 disruptive behavio Minor4th 04:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC) What seems to count is not what's said in the table of contents on that page (the numbering of which can change if they decide to add a section up top), but the numbering just under the title of each subsection (which, I think, never changes): "22) Minor4th (talk · contribs) has engaged in [...]" -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC) The diffs [1] - this diff was cited for "edit warring". This is pretty thin. This was a subsection I started, it was initially about ScienceApologist, but then Connolley reverted the redirect, so I added his name to the heading [2] with edit summary: Add WMC to heading because he also redirect-warred the article out of existence again. *Kat* (talk · contribs) changed the heading, removing WMC from the heading and the word "malicious" [3] with edit summary: restoring original name to section. I reverted one time which I thought was fine since it was a section I started and named: [4]. I do not think one revert, especially under these circumstances, can be accurately called "edit warring." [5] - this diff was also cited for edit warring, but this edit was clean up of an edit that I had already made that ended up leaving the same text in two different sections. This was not even part of an ongoing revert war, it was simply an edit improving the article. I don't understand why this is included here. This is not edit warring. [6] - This was not a revert. I moved text from one section to a more appropriate section with edit summary: an article retraction is not "career" - it's criticism or "views". I did not add or remove content -- I simply moved it from one section to another. At that point I joined the ongoing discussion on the talk page with this comment: "I agree on both counts. It's questionable whether this pachauri bit is even notable enough to include in this BLP - it is very thinly sourced and not widely reported. Plus, there are large unsourced portions of this BLP. I am going to watch this for a couple of days and anyone who wants content to remain in this article, please source it to reliable sources (something other than a Monbiot op-ed ...it's gotten to the point that Monbiot's activist opinions are now scattered throughout many skeptic BLP's). Otherwise, i'm goimg to start removing unsourced content in a couple of days per BLP policy." I do not see how this is edit warring or disruptive. I had one revert, the other editor had two and discussion on the talk page settled the matter in a way that improved the article in a manner that was not substantially similar to either of our edits. The other editor has not been mentioned in the findings. [7], [8] -- this is unrelated to the CC topic area. This diff requires some back story. This was shortly after the findings about WMC and mark nutley were posted. WMC was following mark nutley around on three different articles about books -- this particular book has nothing to do with the CC topic area. WMC was systematically reverting out sourced book reviews on all three articles created by mark nutley, without discussion on the talk page. On this particular article, I warned both mark and WMC for revert warring and took discussion to the talk page. What followed was not a revert war but a slow reworking of the section, rewording, paring down, etc. This is probably the closest WMC and I have come to collaborative editing. To the extent that I made a revert in the middle of an ongoing revert war, I can see how this can be considered edit warring. In that case, these diffs should be added to WMC's findings or an additional finding about his disruptive editing should be added. [9] - cited for edit warring. mark nutley and WMC had been revert warring. I restored the sourced book reviews and warned both of them, edit summary: restore sourced content, article is being expanded, William C. Connolley and mark nutley warned about revert warring. I was trying to help the situation and get them both to calm down, and I don't think this should be considered edit warring. Again, this article is not related to the CC topic area. [10] , [11]-- same incident, two reverts. This was part of WMC reverting 3 articles about books that mark nutley had created -- they were revert warring and I did get in the middle of it. I did go to the talk page as well to discuss. I'd like to point out also that this is not my typical editing pattern, while it is WMC's and mark nutley's typical editing pattern. I think it's important to look at the underlying behavior as well -- WMC, following mark from article to article and removing sourced content without explanation. I'll take my licks on this on for edit warring though. [12] - cited for incivility and battleground editing. I was mad, and I was upset because I thought mark nutley was being targeted and treated unfairly after spending a great deal of time working on a large sourced article. I still do believe that the redirects were improper and it was the redirects that were the contributors to battleground atmosphere, but I accept that this could have been stated better and did not help the battleground atmosphere. [13] ScienceApologist redirected a brand new article created by mark nutley, without edit summary or discussion or any attempt to contact mark nutley. I do not think my edit summary or comment on SA's talk page was incivil or battleground-y. SA seemed to understand that as well and did not act further on the article. See talk page discussion which was good natured and civil between me and SA: [14]. [15] - discussion on Arb talk page about locus of dispute. I stand by my statement there, and don't see how that is promoting a battleground atmosphere. I believe it is accurate, and I wanted it to be considered by Arb. I thought Carc's comment would have been a great comment in any other context, but it did assume good faith where I think such an assumption was missing part of the problem. There were many similar comments by other editors in the course of that discussion. I am not seeing the problem with that comment in particular. [16] -- this was uncivil, I agree. It's important to see what I was responding too though -- ChrisO taking shots at me and saying I was too new an editor and wasn't qualified to comment on socking. (I will continue to address the diffs shortly) Minor4th 23:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Minor4th 00:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Discussion I would like to note also that I have not ever been taken to the enforcement board or blocked for edit warring or incivility. I have never had any sanctions or request for sanctions against me since I've been editing in this topic area. I didn't start editing in this area until the evidence was already closed in this case. Also I'd like to point out that all of the diffs cited took place on one of four days (8/26, 8/27, 8/30 and 9/7) over a period of only a few days: August 26 - September 7. That should be considered when remedies are handed down. Minor4th 02:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC) On a slightly different note, I would like the Arbs to consider that I have been instrumental in consensus building as well and have helped de-escalate the battlefield environment, as seen here: [17] -- behavior to which ScienceApologist responded This is incredibly magnanimous, and a comment on my talk page [18]: For being brave enough to change your mind in the midst of the most acrimonious editing environment I've encountered in two years at Watts Up With That?, I award you this barnstar as well as a comment from Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk · contribs) [19]: Well deserved. We need more good examples like yours. I understand that good behavior does not negate bad behavior, but in the overall context of editing within this topic area, I do not want to be thought of as only promoting battleground mentality because I have been helpful also. Minor4th 02:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I was also not mentioned in any of the evidence, and this does seem rather out of the blue. Minor4th 04:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC) The only diff I'm going to comment on here is the first, since for the rest, you seem to generally agree you did it, but have an excuse (which would be perfectly acceptable if the behavior had stopped). You reverted the removal of a personal attack from your heading and hatted a section you didn't like on a case page for goodness sake. The action was completely over the top and, I feel, a good example that you don't realize how far outside the norm your behavior has strayed. On another note, if you find yourself reverting things you don't like on a fairly regular basis, "but I only reverted once" won't hold much water. Shell babelfish 08:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC) No, I do not generally agree with the rest of the diffs except the first one. There were a number that I did not think should be included for what they are cited for. Please comment on those. Minor4th 14:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. In response, I know this page is getting overwhelming, but I hope you do get to consider the following: First, the behavior has stopped. Since I spoke with you about this privately, the only editing I have done at all is to respond here and a message on your talk page. I have not edited article space or article talk pages. I told you that I would take it to heart, and I have. My purpose in reverting the heading was to include WMC's name because the other editor had removed it. I do not think it's a personal attack to describe editor behavior in negative terms -- as opposed to commenting on the editor himself. Failure to assume good faith? Sure, you bet. But calling a redirect "malicious" -- I do not agree that is a personal attack. This is a personal attack: [20] (but not finding for this editor .. yet) Regarding hatting -- I don't think the hatting was in the diffs. I had seen Tony Sidaway do the same thing a number of times on this page, and another editor as well (Sphilbrick maybe?) I was doing what I had seen other editors do, and did not know there was anything wrong with it. Again, this is something I would never consider doing in any other area of Wiki, but it is commonplace within the CC topic area and I was following what appeared to be protocol in this area. On the reverts, it's not my typcial editing pattern, and I have no intention of continuing. I have no problem with your finding, but if those diffs support a finding for me, then they support a finding for William M. Connolley (talk · contribs), Rd232 (talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) -- the editors who were engaged with me in those instances. I will look for those findings when you have finished your work. As far as making excuses -- I am presenting an explanation where I think it is warranted because context is important. I'm not calling anyone Fathead or making a "hitlist" in my user space over it. I can't really argue too much about most of it, I just hope that there will likewise be findings for the scores of editors who have been editing here longer than a month and have more compelling diffs. I applaud your approach and hope that it goes far enough -- if I'm' swept up in the apocalypse, so be it. Minor4th 12:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC) When I said "has stopped", I meant something more along the lines of "stopped some time ago" rather then "stopped just recently". It's quite possible that you've recognized the problem and will have no further issues - we should be able to see that as time goes on but that doesn't change what has happened. While I certainly won't dispute that your actions could have been much worse, that's not really a positive thing. Labeling another editor's actions as "malicious" is inappropriate at best; it's always important to comment on the changes themselves rather than attribute motives to editors (which you can't really know). I'm sure this will be a learning experience for many editors and I hope that you'll find editing in less controversial areas of the project have a much different atmosphere. Shell babelfish 12:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I think you need to read these comments much more thoroughly, because I think you've missed the mark. Minor4th is at most, a minor player in all this. Further, I think you are penalizing those who are willing to admit they are imperfect rather than engaging in a full press defense by denying all wrongdoing, or worse, being sarcastic and snarky to those presenting material instead of working to understand what the issues are. (I can provide examples if you actually need them). ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC) @Shell - I was just responding to your comment that the "excuses" would be fine if the behavior had stopped -- it has stopped. It would be impossible for it to have "stopped some time ago" since I have only been editing in this area for the last month, and all of your diffs are from the last week. In no manner can it be said that I have been persistently disruptive over a longer period of time. For one week I had a battleground frame of mind, at most. Since I edited elsewhere prior to the last month, I'm well aware that there is a very different atmosphere on the rest of wiki -- I have made that point a number of times. Maybe my approach is lacking -- perhaps I should let loose a string of invective or call someone a Fathead. Minor4th 13:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I think the fact that you were so quickly drawn into the same unproductive mentality is actually a very good point and hits at the root of what's become the problem in the topic area. Remember, these are findings, a note that this or that happened - why it happened and how to prevent it from happening again is what we hope to address with remedies. Shell babelfish 14:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Now you're talking. I agree. It is the only way to edit in this topic area, and if you want it to change, there need to be sweeping remedies. Minor4th 14:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

F23 ATren

Collapsing for overall page readibility.  Roger Davies talk 20:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(originally posted on Shell's talk, moved here). I've never received a single sanction or block for my behavior. I had I think 2 RFEs filed against me, one was closed at a clear retaliation filing, and one was closed almost immediately with a mild warning from Lar. The latter RFE (my only formal admonishment whatsoever) was after a brief outburst of anger and I immediately took Lar's advice to cease. Other than that, I've received not a single admonishment or sanction, my behavior was never discussed anywhere (no AN/I or RFC), and furthermore I was one of the few who backed out of this topic area completely when the case dragged on -- and I remain disengaged from the content to this day -- yet despite all that my behavior now rises to the level of arbitration finding? In the last 6 months, I have witnessed half a dozen editors piling on Lar for what they perceived as bias, most of whom are not mentioned in the findings, certainly not "disruption". Stephen Schulz once joked that bias should be measured in "millilars" because a single "Lar" unit of bias was a cosmological-scale constant. In the RFC on Lar there were dozens of diffs showing several editors attacking Lar with snide remarks and vague allegations of bias. On the other hand, my questioning of 2/0 (and others) raised real concerns about their unevenness in the enforcement requests, which I am more than willing to support with evidence, if requested. I was stating my concerns, plainly and civilly. They responded to my concerns so I didn't pursue further. I do not understand how any of that rises to the level of disruption, and if it does, then why aren't a dozen other editors contained in your findings? Perhaps you can be more specific about those diffs, what was problematic, and if they were, why others are not subject to a finding for worse behavior? I would like to ask the arbitrators, what was I supposed to do in a situation where I witnessed bias on the part of admins? I went to the admin's talk page, listed my concerns politely but firmly, and they responded. It was over at that point. If I had followed up with an RFE or RFC or some other formal mechanism, they would have accused me of forum shopping, or of beating a dead horse. Similarly, if I had tried RFC without approaching the admin first, I'd be told to resolve it personally first. Was my only option to do nothing? By going to their talk pages I'd hoped to resolve with the admin directly and avoid filing formal complaints; isn't this what you're supposed to do? It seems I'm being found disruptive for doing exactly what is recommended when there is a dispute about an editor's or admin's actions. Furthermore, this action is the first indication that my actions were under scrutiny by the committee, and it comes in the 11th hour of the case. If I'd had any indication this was coming I would have prepared an explanation for my actions. This case could wrap up in days, before I've even had a chance to respond. ATren (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC) As I've said in a few other places, there are more individual findings coming so please bear with us for a bit. There is not going to be a rush to close the case directly after a swath of new findings, a couple of principles and maybe some remedies are added. Lack of prior warnings, blocks etc. will certainly be taken into account when remedies are being discussed, however, that doesn't change the fact that many comments in this topic area have degenerated into incivility and show a clear "us against them" mentality. We've been begged to do more to address the problem and add individual findings; you may also have seen Roger's addition that further addresses the editing atmosphere. Take a deep breath and look at the diffs - if there's any you'd like to specifically discuss because you don't think it's incivil or battlegroundish (is that a word?), there's bunches of ways to contact me listed on my talk page. I've also double-checked and you were specifically mentioned in evidence and on the workshop, so this isn't quite out of the blue. Please don't take this as an indication that anyone else is being given a pass - give it a day or two and if you think anyone is still missing, let us know. I'm also not opposed to very brief, very diff heavy messages if you think something is being overlooked. Shell babelfish 11:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Shell, those diffs (which were spread out over several months) were comments made in response to specific issues I had with uneven enforcement. In particular, at the time of some of my comments, 2/0 had banned an editor who had just arrived to this topic area and had only a handful of edits; while, at the same time, he defended another editor after an RFE containing about twenty diffs documenting a long pattern of disruption which was far worse than what 2/0 had sanctioned others for. The only difference was their editing perspective: the former editor (and, indeed, all editors whom 2/0 had banned to that point) was arguing against the status quo, while the latter editor was WMC. This, to me, was an obvious case of uneven enforcement, and it came very early in the enforcement regime. The mere act of questioning patterns of admin behavior when those admins appear to be exhibiting enforcement bias is not disruptive -- it is, in fact, the admin equivalent of questioning whether an editor was editing with a POV before filing an RFC on that editor. If I have time I will be addressing each individual diff in detail this weekend. ATren (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Shell, the issue here is that you're starting in the middle (with Minor4th) or the bottom (with ATren) of the list. You should be starting with the most disruptive editors, the people with long histories of snide commentary, of gaming 3RR, of article ownership, of tendentious argument. Starting this way may not be the best approach. Especially not with ATren who has been a voice of reason in this area. Up your credibility by making your next list entries be some of the really problematic editors. ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I think it's rather silly but if it helps, preface my comments with "In no particular order"... Shell babelfish 10:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC) It doesn't. Start with the most egregious. That will cut the dramah. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC) At lot has to do with what evidence was already presented during the case that can be brought together. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable trying to rank editors in terms of "worst behavior". Please see the new section and feel free to pitch in. Shell babelfish 12:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Plenty of evidence was presented during the case on folk you have yet to add, while you dug up new evidence on others, that suggests that perhaps you didn't quite exactly mean what you just said. Also, I don't expect you to come up with a perfect rank ordering, but when you miss major players and focus on minor ones first it's a recipe for dramah. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I just looked through the ATren diffs on the PD page. For the life of me, I can't figure out how any of the diffs support the finding. I'd appreciate an explanation of some sort as to how WP:DISRUPT, WP:CIVIL or WP:BATTLEGROUND are violated in those diffs. An explanation of how this rises to a level worthy of an ArbCom finding would also be in order. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Rather to my surprise, I found today that Atren has just edit warred to reintroduce a defamatory and partially unsourced statement s/he'd added on 3 August to a BLP,[21] and appeared then to think that the statement was justified because some other BIOs included criticism.[22] Having removed the questionable paragraph, I've pointed out problems with it and with Atren's approach.[23] . . dave souza, talk 13:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

F25 Cla68 disruptive behavior

Collapsing for overall page readibility.  Roger Davies talk 20:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This diff [24] (the meat of it: Trying to introduce any of these viewpoints into an AGW article in Wikipedia is often extremely difficult because of POV-warring by a group of editors who mainly edits those articles. ) doesn't seem worthy of notice, even in combination with other diffs, as one of the "comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality". I don't see how you can label that edit as some kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:NPA or, frankly, even WP:CIV violation. It's a general statement about the behavior of a group of editors on an ArbCom CC case page where there is evidence against editors for behavior associated with his statement. If that's some kind of policy violation, probably nearly all editors who have commented on the CC case are guilty in the same way. If there's a case to be made against Cla68, you must be able to find a better diff than that. I think Cla68 can provide diffs that back up that statement, which names no names and uses the word "often". This diff [25] (is this the objectionable part? the evidence shows in this case, WMC will do just about anything to win an argument, including attacking the BLPs of critics of his colleagues at RealClimate.) seems like small potatoes. WMC had the temerity (with Tony Sidaway) to try to close an AfD I'd just started and was only stopped when I took the matter to AN/I. I call that doing just about anything to win an argument and there are so many other examples that the phrase is obviously justified. It's better for ArbCom's own standing not to hammer editors with evidence that either doesn't hold up or is too weak to justify ArbCom attention. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC) The comment on WMC was incivil and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I don't think it's helpful to defend it. The diffs cited are all too typical. There needs to be accountability. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC) There have been many that complained that the PD as first proposed didn't go far enough in addressing the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I consider it commendable that arbcom listened to the input and decided to consider further findings. I think that it is extremely important that everyone be aware as to what the core problem actually is. IMHO, it is a lack of good faith. IMHO, this is the primary issue that has lead to the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I agree with the diffs and the proposed finding regarding Cla68. Treating others with respect as individuals, assuming good faith, I believe will naturally lead to the kind of editing environment that everyone wants. Bill Huffman (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC) @ both Scotty and Bill -- if Cla68 has the evidence to back up what he says, and if it's said in connection with discussing this case on a proper page, it's impossible to call it a WP:AGF violation (no assumptions involved) or battleground behavior. We're supposed to bring complaints to dispute resolution forums and discuss them there and be able to cite evidence for what we say. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC) In regards to the new findings in general: Any editor who genuinely thinks that lumping people into groups, considering others opponents, and labeling editors or groups of editors as skeptics, apologists, believers or any similar term is acceptable needs to take a long break from the topic area. Editors use dispute resolution all the time without resorting to hese kinds of behaviors. Shell babelfish 13:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Shell, I disagree you on the last four diffs in the finding. All but one of them are comments made on the talk pages of this case. We are supposed to be able to speak our minds and give our opinions in dispute resolution forums, that's what they are here for. I believe the evidence backs up my opinion. The other comment was on NW's talk page in which I explained why I think he is now an involved admin. I'm surprised to see a finding proposed because I explained my reasons to him as why I think he is now involved. Please look again at all the baiting and personal attacks made by WMC's group against Lar, both on his talk page and elsewhere. That's what I would consider a battleground mentality. Also, I disagree with you on the use of the Peterson et al paper in the article as "misuse". The paper says what it says. The examples of revert warring are accurate. Those are reverts. Cla68 (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC) It is worrying that you continue steadfast that there was no "misuse" of the source in the wake of overwhelming consensus indicating that it was improper. It seems a major breach in wp:AGF? It seems to me that there may be a pattern in this apparent inability to accept consensus? I suggest that if one can't accept consensus then one should not be editing in that area. Bill Huffman (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

F27 Scjessey

Collapsing for overall page readibility.  Roger Davies talk 20:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change topic December 8, 2009 - I agree that this diff shows me being unnecessarily acerbic. The meat of my comment was absolutely correct, but the assumption of bad faith was inappropriate. February 18, 2010 - This was in response to this comment by ATren, which I found to be utterly ridiculous from a purely common-sense perspective. My closing comment was simply an expression of frustration that Wikipedia was being used to lend weight to a manufactured controversy. February 18, 2010 - Frustration continues. February 23, 2010 - No idea why this was listed. "Rally the science-denying troops" refers to the science-denier movement, not to Wikipedians. This should be abundantly clear from the context. February 26, 2010 - No idea why this was listed. It seems like a perfectly reasonable response to an attack on Wikipedia by a single-purpose account (see contribs). February 27, 2010 - I agree that this diff shows me not assuming good faith, although by this point it was getting extremely difficult. The user had just been involved in creating POINTy redirects (see "Pachaurigate", "Amazongate", "Glaciergate". February 28, 2010 - Continuation of dispute with WP:SPA (see 5th diff above). February 28, 2010 - ditto March 4, 2010 - No idea why this was listed. March 9, 2010 - I agree that this diff shows me assuming bad faith. July 13, 2010 - I agree that this diff shows me being being unnecessarily belligerent. July 28, 2010 - Not sure what's wrong with this. States a fact that an NPOV tag is being used as a badge of shame. During ArbCom case August 31, 2010 - As explained elsewhere on this page, this was an attempt to diffuse an argument. The comment uses a figure of speech that has been inaccurately portrayed as a personal attack. September 5, 2010 - Explaining it was a figure of speech (see previous diff). JohnWBarber accuses me of calling him an "asshole" (a lie), so I asked him not to lie (I even said "please"!). September 6, 2010 - My frustration with false accusations against me is obvious. This was an attempt at using humor to show how ridiculous the complaint against me was. September 6, 2010 - No idea why this was listed. I agree that a few of the CC-related diffs show poor behavior on my part, and these date back to many months ago. I apologize for that behavior, but I think everyone agrees that these mild incidences were typical in what was a very toxic atmosphere. It should be noted that during the same period, I went to extraordinary lengths to build consensus and foster goodwill. It should be also be noted that most of these diffs were covered under a Request for Enforcement process that resulted in "no action" but, nevertheless, led me to improve my behavior (as the lack of diffs after this action shows). This "finding of fact" appears to be an attempt to re-litigate that action and it is no surprise that my outrage at being singled-out after all this time has given rise to the responses in the case-related diffs. I will once again remind the arbitrators that I have remained completely inactive in this topic per my pledge. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC) (ec with below) Suddenly some of the complaints have substance to them. This is an abrupt "foxhole" conversion for Scjessey, who, just 15 hours and 9 minutes ago (that is, before the ArbCom Fof #27 was posted) wrote, I'm at a loss to explain why my username should keep popping up on this talk page. [26] and 17 minutes earlier was still attacking me when he declared, There's no legitimate case that can be made if the diffs are read in their proper context, rather than cloaked in falsehood as they are presented in the section above. [27] I request that ArbCom members recognize personal attacks and battleground-promoting behavior for what it is and support the finding of fact. I also request that ArbCom devise a suitable remedy to help Scjessey resist the urge to reconvert, because if he can convert this quickly, he can reconvert just as quickly. I'm not gloating, this just needs to be said. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Again, this is nonsense. I have made no "conversion". These are old diffs from a "no action" enforcement that you have dredged up to re-litigate, only this time you have dressed them up to sound worse than they are. Why do you continue this years-long harassment of me? My recent comments that have drawn ire (those on this talk page) are solely because of this witch hunt you insist on pursuing against me. I've been virtually absent from this topic for months (see stats) and was busy doing other things. There wouldn't be an issue if you would just leave me the hell alone. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I have to say that other than the complaints logged here by JohnWBarber I haven't seen too much about this editor around other places I've watched, at least not that I remember. I think that there are more problematic editors than this one. Once this case figures out who are the ones unstablizing things, I think the frustration levels will calm down. From what I could tell frustration got the best of this editor esp. since he knew he was being a target. Just my opinion at this time. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Actually, CrohnieGal, Scjessey has some similar problematic behavior stretching at least as far back as mid-2008 when I first ran across him on the Barack Obama page. His behavior on CC pages has simply continued some of his past behavior. If someone wants, I can spend some time this weekend scraping up the old diffs. His "frustration" got the better of him very, very soon after starting to edit the Climategate article and talk page (which I think was his first foray into this area, as it was my first). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry but this is Sept. 2010, what does 2008 have to do with this, never mind President Barak Obama? Is there history between you or others dating back from then? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC) See the section #Obama_emigration further down this page. --TS 18:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC) CrohnieGal, you're the one who wrote since he knew he was being a target. Therefore I replied that his behavior didn't start since then but happened well before even this case. A pattern of previous, similar behavior is relevant for ArbCom cases. Also, see the first diff. In fact, see the other diffs above, dated before Scjessey was in any way "targeted". Before looking at 2008, ArbCom members may want to look at similar behavior from 2009: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Scjessey. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Why do you keep bringing up this stuff from years ago? There is no need to remind everyone off what went on before because I have left every block/sanction I have ever received in plain sight on my talk page, mostly as a reminder to behave responsibly. In stark contrast, your lengthy block log and drama-ridden past is concealed behind a convenient username change. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC) (ec with below) As I said just above: "A pattern of previous, similar behavior is relevant for ArbCom cases." The personal attacks listed there have some relevance. Not nearly as much as the evidence about your behavior much more recently, but there is some relevance. The purpose of sanctions is to stop the same behavior from happening in the future. ArbCom sanctioning you then didn't stop the same behavior, so ArbCom now needs to consider what will. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you both, I now see what T.S. and the difs posted below help some to make the connections. JohnWBarber, if I am correct you are also in that list that TS posted under a different ID. I'm not picking on anyone here, just trying to understand. I now am getting a better picture though of why below everyone and anyone is being added to Shell's list. It starting to look like a lot of bad history with some politics thrown in which isn't a good match, even in real life imho. Thanks for the responses, (please do me a favor and look at my signature so you can spell it correctly, thanks for that too), --CrohnieGalTalk 19:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, I am on that list. I'm on it because I did some bad things. I felt horrible about it afterward (and said so) and stopped doing those bad things. If I've forgotten something and someone can show I've continued doing some of those bad things, that would be relevant information for ArbCom to consider. But CrohnieGal, you can't automatically dismiss everything I say or any diffs I provide just because I was in a conflict with Scjessey then and now. The diffs largely speak for themselves, and if the context shows Scjessey's statements weren't as bad as they at first appear, Scjessey and others have every opportunity to point that out. Ultimately, what counts is the evidence, right? Concentrating on other matters is a distraction, isn't it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Extended content ←This is a personal vendetta that JWB is dressing up as some sort of bullshit public service. I request ArbCom tells JWB to put a sock in it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Please provide proof that I'm engaging in a vendetta rather than just complaining about your behavior and explaining my complaint at the appropriate page. I think your comment in the December diff, above, shows you were carrying a grudge at a time when I was trying to work with you (look through that discussion thread). I have been angry with you, but I try not to act on that and I don't think I have. I certainly am not looking for a fight with you. I've had sharp disagreements with others and I've been able to work them out. And the evidence above doesn't primarily concern me. This thread is becoming distracting, not informative. Since my mere comments seem to cause you to make intemperate statements, I'm going to withdraw from this thread for at least the rest of the day. Your 19:32 edit, as it now stands, is a personal attack. Please fix that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I will not be "fixing" anything. I am defending myself against your campaign to get me sanctioned for basically nothing. And if you're "not looking for a fight" with me, why the hell have you dressed-up those diffs to make them look worse than they are? Why have you singled me out for special attention when I've got less than a tenth of the contribs in this topic area than anyone else mentioned in this case? Please look at your actions and ask yourself how you are benefiting the project with this crusade against me. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Speaking of vendetta's, how many times have you said you wanted to use "RAID" on me? And who do you think it was that vandalized my userpage with gay porn when we were having a content dispute? The IP that did it traced back to Pennsylvania - isn't that where you live Scjessey? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC) What the hell is this? Surely this is grounds for being instantly blocked? Take a look at my user page where I list my actual IP address for all to see (and have done so since July 27, 2008). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC) What the hell is it? It is a statement of fact. I made no accusation - however the facts seem to be quite disconcerting because of their obvious implication. Of course, I have no doubt that the IP address isn't technically yours and I suspect it either belongs to a motel or some public hotspot in your state. On the other hand, I notice you didn't actually deny vandalizing my page, since you seem to think that's what I was implying, but you did immediately go on the offensive and legalistically say that your IP is public, which has little to do with who vandalized me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not seeing any facts from you, TGL, so I'll offer you some, free of charge: Metropolitan Pittsburgh has a population of 2,354,957. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC) And how many of those people have expressed a desire to use a poison on me (several times)? How many of those people were involved in serious content disputes with me at the same time my user page was vandalized? I almost wish I had such devoted defenders, but if I did then it'd be difficult to improve my behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC) It looks like you have a decision to make. Is it more important to keep investing time and energy into rehashing old disputes and reigniting new ones, or will you get a better return on your time investment here by creating and improving articles, and collaborating with editors from around the world, with thoughts, beliefs, and backgrounds vastly different from your own? You know the story about stone soup? That's Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I'm going to be honest with you Viritidas. I didn't read a word that you just said. I don't have to. I've seen this entire scenario played out dozens of times; embarrassing info comes out and allies come out to try and do their best to distract from that info with every maneuver in a well-worn play book. How about we just let Scjessey answer for himself? TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Remind me again, what articles are you currently working on? Surely, arbcom can't be the entire focus of your Wikipedia experience, can it? Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC) How many times are you going to harass me over this? Don't worry Viriditas, I'd decided during our last scuffle that I'm not editing wikipedia even if ArbCom had the sense to ban the troublemakers in the CC case and not feel obligated to punch the skeptics to look balanced. Congratulations, you've driven away another evil "conservative" (facts aren't really important just perception). I'll see this case through, know I played honestly and fairly, and watch this place turn into your Media Matters proparadise. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC) You have a good sense of humor. Have you thought about joining WikiProject Comedy? They've got more than a 1000 unassessed stubs that could use your attention. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC) (after edit conflict with Viriditas) - Oh this is just ridiculous. I didn't vandalize your user page. I've never vandalized any page. I don't edit with an IP and I don't use sock puppets. I don't even hide my identity. And you portray yourself as an insect, and since you like to "bug" me I jokingly refer to RAID. That's not a threat to poison you, for goodness sake. How the hell would I do that? Use my special USB-powered through-the-internet bug spray? Really this is just pathetic. You've basically accused me of vandalizing your user page with a porn image, and for that you should be blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC) That's one outcome. Alternatively, you could step up, forgive the good insect locust for his petty misdeed, and rise to the occasion. Sometimes, the only way to stop the war is to stop fighting. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC) You're probably right. I'm going to bed before I say something that'll show up in another dressed-up diff list somewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Glad you figured it out. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Exactly as I thought - I hope you are proud of yourself. You do bring up an interesting point though - what are the limits that a person can go to with the defense of "just kidding!" They certainly sounded mean-spirited to me when you said them. Could someone jokingly say they were going to rape or murder someone they've expressed deep dislike of? Perhaps. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Scjessey, please ignore this baiting. Thegoodlocust, please review our article on going over the top. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC) (after ec) - So you are equating spraying a metaphorical can of RAID at a metaphorical insect with a threat of rape or murder? Dude, you need to get a little bit of perspective. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Well let's see here, RAID is used to kill insects, you have now post hoc said you were "just kidding" (despite the mean-spiritedness of the posts) so I'm assuming you think it is okay to describe how you would "metaphorically" rape or kill someone as long as you after-the-fact say you were joking. No, I'd say both are pretty over-the-top when it comes to civility. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC) If you want Scjessey to be civil towards you, please try to be civil towards him first. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Towards him first? Who the hell do you think started this? I've been positively angelic in response to his crap. Perhaps in the spirit of friendship and good humor I can opine about how fun it would be to spray oven cleaner in his face? No? That's exactly my point. If you want some credibility in this matter then stop defending someone who said that people who believe in Jesus are dumb. He is the one with the massive civility problem. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC) If Viriditas defended Scjessey's civility problem, it wasn't in this section. Just above time-stamped 03:59, Viriditas did just the opposite. Art LaPella (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Is that how you read Viriditas' post? I had a very different interpretation of it. In any case, I never said Viriditas was defending Scjessey's incivility problems, which are pretty much indefensible. The defense was of the person; the method was more of the same - distraction, distraction and more distraction. Perhaps it is hard to understand if you haven't firsthand seen this pattern repeated over and over again. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Reading this, something is seriously wrong. I don't know what it is but something isn't right. TGL if you have an accusation like that take it to SPI, it doesn't belong here so please refactor the porn/IP/location allegations now. Does anyone know what is going on here? I hope the arbitrators can figure out what it is because I'm uncomfortable right now saying anything more so I'm not at this time. --CrohnieGalTalk 23:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC) We all claim to know what is going on here. If you mean the big picture, my understanding goes like this: Wikipedia is a much better place to look up the mass of Mars than for political articles, and there is a broad consensus not to be honest about it. Therefore this whole page is a vendetta. Art LaPella (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC) CrohnieGal: Honestly, I would avoid this whole conversation. BTW, if Scjessey is attempting to portray these diffs as a personal vendetta from JWB; this is factually inaccurate. I compiled these diffs myself. JWB had nothing to do with them at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC) More clarification. Almost all of them I compiled back in the evidence phase here[28] and added four more here.[29] All diffs represent one or more instances of Incivility, failure to assume good faith and promotion of battleground atmosphere. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC) [30] Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Viritas: Your edit summary says "On the contrary".[31] However, this claim has already been debunked.[32] Even Sjessey confirms this: "I do, however, acknowledge you are not involved in this matter."[33] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC) You claimed JWB had nothing to do with the alleged vendetta against Scjessey, nor with your diff collection, but according to the diff I posted at 23:59, it had everything to do with it. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Viriditas: No, it doesn't.[34] It's unfortunate that you continue (whether intentionally or unintentionally) to disregard the evidence that has already been supplied. It is also unfortunate that your last post doesn't even have a single diff to substantiate your claims. I'm not sure I understand how you expect people to agree with you when you can't seem to provide evidence. However, if you can provide such evidence, I will happily re-examine the issue. But I ask that you provide evidence that hasn't already been debunked[35] or which Sjessey hasn't already agreed with me:"I do, however, acknowledge you are not involved in this matter."[36] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I think I see the confusion here. The diffs in your list match the diffs provided by JWB almost identically, although JWB provided his special brand of seasoning to them instead of just listing them as you did (for which I already thanked you on your talk page). I'd like to make it clear right now that although I do not agree with AQFK's choice of diffs or the notion that my behavior has been problematic, I have no particular quarrel with the way he has presented them. AQFK is not the villain here. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC) (unindent) Asking others about what behavior they might know of is not proof of a "vendetta". As a matter of fact, neither Scjessey nor Viriditas has any proof that there's been a vendetta against Scjessey. Last night, I suggested Scjessey actualy find some proof, but he's content to simply repeat the smear and Viriditas at 01:12 above simultaneously posts that it is only "alleged" and implies it exists. If I have a concern about an editor, Scjessey, and if I've already complained about that editor in the past in the proper forums, how is it improper if I complain again about the same editor after I run across him again and am attacked by him? Why wouldn't others want to complain about an editor that many of us see as harming a part of the project? Here are some quotes that ArbCom should be concerned about with regard to Sjessey: Perhaps after the election, when it is becomes clear how this was nothing more than a failed smear campaign, it will be merged with List of failed Republican smear campaigns. </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 6 August If it was up to me, this article wouldn't even exist because it's a bunch of Republican POV bullshit. I was suggesting ("I'm just floating this idea out there to see what people think.") something that would solve a problem with inaccurate titling of the articles - nothing more than that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 30 August This entire article is designed to inflate the importance of a minuscule "controversy" pushed largely by desperate Republicans. Anything less than a straight description of events, rather than the scintillating exposé envisaged and advanced by Noroton, would be a gross misuse of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 31 August What should most concern ArbCom is that these quotes, far from being recent, are from way back in 2008. (1. [37] 2. [38] 3. [39]) They look almost exactly like the diffs posted about Scjessey's behavior in this case, from 2010 and late 2009. ArbCom's sanctions against Scjessey in August 2009 need to be escalated in 2010 because he hasn't learned how to get along with others and, frankly, we shouldn't have to go through this same, grinding, longwinded process in 2011 after Scjessey has annoyed still other editors on some other controversial topic. The behavior is recent, ongoing and severe, and after he's been topic banned in one area, he commits the same violations in yet another topic area. Interestingly, I get the impression that the other 2009 ArbCom sanction against Scjessey, against edit warring, did work, perhaps because it forced him to avoid temptation. Learn from experience. Block him for a year. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I've hatted the discussion of vendettas and other off-topic and completely over the top commentary. Thegoodlocust has been blocked for 24 hours; I would strongly suggest Scjessey take a break and not go any further down this line of discussion. Shell babelfish 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you! Minor4th 15:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I'm reposting this from the hatted discussion because it isn't off-topic, and I'm refactoring somewhat after discussing this with Shell. Scjessey replied to it (in the hat). Here are some quotes that ArbCom should be concerned about with regard to Sjessey (in this reposting, I've added what policies I think these quotes violated): Perhaps after the election, when it is becomes clear how this was nothing more than a failed smear campaign, it will be merged with List of failed Republican smear campaigns. </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 6 August If it was up to me, this article wouldn't even exist because it's a bunch of Republican POV bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 30 August This entire article is designed to inflate the importance of a minuscule "controversy" pushed largely by desperate Republicans. Anything less than a straight description of events, rather than the scintillating exposé envisaged and advanced by Noroton, would be a gross misuse of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 31 August What should most concern ArbCom is that these quotes, far from being recent, are from way back in 2008. (1. [40] 2. [41] 3. [42]) They look almost exactly like the diffs posted about Scjessey's behavior in this case, from 2010 and late 2009. ArbCom's sanctions against Scjessey in August 2009 need to be escalated in 2010, and we shouldn't have to go through this same, grinding, longwinded process again if we can help it. The disruptive, battleground and WP:NPA-violating behavior is recent, ongoing and severe, and after he's been topic banned in one area, he commits the same violations in yet another topic area. (Interestingly, I get the impression that the other 2009 ArbCom sanction against Scjessey, against edit warring, did work.) Learn from experience. Block him for a year. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Stop it! ArbCom has already passed judgement on my editing behavior in the Obama-related articles and I received a sanction and served the time. Nothing you have presented in this case supports your assertion that I have returned to the kind of behavior that got me sanctioned. You have cherry-picked and dressed-up a handful of barrel-scraping diffs to misrepresent the truth. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

F28 GregJackP

Collapsing for overall page readibility.  Roger Davies talk 20:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The first diff is an article in which there were a total of three edits by me. I restored a phrase and sourced it, reverted it back in when it was removed, and added completely different material that was unrelated. At best, two reverts and no where close to edit warring. The second diff I had one edit restoring material supported by 5 out of 8 editors on the talk page, and when it was reverted, I did nothing else. Again, same thing on the third and fourth diffs. GregJackP Boomer! 17:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I've discussed this before, so I'll just point out that this diff is duplicated. It's the first two diffs listed as incivil. Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks, fixed it. Shell babelfish 21:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I considered adding more, but realized that a) everyone involved has their mind made up dependent on their POV; and b) my arguments are already posted here in other sections and on the ANI. Note that I'm not encouraging people to choose sides, but it is obvious that they have done so. GregJackP Boomer! 03:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

Remedy 2

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

Proposed enforcement

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

New proposals

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

Archives

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

Proposed FoF: Minor4th has been disruptive

User:Minor4th decided to interest himself in climate change during this arbcomm case, but has not been helpful; indeed, he has been disruptive [43], [44], [45] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF: GregJackP has been disruptive

Collapsing for readibility. This one seems to have run its course. Roger Davies talk 18:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:GregJackP decided to interest himself in climate change during this arbcomm case, but has not been helpful; indeed, he has been disruptive [46], [47] etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Discussion The so-called disruption cited above involved restoring a deletion by WMC to the article, and using a peer-reviewed source, co-authored by WMC to support the material that I restored. I believe that the inclusion of peer-reviewed sources to an article can hardly be disruptive since the intent was to improve the article by showing a NPOV, even by using the SPOV to do so. GregJackP Boomer! 22:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC) The diff refers to you adding this source to support the statement, "Climate change alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming or global cooling." How in the world does the source you added support that statement? Please refer to at least one of the page numbers in the paper (1325-1337) to justify your edit. You should not be edit warring here or anywhere else, especially when it involves making controversial claims that are not explicitly supported by the sources. If the source and statement you edit warred into the article [48][49] are not supported, you need to start using the talk page more and stop disrupting the article. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC) P 1326 gives a list of people who have commented on what they perceive was global cooling alarmism in the 1970s. I think the paper is a good source on the global cooling alarmism of the 1970s. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Not true. The paper is not about global warming or global cooling alarmism. You are arguing that you support the misuse of the source. Page 1326 is about the myth of global cooling, not climate change alarmism, and Greg's change introduced the words "global cooling" and misused this source to support it. Page 1326 is a list of quotes from people who have "perpetuated" the myth of global cooling. It says nothing about the concept of "climate change alarmism". This can only be described as bad editing. We do not interpret sources to promote our POV. We use sources explicitly, and paraphrase closely and appropriately. This appears to be a deliberate misuse of a source to promote and push a POV. If true, there should be sanctions for this kind of bad behavior, which evidently, has not stopped. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) By the way, the discussion about these proposed FoF's (Greg and Minor4th) on WMC's talk page looks to me like they are retaliatory because these two editors have been so busy editing the CC articles lately in ways that WMC and his friends do not approve of, but feel helpless to resist because they are currently under the ArbCom spotlight. It seems to me that if editors are following the rules with their edits, they should have no worries about being watched by ArbCom or anyone else. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC) And we see quite clearly in the above and below, that these two editors have not been following the rules, neither with their edits nor in terms of civility. Edit warring and battlefield mentality is also a continuing problem with Greg and Minor4th. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Anyone can go to the RfE archives and look for patterns of retaliatory enforcement filings - it is an easy pattern to see and from two editors in particular. Describing such actions as retaliatory would be used as evidence by certain admins to topic ban "skeptics." TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC) See above. It was not disruptive, and I made exactly 2 reverts. I stopped at that point, to stay well clear of 3RR and nowhere close to edit warring. How many did WMC make? I also discussed the matter on the talk page. The source explicitly supports the material, see sidebar beginning on p. 1330 and ending on p. 1331, and cited popular media (Science Digest, 1974, "Brace yourself for another Ice Age"; Time Magazine, 1974, ""climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."; Newsweek, 1975, "cooling trend would 'reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.'"; and several books, including "A more extreme book. The Cooling (Ponte 1976). predicts that cooling could lead to billions of deaths by 2050"}. All of these statements are pure examples of "of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming or global cooling." I also attempted to discuss it on the talk page, but was reverted without any discussion on the material in depth. I can't help it that WMC's article provided perfect examples of what he was trying to edit out - but it was not a disruptive addition. I stand by the source and the inclusion. GregJackP Boomer! 01:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Edit warring is a type of disruptive behavior. Per WP:3RR, "an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Please remember that in the future. As for your examples, I appreciate your interpretation, but we must use sources carefully, paying special attention to explicit claims that any reasonable editor can agree matches the content in the article. So, instead of interpreting what you think are examples, find an explicit claim that supports your material and discuss it in good faith on the talk page. You will find, if you do this, editors from all sides of the aisle, jumping at the chance to help you. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your input. GregJackP Boomer! 01:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC) By the way, I agree with Greg that the paper does support the text in question and I might be readding it as a source myself. The disruptive edits in question in this incident lie with WMC and Wikispan, because they deleted reliably sourced text from the article. WMC made three reverts, but I think he escaped a block because he didn't revert the same material each time. But, shouldn't that be considered as rather disruptive? Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I haven't looked at this case at all and so I won't comment on the specifics, but as for 3rr, it doesn't matter if you revert different material each time - what matters is the number of reverts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Based on the discussion above, I just readded WMC's paper as a source to the article. I don't have time at the moment, but perhaps someone should study these three reverts by WMC [50] [51] [52] to see if it merits reporting to the appropriate authorities, since I doubt anything will happen by reporting it here. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Three reverts isn't a technical violation of the rule - you would need more than three. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Except as Viriditas was kind enough to point out (above), "an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Based on the pattern of behavior noted in a number of CC articles, I think that a reasonable admin could conclude that WMC was edit warring. Thanks V - your comments were very helpful. GregJackP Boomer! 02:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Wikilawyering is really inappropriate here, as is bad faith editing. WMC was reverting POV pushing and bad faith addition of a source that doesn't say what you and Cla68 continue to claim it says. WMC should know this, since he was the co-author. This kind of continuous bad faith baiting and edit warring needs to be called out for what it is - disruptive and battlefield behavior. Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC) It's a moot point now, he's at 4 reverts on the article. GregJackP Boomer! 12:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC) However, one of the main problems in the area is unequal enforcement. Most admins are completely unwilling to act against WMC et all on anything except technical violations (and often not even then) - this is why BLPs are grossly violated and their civil (and even uncivil) POV pushing is allowed and even encouraged - they are subjective and therefore either ignored or gamed. WMC should've been flat out banned for posting Fred Singer's address and telephone number while at the same time implying he was committing tax fraud - AFAIK that evidence wasn't even posted in the PD. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC) There is no evidence of "unequal enforcement". The fact is, socks get blocked and disruptive editors get banned. Tell me, which articles are you currently working on, Thegoodlocust? Can you even remember the last time you wrote one? Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Oh, on the contrary, there is plenty of evidence of unequal enforcement and I did indeed present some of it. The problem of course is that it takes a truly critical and neutral eye to gauge this sort of thing rather than vision that tints and blurs transgressions when looking in one direction while becoming myopically focused and shaded when looking the other way. And why do you keep asking me about my article content? I've explained many times before why I'm not editing anymore and if this ArbCom decision turns out like it might then it certainly would've been the correct decision and one made by many others. Would you rather I edit just for the purposes of appearing to be a hyper-productive and useful wikipedian so I could push my agenda more easily? Engage in obvious theatre with my facebook friends on talk pages to demonstrate my expertise and skillsets in order to avoid sanction? Sorry, but I'm not that devious or that motivated, but perhaps others are. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Let's stop bickering and look at the results. We have come to this: "Climate change alarmism or global warming alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming or global cooling" This would get you an F-minus in primary school. I'm sure that the average 10 year old can do some research and write about climate change alarmism as this term is used in practice. The conclusion about global cooling the student will come to is that in the 1970s, there was not an alarmism about global cooling, rather that this term is invoked today by sceptics to paint global warming discussions as alarmist by pointing to media reports in the 1970s on global cooling. While ArbCom should in general not look at content disputes, they can still take a general look at the nature of content disputes. If it's not about two reasonable POVs like here, i.e. one POV would not be acceptable for a primary school level coursework project, then ArbCom can use this to make a decision like : "One group of editors is so much influenced by a POV that it affects their ability to contribute to certain articles in a resonable way." It may not be the case that this groups is edit warring, they may well play nice and stick to all the rules we have at Wkipedia. It may well be the ones who try to correct the mistakes who, from the point of view of the Wiki-rules, are behaving more aggressively. But what it boils down to is that the group is simply not qualified to contribute constructively to get to good quality articles in a certain topic area of Wikipedia. And that is then the source of the friction. Count Iblis (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Not just media reports Iblis, but the same things that are being quoted now (e.g. government reports). Historical revisionism is the term for this, often by people who were pushing global cooling back then and who now switched over to warming. Oh well, I suppose that'll be fixed eventually too - unless some people start claiming CO2 is responsible for cooling. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "F-minus in primary school" is of course exaggerated at best. I have a "10 year old", and she probably thinks "alarmism" is what wakes us up in the morning. Art LaPella (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC) These proposals single out editors pretty far down the list if we rank by how problematic they are. If we want to go that far down the list, do we want to put everyone else above them on here too? It's a long list. Also the discussion seems to be mostly about particular content differences rather than about specific disruptive acts. ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The author of a scientific paper doesn't know what his paper is about - and thus we must go by what editors think instead A rather long headline - but that is what the above discussion can be summarized to. Cla68 and GregJackP both indicate that this is the case (WMC is wrong about his own published paper - in fact he is misunderstanding what he wrote himself). Alternatively it should be added to policy, somewhere, that papers/articles/documents or whatever, can be cherry-picked for information unrelated to the paper/article/document, as long as it suits a Wikipedia editors fancy. Now it may just be me, but this looks like original research... either in the really pure version where editors come to the conclusion themselves, or the more sophisticated one, where it is allowable to make a synthesis by combining references to conclude something that none of the references themselves do. I find this rather disturbing. And this to me is indicative of rather a lot of problems in the topic area - but strangely not something that has been addressed at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Not just disturbing, but entirely unencyclopedic, and in violation of OR, RS, SYN, DISRUPT, EDITWAR, and CIVIL. Cla68 and GregJackP should both be blocked. The very notion that WMC doesn't understand the paper he himself wrote, is frankly, crazy. I cannot think of a better example of deliberate baiting, gaming, edit warring, and disruption than this. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The paper says what it says. If WMC meant something different, he should have been more precise and clear in his language, but there is no question that pp. 1330-1331 list numerous examples of alarmism in the popular press about global cooling. I find it fascinating the contortions that KDP, WMC and V are willing to go through to exclude a peer reviewed source that cites popular media screaming about the new ice age and millions of deaths. There is no WP:OR or WP:SYN needed - that is what the article says. GregJackP Boomer! 12:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Your statement is a textbook example of disruptive wikilawyering. We do not loosely interpret sources or argue for ambiguous interpretations in order to push POV. Your edits are pure OR, SYN, and deliberate disruption, since the source does not support your inclusion, nor does the author who wrote it. The status of the sources as peer reviewed has nothing to do with the problem at hand. One of the prerequisites for editing Wikipedia is a commitment to intellectual honesty, and if you are unable to adhere to that most basic standard, then you need to move away from your keyboard and find another hobby. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Here is a question for you: Is your view that these are "examples of alarmism" supported by the paper, or by another secondary source? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think blocking editors is a good solution because other editors with the same behavior will then step in. It is better to think of an agreement for the editors who find themselves in frequent disputes along these lines. If Cla68, GregJackP, William and a few of the other involved editors would stick to a variant of this, then what would have happened is that e.g. Cla68 could have made the edit about global cooling and William could have responded on the talk page. Then others could have continued the discussion and continue editing. GregJackP could have made his comments too, but he could not have reverted back to Cla68's version if others had changed the text. By keeping Cla68, William and GregJackP involved, you actually prevent an influx of new editors editing in a disruptive way, because any such editor watching the discussoin from a distance can see hat his/her points are already discussed. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC) This is a pretty clear and serious abuse of a source. The paper is being used to make a point that editors want made, rather than the point that the actual authors and publishers of the source made. That's tendentious and agenda-driven editing in a nutshell. This is how not to edit Wikipedia. GregJackP's rationalization is that "If WMC meant something different, he should have been more precise and clear in his language", which I think speaks for itself, as does the ongoing focus on personalities (WMC) over substance. Whether this sort of behavior is worse than, say, name-calling or rudeness is a judgment call. It certainly seems harder to address. MastCell Talk 16:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC) This seems to be a simple case of a source misrepresented, spiked with the customary vilification of WMC. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Cla68 has been doing multiple such "experiments" during these proceedings in an attempt to bait/trap. An arbitrator warned him that it was disruptive but he is seemingly continuing? Bill Huffman (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Note: Apparently GregJackP was banned[53] from the article climate change alarmism independently from this discussion, he has now appealed this to WP:ANI#Appeal by GregJackP --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Frankly, I'm shocked that anyone is defending GregJackP's behavior here. Having reviewed the source myself, this is a crystal clear case of imposing one's own view on a source rather than fairly summarizing it. When an expert, who wrote the paper in question, points out your error the very least you should do is leave it out and have some very serious discussion with exact quotes and secondary sources that back up your interpretation. Disliking the expert or disagreeing with their position should never enter into this equation. These continuing edit wars (during the case) have now reached a stunning level of ridiculousness. Shell babelfish 19:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Why don't you add some names to the proposed decision? Jehochman Talk 19:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, am I missing something here? I'm only going by the diffs that WMC provided and from what I can tell he is upset that Greg added the words "or global cooling" to the article? Is that a fair assessment? If those were the words added then they are clearly supported by the source[54]: "Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today." "The new data about global temperatures came amid growing concerns about world food supplies, triggering fears that a planetary cooling trend might threaten humanity’s ability to feed itself" For heaven's sake the paper has a sidebar listing a lot of literature at the time and trying to debunk their findings, but you can't debunk what they were saying. Here is a quote from the siebar about some more literature at the time: "The Cooling (Ponte 1976), predicts that cooling could lead to billions of deaths by 2050" I didn't even read through the entire paper, and scanned through the first part and found dozens of examples of "climate change alarmism" from the 70's based on global cooling. That WMC and his friends are arguing that there wasn't alarmism in the 70's is ridiculous to anyone with half a brain, but fully expected by those with fully functioning equipment. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Let me give you the same question as GregJackP: Is your view that these are "examples of alarmism" supported by the paper, or by another secondary source? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Absolutely, saying billions of people will die from global cooling is alarmist and I've heard the same thing said by alarmists about global warming. If you want a secondary source though, then you can look at this CIA report from the time period which says that the leading climatologists were concerned about a coming ice age, mass starvation was occurring, nations would collapse, and attributed all sorts of disasters to global cooling. I wouldn't use that as a source for the statement since WMC's paper does that so well, but it does demonstrate how people can rewrite history when they have an agenda. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC) So in other words - it is not said by the paper, but is instead your own personal view/interpretation/conclusion of what "climate change alarmism" is. That iirc is called WP:OR. Coming to a conclusion that isn't supported or stated by the reference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Oh were we playing the game where synonyms aren't allowed? I quoted several portions of the paper that make it clear that "alarmism" was occurring during the time period. No it didn't use that exact word, but it did use synonyms. This wikilawyery attention to detail is quite interesting since I've pointed out several instances in the global warming articles where claims are made which not only don't go by the sources, but that aren't even sourced at all. Play your games with someone else - anyone can read the quotes from the paper and reasonably translate that as "alarmism." Better yet, let's get WMC on record (!) and ask him if there was alarmism over global cooling in the 70's. Of course, he won't answer because if he did then this entire exercise would be revealed for what it really is. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC) There is no game here. If the paper doesn't draw the conclusion that you do, then it is you that is drawing the conclusion/interpretation, and that is the definition of original research. And the paper doesn't draw that conclusion does it?. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC) You mean if you read the conclusion section? A paper is more than its conclusion. Most of the evidence about global cooling alarmism is in the setup to the paper. But hey, since nobody is playing any games then go ahead and ask WMC for me if there was global cooling alarmism in the 70's - and get a "yes or no" answer so we won't have to worry about various interpretations. This should put the argument to rest pretty fast - and none of us want to argue endlessly over the minutia right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC) No. Its simple: The paper doesn't say that this is "climate change alarmism", in fact the paper has nothing at all to do with "climate change alarmism". The inference/interpretation/conclusion here lies entirely with you/Cla68/GregJackP - and that is original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but throwing around buzzwords that don't apply like "original research" won't fly with me (may hook in some of the gullible though). Either ask WMC the question and reveal this to be the stunt that it is or not. I'm not going to go into an endless "he said, she said" loop with you and until you do that there is no point in further discourse with you. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC) WMC has already clarified this. That is in fact what this thread is about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Ugh, I'm going to AGF here and just say that you are wrong. WMC did not answer whether or not he thinks there was global cooling alarmism back in the 70's - his objection was merely to his paper being used. There, now you have no more excuses, go ask WMC, if I asked he'd just blank my comment. Go prove that this is just a stunt. Now either dazzle me with your ability to cross party lines or through more artful dodging. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC) It is the paper that is relevant here. The question about the paper has been asked, and answered. In this context i'm not interested in WMC's opinions outside of what the paper is about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC) (OD) The TheGoodLocust keeps asking the same question and getting the same answer, it's the paper in question. I really feel that comments like "Now either dazzle me with your ability to cross party lines or through more artful dodging." is totally unhelpful and is really part of the problems with all of this. Thegoodlocust for some reason seems like it's ok to behave the way he is in this thread, I do not feel it is though so I thought I would mention it. Also this same kind of attitude continues through the whole thread below too. This is not helpful to anyone, it's battlefield mentality that I see going on which has to stop with everyone. HTH, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Oh I agree I'm definitely upset over this (haven't managed to kill all my emotions yet) because it is so over-the-top ridiculous on multiple levels. WMC has once again played everyone here for an idiot with this useless drama. The reason I asked that question so much is because his honest answer of it would exonerate Greg and show exactly what WMC's MO is. Of course, nobody is willing to ask WMC the question or insist upon a straight answer and so we are left with making obvious inferences - which people can mentally avoid if they don't like the answer. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Section break I see that Shell is adding FoF regarding incivility and battleground mentality.[55] This was the heart of my case and I wish ArbCom had focused more of their PD around these central issues. I think that GoRight and Scjessey should be added as well. Probably Hipocrite, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite should absolutely be added. He is a drama H-bomb and one could do an entire ArbCom case on his actions alone. He is obviously doing what he has done so many times before though and "retired" in order to avoid sanction. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Well, he didn't retire, he took a break for a month or so, IIRC. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) GoodLocust, you know the reason that Hipocrite took a break better than the reasons stated by Hipocrite? Isn't this the same thing as claiming you know what WMC meant better than he does? This does seem rather ironic, doesn't it? :-) Bill Huffman (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Am I claiming to know what WMC meant better than him? You are assuming he even wrote the relevant sections of the paper. However, what everyone should take note of is that none of you will ask WMC if there was global cooling alarmism in the 70s - you all know that was the case (or at least WMC does). The talking point of "Greg is disagreeing with the author!" was just too sweet for you guys to pass up though and so we are playing this stupid game where you all pretend like "or global cooling" was some outrageous edit. WMC is arguing against his own beliefs, you are helping him, and it is all just a stunt to try and get Greg banned. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The correct question would be: "Is the paper in question about global cooling as climate change alarmism? Or does it say something about global cooling as climate change alarmism?" And WMC has already answered those questions. You have chosen not to believe him. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Quit dodging, ask him my question and get a yes/no answer. I don't care about carefully constructed questions that are essentially irrelevant and designed to give you the answer that most benefits you. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Please stay within the context of the reference. It is the paper/reference that is of interest - not whatever personal opinions outside of the paper that WMC has. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The context of the reference? You've been ignoring that the entire time. It provides loads of references about global cooling alarmism, but you've ignored the context to focus on the fact that it doesn't use that exact terminology and that the paper as a whole isn't directly about that alarmism. And you are wrong, his opinion is entirely relevant, and it is clear what his opinion is since you've been arguing so hard not to get him on record about it - he knows there was global cooling alarmism in the 70s. It is the implications of that which you have a problem with since it means he either removed a statement he knew to be true from the article instead of finding a source to his liking (easy since his paper contains so many) or this was all just a ploy to cause more drama and hopefully get another thorn in his side banned. These are the options, this is why you've been dodging, and hopefully a few Arbs will see this crap for what it is instead of being swayed by ridiculously simplistic talking points that ignore the actual facts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but i don't think this getting anywhere - i'm done discussing this with you. Feel free to draw any conclusion you want from that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I think the argument over the use of the paper shows another reason why WMC shouldn't be allowed to edit the CC articles. The paper does clearly state in the two sidebars that there was alarmism involved with the global cooling media controversy in the 1970s. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Please quote the description in the sidebars, that "clearly state[s]" that there "was alarmism involved". Please try not to interpret/give your own view, i think that there has been enough of that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC) No problem. Why don't we take this over to the article talk page? I'll start a section there on Peterson's paper (Peterson appears to be the lead author since his name was listed first, so I don't think we should be calling it "WMC's paper.") Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC) No, this discussion is very much relevant to the arbcom decision, as it relates to the conduct of the individuals involved - as you yourself just said. I strongly disagree with you on your analysis just above, and I suggest that it illustrates, instead, the value that WMC brings to this project and how you and other editors have failed to adhere to site policies. The blue-tinted sidebar is a list of articles in the popular press, and is by no means intended to illustrate the existence of alarmism as a phenomenon. That is both a misreading of the article and is synthesis. As Shell pointed out earlier, you can't impose on the source what you want it to say.ScottyBerg (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I believe you made an assertion here, which directly casts aspersions against WMC, and that means that you would need to provide the evidence for your assertion here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC) You know this is ridiculous. You all throw out WMC's opinion with a great deal of drama, but the part of his opinion that actually matters, whether he thinks there was alarmism in the 70s, is ignored, obfuscated and minimized. "Or global cooling" is not some ridiculous edit, just about everyone here, WMC included, knows this is true, but you just can't help playing these one-upmanship games because, quite frankly, this is the best example you guys have of "anti-science" editing and it is pretty pathetic example at that since you have to ignore and exaggerate so much to get any of it to stick. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC) The whole point of this discussion is that he never said there was alarmism in the 70s. Please stop putting words in his mouth. Your failure to "get it" is just further proof that you need to stay away from these articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC) No worries about that; I'm done with all of you people. But let's see if we can get you on the record, perhaps you have a different opinion - was there global cooling alarmism in the 70s? TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC) If there was, the older folks here should remember someting about that. I think there wasn't anything more than a fear of a nuclear winter in the 1970s. Count Iblis (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Well, I have talked to people who do remember those fears, but memory is a funny thing. I doubt they were as pronounced then as they are now, and perhaps more subject to regional variances, but luckily we don't have to rely on such anecdotal evidence since WMC's paper does such a good job of compiling some of the alarmist claims from the time period (as does the CIA report I posted). I'd be really surprised if anyone informed on the subject didn't think there was alarmism in the 70s because of such a plethora of evidence. As an aside though, the "nuclear winter" fears were alarmist and inaccurate too, but fear has always sold well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC) The source is not about "alarmism". It's about the myth of the scientific consensus for global cooling. Please read it again. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC) As I said before, just because a paper is about a specific topic doesn't mean it is void of information relevant to other topics. The myopic focus on the topic of the paper ignores the massive amount of supporting evidence in it that justified Greg's edit. His edit was good, the source supported it, and no matter how loud the chorus of nitpicking gets those facts will remain. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC) The edit was bad and the source didn't support it. You may be interested in reading our policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Section break Hmmm....I'm about half-way through reading the cited source[56] and it certainly seems to be about the article's topic. Can someone give me a quick 2 or 3 sentence explanation of what exactly GregJackP did wrong beyond edit-warring with WMC? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Show us how the source supports the statement GregJackP added. The source is not about the topic of the article. It's about the mythologizing of the repeated claim by deniers that there was a scientific consensus for global cooling in the 1970s. I fail to see how this explicitly supports Greg's edit. If you, Thegoodlocust, and Cla68 this this source best supports Greg's edits, then perhaps we have finally nailed down the problem that brought this case to arbitration. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Don't expect a straight answer. The edit improved the article and they know it. The mental gymnastics here is incredible. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC) A straight answer is requested from the editor or editors adding, defending and arguing for inclusion. That's the burden of proof on Wikipedia. Why don't you show us how the article supports the disputed claim? You can't, because it doesn't. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I already did (and Greg reposted it on the ANI board), I'm not going to repeat myself and I see no point in arguing about it with you any further. I'm sure you disagree with my reasons; I can't force someone to see my reasoning. Also, you reasoning is flawed, you don't convict a person of a crime (Greg) and then demand they prove their innocence - you charge them with a crime and have a trial. Innocent until proven guilty. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Diff? Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Viriditas: I'm trying to keep an open mind about what has happened here. I've never read or edited this article before, and I've never read this source before. But I am trying to understand. At this point, it is not clear to me what exactly GregJackP did wrong beyond edit-warring. I plan on reading through all the talk page discussions, but in the mean time, it would help me if someone could provide a quick summary of what GregJackP did wrong. If you don't want to do that, that's fine with me. Perhaps someone else might be willing to explain it to me? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Then, let me refresh your memory. You voted keep when this article previously went to AfD in February under the title Climate change exaggeration.[57] The problem has been described several times in this thread. Feel free to read it from the beginning. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Viriditas: Can you please explain why my vote to keep means that GregJackP did something wrong wrong beyond edit-warring? In fact, I don't even see the connection. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC) You wrote, "I've never read or edited this article before", implying you were somehow uninvolved in this topic, which isn't true, and you have a habit of saying or implying this in many CC articles. The facts show you were aware of the topic when it was called climate change exaggeration, and you voted to keep it on its AfD. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Umm...that article was under a different name, and likely had very different content if it was deleted/redirected. That AQFK forgot that he voted about a different article under a different name about a similar subject half a year ago is hardly proof of nefarious motives. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I am still researching this, however, it has occurred to me that the argument presented by the OP, Kim D. Petersen, is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it's an Argument from authority. If GregJackP did something wrong beyond edit-warring (which I don't defend), it should be easy to explain why his actions were wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Feel free to research it for as long as you like. I've shown that your pretension at being "uninvolved" and unbiased on this subject isn't supported by the facts. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Viriditas: I did not say that I was uninvolved. If that's the best that you can come up with, well, then I think that speaks for itself. In any case, my query remains unanswered. Can someone give me a quick 2 or 3 sentence explanation of what exactly GregJackP did wrong beyond edit-warring with WMC? Viriditas: Please don't respond to this question. Either you are unwilling or unable to answer it. Let someone else reply, please. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC) What he did wrong? He misrepresented a source. Knowingly, and willfully — it's hard to plead misunderstanding or ignorance when the author takes the time to tell you exactly how wrong you are. Wikipedia editors do not get to disagree with a source and misuse it to support statements it does not. WMC should not have edit warred to remove it, certainly, but that does not excuse the original source misuse. — Coren (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Coren, do you think I'm misrepresenting it? Peterson et al's paper does reference the global cooling alarmism of the 1970s. There was no misrepresentation here. Did you check all the sources I added to that article after WMC and Wikispan edit-warred to remove the content with Guettarda's support on the talk page? There is one side being disingenuous here, and I think it's obvious who it is. I hope that the arbs are now reconsidering Sir Fozzie's "start-from-scratch" nuclear option. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Coren: Granted, I haven't read through all the talk page discussions yet, but so far, I haven't seen any misrepresentation. Can you please explain how GregJackP misrepresented this source? Again, I'm not saying that he didn't. All I am saying is that so far, I don't see it. Direct answers to direct questions would be helpful. Viritas ducked my question, so I am hoping that you will not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I think that a very unhealthy dose of synthesis and original research was involved. When you have the author telling you "that's not what this paper says", arguing otherwise is difficult to justify — deconstructionism really doesn't apply to scientific papers. There are interesting COI worries about authors critiquing use of their own papers as references in an article, but they do not change the fundamental matter: a paper cannot be used to support a statement if the author(s) of that paper say it does not. Find another source, don't try to twist one to fit your favored interpretation. Especially when the author is in a dispute with you. — Coren (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Coren, I really disagree with you. WMC was obviously saying that because otherwise he would have lost the argument, and as the evidence shows in this case, WMC will do just about anything to win an argument, including attacking the BLPs of critics of his colleagues at RealClimate. There was no twisting here. Read the article again, especially those sidebars and answer the question, "Does this information reference the concept of 'a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of predicted, drastic changes in the earth's climate'" Clearly it does, as the paper documents opinions by observers and media predicting ice ages and such for the earth. Then, look at the other sources listed there. Do they speak of the same thing? Yes, they do, and not all of them were written by doubters of the AGW theory. If you and any other arbs are going to get into content decisions here, are you sure that you have looked at it closely enough? I personally don't believe so, because if you had looked at the topic closely enough there would be proposed findings on a lot more editors in the PD. Cla68 (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but you are misunderstanding OR. Determining what "[...] this information reference[s] [...]" is a conclusion for the paper to reach, not for Wikipedia editors. (Or, arguably, what an analysis of the paper in a reliable source concludes; but then you'd have to cite that analysis and not the original paper). Wikipedia editors do not get to analyze a paper and reach conclusions — we only report the conclusions reached by independent reliable sources. — Coren (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC) No OR is occurring here, Coren. The article text currently says (unless it was changed since my last edit) that commentators often state that there was alarmism over cooling in the 1970s and then compare that to what they perceive to be as alarmism now over warming. The Peterson/WMC paper in that first sidebar is saying exactly the same thing, it even quotes from contemporary climate scientists who are saying and doing exactly that. The problem here is that the RealClimate advocacy crew, led by WMC, wants to push the meme that there is no alarmism surrounding climate change except in the minds of agenda-driven skeptics [58]. That's where the problem occurred with the use of this paper. WMC, Guettarda, Wikispan, and KDP did/do not like that it was being used to change the message of the article from the POV they are advocating, and that's why WMC's 4th revert took the form that it did. Coren, look at it again. That's what is really going on here. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Is anyone seriously disputing Greg's edit and claiming there was no global cooling alarmism in the 70s? This drama is ridiculous unless someone actually thinks there was no alarmism back then. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Coren: Please don't insult my intelligence. Saying that WMC is the co-author and therefore can't possibly be wrong is nothing more than an argument from authority. Please explain how GregJackP misrepresented this source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Still looking for a simple 2 or 3 sentence explanation of what exactly GregJackP did wrong I'm going to bed soon, but I'm still interested in getting a 2 or 3 sentence explanation of what exactly GregJackP did wrong beyond edit-warring with WMC. I'm going to bed soon, everyone have a good night. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC) To me, warning that an Ice Age is nigh is alarmism. If a source is needed for that, a dictionary is adequate. Nobody is addressing that. Connally's article is used only to prove that warnings of an Ice Age were once commonplace, a fact I remember from my childhood. That article lists several such warnings, no matter what one of the authors says and no matter if it uses the word "alarmism". If this is what academics are like, I hope their peer reviews are better than their Wikipedia debates. Art LaPella (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) @AQFK - I appreciate the support, but they aren't going to listen. I can give you the summary explanation. I refused to bow down to a software engineer that the AGW crowd has deemed to be the resident expert, and I used the words that were written on paper, as TGL noted above. There is no need for OR or SYN, it is plain language from the popular media they cited, but he can say they mean that the moon is made of green cheese and the lemmings will follow him and repeat that mantra. That's why ArbCom won't ban him and why any BLP ban will be ignored by him. "It isn't about truth at all, it's about sounding plausible." That's why ScienceApologist can misrepresent 3 sources as peer reviewed and state that they say something they don't, but if we say something that is true and is in the source we get hammered. I've accepted that they'll topic ban me or give me an indef block, and there is nothing that I can do about it. It's not fair, but they make the rules up as they go, so that is the way it is. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 03:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately that seems to be the case. You added info that was true, non-controversial and yet it has been blown up into some great sin because WMC disagreed with your use of the source. I've said repeatedly that minor sins from minor players will be exaggerated and harped on while serious problems from the other side are completely ignored - this has proven to be true time and time again. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC) ← The source doesn't talk about "global cooling alarmism". In fact, its whole point is that no one was ever particularly alarmed about global cooling. It was the subject of some scientific speculation in the 1970s, but no one was overly worried about it. The authors do cite a few examples of shoddy science journalism from the 1970s, but even there they take pains to point out that the scientists quoted were not particularly alarmist. In fact, the article's thesis is that "global cooling alarmism" is a myth. No one was ever very alarmed about global cooling, and "the primary use of the myth is in the context of attempting to undermine public belief in and support for the contemporary scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change." The authors' point is not that people were overly alarmist about global cooling in the 1970s. Their point is that there was no real alarm over it, although it's convenient now for some people to pretend there was. So to recap, the source says that "global cooling alarmism" never actually existed (except as a misleading rhetorical device to dismiss concerns over global warming). GregJackP is using the source to support the existence of "global cooling alarmism". That's the two-sentence version. In and of itself, it's a garden-variety poor choice - he's using a source to make a point he wants to make, rather than the point the authors actually made, because he knows better than the authors what their work means. But if you factor in the clearly provocative nature of GregJackP's presentation of the source, and the combative defense ("I refused to bow down to a software engineer that the AGW crowd has deemed to be the resident expert", etc.) then the problem takes on an additional dimension. MastCell Talk 03:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC) That is completely ridiculous MastCell. Even WMC doesn't make the argument that there was no alarmism over global cooling - he and his pals are trying to say there was no major scientific basis for that alarmism (I disagree with his methodology but that doesn't matter). Hell, I even posted a CIA document showing their alarm over global cooling. And yeah Greg has every right to be upset over his treatment here - it is completely over the top. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC) (ec) GJP used the article as a citation to support a statement (Climate change alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming or global cooling") which it really didn't support. When an author of the article (WMC) told him he was misusing the article, he should have at least considered the possibility that the author knew more about his own paper than did GJP. Instead of stopping and considering that possibility (and allowing others to give their feedback) GJP chose instead to either assume he knew more about the content of the paper than did WMC, or that WMC was acting in bad faith. The assumption of many people is that someone with that mindset cannot function productively in that sort of an editing environment. (More or less. Four sentence, not 2-3, but as close as I could get it. And a lot of nuance and background is lost). Guettarda (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC) @MastCell - and exactly where in ScienceApologist's 3 "peer-reviewed" articles did it identify Watts as a "denier"? Yeah, I'm a bit combative - the hypocrisy and verbal gymnastics here is amazing, and speaks to the integrity of the process and the people. GregJackP Boomer! 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC) You'll have to excuse me, because I'm not familiar with that situation, and I'm not a big fan of tu quoque defenses in any case. MastCell Talk 04:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC) You can read up on it at CC/RFE. I don't like the you too defense either, but I do believe that both sides of an issue should be treated fairly, and that means like violations receive like sanctions. There a hell of a lot of difference between no action for misrepresenting 3 sources as "peer-reviewed" when they are not and changing the word skeptic into denier, and facing a 6 month topic ban for using the plain language in an actual peer-reviewed source. Those that are screaming OR/SYN were doing far more in the other case. NW was involved in both. Guess what? If you support AGW, you get a pass, if you don't, you get an article/topic ban. Don't even begin to try to split hairs on the difference - only a hypocrite or POV pusher or liar would do so, and I don't think that you are any of those. The rest know who they are. The SA case is still open BTW - if you want to be fair about it, you could explain that one to us. Or not. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) To be fair, ScienceApologist in this instance was an exception to how that bloc usually behaves. Those editors don't normally mirepresent sources like SA did, they just refuse to use sources which disagree with their POV. If someone else tries to use them, they use any argument they can to remove the source and its content [59], as WMC, Guettarda, and Wikispan are trying to do in this article. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Problem is that SA did not misrepresent sources. You and GJP, on the other hand, are doing just that in this case. Guettarda (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Also note that, once again, you really need to stop adding misleading diffs to your posts. The diff you linked so shows neither "WMC, Guettarda, [nor] Wikispan", nor do they show "this article". Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC) <ec> (a) You (GJP) misrepresented a source, SA substituted one term with another that's used synonymously; (b) you put your interpretation above that of the author of the paper, SA's usage was supported by scholarly sources; (c) you edit-warred, SA discussed. So, you see, the situations are not similar at all. Since the cases are not at all similar in substance, I can only conclude that your argument is that his action somehow forced you to act the way you did. And that...well, that makes no sense at all. Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I think my earlier comment got a little lost since everyone got so excited about another opportunity for arguing with each other and slinging mud (some at people who aren't even participating in the discussion). There are some here who are not behaving in that manner and it is being noticed (and thank you). In 2-3 sentences: GregJackP feels so strongly about a topic that he's looking for sources to support what he wants in the article rather than letting the sources write the article. This time he's seriously misrepresented a source based on his interpretation of isolated quotes, despite the source and the author being quite clear they don't support his interpretation. This is an excellent example of how not to write an article. Several editors have noted that I have begun adding more individual findings; this is a work in progress and more will be added - please bear with me as I work my way through. If it would help, I will post something here when I'm finished so that everyone can make suggestions (with diffs preferably) if they feel anyone was missed. Shell babelfish 06:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC) @Guettarda: Exactly which of the 3 articles were peer reviewed? Not a single one. That's misrepresentation. SA also reverted and included material, more times than I did. @Shell: I inserted the ref, WMC removed with an edit summary of "great ref, shame you're abusing it. i should know, since i wrote it". He made a talk page comment of "Nothing at all. It is a shameless abuse of sourcing, presuambly in a POINTy sort of way, so I've removed it again. At a guess, this is part of the "skeptics" campaign to promote as many edit wars as they can in order to provide juicy findings for arbcomm" (note, I don't know where the "removed it again" comment came from, it was the first time it was removed). I reverted with an edit summary of "It is a peer-reviewed source that supports the cited material, please discuss and come to a consensus to remove." I then stated on the talk page "No, it's not, it is a perfectly valid source, and describes the material cited perfectly. The sidebar article clearly lists numerous popular media sources that were crying doom and gloom because we were facing a new ice age, to the point that WMC et al. had to write a scholarly article to "debunk" the "myth." The fact that the word "alarmism" does not appear is not relevant - clearly the common use of the words in the article describe an alarmist take, without having to resort to WP:OR." I made one reversion, before he went into any detail. I did NOT edit war it back into the article - I took it to the talk page for discussion, and did not try to insert it again after its re-removal. Are we not supposed to discuss these matters on the talk page? I still thought that the article was a valid source, but did nothing else - because I did not want to edit war. GregJackP Boomer! 06:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Your comment here does the same thing that you did with the source - my comment did not mention edit warring nor can you even attempt to stretch things and say I used words commonly associated with edit warring. You've also failed to address my actual concern. Shell babelfish 08:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC) "These continuing edit wars (during the case) have now reached a stunning level of ridiculousness" -Shell Kinney, commenting on this case above. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Ah yes, I think I'm beginning to see why some people are pulling their hair out here. Shell babelfish 09:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Oh you think? Greg was accused of edit warring by multiple editors and when he defended himself you acted like he was fantasizing it from out of the blue. Most of the admins on the ANI board and here jumped the gun and assumed he was misrepresenting the source - and either don't have the ability to realize how wrong they were or don't have the moral fortitude to admit it. This entire process is a joke, but you guys finally seem to have found the great excuse you were looking for to ban the skeptics, that Greg added "or cooling" to an article and was absolutely correct in making that edit. Add to that the fact that every time some biting evidence or piercing questions are presented you all vanish like a fart in the wind, pretending not to have noticed, and it is clear what the outcome of this process was determined to be long ago. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC) @Shell. TGL beat me to it on the edit warring comment. Please let me know what your actual concern is, and I'll address it. I would also appreciate an answer to my question - are we not supposed to discuss these matters on talk pages? WMC deleted "global cooling" and its associated source. I did an Ebsco host search and found a peer-reviewed source. It happened to be co-authored by WMC, which I did not even notice until I was preparing the cite journal template (and which I thought was funny). There is an entire sidebar that covers the alarmism about global cooling in the popular media. I put "global cooling" back into the article, WITH A FOOTNOTE that the article was about debunking the myth of global cooling scientific consensus, and that the article cited numerous examples of alarmism in the press. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS. I did not misrepresent it, and anyone that says that I did is intellectually dishonest. I'm not the only one that thinks that this is what Peterson, Connolley and Fleck said, see Bedford, Daniel (2010). "Agnotology as a Teaching Tool: Learning Climate Science by Studying Misinformation". Journal of Geography. 109 (4). The National Council for Geographic Education: 159–165. ISSN 0022-1341. Writers of syndicated opinion columns in leading news publications occasionally quote the scientific literature in such an egregiously selective manner that only the most charitable interpretation could see the mistake as a genuine oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to misrepresent (examples are provided by Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck 2008). See also Hufbauer, Gary Clyde; Charnovitz, Steve; Kim, Jisun (2009). Global warming and the world trading system. Peterson Institute. p. 115. ISBN 9780881324280. In reviewing the earlier literature on climate change, Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck (2008) note that in the 1970s there was widespread concern about global cooling (escalating to fears of another ice age) I used the same examples as noted by Bedford and Hufbauer! Please also note that since WMC's article has only been cited 13 times, I find it hard to believe that he was not aware of the fact that his article had been used to support the material in exactly the same way that I was doing. Of course, that won't matter, you are looking to lynch a skeptic. GregJackP Boomer! 12:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Greg, this isn't making any sense. I don't see what the Bedford source has to do with your edits. Hufbauer is an economist, not a climate scientist, and the rest of the authors of the book you quote in Global Warming and the World Trading System (2009) consist of one attorney and one CPA, not scientists. The book is published by the think tank, Peterson Institute for International Economics. Hufbauer's quote in its full context can be found on page 115: Despite the reigning consensus and Hansen's more alarming views, it would be a mistake to think that the scientific debate has been settled. To illustrate how scientific opinion can change, it is worth recalling the views of a few decades ago, when respected scientists were forecasting an episode of global cooling. In reviewing the earlier literature on climate change, Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck (2008) note that in the 1970s there was widespread concern about global cooling (escalating to fears of another ice age), prompted by a temperature drop in the 1950s and 1960s in the Northern Hemisphere... It would be interesting to see what they say on page 116 (can't view it), but clearly, these economists and attorneys didn't understand Connolley's paper, as the central thesis of the paper is that the scientific opinion did not change. This fact evidently eluded a group of economists and attorneys who chose to cherry pick Connolley's paper and to misrepresent it in a book that "looks at the economic aspects of greenhouse gas emissions and seeks a policy method to reduce them without adversely affecting global trade." This is generally why we don't use books published by think tanks as sources. In any case, I fail to see how either Bedford or Hufbauer support your edits so we are back to square one. Do you think that Bedford or Hufbauer supports your edits? I would love for you to show us how. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC) MastCell: You seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say that "The source doesn't talk about "global cooling alarmism". In the other hand, you say "the article's thesis is that "global cooling alarmism" is a myth". How can the article not talk about global cooling alarmism while simultaneously be it's thesis? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC) @GJP - I thought you were talking about the word "denier" (which was the focus of the RFE), not "peer reviewed". I apologise for my mistake. Guettarda (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC) No prob, that's understandable. Please look at the two sources (1 peer reviewed journal, 1 book) that cited Connolley's article in exactly the same manner that I did. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Nice find on the articles, the Bedford one especially, which made a very interesting read. The problem with them is that they don't support your usage. You used the Peterson et al. article to support a definition of alarmism. The Bedford article does not use to define "climate change alarmism", nor does the Hufbauer et al. book (at least the portion you quoted). Guettarda (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I was about to state exactly the same - Your new references also do not support the text either. The book does mention alarmism in the context (but that is in referral to James Hansen's "more alarming view" (on global warming in comparison with the IPCC's) - their statement is that there was "widespread concern about..", which certainly isn't even remotely "alarmism". It is possible to see the text of the book on Amazon (US), the text is on page 115-116. Your quote from the paper (which i can't access) is about misrepresentation not alarmism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)i'd appreciate a copy from Guattarda, if possible :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Thanks :) This discussion on secondary sources needs to take place on the talk page of the article. The discussion here is about misuse of the primary source by Wikipedia editors, which took place in the absence of any of these secondary sources. In other words, it's not about whether one can or cannot support their usage from reliable secondary sources because that's moot. It's about whether editors warred, in the absence of such sources, to get their way. --TS 13:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I can't say that i disagree - but unfortunately the two new references that GregJackP presents are equally misrepresented. They do not support his assertions, and that seems to be relevant for this discussion. I'll gladly forward both references (screencopy's of the Amazon book though) for purview. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Propose that we draw this repetitive discussion to a close As I understand it, the situation is that a number of uninvolved admins have weighed in on the appeal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [60], and most seem to agree with the perspective that there was a misuse of sources and a topic ban is being discussed, while Lar has expressed disagreement. Count Iblis has proposed an alternative, which is a voluntary restriction within the topic to be adopted by GregJackP and a couple of other editors. As yet this alternative proposal doesn't seem to have gained traction. Repetitively asking for yet another explanation of the nature of the disruption seems unwise, so I propose that we ask all parties to drop it. --TS 09:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC) What possible motivation would I have to do that? Roll over and play dead? Not happening. GregJackP Boomer! 13:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC) It has gone on for a long time but I think that it has been valuable and not a waste of space. I hope that the arbitrators have followed this discussion closely, as well as the related CC enforcement board and ANI discussions, because we have here a repetition, in real-time, of the kind of disagreements that have gone on repeatedly in the CC articles. In this case, experienced editors have willfully misused a scientific paper to make quite the opposite point that it was intended to make, which was to deemphasize the impact of global cooling allegations in the 1970s. It's not often that the author of a scientific paper happens to be around to dispute the spin being placed on a source by Wikipedia editors, which only goes to underline the depth of the effort to POV push here. That author, however, happened to be WMC, so we have introduced a common theme in these articles, which are constant efforts to villify Dr. Connolley[61]. In the related AN/I discussion, we have unanimity that this was a violation of policy and a misrepresentation of soruces, with every administrator advocating sanctions except, predictably, Lar. There was much the same outcome on the CC enforcement board [62], and the discussion there seems to be continuing. I hope that arbcom gets a sense of how frustrating it is to edit articles like this in the face of such determined POV pushing and misinterpretation of basic policies. The enforcement board discussion underlines the need for new administrators entering this area. I don't believe that a topic ban on GregJackP will be sufficient or will prevent this kind of thing from recurring. There are other editors who argued just as strenuously for this source to be misused, and they need to be held accountable. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Well, I'm going through the diffs and the source, and so far, I do not see any misconduct by GregJackP other than simple edit-warring. I'm currently constructing a time-line of the incident on my talk page which I will comment on later once I have a better understanding of the situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I know, and Cla68 has raised roughly the same point (regarding the source, not the editor) on the article talk page. However, uninvolved administrators went through the same diffs and source at the CC enforcement board and ANI, and found that the source was misused, and imposed sanctions. This endless bickering over settled issues and misreading/misapplication of policy, sometimes by experienced editors, is what makes this topic area so frustrating. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Well, that's not how it seems to be going. Yesterday seems to be a knee-jerk reaction based on argument from authority. So far, I'm not seeing much substance to the actual allegations against GregJackP beyond simple edit-warring (which I don't defend). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I think that you can give the admins who stepped in on this a little more good faith than that. As of this writing there has been no change in the consensus among admins on both enforcement board concerning the finding that the source was misused. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF: Cla68 has been pushing to include unreliable sources in science articles

Collapsing for readibility. This one seems to have run its course too and is veering off topic. Roger Davies talk 20:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 replaces RealClimate by a book by Ian Pilmer to "improve" the sourcing of a statement. At this point we can still WP:AGF. A reasonable argument can be made that it is better to replace RealClimate by a published source. If you are sceptical about global warming, you may think that the book "The Hockey Stick Illusion" is a good source. However, after he is reverted, with an objection about his source, Cla68 decides to revert back, instead of taking serious the complaint and doing an effort to find sources that are better than RealClimate that he knows would satisfy the editor(s) he is disagreeing with, i.e. peer reviewed sources. Cla68 then decides to replace RealClimate by the book "Heaven and Earth" by Ian Pilmer in the main global warming article, although we can't be sure that Cla68 knew that he had been reverted on the "Proxy (climate)" article a few minutes earlier. We can then no longer WP:AGF in the sense of assuming that Cla68's behavior helps to improve the articles. But I would still assume that Cla68 intents to improve the articles. It is just that his opinions about climate science are very strong, affecting his judgement to such a degree that he cannot contribute constructively to this area. I therefore think that Cla68 should stick to 0RR on CC articles regarding edits relating to scientific statements. Count Iblis (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Both Illusion and Plimer's book are reliable sources according to WP:V. I, and I assume, others, may use them as sources again in the future. In my experience, attacking reliable sources and trying to use unreliable ones in their place, such as a self-published blog, is a sign of agenda-driven editing. Cla68 (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC) By the way, Illusion was used as a source in this academic paper. Cla68 (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is cited as a source in numerous academic papers. I'm not sure that has much bearing on whether we use it as a reliable source in our articles. MastCell Talk 21:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Academic Hartwell certainly was, but it does not meet our standards for a reliable source on the science. It's quite wearying to have to explain over and over again that our statements on science are based on formal review summaries of peer reviewed research, not books written by retired accountants. Not even, need I add, position papers compiled by multidisciplinary public policy strategy groups. --TS 22:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC) This issue was raised in evidence with particular reference to Cla68 attempting to use both these books as sources for factual statements, in clear violation of the WP:SOURCES policy requirement that the work and its author should also be considered for reliability, and of evidence that the latter promotes fringe views.[63] Illusion has since received a couple of mainstream views, which describe it as showing "glaring inaccuracies",[64] and lacking credibility.[65] As discussed here earlier, the book includes blatant misinformation, for example Chapter 1 makes a great deal of the assertion that the IPCC First Assessment Report of 2001 showed a Medieval warm period warmer than today, and claims that scientists then conspired to pretend that it was only regional, but the report itself states that it may not have been global.p. 199 Despite this, Cla68 has continued to use this book as a source for allegations about living people.[66] . . dave souza, talk 13:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I consider Cla68's campaign to compromise sourcing standards within the topic area to be a pretty serious threat to the integrity of our science articles. He continually shows a pattern of favoring scientifically incompetent sources which have a history of misrepresenting the state of the science and, occasionally, present serious BLP problems. For instance, the Hockey Stick Illusion, written by a retired accountant, falsely presents the conduct of prominent scientists as deceptive and deeply dishonest. --TS 15:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Neither of you are following WP policy with what you're saying above. WP's policy allows, nay encourages, the use of independently published books as sources. If I or someone else uses Illusion as a source in an article and you have a source which says something different, we're supposed to work together on the article talk page to come up with a compromise solution, which usually entails giving both sides of the issue, i.e. what Illusion is saying and what the other book is saying. That's called collaboration, cooperation, and compromise and is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Your attitude is distinctly unhelpful, as you both are basically saying that you will try to prevent the use of sources you personally don't agree with [67] [68]. That is not how the wiki works. Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC) The problem is that there are no shades of gray in Cla68's world. As best I can tell, his view is that the suitability of a source is a strict yes-or-no proposition. So, the New York Times is reliable -- period. Books by major publishing houses are reliable -- period. And so on. I'm sure he means well but unfortunately this violates policy. WP:V is very clear: The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC) From reading the above comments, it appears to me that Dave Souza and Tony Sideaway are the ones who are showing no shades of grey. I'm the one saying that we have to work together to figure out how to use the sources in the article if there is a disagreement on the sources' conclusions. Dave and Tony are saying that certain sources cannot be used, no way, no how. See that "cranks" diff I provided above from Tony to see what I mean. They are the ones who are taking a Yes No position on sources. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC) So, an accountant writing a book about fringe scientific views regarding climate change deserves mention in a Wikipedia scientific article? Wouldn't this likely be providing undue weight to fringe views? Bill Huffman (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC) @ Cla68, you appear to have misremembered my position, clearly set out in various discussions, that the sources you've proposed can be used for the opinions of their authors where these opinions are significant to the topic, but as fringe sources lacking a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy can't be used for factual information. WP:SOURCES requires evaluation of sources, which you seem intent on disregarding, and we don't give undue weight to every published minority opinion. . . dave souza, talk 07:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Wait a minute Dave, McIntyre and McIntrick have had their papers criticizing the hockey stick research published in peer reviewed science journals, their findings have been upheld, in part or in whole, by two independent investigations which presented their findings to a US Congressional committee, Montford's book has been used as a source in two academic papers, including The Hartwell Paper signed by several prestigious climatologists and economists including Mike Hulme, Judith Curry has recommended the book in spite of vicious criticism for doing so from RealClimate (and on WMC's blog), and recently one of the Climategate investigations found that several of the involved paleoclimatologists have been using "sloppy" statistical record keeping and conspired with each other to break the law to keep from giving their data to McIntyre and his colleagues, and you are trying to say that the criticism of the temperature proxy research is fringe? Are you sure that you have a neutral, objective perspective on that topic? Cla68 (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I agree that neither of the sources should be used in the article Proxy. I don't think it's been shown here that this matter rises to the level worthy of being noticed in the ArbCom decision. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC) <ec> Come on Cla, you're not still pushing that tendentious nonsense that "every author' of an interdisciplinary paper (a white paper, mind you) is responsible for every trivial little footnote, are you? That's the point of collaborative works, there's a division of labour. That's the point of interdisciplinary works - people bring what they know, and trust that their collaborators also know what they're talking about. Oh, and by the way, you can't accuse people of "conspir[ing] with each other to break the law". That's a serious accusation. And you can't pretend that just because you haven't named the persons that it's OK. The bloggers from whom these accusations have emanated have named the people they have smeared with claims of criminal behaviour. Making unsubstantiated claims of criminal behaviour against living people is a serious violation of WP:BLP. For someone who claims to take BLP so seriously, you seem very selective in how you apply it. Guettarda (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Remember, Guettarda, at least one of the investigations found that the CRU scientists had failed to comply with FOIA laws but recommended no action be taken because the statute of limitations had expired. There will be several more books forthcoming on the incident. If they are independently published, then they will meet our definition as reliable sources. I hope that several of the regulars involved in the CC topic will stop trying to block reliable sources simply because the sources say things or draw conclusions that those editors do not agree with. Cla68 (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Once again, Cla68, you seem to be evading the clear requirements of WP:SOURCES policy that we consider the reputation for fact checking and accuracy of the writer and the work itself, as well as the publisher. Your misrepresentation of the FOIA findings is beside the point. Misuse of sources is a serious issue, and your actions in trying to misuse sources that clearly make false claims have to stop. . . dave souza, talk 10:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I really probably shouldn't dignify that statement with a response, Dave, but let me say again that the book was used as a source by two academic papers, which is two more than probably hundreds, if not thousands, of other books used as sources in Wikipedia have been. I think we understand that you personally don't agree with the book, but you should know that that's not how Wikipedia works. We use reliable sources and then collaborate, compromise, and cooperate to expand and improve our articles, not look for ways to keep out information we personally disagree with. Cla68 (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) You still seem to be pushing, Cla. Many unreliable opinionated publications are cited in academic sources, that doesn't make them suitable for findings of fact. As has been shown by reviewers and by simple examination of "the book", it contains blatant misinformation, and clearly expresses the fringe views of Montford. That rather restricts its uses on Wikipedia. . . dave souza, talk 11:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC) the book was used as a source by two academic papers - no, it wasn't. It appears in the reference list, which is enirely different. For example, the dreadful Soon and Baliunas paper [69] has been cited by 115 papers [70], fourth one down but most of those cites in the literature will be from people saying how awful it is. You simply cannot use "has been cited" as a measure fo quality William M. Connolley (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Both Illusion and Plimer's book are reliable sources according to WP:V - this, and a whole load of other edits by Cla, are really him condenming himself out of his own mouth. He really does have no idea about different standards of reliability between trash popular "skeptic" books written for the "skeptic" crows and real reliable sources, such as RC William M. Connolley (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed finding: Rd232's battlefield conduct

Rd232 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [71],[72],[73],[74],[75],[76], [77],[78],[79],[80], and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality[81],[82], [83],[84].

Minor4th 22:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your first few diffs did not check out, so I didn't look at the rest. It is not "edit warring" to revert a disputed edit. Reverting is not inherently bad. In fact, reverting can be good if it improves the article. Jehochman ^Talk 12:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The best example is Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, where reversion is part of the job. Viriditas (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) Nothing obviously sanctionable here.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed finding: Verbal's battlefield conduct

Verbal (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring and behavior that reinforced a battleground mentality[85],[86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91], [92],[93],[94],[95], [96], [97], [98],[99]

Minor4th 22:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Verbal's conduct is disruptive and contributes to a battleground atmosphere. He frequently engages in edit-wars, often with solo drive-by reverts, and without discussing issues on the talk page. I was about to organize some diffs myself[100][101] but I see that someone else beat me to it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You've got duplicates in your list of diffs. Please clean up your evidence and make sure it supports what you claim. Jehochman ^Talk 12:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th: I've begun working on my own FoF regarding Verbal. It's in my user space here.[102] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors of interest

As we continue to work through individual findings, we've noted that a number of editors have been mentioned in discussion here as having problematic battleground behavior. We would welcome suggestions for proposed findings using the model seen in the most recent additions here. Though by no means exhaustive, in alphabetical order for no particular reason and for everyone's reference some of those mentioned have been:

• ChrisO (talk · contribs)
• Count Iblis (talk · contribs)
• GoRight (talk · contribs)
• GregJackP (talk · contribs)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs)
• JohnWBarber (talk · contribs)
• KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs)
• Lar (talk · contribs)
• Marknutley (talk · contribs)
• Polargeo (talk · contribs)
• Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs)
• Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)
• ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs)

Shell ^babelfish 11:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't edit in the area. My only actions are that of a bouncer trying to break up a brawl. I think it would be best to separate the involved from the uninvolved for the sake of clarity. I believe the only sysop action I have taken was to issue a topic ban to WMC. This was lifted after some discussion, and then WMC wisely volunteered to cease editing in the area pending ArbCom posting a decision. Otherwise, I organized a voluntary recusal by about 15 editors. Not sure what I've done that could be construed as battling; a referee usually doesn't get called for a penalty (though often people on both sides will dispute some of the referee's actions, quite passionately.) Jehochman ^Talk 12:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would add :

• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) for edit warring, battleground: [103], [104], [105],[106],[107],[108],[109],[110]
• Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for edit warring, battleground : [111]
• Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) for incivility [112]

I will add more diffs later. Minor4th 13:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What is that single Rd232 diff supposed to show? Whatever it is, I'm not seeing it. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't really supposed to show anything -- it was the beginning of what ultimately was a collection of diffs. See the section above with the proposed finding. There you will find the diffs for this user. Minor4th 01:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest adding

• A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) for completeness
• Bill Huffman (talk · contribs) whose sole purpose in being here seems to be to run down Cla at every opportunity.
• dave souza (talk · contribs) who is a long term participant
• FellGleaming (talk · contribs) who has been involved in GS/CC/RE requests
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) whose administrative actions have not been without controversy.
• Guettarda (talk · contribs) who is a long term participant
• NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) who has had recent accusations of bias and involvement levied
• Ratel (talk · contribs) who has been cautioned for disruption, and who was running a string of socks at one point
• ScottyBerg (talk · contribs) who is recent but seems to be quite partisan
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) who is a long term participant
• Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk · contribs) who is a long term participant
• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) who is mentioned below for excessive clerking/hatting, and who has contributed to the battleground atmosphere.
• Viriditas (talk · contribs) who is a long term participant

to your list ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also add

• Verbal (talk · contribs) See prior discussion on this page: [113] Minor4th 14:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is shaping up to be a list of everyone who edits in the area. There's a reason for that. The editing environment is so toxic, one cannot edit in the area for more than a handful of edits unless one is aggressive. A closer look will reveal that some are aggressively trying to enforce policy while others are aggressively violating it. Minor4th 14:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time and ask you to remove some of the "skeptics" from the list, but I don't think Count Iblis should be on there. Perhaps the evidence shows otherwise, but he seems reasonable to me. The others make some very good suggestions, but I think it is diluted somewhat with the inclusion of editors with less behavioral issues - I don't blame them though because the minimal threshold for such behavior seems quite low in some cases. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you should remove Jehochman as well. He has certainly said and done things that I disagree with, and I have no love for the man, but I don't think his behavior needs to be addressed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would of course agree that I am reasonable :) . However, what we can also do is look at the contributions of a large fraction of all the editors who have been heavily involved in the CC field to get a better understanding of the sources of the problems, what provokes bad behavior, what kind of restrictions would work best etc. etc. For this you also need to look at editors who have been heavily involved in the CC area and have behaved in a good way. I would suggest adding the following editors:

• Awickert (talk · contribs)
• ATren (talk · contribs)
• Cla68 (talk · contribs)
• Minor4th (talk · contribs)

and the old-timers:

• Andrewjlockley (talk · contribs)
• Raul654 (talk · contribs)
• Ed Poor (talk · contribs)
• SEWilco (talk · contribs)
• Sm8900 (talk · contribs)
• Blue Tie (talk · contribs)
• UBeR (talk · contribs)
• Tjsynkral (talk · contribs)

I.m.o., it is very important for ArbCom to look at these old-timers. This puts the present conflicts into a better perspective. Looking at this shows i.m.o. that the source of the problem is the entrenched position of sceptics that climate science is fundamentally flawed, which clashes with the opinion of other editors who treat climate science as any other scientific topic.

You'll also see that Andrewjlockley had been pushing views suggesting that the consequences of climate change may be far more serious than the consensus view suggests. His edits were based on bad science and poor understanding of what sources say. This led to the "pro-science faction" (most of whom are active today) giving Andrewjlockley warnings see here and also in later sections on his talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We also had one chap earlier this year on Talk:Global warming saying the article was flawed because it didn't have anything about the Amazon rainforests bursting into flames, which he seemed to have read on some website or other. He got really upset when we said we weren't going to include such unsourced nonsense. I was never quite sure he was serious. --TS 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He might have been referring to another one of the IPCC's errors about the Amazon being massively more vulnerable to forest fires/drought from global warming (some insane figure from greenpeace I think). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It was WWF, based on peer reviewed research. The nonsense came from a Sunday Times journalist who grossly misrepresented the facts and sought to blame the IPCC. The newspaper also misrepresented the words of a scientist they sought out for comment. According to the Press Complaints Commission, whose decisions carry regulatory weight in the UK, the newspaper has acknowledged this and published a correction and apology.[114]. --TS 18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Based" on peer-review research isn't the same as actually being peer-review research. I haven't looked into details about that particular case, but I've looked at their other incredibly stupid errors based on pamphlets from various advocacy groups and if that history is any indicator then their claims were quite ridiculous. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting off topic. The Sunday Times has publicly acknowledged that WWF's claim that "up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall." is in fact supported by the scientific research. --TS 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is getting off-topic then hat the conversation - beginning with your comment. In any case I'll link WUWT's article on the retraction. It is clearly a ridiculous claim anyway, challenged by scientific research (in the article) - if someone thinks global warming is going to screw over 40% of the Amazon then they should demand a refund for the time and money spent educating them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have cited the Press Complaints Commission, you have cited a blog. It seems appropriate to leave it there. --TS 19:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh Tony, I linked the article so you could read it and judge its merits rather than evoking an argument from authority. We aren't writing an article here so it is okay to read the blog. But hey, since you didn't read it then name the peer-reviewed paper that the 40% claim was based on. You say it is peer-reviewed so name the paper, the author(s) and the journal. Maybe I'm wrong, I'll admit if I am, and you now have an easy way of doing it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Without comment on anything else in this thread, GoRight (talk · contribs) is currently indefinitely banned. I do not think that we should discuss sanctions without offering the right of reply. If they appeal the community ban and return to problematic editing, WP:AE should be able to handle it even without explicit mention in this case. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks for the information.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping on topic

In response to the desire expressed here to broaden the scope of the findings, Shell posted a request for draft FoFs. She and I are happy to review them and include them in the proposed decision if appropriate. However, little of the response has been usable. Instead, we've seen (i) endless meta discussion about areas that ArbCom is unlikely to touch and (ii) lists of potential FoF candidates that we simply do not have the time or resources to research from scratch. So, if there is someone is clearly missing, and a FoF would be appropriate, please post a draft, supported by good unambiguous diffs. The FoF should focus on obvious examples of battleground editing: incivility, blatant POV-pushing, dubious reverting, edit-warring etc. There's zero point in dwelling on content.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Davies: It's been a lot of work, but I've created FoF for Stephan Schultz and KimDabelsteinPetersen as requested. I've also created one of my own regarding Tony Sidaway. I've begun working on some more FoFs but they're mostly stubs. I'm getting a little burnt out so I might leave it to other editors to work on, not sure. They are available here: User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/Climate_change_Proposed_decision. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for stepping out of the peanut gallery, but in light of There's zero point in dwelling on content, could you expand a bit on sourcing? There's been a great deal of discussion lately on "inappropriate use of sources" which has even made it into two of the proposed FoFs. From what I've been reading on the talk page here, it seems like the sourcing disputes are content related. Or, at least it seems nigh impossible to prove anyone is deliberately misusing a source. If those items remain in any FoFs, could ArbCom expand on Principle 11: Sourcing, or add an additional principle to explain 'inappropriate use' of a non-content nature? --InkSplotch (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Arb Votes Analysis

Arb votes on editor sanctions. Summary, please edit as acceptable

Arb votes on editor sanctions Remedy Editor acceptance Newyorkbrad Kirill Coren Risker Shell Carcharoth Mailer Roger Pass/Fail 3.3.3 WMC 6 month ban Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Fail 3.3.4 WMC 1 yr CC ban Support Oppose Support 3.3.5 WMC BLP ban Support Support Support 3.3.6 WMC 1 yr restricted Oppose Oppose Oppose 3.3.7 Polargeo admonished Oppose Support 3.3.8 TGL 6 month ban Oppose Support Support 3.3.8.1 TGL 1 yr CC ban Support Support 3.3.8.2 TGL Indef CC ban Support Support Support 3.3.9 MN 6 month CC ban Agreed Oppose Oppose 3.3.9.1 MN 1 yr CC ban Support Support Support 3.3.9.2 MN Indef. CC ban Support Support Support 3.3.9.3 MN withdraws Agreed Support Oppose 3.3.10 MN BLP ban Oppose Support Support 3.3.15 Lar / JEH admonished Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Fail 3.3.16 2over0 admonished Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Support 3.3.19 ChrisO 6 month CC ban Oppose Oppose Support Oppose Support Support 3.3.20 ChrisO 1 yr BLP ban Oppose Oppose Support Oppose Support Support

So far it looks like TGL and MN are being judged to have a greater degree of egregious behavior than WMC. Does a comparative analysis of the evidence really support this outcome? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not even close. I am so disappointed in ArbCom (so far, I suppose there's a chance for redemption but my confidence in the committee is shaken). In fact I'm disappointed in the whole Wiki. The bullies who have made this topic area a hellish place to edit are getting rewarded for making it unbearable for the rest of us. Good luck getting new editors in here and good luck getting any new uninvolved admins -- great message being sent -- take a stand against blatant and persistent Wiki policy violations and get topic banned or asked to refrain from taking admin actions. What a complete and total waste of time this has all been. Minor4th 02:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not over yet; however, the current votes seem to be carelessly imbalanced in fair standards application. If this continues, many disputes may be put back to the admins and newbie admins ... to be bitten by the bullies. The arbitration process just delayed things. I don't believe it will be a waste of time. Folks have matured in this process, no matter how it turns out. For myself, my own voluntary climate change restriction (since I applied before the General Sanctions, which i did not trust to protect my content contributions) has taken away from content development. I look forward to the ArbCom close, so I may focus time on articles. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps arbcomm are indeed taking some account of substance after all William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt they have. However, whose accounting the bodies left behind in the wake of climate change progress? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Happily for my biases, I was wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong about what? WMC, will you agree to a voluntary remedy now to withdraw? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering your decisions Kirill. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda

[115] I'm not sure if the Committee is considering a finding against Guettarda, who is one of the parties to this case, but it might want to look at that edit. Cla68 (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that I don't particularly hold it against Guettarda for venting on my talkpage. I don't believe that it has crossed the line into disruption, so i'm fine with that comment. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's supposed to be wrong with that comment. The conduct Guettarda refers to, however, is worrying. --TS 09:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions to "Findings of fact" against various editors

There's stronger evidence against KimDPetersen and Scjessey than the evidence just added against ATren, Cla68 and the rest. It's on the evidence and workshop pages and this talk page. I also think there's better evidence (that I've already provided on this page) against Polargeo and KimDPetersen, as well as Hipocrite (see my evidence about incivility and battleground behavior on the evidence page and discussion on the Workshop page). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see this comment from Shell at 0610 this morning. --TS 20:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec with above)Note the difference between Coren's comment explaining his abstaining at Finding 11 (on Polargeo) and Coren's recent support of findings of disruption against these new editors. I think this is jarringly inconsistent (emphasis added):

I see what I would term clear personal attacks, and incivility, but I cannot support this finding as titled (as Brad mentions above, "disruption" is a term of art on Wikipedia that applies only to much more severe continued misbehavior). — Coren (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think Polargeo's behavior on the GSCCRE page was more disruptive than what I've seen in the diffs for the other editors. I'd like to know more about this "term of art" about "disruptive". Perhaps we should refine the language at WP:DISRUPT to reflect it, or maybe I'm just missing something. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think everybody interested in the arbitration is now fully aware of your opinions about Polargeo. --TS 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, Tony, you miss the point. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber: I am working on a FoF regarding Scjessey on my talk page.[116] Please let me know if you have any diffs that should bad added (or removed) and any other suggestions that you might have. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Other than what's on this page, I have nothing new to add. I just saw it. Looks good to me. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber: Can you please cross-reference your evidence with mine to see if I've missed anything? To be honest, I didn't really pay much attention to the discussion on this page with Scjessey. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply put "disruption" is a pattern of interfering with the normal editorial process. Being habitually rude or combative with another editor is a serious problem, but not the same as systematically ignoring NPOV, or original research, or otherwise preventing consensus from being reached "normally" by vexatious litigation, misuse of process, filibustering, and so on. — Coren ^(talk) 23:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll think about that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

←I object to this witch hunt in the strongest possible terms. There's no legitimate case that can be made if the diffs are read in their proper context, rather than cloaked in falsehood as they are presented in the section above. Genuine efforts to get fellow editors to calm down have been recast as personal attacks, as have some of my emotional responses to serious baiting and abuse on this very talk page. I have twice begged administrators and arbitrators to impose an interaction ban upon JohnWBarber and me to prevent this editor from continuing his years-long campaign against me, but it has fallen on deaf ears. Of 15,000 edits, this individual has managed to find roughly 15 edits that, when taken out of context and dressed-up with falsehood, seem less than civil. Faced with a statistic like that, it is obvious that JWB has made this a personal matter that has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic or Wikipedia as a whole. This is about getting rid of enemies, not improving Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is worth repeating that JWB has not opened an RfC/U about my alleged incivility, or pursued any other form of resolution. It is also worth reminding everyone that I still haven't edited in the climate change topic since pledging to do so, so I'm at a loss to explain why my username should keep popping up on this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the parties are advised to chill. Look, I like and respect all of you as editors, and it's really pointless to get into this kind of dust-up, particularly in the waning days of a long arbitration case that appears unlikely to vindicate anyone (but may end up sanctioning some). Cheers, y'all. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Motion for NW to recuse.

Per my comments here I would argue that a motion to ask NW to recuse as a clerk from this case would be in order. --209.204.65.148 (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That thread you linked has three other clerks telling you that you're off-base. MastCell ^Talk 03:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually you have two, and a third refusing to comment on the matter since it was brought up by an ip address. Regardless, and despite that NW seems to have a peculiar affection for one 'side' of this debate, I don't see him voting on the decision so who cares what he does really. Weakopedia (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as acting as an administrator in a topic area doesn't make you "involved" it doesn't merit a recusal either. You'd also get a lot further if you provided actual diffs or anything other than vague handwaving in the direction of "some people" think NW is involved in "some side"... Shell ^babelfish 08:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? If so, I don't need to provide diffs for nuthin since I was 'voting' to let NW play clerk, same as you, and you got no diffs. If you meant the IP they did provide diffs and you might want to think about your use of indentation. Weakopedia (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• It isn't so much that these proceedings may aspire to the level of drama, but that it is often such poor fare... LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oh come now, you must admit that [117] provided an amusing farce William M. Connolley (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• It was only when I realised that the title bar at the bottom of the page was limited to a certain number of characters and had thus omitted "...#An_episode_of_group_hysteria.2C_now_resolved" from the link description that I was able to return to my usual orbit, and recognise that you had not had some sort of revelation. It was a disturbing few seconds, in truth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway's hatting of discussions

Collapsing for overall page readibility. Not really sanctionable.  Roger Davies talk 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th's post this morning about the hatting of discussions struck a nerve with me. For the past year, I've watched Tony Sidaway repeatedly - and I mean repeatedly hat discussions in an apparent attempt to stop editors from discussing issues and retain his preferred version of an article. This is unfortunate as the one thing that we should be doing more is discussing things and trying to reach compromises. His constant hatting of discussions that he doesn't like has a chilling effect because it prevents us from resolving the issues and moving forward. It also encourages edit-warring in the article space since we're not allowed to discuss our issues on the talk page. He's done it dozens of times, especially in the Climategate article. I'd like there to be a finding that Tony Sidaway has abused the hatting of discussion and a remedy that Tony Sidaway is no longer allowed to hat discussions in the CC topic space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Could you please provide some diffs that show the problem? Thanks. Shell babelfish 13:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I disagree with AQFK. All to often discussion here meander off into the weeds and the page clogs up. Hatting is a good solution to that; TS, as uninvolved, is to be commended for helping. But doing it to push your own POV, as M4th did, and edit warring to keep it in (whilst making PA's in the same edit), isn't acceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure that TS is "uninvolved". ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC) You *are* involved, and refuse to admit it. Your judgement on involved or not is not worth having William M. Connolley (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC) "I'm not uninvolved." -TS. Now, did you want to argue that the author of a statement knows less about the statement than you do? Or that ArbCom finding me uninvolved (if not without some culpability for where we are now) are wrong, should that be how it comes out? Your judgment is not worth having. Full stop. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Looks like you've degenerated into point-scoring against me, which pretty well proves my point. If TS says he is involved, thats fine - it demonstrates that he is rather more honest than you are. And I didn't say he was uninvolved. What I said, and maintain, is that your judgement on the matter is worthless William M. Connolley (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC) You've been point scoring against others for a very long time, but no matter. My point stands, you are willing to go against ArbCom, and your judgment is worthless. As are your assurances, should any be dragged out of you. You are the very embodiment of the problem here, although the problem is vast, because you're such a poster child for bad behavior. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Let's be careful with this one. More discussion is often better, but we've all seen situations where the discussion stops being productive, and can drag on uselessly, especially if there are more than one involved who like to get the last word. Hatting such a discussion isn't an absolute bar to a continuation of discussion, it sends a message that if you want to continue, you need to start a new section, and perhaps it isn't worth it. I've seen many a hatting stop a worthless exchange of heat in its tracks. That said, it can be abused, and if it is done by "one side" when they think they are losing an argument, it can be detrimental. Yes, TS can be hat happy. However unless several of those examples are accompanied by contemporaneous complaints, I'd prefer that ArbCom simply note (perhaps even informally with a post here) that hatting can be abused, and care should be taken not to stop a productive discussion, even if long.--SPhilbrickT 14:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Sphilbrick: My proposed FoF is only about TS. If a discussion truly needs to be closed, then let someone else do it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I've known Tony onwiki a very long time. I have a great deal of respect for his intellect and enthusiasm, as well as his ability to come up with erudite comments and witty turns of phrase. But a request to him, much less a general finding, will have zero effect on Tony unless he wants it to. Often in the past only a directly worded statement from someone in a position of authority that explicitly mentions him has had any effect. Now, this is a "failing" that perhaps many of us fall prey to ("Yes, X is bad but they're not talking about ME!"), present company certainly not excepted, but it's something to keep in mind. If Tony's hatting and clerking is excessive, a general admonishment most likely won't do. Even requests to him on his talk page from other editors had no effect. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not uninvolved. The hatting seems to work quite well, and I consider it to be an essential element of good page management. Another technique I've used is to break out long discussions to a subpage. Claims that complaints on my talk page have no effect are very wide of the mark, and of course there's nothing to stop any editor who objects simply undoing the edit. If there is evidence of abuse, I think it should be compiled. I note that up to now nobody has raised this problem, if it is one, to the level of RFC, which wouldn't have been difficult to do if the evidence was abundant. Nor, I seem to recall, is any aspect of my talk page conduct mentioned on the evidence page (not that this should limit the Committee if a problem exists). Overall, I think competent hatting and archiving is far too rare, and I would like to see it encouraged in situations where repetitive and unproductive discussions are common. Tedious and hostile slabs of text on talk pages contribute greatly to the battleground atmosphere. --TS 14:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I would definitely like to see this explored because Shell made a finding that I was disruptive and cited my hatting of one off topic section of a discussion. The only reason it occurred to me to hat the discussion was because I had seen Tony do it numerous times on this page. I thought that was an accepted practice, and I was doing what I thought was approved protocol in this topic area. I do not think that should be counted as disruptive behavior for me when I was just doing what I've seen other editors do -- if it's ok for Tony, it should be ok for me. If it's disruptive of me, then it's disruptive of Tony. Either way, I don't think that should count against me because I am new to the topic area and was only following the example of a more experienced editor. Minor4th 14:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC) @TS: Thanks for acknowledging you are not uninvolved. As for reverting hatting, that doesn't always work well. Sometimes it does, but as Minor4th points out, it's been cited as problematic in this very case. I think it would be better if you voluntarily stepped away from clerking and left it to the clerks. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Well, unproductive hatting and unproductive unhatting can be problematic. The question is always whether the edit was appropriate. We're not talking about clerking, here, but talk page management which is and has always been carried out by the editors themselves. --TS 14:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Hatting on these pages is often done by clerks. It may be best if it always is, or at least if there is any question about a particular hat, undo it, and leave it to the clerks. I do agree with you that competent hatting is a good thing, and that unproductive hatting/unhatting isn't. I just do not think that all of your hats have been productive. Some have been premature or have hid part but not all of a discussion, leaving a false impression. You're not the only one, in fact one of the clerks in this case did that too.. but at least with clerks there's a more formal mechanism to protest. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I think we're talking to cross purposes. The hatting A Quest For Knowledge complains about is that on talk pages of articles in the topic area. As you may be aware, I responded to suggestions by the arbitrators that editors perform page management on this page, but stopped editing this talk page when it became evident that any such editing by someone other than a clerk or an arbitrator was likely to be controversial. --TS 15:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) You know what? We are. Full marks for taking that suggestion, and my apologies for confusion or raising side issues. ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Shell: Diffs are available on my talk page.[118] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think that unhatting is going to improve the atmostphere among editors on Wikipedia. Realistically, only the first editor following the hatting has the option without thorny issues with subsequent comments. Maybe the solution is to move the contested hatting into a new section? Slowjoe17 (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Actually all any editor has to do is remove the template that does the hatting/archiving instead of trying to do an undo or rollback. Shell babelfish 15:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Looking at this again I think Minor 4th has a complaint that an arbitrator said he had "hatted a section you didn't like on a case page for goodness sake." The hatting off accompanied edit warring over the title, which was obviously pretty serious, but I don't think the above characterization was necessarily helpful. As Minor 4th says, he saw me doing similar hatting and copied it thinking to help improve this page (which at the time was obscenely large). Now it turned out that such hatting was controversial, but Minor 4th probably didn't realise that because he is unlikely to have seen the messages that were put on my talk page. --TS 13:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Obama emigration

Something above on this page reminded me of something I investigated but didn't follow up late last year. In mid-2009 some people were sanctioned for disruptive editing in the Barack Obama topic area, and it seems that some of them migrated from that area where they couldn't continue their hostilities to climate change where they took up the cudgels again. It might be useful to include a finding on this, because it shows how the behavior of the people in question might apply across several topics and perhaps need broader sanctions. I'm sorry I didn't contribute to the evidence or workshop processes else I might have raised this earlier and in the appropriate place. I don't know whether it's significant that William M. Connolley was active in that other probation as an administrator. --TS 16:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

For information, users sanctioned under the Obama probation according to the sanctions log and active in the climate change topic area include the following:

• Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who I believe also edits as User:JohnWBarber)
• Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChildOfMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (now under 1 year ban by arbcom)
• Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (now indefinitely banned by the community)

This list is just the result of eyeballing the log. There could be others. --TS 17:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide a link for the above. I can't remember just how long ago it was. Here, let me help you with the ArbCom case. I think there was only one person associated with this case that was sanctioned in that case in August 2009, for edit warring and, more to the point, for personal attacks: Scjessey. So far, the only two people who have thought my 2008 behavior was relevant now have been Jehochman and Scjessey. But of course ArbCom members are always welcome to look into my present and past behavior. By the way, Tony, would you say your behavior has changed much in two years? Just askin' ... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My list above is not from the arbitration case, but from the probation. My intent is to document a migration of sanctioned editors from one topic to another. It is painfully evident that some personal grievances and vendettas from that topic have been carried over to this one. --TS 17:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Vendettas? Funny, I can only find one. [119] Scjessey's against me. But you put it in the plural. Have you found others? Do you mean Tarc's vendetta against me? But he only briefly commented on this page, so I wouldn't call that a vendetta. Something between Wikidemon and me? [120] [121] (If you look into the sanctions matter, that was the editor I was having a problem with at the time.) Nope ... no vendetta there. Between Lar and me? Between LHvU and me? No and no. There must've been some other vendetta you're talking about, Tony. C'mon, fork it over. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber, your commentary on this page is starting to become incivil and unproductive. Take a break. Shell ^babelfish 16:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Migration? If I'd wanted to bother editing the Barack Obama article then I would, but it was made perfectly clear to me that some things weren't allowed in the article. I'd hoped such activism was limited to political articles, but I was clearly too optimistic. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Weren't you topic-banned from Obama articles? Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the sanctions log, TGL was blocked for 96 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, and 1 month before being topic banned, and the reasons given for the blocks are similar to issues raised regarding CC editing. I think TS is correct that this is relevant background information for a Finding of Fact in the present case. EdChem (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was, I've said it before here, but I decided not to go back after my topic ban expired since it was clear how much trouble there was going against the House POV. That's the real problem with wikipedia as a whole; some admins can't help themselves and subtly or overtly push their POV. Only a "denialist" would assert otherwise. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Guettarda (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, this clears up a lot of my confusion about what is going on with some of the past history comments. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Interim enforcement?

Collapsing for readibility. Anyone interested in why CC articles have so many problems is invited to read this section for their instruction. Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the probation request for enforcement talk page where AQFK has detailed 2 edit wars on the Phil Jones article: [122].William M. Connolley has 5 4 reverts in 24 hours [123]. Just above that section is another discussion of an RfE against WMC that went nowhere. The edit wars are breaking out all over the place. Within the last week WMC brought to the 3RR noticeboard for yet another violation, but the closing admin took no action [124]. The probation enforcement board is now essentially obsolete because of this case. And WMC continues the 3RR violations unhindered. making multiple reverts across multiple articles. How do we enforce this now? CC article space is getting worse, not better. No one will enforce against Connolley, and he knows this. There appears to be a pervasive reluctance to impose sanctions on WMC, and it's unclear where requests for enforcement should be made. Is now the time to bring it to AE or is an injunction appropriate or where should we go to get enforcement? Minor4th 15:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC) It might be useful, for starters, to represent situations accurately and to use less emotive language. You have done neither here. Guettarda (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Could you point out the innacuracies and "emotive language"? That notwithstanding, dont you agree we need some clarification on how enforcement is supposed to take place until this case concludes? Im sure you dont wish to see continued violations and edit wars with no enforcement mechanism. Minor4th 16:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC) They may be referring to the fact that the vast majority of the "edit warring" was reverting edits by sockpuppets and the over the top comments about a single editor without checking into the details first. Shell babelfish 16:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not following you at all. Can you explain where my comment was over the top please? Minor4th 17:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC) M4th has made two errors. The first is to fail to realise that contiguous edits count as one for revert-counting, so I have only 3 reverts in 24h at most. The second is to fail to realise that reverting socks doesn't count, which disposes of another. So, there is no 3RR violation - I look forward to M4th retraction of his baseless claim William M. Connolley (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Oh, and since forum shopping am all de rage, I'll point out that User:Peterlewis is already under sanction log for making undiscussed reverts, and has made another on that article today [125]. NW has reminded him of this [126] but PL still refuses to discuss his revert. Perhaps some finding might be in order William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Aaaaaand another thing: there is a quite surreal conversation going on at the PJ talk page. We're clearly all talking at cross purposes to each other but can't work out how, so if anyone fancies their abilities at understanding and explaining different points of view, do please have a look William M. Connolley (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC) @Shell. I think what part of the issue is that when WMC has 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, past the so-called bright line of 3RR, without any socks and/or vandalism (as in Cla's referral), an admin closed it with "no action." At the same time, other editors in the same time period and same article have been sanctioned following 1 (or at most 2, counting generously) reverts. In the case mentioned above, WMC went back and looked himself after the 3RR noticeboard action was completed, noted that he had 4 reverts, and voluntarily agreed not to edit that one article for 48 hrs (and that was admirable, but a block would have prevented him from editing during that time at all). I won't address the numerous alleged socks that have been blocked following reverts by WMC, most without CU or little to no evidence presented, just an allegation of socking (note that I'm not saying that these are not socks, just that there is no evidence presented, or none that I could find). There is a disparity here that should be addressed. GregJackP Boomer! 17:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I was under the impression that you were sanctioned for misrepresenting a source, not for edit warring. Shell babelfish 17:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC) The sanction posted by NW stated "continue to edit war" and "blatant disruption". It said nothing about misrepresenting a source. The misrepresentation allegation was first brought up on the PD talk and ANI pages. GregJackP Boomer! 18:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Here is the full rationale for why I banned Greg: When the author of a source says that you are wrong, you should step back and listen, not continue to edit war because you read the paper differently. Doing so otherwise is blatant disruption. NW (Talk) 18:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Even so, taking Greg out of the picture -- findings in this case were made against me and a couple of others based on, in some cases, one revert. Some clarification is in order to rectify why it's over the top to bring diffs of Connolley's multiple reverts but single reverts from me, Cla, ATren and Hippocrite warrant a Arb finding. Maybe there is an explanation that I am just missing -- that is what I am looking for. Minor4th 18:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Phil Jones article 1st revert: [127], 2nd revert: [128], 3rd revert: [129], 4th revert: [130] Apparently this last revert was a sock, although it appears the sock was blocked after only 2 edits, both reverting WMC. I havent looked at the SPI, but I assume there is a checkuser confirming this as a sock? If so, ignore that one. Three reverts -- Shell mentioned above that one revert can be edit warring, so I fail to see how this is anything other than edit warring. I also fail to see how Shell can characterize my comment as "over the top." Maybe WMC should let someone else revert socks when he already has 3RR's within 24 hours. I will analyze the other diffs that I posted so we can clear this up. I will retract anything that I have gotten wrong. Minor4th 17:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC) So much for stopping. You've made your point, let it go. Shell babelfish 17:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)You are aware that your #1 and #2 are counted as 1. revert (contiguous edits) - right? So even without acknowledging socks WMC is at max at 3R. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC) You are aware that your #1 and #2 are counted as 1. revert (contiguous edits) - right? - presumably not, because I've already said it. Though perhaps if someone *else* says it M4th will be able to read it. Then he can come back and apologise for making unfounded allegations and wasting everyones time William M. Connolley (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC) The first revert you removed: == BBC interview ==Professor Jones was [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm interviewed] by BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin in February 2010. Dr. Jones states that the global warming has not been large enough between 1995 and 2009 to be statistically significant at the 95% significance level. In answer to the question "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming", Dr. Jones answered: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." In answer to the question "Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?", Dr. Jones admitted that temperatures have dropped in this period: "[...] The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant." The second revert you removed this: George Monbiot initially called for Jones to resign after the release of the emails, stating that the emails contained ''"evidence... of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request."''<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see], George Monbiot, [[The Guardian]], Nov. 23, 2009</ref>. Later, Monbiot reiterated the criticism but retracted the call for resignation. There was an intervening edit as well with WMC adding something. If those are contiguous edits, then ok. I still think it's quite disruptive, even if there is no technical violation of 3RR. I just want to know what is expected in this area because on the one hand I see justifications for several reverts because there is no technical violation of any rule, and on the other hand I have been told that a single revert can be edit warring. Now it seems like different standards are being applied to different editors, and if that is what the policy is going to be, I'd appreciate if that could just be stated clearly so that everyone knows what to expect from here on out. Minor4th 18:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Climate change alarmism 1st revert: [131] Sept 7, 4:08 2nd revert: [132] Sept 7, 9:06 3rd revert: [133] Sept 8, 9:17 4th revert: [134] Sept 8, 15:22 5th revert: [135] Sept 8, 16:43 6th revert: [136] Sept 9, 2:38 (WMC claims he was reverting socks, but he was reverting Tillman) There is no question the last 4 reverts were within 24 hours, but even without the 3RR bright line rule, there should be no question that this editing behavior is disruptive and promotes a batteground atmosphere. I can see no reason whatsoever that I was found to be disruptive when I reverted once a couple of times -- and the same arb who made a finding that my conduct is disruptive and batteground-ish says that it is over the top for me to ask how to enforce against an editor who has 6 reverts on an article, 4 within 24 hours -- 4 reverts on Phil Jones within 24 hours (3 if the last was a sock). This is not isolated to these two articles, I can give many more examples of 2 and 3 reverts if not more. I am asking Shell to please clarify her comment above in light of these diffs and also considering that she stated to me that one revert is disruptive if it happens frequently. Please explain why there should be no PD finding about this disruptive conduct in light of the findings you made about me, Gla, ATren, GregJackP and Hippocrite. Now I see also that Shell has said "so much for stopping" as if my bringing diffs to an Arb page is further evidence of my disruptive behavior. Please clarify that comment. Yesterday you asked that we make proposed findings and provide diffs -- today, I ask a legitimate question and respond with diffs to your comment that my question was over the top, and I'm disruptive. I am honestly asking you to explain to me what I am doing wrong because this doesn't make sense to me even a little bit. What is it that you want me to stop?? What is disruptive? What is over the top? Minor4th 17:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC) NuclearWarefare: Your argument is based on a logical fallacy known as argument from authority. Just because WMC is co-author doesn't make him automatically right. I'll further note the irony that your sanction against GregJackP caused more disruption than the original content dispute. It spilled out onto ANI and 5-10 editor's talk pages, resulted into claims of bias and has led to the call for your recusement as clerk. If your goal was to end/reduce disruption, then your action was less than successful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC) @ AQFK, your own logical fallacy is in supposing that WMC was wrong or unsupported by reasoned examination of the source by other editors. GregJackP was wrongly claiming that the source defined actions as "alarmism", apparently substituting his own original research rather than reading the source. WMC's informed opinion and the opinion of other independent editors should have been taken seriously by GregJackP. . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Minor4th, this is disruptive. Please stop this, now. If the request has been turned down at AN3 then that should be the end of it. This is not the page for raising 3RR reports and I think the arbs already have enough evidence about who is doing what to whom. Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Um...this is the Arb CC proposed decisions talk page. I think this is precisely the place to raise the question of where enforcement is to take place. I mentioned two other instances of edit warring, besides the 3RR report, in my OP. We cannot expect the Arbs to be monitoring every edit on every CC article, and their initial findings illustrated this point very clearly. They have asked us to provide diffs and to propose findings. That is not what I'm doing here, however. I was asking about how enforcement should proceed while Arb wades through this case. I do not see this case winding up any time soon. Meanwhile the GS/CC board appears to have been rendered obsolete. Part of the reason enforcement measures have not been implemented is because this case is proceeding. I have seen that reason cited a number of times by admins at the 3RR board and on ANI. So the question remains -- should we just expect no enforcement in this topic area unless an admin is willing to jump in and unilaterally impose sanctions (as NW did against Greg)? If that's the answer, that's the answer, but it's not disruptive to raise the question. Minor4th 22:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC) As Lar pointed out in his evidence, showing a critical opinion raised by one journalist in his newsblog and not backed by other sources showing its significance gives undue weight to that issue in the BLP. In the Phil Jones (climatologist) article, a journalist's critical newsblog opinion together with unsourced and inaccurate material was introduced into the article by ATren (talk · contribs) and, when properly removed and questioned, was reverted back into the article by ATren without explanation.[137][138] On the same day, M.w.denotter (talk · contribs) added a section quoting parts of an interview with Jones, again giving weight to something without any secondary source indicating the significance of the information to the subject.[139] Both of these contentious sections have been removed from the article while discussions proceed on the talk page, despite M.w.denotter, Peterlewis (talk · contribs) and a Scibaby sock trying to reintroduce problematic material. The proposed decision principle 3.1.8 Biographies of living people clearly applies to this situation, and it is extraordinary that Minor4th seems to think that proper actions by WMC in these circumstances should be attacked as edit warring. "Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material should be removed immediately, and should not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing." . . dave souza, talk 19:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry -- how exactly is it a BLP violation to quote the man directly from his interview published in the BBC? C'mon dave, seriously? And if you're suggesting that Monbiot's opinions of BLP's are BLP violations unless there's another secondary source, I'm with you on that if we can apply that principle across all BLP articles. Minor4th 23:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC) The selection from the interview has been subjected to quote mining, which is why we require a good secondary source for any interpretation or assessment of the significance of a selected statement. At the article talk page such sources have been proposed,[140] discussing media misreporting based largely on a lie about Jones's statement. Whether the issue is significant enough to take up a large part of the BLP is open to discussion. As for the Monbiot blog comment, see above and note the parallel with the Dellingpole bio where I fully agree with Lar that undue weight was being given to one journalist's opinion which had not been more widely reported in reputable sources. We can, and do, discuss the principle in all BLP articles. . . dave souza, talk 09:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the link to the blog entry in the Economist. It helps puts the lie to the claim that the Jones claim isn't notable. I'm a big fan of the Economist, so I was momentarily chagrined to see that one of their writers was so clueless, but I see it is a blog contributor, so my opinion of the Economist hasn't been diminished due to this lapse. I'm a bit surprised you didn't challenge it; surely you are aware that, among scientists, a statement that there is no trend isn't equivalent to a statement that the central estimate of the slope is zero, it means that the observed slope isn't statistically different than zero. Which is what Jones said. The Mail article deserves criticism, unless they explained in their article that "no global warming" really means "no statistically significant warming".--SPhilbrickT 13:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Out of sequence discussion, suggest hat for dead horse Suggest that the clerks hat or archive this, and possibly the two comments above that raised the issue. . . dave souza, talk 09:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Dave souza: You are incorrect. Friday's fiasco seems to be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction based on faulty logic. I read through WMC's paper twice and identified 11 different passages that talk about CC alarmism. It seems to be a wonderful resource for that article. It's a shame that we're not using because there's some great information in WMC's paper. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC) A Quest For Knowledge, you are incorrect about the BLP issues raised by the edits on 11 September, which was on Saturday, if that's what you're responding to. As for WMC's paper, I've read it carefully and it makes just one reference to CC "alarmism" used of global warming, and none to "alarmism" referring to "global cooling" as GregJackP was claiming. You seem, like him, to be injecting your own original research or opinions. Not good practice. . . dave souza, talk 20:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Dave souza: No, I'm referring to Friday's fiasco. Your claim that you read WMC's paper carefully is contradicted by your simplistic claim that the word "alarmism" only appears once. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Ah, so you're derailing the thread by putting your comment of 20:21, 12 September 2010 out of sequence with my comment that you're responding to. Any objection to me moving this thread into the appropriate place? Since "WMC's paper" is presumably a reference to Peterson, Connolley and Fleck (2008), the only reference there to "alarmism" is p. 1332, Imhofe quoted as saying "that the global-warming alarmists are concerned about global warming". Or by "simplistic" do you mean that you find instances which sorta look to you a bit like alarmism but don't use the term? Looks like original research. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think identifying the word "alarmist" with alarmism is original research, nor do I think identifying warnings of an impending Ice Age with alarmism is original research. Would a reference for an addition article be OK if it used the word "plus" instead of "addition"? I don't know what to say about the consensus that says otherwise, that isn't likely to get me blocked with the others. Art LaPella (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Or "denier" in place of "skeptic"? GregJackP Boomer! 22:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC) dave souza: No, I was not the first editor who brought up Friday's fiasco. If the best argument against GregJackP is based on faulty logic and simplistic text searches for the word "alarmism", that is extremely troubling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Souza is correct. You are hijacking this thread and repeating claims which have already been addressed. Greg misused the source and cannot explain how it supports his edits. Neither can you, apparently. The pattern and tenor of this discussion is obvious. Vexatious harassment of WMC and advocacy of climate change denial, a fringe, anti-science POV. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC) The paper was not misused as a source to show alarmism has been related to the global cooling scare of the 1970s. The paper appears to have been removed as a source from the article, but based on this discussion, I suspect that someday soon the Peterson/WMC paper will be readded to the article as a source. If that happens, the findings by the arbitrators in this case that the source was misused will look very foolish and shows why the Committee members need to be extremely sure when they stray into findings that directly relate to content decisions. Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I prefer the current version, "... which usually means global warming", to GregJackP's edit. But he didn't misrepresent the source, whether AGW is true or not. Or more broadly, a misleading defense of science, is science in name only. Art LaPella (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I don't have a problem with the current version's wording. I also agree that the paper was not misused. GregJackP Boomer! 03:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Using the Wikipedia sourcing policies and guidelines, please show how the source was appropriately used. This question has been asked many, many times, and no answer has ever been given. With all due respect to Art LaPella, he admittedly doesn't write articles, so he might not be familiar with how we use sources. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) This particular dispute, about Peterson/Connolley/Fleck, should not be re-(re-re-re-)argued here. One of the major underlying themes in this whole dispute is the absolute inability of many involved parties to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Let's be part of the solution, instead of repeatedly demonstrating the problem. MastCell Talk 05:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) OK. Whatever you two can agree on about the horse carcass is OK with me. Art LaPella (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC) It's already been subject to community discussion, and I have no quarrel with the outcome. Suggest a hat on the dead horse. . . dave souza, talk 09:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP's disruptive behavior - inappropriate use of sources

If ArbCom wants to sanction GregJackP, fine. However, the section on "inappropriate use of sources" should be removed or at least carefully examined. I've read WMC's paper twice, and it's very obvious that it's about CC alarmism. In fact, it's core to its central thesis. My initial thought is that what happened on Friday appears to be a knee-jerk reaction based on a logical fallacy, argument from authority. Again, if ArbCom wants to sanction GregJackP, fine. But not based on "inappropriate use of sources".

In fact, I invite the Arbitration Committee to sit down and read through WMC's paper, beginning to end, and ask themselves, "Is this relevant to climate change alarmism regarding global cooling in the 1970s?". If the answer is yes, then I ask the Arbitration Committee to examine the actions of the admins who imposed such draconian sanctions against an editor who, at worst, made a good faith mistake. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

An assertion does not become true by virtue of the number of times it has been repeated. — Coren ^(talk) 15:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Coren: You are ironically correct: An assertion does not become true by virtue of the number of times it has been repeated. So, let's move on to actual substance. Can you please explain what exactly GregJackP did wrong? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we close this now? We've already had one extremely long and tediously repetitive thread on exactly the same subject with people repeatedly asking the same question and failing to get the point every time it is explained to them. One good thing, though: it is giving the arbitrators a good feel for what it is like to collaborate day after day in the climate change topic area. --TS 15:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

But the question hasn't been answered beyond faulty logic and simplistic text searches for the word, "alarmism". But you are correct, WP:ICANTHEARYOU is an unfortunate problem here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Shell Kinney stated it quite well here, I thought. --TS 15:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to A Quest For Knowledge: Why not write up an essay in your userspace where you put forward your arguments in a self contained way (instead of in a back and forth discussion with others). When I could not get my point accross well that the constant c that appears in some physics equations is actually a not so relevant scaling constant, I wrote up this text, instead of arguing the point in detail in direct discussions. Count Iblis (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj has reminded me that the internal link I gave above actually belongs to a much longer discussion that had been raging long before that subsection. Looking at the section on the GregJackP proposal now it occupies a full 83kb. Dragging it out here really isn't good enough. (Nigelj has fixed my link now, after discussing it with me).--TS 15:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The paper is a good paper, and I'd be happy if arbcomm read it. It doesn't contain any nasty equations or stuff and is really quite readable. I'm quite happy to answer any questions about it that arbcomm might have. I'd be even happier if AQFK and GJP weren't still insisting that they knew what it meant better than I did. However, this is the Cl Ch arena in microcosm: they really do think they understand what is going on, and edit aggressively to push that mistaken view in. Another the-case-in-minature example is Robert Watson (scientist) (per my evidence [141]), where GJP did exactly the same kind of thing ([142], etc) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dense editing and rarified atmospheres. --TS 16:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, William, I would have been disappointed if the arbs had taken an over-simplistic view like, "Seems like a content dispute over something or other; let's ban one from each side and see if they stop edit-warring". As it happens, I am glad that a more realistic and nuanced approach is possible here. --Nigelj (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with William M. Connolley that his paper is quite readable. I think it would be a great idea for everyone to take the time to read it, and ask themselves the following three questions:

1. Is the paper about, or relevant to, climage change alarmism in the 1970s?
2. Is it a reliable source to support the statement that global cooling was not the scientific consensus?
3. If the answer to number 2 is no, is this an egregious example of misconduct that warrants inclusion in ArbCom's FoF, or is it a minor content dispute that got blown out of proportion?

WMC's paper is available here. It's only 13 pages long and won't take a long time to read. This will be my last post to this thread. I hope that cooler heads will prevail. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This question has already been asked and answered repeatedly. Engaging AQFK in this discussion simply facilitates disruption. Think carefully before joining this discussion. Guettarda (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

AQFK's got it exactly right: There is simply no case to be made that GregJackP seriously violated any serious sourcing requirements whatsoever. I think his footnote might've been a bit clearer, but it did just what it was supposed to do: It cited a reliable source for certain information, described just what that information from the source was being used to show (although, again, it might've been just a bit clearer) and did so reliably. The information was the number of global-cooling media accounts that each trafficked in alarmism. (Footnote: Peterson, Connolley and Fleck outline numerous examples of popular media articles that contended that current weather data "may be the harbinger of another ice age. [143] WP text it footnoted: Climate change alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of [ global warming ] or global cooling -- minus the "global warming" part.) With all the debate on various pages, I haven't yet seen anyone contradict that this information was not in the source article and that the source itself identified those media accounts as "alarmist", whether or not it used that word. (If I'm wrong on this point, please correct me. I should probably read the article myself.) In terms of sourcing, GregJackP had all he needed, and editors, admins and arbitrators who state otherwise risk looking foolish. If ArbCom officially states otherwise, ArbCom risks looking foolish. I strongly suggest that ArbCom members do the work on this one. I've got a pretty long argument (five paragraphs) about this that I'm putting here under a hat. I could also put this on a separate page in my user space if an arbs or clerk thinks that's more appropriate. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber's extended argument. If anyone wants to comment on it, please do so outside the hat.

(1) It's been said about that GregJackP needed the word "alarmism" attached to the examples of alarmism in the source. This is a misunderstanding that I think was caused in part by the (poor) language in the WP article that referred to climate change alarmism as a word (we all know that the article is about the concept). WP:SYNTH doesn't require the same word to be in the source. It requires the same concept or fact. Figuring out that what the source was referring to in citing all those media accounts was, in fact, a slew of examples of alarmism, is not original research but the kind of editorial judgment and use of common sense that Wikipedia encourages and WP:SYNTH specifically allows: Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. The best practice is to write articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. "Explicit" does not mean use of the word "alarmism", it means that the source explicitly stated that the media accounts were what we would refer to as "alarmist". (2) It's also been said that the purpose that the source made of the information cited must somehow be the same as the purpose that the Wikipedia article uses. That's true, but only to the extent that the source identified the media accounts as what we're calling "alarmist". The overarching purpose the source had for all the examples of alarmist media accounts is irrelevant to us. We are not bound by it just as no scholar would be bound by it. Anyone who has done any scholarship, certainly in the humanities or social sciences, knows this. It is so obvious it shouldn't have to be stated. (3) Let me give you an example: This morning I edited an article I've been working on in my user space about Vermeer's Diana and Her Companions. Two eminent art historians disagree on whether the scene represents part of a myth about the goddess that is mentioned in Ovid's Metamorphosis. One of the sources, Wheelock, thinks it doesn't, but Wheelock mentions a line or two from Ovid's poem. The Wheelock source does a better job of that than another source, Liedtke, who apparently was the first scholar to see the connection. I'm mentioning both opinions in my article, but in describing the passage from Ovid -- as part of describing the connection between the myth and the painting that Wheelock disagrees with -- I'm citing Wheelock. The use I'm making out of Wheelock is directly contrary to Wheelock's opinion. But no bad sourcing is involved: I explicitly state in the article what Wheelock's opinion is and what Liedtke's opinion is. (If it was appropriate, I'd do it in the footnote the way GregJackP does). The reader is served because the best source is used. I'm not violating WP:SYNTH because what I'm sourcing in that particular footnote isn't Wheelock's opinion but Wheelock's presentation of the fact (his fuller description of Ovid's lines). If I was editing the article with Wheelock and he objected to the use of his work to footnote part of an argument he disagrees with, Wheelock would have no case. (4) HOWEVER, if I were editing that article with Wheelock or this one with William M. Connolley, some other factors would come into play. First, WMC is a BLP. We have to be careful in this case not to make it appear as if WMC is even indirectly supporting a position he disagrees with. Therefore the footnote needs to be clear on that. Second, WMC is a fellow editor and we need to avoid fighting with him to the extent that we can avoid it. WMC has obvious cause for concern. For GregJackP to respond to WMC's concern by reverting rather than a careful, very civil discussion is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND because GregJackP was promoting that kind of atmosphere with his actions. I'm particularly concerned that GregJackP said that when he discovered WMC was one of the authors of his source he just laughed and went on. He should have paused at that point and decided this was a sensitive matter for WMC and then acted with a lot more restraint. That doesn't mean WMC has a veto over using the footnote. It does mean that Greg had a greater obligation than normal to rely on discussion rather than reverting. (5) It's perfectly legitimate for ArbCom to find that GregJackP violated WP:BATTLE and even WP:DISRUPT and WP:EDITWAR and perhaps WP:CIV. It is not legitimate for ArbCom to say Greg violated WP:SYNTH or WP:V unless its proven that the facts Greg asserted he was citing were not really there. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That's much better than my unwritten explanation that MastCell saved us from. Art LaPella (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a stick and it isn't a dead horse. It's a pointer, so class, pay attention and direct your eyes to the argument under the hat. The ArbCom finding is very much "live" since the case hasn't been closed and most ArbCom members haven't even participated in the discussion. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

JWB, suppose you and AQFN persuade all the arbitrators to read WMC's 13-page article, to study your hatted list, and to decide your content dispute for you both and GJP. They may even change WP:OR so that it no longer says articles shouldn't "advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources". You have to remember that this is all over three words in one article ("or global cooling"). A clear consensus of involved and uninvolved editors, admins and arbs have all said that in that form they are not supported by the cited source (including one of the authors of the source). What's it going to be like over the next three words? If editing these articles cannot proceed by normal consensus, even three words at a time, then what hope is there for getting on with updating, maintaining and improving these articles as the real world moves on? What happens to collegiate, consensus-driven editing if every three words take ~100KB of arbitration discussion before we can just... get on? COP16 is coming up, articles are getting out of date, stubs need to be expanded, time-expired information needs to be compressed or moved to make way for recent and current developments. --Nigelj (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Nigelj, if editors are going to be railroaded on false charges that can be proven false for every three words of copy, looks like we've all got a problem on our hands ... don't it? If it takes 300,000 words to fix it, maybe we should be careful about how we treat editors. You might recall that the beginning of the brouhaha generated by certain editors over those three little words was the logical place for cooler heads to prevail. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You missed the bit about consensus. You also missed the bit about 'in that form' - has it not occurred to any of you to suggest an alternative treatment of cooling alarmism for that article that might achieve a consensus there? Does it have to be these three words in that place, or its "railroaded on false charges"? Who is responsible for this malicious railroading? If it's the whole arbitration committee and all the other editors and all the admins who disagree with the three of you, then you have to ask if that's really likely too. --Nigelj (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What's relevant to this discussion is the ArbCom finding (perhaps also getting the ANI decision overturned, although that depends on how important it is that Greg not be labeled as bad at sourcing rather than having edit warred or disrupted or engaged in battleground behavior -- have to think about that). I've commented on the article talk page. You have no idea what the whole Arbitration Committee thinks -- or have they all just voted on this finding? I'll have to check. Just checked. Only Shell has voted. I think only he and Coren have commented. And with new information, they can change their minds. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Here's proof that GregJackP correctly sourced what his footnote described as numerous examples of popular media articles that contended that current weather data "may be the harbinger of another ice age. to show the existence of what the WP article said is a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of [...] or global cooling''" (I'm citing the texts the Peterson, Connolley article [144] cites, preceded by the exact page in the Peterson, Connolley article where that text is mentioned:

Evidence

p 1329 a frequently cited Newsweek story: "The cooling world" (Gwynne 1975). The story [...] suggested that cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production" [...] Other articles of the time featured similar themes [...]" on p 1330: "The article states that there was an 'almost unanimous' view that the cooling trend would 'reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century'" p 1329 [T]he news coverage of the time does reflect [...] "the tyranny of the news peg" [...] Developments that are dramatic or new tend to drw the news media's attention, Revkin argues, rather than the complexity of a nuanced discussion within the scientific community. p 1330 "Popular Literature of the Era" sidebar: There are too many potential newspaper articles to adequately assess [...] The most frequently cited magazine articles are described below. [...] [T]he following is a review only of their decadal-to-century-scale global temperature projections: (A) "Science Digest's 1973 article 'Brace yourself for another Ice Age'" (B) Time Magazine (1974) ominously worried '[...] for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age'" (C) "Science News 1975 article 'Climate change: Chilling possibilities'" The article is quoted stating "by the turn of the century, enough carbon dioxide will have been put into the atmosphere to raise the temparature of earth half a degree." (According to Peterson, Connolley, the Science News article also stated not enough was known to extrapolate temperatures, which contradicts what was just quoted.) 4. p 1331, second half of same sidebar: (D) "There were also lay books on climate change, some of which received rather scathing reviews in the scientific literature" (which sounds like an indication of "alarmism" to me, although it isn't proof that Peterson, Connolley contended that; this source article doesn't always explicitly state that a book is about global cooling, so I'll limit myself to books that the article does describe that way) Halacy, Ice and Fire; the article quotes a reviewer describing the volume as "a book whose central theme is the prediction of a global cooling as the beginning of a new ice age [...] giving the impression that the advent of an ice age could occur in a matter of a decade or so -- perhaps it will take a century if we are lucky." (E) The reviewer quoted just above says the book "quotes extensively" Nigel Calder who the reviewer criticizes for doing the same thing ("as did Nigel Calder") (F) "A more extreme book, The Cooling (Ponte 1976), predicts that cooling could lead to billions of deaths by 2050, [...]"

The article explicitly provides eight seven sources, now explicitly laid out here. So glad to see that we're all in favor of adequate sourcing for what we say. I think GregJackP is owed an apology from a lot of people. Perhaps I need to cross post the above massive, compelling, incontrovertable evidence on AN/I to get that topic ban reconsidered, although (as I explain below the hat), I think there may well be adequate reason for some sanction on behavioral grounds. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the same logic, I could argue that there was an alarmism about asteroid or comet impacts after Schumacher-Levy 9 hit Jupiter. I could then directly cite popular press coverage, or cite a peer reviewed paper on impacts that cites popular press coverage on impacts (e.g. to make the point that there is increasing public awareness about the possibility of impacts). Count Iblis (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you could argue that there are examples of alarmism along those lines. Which. Is. What. The. Footnote. Did. Reread the footnote. I provided the diff. It appears the footnote was meant to back up the existence of global cooling alarmism. It did just that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sigh, i'd hoped that this was over... So here are a few questions:

1. Who defines these (quotes) as alarmism?
2. What definition of alarmism is used to do so?
3. Is it allowed to cherry-pick quotes from a paper, and come to a conclusion about these quotes that hasn't previously been established by a 2ndry source?
4. If you use such quotes - shouldn't you directly reference the articles where the quotes originate?

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

KDP, some of your objections are niggling, nevertheless:

1. "alarmism"? It's a common word. Any reliable dictionary should do.
2. Answered in #1. If you mean "global-cooling alarmism" with or without the hyphen, again, use a dictionary for the individual words.
3. "cherry pick" -- I fail to see what "cherry pick" has to do with it. All evidence is, by its nature, "cherry picked". The detailed evidence I've provided shows GregJackP sourced what he said he was sourcing. It's really as simple as that. Petersen, Connolley is the secondary source (in two cases, tertiary source) in which various articles and books are identified as "alarmism". Not a hard concept.
4. I would have no objection to that, but what GregJackP did is also acceptable sourcing, which is the point I'm making here. (This may be better because we've got a secondary source identifying the alarmism of the articles and books.)-- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Referring to any quote/source as "alarmist/alarmism" is a textual/contextual analysis. If that textual analysis is done by editors, and not by a 2ndry source, then it is original research. Further taking the sum of such analysis of quotes, and generalizing this into a factual statement, not already provided by a 2ndry source, is a synthesis. Even further, attributing this analysis/generalization, to a paper that doesn't make this analysis/generalization is a misrepresentation of the reference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We could never create an encyclopedia under your strictures. I quoted WP:SYNTH on that underneath the hat. We source concepts and facts, not necessarily words. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard can set you right on that. Each of the seven sources that can be explicitly found in Peterson, Connolley meets the conceptual criteria found in the footnote and the footnote does the job it was meant to do in the article. You're imagining difficulties that common sense quickly overcomes. If any arbitrators agree with you on this point, I'll comment further. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you are missing the point deliberately or not - but the concept here is "these quotes represent alarmism" - and that concept is not supported by any 2ndry source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't really a good source for the job it was meant to do. Closely related, but not exactly to the point. Something like this would have been better. --JN466 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize to all for having created the article in question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The article in and by itself is a good idea, iirc i stated something like that to Mark Nutley at some point. Its a notable concept, and there should be plenty of sources available without resorting to cherry-picking or doing original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder did any of these three ever read the note on every edit page, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, [etc] at will, then do not submit it here"? You win some, you lose some; sometimes your words find consensus, sometimes they get deleted, sometimes you have to compromise, or word it differently, or explain it better, or do more research, or just give up. You can't do this as if everything you type is holy writ to be fought to the death over. --Nigelj (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A principle for edit warring

I've noticed that often ArbCom seems to adopt the implied principle that editors really should not be reverting, almost at all. This is a view I've appreciated, for all the usual reasons (if anyone can revert a lot, then everyone can revert a lot, and overall the environment becomes dysfunctional). I've also noticed, however, that administrators almost never enforce such a strict rule. This raises the question: should admins be this strict on reverting in a problem area? Currently they aren't.

For one example, I reported User:Ratel to the enforcement board at one point where he had reverted multiple times without explaining (along with other issues).[145] Ratel has now been blocked for using a sockpuppet, and I have little doubt that otherwise he would have been heavily sanctioned in this case. However, the enforcement request was declined for action, and Ratel only received a warning.

I am not sure how familiar all of the arbs are with working in battleground areas, but here is the thing: if you don't revert, and others do, it involves giving up endless hours trying to get enough uninvolved editors to show a consensus for any particular position. Another editor's willingness to revert just once more can mean you now have to continue the discussion for weeks. In theory I think the arbs know this, but generally admins don't act on it. They seem to think that unless you are actively disruptive nothing should happen.

It seems to me that ArbCom should articulate the principle it is applying: editors should not make multiple reverts amid good faith discussion. If you've reverted once you are pushing it, but if you are reverting more than once then you stand to be sanctioned (socks/vandalism excepted, of course). Right now editors are expected just to "get" this, but often they don't, and I wonder if it shouldn't be said. Mackan79 (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would solve anything. It may well encourage people to make more contentious edits using dodgy sources, knowing that such material could not easily be removed. Something like one edit a day (whether adding or reverting) might be better -- you get one shot, so you need to do your best with good writing and sourcing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that this is an unwritten (or poorly written) rule that could use clearer articulation. Over the years, reverts have become progressively less acceptable, but the standards are unclear. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. But also the problem I often see is an assumption that a smaller number of good editors can overcome a larger number of bad editors simply by reverting more and then having the wiki-bureaucratic complex come down on their behalf. This may have worked at some point, but I don't think it's a long term solution. The risk is that you will get the opposite: bad editors will revert more (because what do they care about Wikipedia anyway), and then you don't have a clear rule to deal with it. My hope would be that by strongly discouraging multiple reverts (as ArbCom always ends up doing), you force real consensus seeking which may be cumbersome but, optimistically, is more structurally aligned with good editing. Anyway, I'm also just curious what principle ArbCom would present if they presented one. Mackan79 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely the existing content policies are good enough? If what you add is well-sourced, relevant, notable, within due weight, etc. then if someone deletes it, that is unlikely to find consensus in sensible discussion (WP:BRD). The problems start when you have people who specifically want to 'level the playing field' either by adding lots of fringe stuff, or by removing well-sourced mainstream material, to make a point. It is easy enough when there's only one or two, as consensus is clearly against them. When you get a whole vociferous horde, it can be difficult to sort the sensible from the activist. When they start to adopt all of the arguments ever used against them ("I'm not a fringe activist, you are", etc) it gets messy. --Nigelj (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)