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

What the fuck

Moved from main enforcement page to talk. Franamax (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Permalink before move: [1] Franamax (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Did anybody here notice that there is no reply to this request in the WMC section? And that WMC has not edited Wikipedia since about 3 hours before this request has been created? Do we now block people without a hearing? If yes, I have a couple of blocks I'm sorely tempted to make. In short, I consider this a major fuck-up. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I was aware Dr Connolley was inactive, when I blocked the account. I had not expected WMC to respond, however, to the Request since it was apparent that he had violated his 1RR restriction and that he had used the terminology as evidenced by the diffs. What was he going to do? I would point out that the allegations of 1RR and unfortunate choices of wordings were contained in the Marknutley Request which WMC participated in - and to which he made no response, then. The reviewing admins, and the comments by others, addressed the content of the allegations, and not the contributor, and a decision was made and enacted. Should we have waited for when, or if, Dr Connelley returned to see if he had something to say and then block him for obvious violations of his restrictions? I would not be surprised if some editors would prefer that, and there may now be some questioning from that quarter about why sanctions are not made in such a way as to ensure that "naughty editors" are properly "punished". This admin, however, sees sanctions as preventative, and that is why I continued to make the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

""naughty editors" are properly "punished"" This has nothing to do with punishing bad editors. It has to do with ending the disruption. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Perhaps you can explain to us, LessHeard vanU, how WMC's repeated acts of misconduct help advance the project? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

They do not. His high quality content contributions to a number of topics do. I do not wish for what may be the case, that Dr Connolley has left the project, but I would wish to try and close down the avenues by which his actions have been disruptive. You may feel that the nett result of Dr Connelley's prolonged absence from editing WP to be beneficial, but I do not. They would, however, be vastly improved if he were to contribute in full compliance to not only the wording of his restriction(s), the probation, and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but also the spirit. Of course, if you feel that I am not acting in what I sincerely believe is in the best interests of the encyclopedia then I have nothing more to say - it would be a waste of both of our time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

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

LessHeard vanU, I'm not saying you're not sincere, I'm saying that these little slaps on the wrist have obviously not ended the disruption and that stronger action is required. A 48 hour ban is more appropriate and if this editor continues to be disruptive, the penalties should continue to escalate (4 days, a week, 2 weeks, a month, etc.) until the disruption has ended. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"If we punish anything, it's degrading the content." Would that it were so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Franamax: The camaraderie and mutual respect are choices we make Actually, a more modest goal is that editors are supposed to be allowed to edit the encyclopedia without having to put up with an editor's repeated violations of WP:BATTLE and WP:DISRUPT. To get closer to that ideal, we need admins to enforce policy with some degree of effectiveness. William M. Connolley's lengthy record of WP:GSCC sanctions and blocks strongly indicates that isn't happening. Why do you suppose that is, Franamax? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly because he's strong on the science side and his head tends to explode when interacting with those less scientifically literate? That should be a manageable difficulty. We need editors who don't only approach CC as a social science. Like I said, I agree with the sanction, within a factor of four (upwards). And SBHB, note my choice of "punish" rather than "prevent". "[D]egrading the content" is often a subjective judgement, but yes, an awful lot of people are intercepted at the door and asked to leave quietly (as in RBI). Whether or not the results meet your own expectations, not for me to say. Franamax (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have specified that my comments were in regard to the present sanctions regime, which by design makes no reference whatsoever to content. And yes, I'm aware that vandals are blocked, etc. But we have reached the sad state where people have been taught not to "waste" their 1RR on such things as correcting factual errors. Hardly a recipe for improving content. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly because he's strong on the science side and his head tends to explode when interacting with those less scientifically literate? I believe one of the edits in question was whether or not to label some sources "conservative". "glowing reviews" or "positive endorsements" was the proper wording for some book reviews. [2] Scientific literacy had nothing to do with that explosion. We need editors who don't only approach CC as a social science. Does that sentence indicate that you treat William M. Connolley with kid gloves that you wouldn't treat other editors with because there's one standard of behavior for editors you value as scientifically literate? Personally, I haven't found the more scientifically literate editors any more valuable than other editors on CC articles that are not primarily about the science of climate change. Other than helping with some background material, there is no advantage. But if scientifically literate editors believe they can get away with behavioral violations that other editors will be sanctioned for (because admins feel we need editors who don't only approach CC as a social science), then there's a distinct disadvantage -- for Wikipedia. I assume you didn't mean to imply you've got one behavioral standard for the scientifically literate and another for anyone else. I hope you'll make that clear. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)correction -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that editors like WMC know they will get preferential treatment, so they don't feel compelled to follow the rules. Any other editor with 10-odd requests against him (a significant portion of which resulted in warning or sanction) would have received significant sanction by now, likely a lengthy topic ban or even a lengthy block. Indeed, several editors who have fewer warnings have received longer sanctions. So what's the incentive for WMC to change? If all he'll ever get is the occasional 24-48 hour block and nothing more, I think he'll continue to repeat the behavior - he's already demonstrated that twice since this probation began. As Cla has said, what is needed is an escalating block length for each transgression until the problem is solved, one way or another. This is not a criticism of LHvU's close (I think any action is better than none, and LHvU's decision respected the admin consensus) but simply an opinion that it will likely not work.

As for WMC's contributions, I think editors must be judged by their overall net contribution to the project, not just their article content. If an editor is so combative that he drives off other potentially good editors, then their net effect on the project may not be so positive; it may even be negative (if it were possible to quantify such a metric). ATren (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

JWB, if you assumed I don't hold a different behavioural standard for some editors, you're pretty much wrong. I have a deep respect for the editors who make this engine turn over, and I don't count myself among them. I know how to read a scientific "letter" and I know about four editors here I could go ask for clarification on the fine points of cosmology or atmospheric chemistry (plus some RefDeskers I could ask amything at all and get a great answer) - I'd rather see them all hang in there, same as the gnarly but excellent editors in history or geography or literature topics. We force people to use secondary ionterpretations, but we need them wut' can understand the primary interpretations too. Yes, there is a double-standard for me, if that thought comforts you. Remember that you can always acquire the requisite knwoledge of science, history, geography or literature so that you can stand as an equal, it's a volunteer site after all. The crossover from science to society is just a management task.

All that said, my recent thinking is to ask WMC to voluntarily exit from participation on one article of his choosing for, say, a month - then demonstrate how it's quality has declined in his absence. Franamax (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Franamax, I can't remember -- which was the more scientifically literate position, glowing endorsements or positive reviews? Is it more scientifically literate to keep or delete Climate change denialism? Does science tell us whether or not "Climategate" is the proper name for the article? Ultimately, those are political (or political journalism or maybe even library science) questions. Many of the other conflicts in this area are also not conflicts about the science. If you are going to be granting more leeway to editors -- or even one editor -- on one side of those questions than the other side, you would violate the spirit behind our policies on neutrality, and you would also give incentives to editors on the favored side to cause disruption that will goad editors on the other side to react with similar misbehavior and get longer blocks and more topic bans. To repeat: You're actually would be giving editors an incentive to be disruptive. It also amounts to a a kind of POV pushing by proxy. The less disruption and the more calm reasoning we do (except for some occasional levity), the more our consensus decisions on content can be reasonable and accurate, which is the only real way that Wikipedia's consensus system can address Boris' concerns. (It does require patience.) If you can't refrain from putting your thumb on the scale in what amounts to a POV war, don't participate as an admin here. If I've mischaracterized anything in your position, please correct me. It would be interesting to know if any other admins have the same position. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I think the above sounds more like an accusation than an argument for where Franamax's position on granting leeway would inevitably lead. I'm not making an accusation, and I'm withdrawing the phrasing that sounds too much like one or adding clarifying words in italics. The purpose here is to help think through an idea. I'm busy this holiday weekend, and if I miss something, I hope this explanation adequately makes the distinction clear. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember that you can always acquire the requisite knwoledge of science, history, geography or literature so that you can stand as an equal, it's a volunteer site after all. Just what do you know about what "requisite knowledge" my professional or academic or avocational background gives me in this or any other area of the encyclopedia? And who are you to characterize it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Clarification accepted. The wording [...] comforts you. Remember that you can always acquire [...] with the first, snarky "you" referring to me, led me to believe that the second "you", three words down the line, also referred directly to me. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I grant leeway to those editors who I feel bring extra thought to the proceedings and/or bring an ability to spew forth sourced verbiage which I can then read and pronounce as a good thing. There are many such editors. In some cases, when those editors get upset I try as quietly as possible to get them calmed down and back to the typewriter, where the bread and water is provided free (for a small shipping & handling charge). I'm interested in your extrapolation of "thumb on scale", how many data points are you drawing that curve through? (An old joke from when we used to say "Test facilities? We have hundreds. We call those 'customer sites'." ;) I've not attempted to influence CC content that I'm aware. My only foray was to indicate at the CRU-hack article that I intended to split the POV tags between article name and article content - and hey presto, a few weeks later it is renamed and appears to have no tags at all. Thumb on the scales indeed. (Oh yes, do keep in mind that "you" is both singular and plural in English, and I'll apologize if you thought I meant you as in the you pounding that particular keyboard, I meant y'all:) Franamax (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Leeway extends only so far. There are nine archived GSCC complaints with "William Connolley" in the title in addition to the 10th one still on the complaints page. I've mentioned the list of sanctions against him in the GSCC log. There's been commentary in dead-tree publications about this editor's Wikipedia history. His violation of the 1RR sanction seems brazen, having done it twice in a short period and at about the same time filed a 1RR complaint against another editor that is very obviously without foundation. Continuing to extend leeway to the point where an editor may be willing to get some short blocks in order to keep doing the bad behavior is hurting the encyclopedia. Over on the complaints page, KillerChihuaha has just used the same leeway argument regarding Dave souza, whose user name is not in the title of any of the complaints in the archive. Except that in KC's reasoning, the leeway is peripheral to the main argument, it isn't the backbone of it or extended through a long string of different cases. I'm interested in your extrapolation of "thumb on scale", how many data points are you drawing that curve through? I was pointing out where your leeway justification inevitably strays, not to specific past or present actions on your part. It's your thinking I'm addressing, not your past actions, and if that isn't clear above, I'll refactor. (Looking it over now, it isn't as clear as I thought it was, and I'm crossing out that sentence.) If one or more editors are to be given leeway because of their expertise, and if the editors with that expertise are on one side of a political issue (where expertise is not even decisive), Wikipedia is hurt -- whether or not an admin means to "put a thumb on the scale". It isn't hurt much if the leeway-granting is minor and rare and the leewayed editor stops the problematic behavior, but that isn't the case here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

nine archived GSCC complaints with "William Connolley" - exactly my complaint. Every complaint has an x% chance of sticking, essentially regardless of merit. So whoever whines more wins more. And if you think the low-blow, factually ridiculously wrong comments by Solomon and his ilk have more value because they are printed on paper, I can only hope you are referring to the increased value in outhouse usage. Bringing those up disqualifies you as a serious commenter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, Stephan. The point was that this editor has taken up a lot of time and attention, and the long list of archived complaints and outside published commentary are evidence of it. The point wasn't that every allegation is true. Sometimes (not often enough) I think something is so obvious that I don't have to spell it out, but I think I could've been more clear there. The list of sanctions and the specific behavior I've mentioned are evidence that a lot of it is true. If Every complaint has an x% chance of sticking, essentially regardless of merit is a serious comment, then you and I definitely have a different idea of what a serious comment is. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If WMC has any sense he will walk away from this hellhole and never look back. Ultimately the articles will end up the way the Wikipedia "community" wants them to. If that community wants well-sourced articles that accurately reflect academic thought, that's what they'll get. If that community wants articles where the science is sourced from the popular press, where global warming is "just a theory" and there's a raging dispute in the scientific community, they'll get that instead. At the moment the tilt is clearly toward the latter approach. Editors who are scientifically literate in this field might want to stick around for a little while, but in the end we'll probably just find another hobby. It's a big world out there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a large difference between "academic" and "scientific" thought. WMC left objectivity at the gate a long time ago, and his pattern of disruptive edits is not helpful to the Wikipedia content or community. FellGleaming (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith, please take care to be civil about other editors. The big difference I see between "academic" and "scientific" thought is that the former is a general field, the latter a specific subset relating to, well, science. Which is a relevant subject on the articles where I've seen a pattern of constructive and well informed edits. Diffs needed if allegations of disruption are being made. . . dave souza, talk 18:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Sounds superficially plausible. However, not only did it go against WP:CON, but this very brief article has three other blog references which are critical of the article's subject. WMC found no problem with them, but only the source which is critical of his viewpoint did he choose to delete. Further, the entire issue of WP:RS is a red herring in this case, as the source (a UK journalist) is merely explaining how he chose to use a particular phrase. Did WMC actually believe the source was unreliable in this case? Obviously not. It's a continuing pattern spanning thousands of edits; rather than attempting to improve and balance articles, any person who is critical of WMC's personal views on AGW must be discredited at all costs. FellGleaming (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, a blog by a journalist who promotes fringe views on global warming, and who at present is the subject of a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission for misrepresenting a scientist he interviewed and so promoting a false impression of the science of climate change.[3] Certainly a questionable source, a matter for editorial judgement. The article itself seems to be promoting those minority views, doubtless that problem will be resolved in due course. Please assume good faith and accept that WMC believed that was an unreliable source. Without checking out the other blog sources, remember WP:SPS allows careful use of blogs in some circumstances. . . dave souza, talk 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed. The journalist was merely explaining he had used WUWT (the article's subject) as inspiration. WP:RS doesn't even come into play in this case. Do you honestly believe the journalist is lying when he claims he reads the WUWT site?

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

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

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

AEB (fools)

To the suggestion that the problem is that WMC doesn't suffer fools gladly ("his head tends to explode when interacting with those less scientifically literate"), well, welcome to the club, WMC, you are not alone in that sentiment. He is not the only person with that challenge but others manage to find ways to contribute successfully. Perhaps what WMC needs is a consigliere. Someone to intermediate for him, someone who does suffer fools at least a bit more gladly. This is actually something that has been suggested before, for various academics who have valuable contributions in their specialty to make. But failing that he has to learn how to get along. Content is king but he can't poison the environment for almost everyone else, even including many of those who agree with him about the science. ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I find it ironic when someone declares "content is king" and yet fewer than 10 of their last 500 edits are in article space. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that less than ten of my last 500 edits were substantive article contributions and just above I expressed the primacy of content, I suppose you're referring to me then? Have either of Lar or myself gotten in the way of improving the 'cyclo lately? Or are we doing what we can to help it move forward? Franamax (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You're being too modest. I make perhaps 150-200 of your last 500 edits as being in article space. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Minus the new classes that are given Number the Stars (which has some deep breakage I need to figure out) as a reading assignment and dude who wants to respell Fertilisation? Nope. Thanks though. I won't list the various other "things" I keep an eye on but they are sadly oriented toward various people-problems. I do want to find a new focus for doing actual writing, not quite there yet. Franamax (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Boris, do you also find it ironic when content editors comment on behavioral issues? Neither is ironic. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

SBHB: False dichotomy. I can support content being king while not choosing to focus on content creation myself (at this time) The way to get good content is to make sure the whole enterprise runs smoothly and is focused on content creation, and that may require some to contribute other ways than purely banging out content. WMC, despite his knowledge, seems to be hindering that process more than helping it. You might be better served by reading what I say rather than taking swipes at me. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm still ruminating on the idea that those who contribute content, "according to the available reliable references are "expendable", because any other good contributor can use the same references and arrive at much the same content". I wonder what these articles will look like after the politicos and 'social scientists' have driven off all of those who actually understand the material, and so have the topic to themselves. --Nigelj (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Any single editor is in theory expendable. In actual practice there are some editors who have expertise or contributions that are so significant or so good that losing that editor is a measurable blow, and finding another editor who is "equivalent" would be a non trivial task. But viewing this at the single editor level misses the forest for the trees. What matters is the totality... no editor gets a free pass, regardless of the level of positive contribution. We make allowances, but we have to balance the needs of the entire project against the contributions of one editor and if an editor is being so disruptive that they are a net negative, something needs doing. Even if they are irreplaceable in their subject area. Unfortunate but this is a larger project than any one subject area. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Who is running the ledgers? And is your last sentence apropos anything? As I see it, we have editors with significant contributions all over the project, but who have less than perfect patience with idiots in their own field of expertise. I've not really seen anyone here who is valuable in a small field, but is disruptive overall. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The community as a whole runs the ledgers, in theory. And we are writing an entire encyclopedia here so yes, that remark was apropos something. As for your feeling you've "not really seen anyone here who is valuable in a small field, but is disruptive overall", I suggest you haven't been looking very hard. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't been looking very hard. WMC has significant contributions outside the climate change articles. He has contributed featured images, he has been one of the best 3RR enforcers ever, and he has edited articles from Plato and Gravity to Thomas Hobbes. I suspect he has more contributions outside the climate change area than several "sceptics" have in total. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but that doesn't directly refute whether WMC is on balance disruptive overall, I'm afraid. I thank him for his positive contributions and I do not thank him for his negative ones. So you've not addressed the point. ++Lar: t/c 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, to me it shows that you came to a conclusion about the balance of WMC contributions without even being remotely aware of the scope of his contributions. Of course, being unbiased and neutral, you immediately reassessed the situation, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would that happen? The revisionist tending editors will not be able to propagate their viewpoint providing that there is one editor who not only understands and applies WP policy and guideline, but also complies with it themselves. Consensus, which is what determines what ultimately is included or not within the article space, is not a question of numbers, loudness, or even durability, but reference to the available reliable third party sources. We do not require editors to understand the primary source being quoted, or even the secondary source that originally notes it, since if it is the orthodox subject point of view there will be numerous third party references that can be understood - and let us be honest, the general readership is more likely to understand the explanation of the report upon the paper rather than the report or paper - for the encyclopedic minded editor. Indeed, some of the internecine wars over the validity of some paper or publication misses the point; editors do not make the decision over whether one opinion carries more weight than another, the reliable sources do. As long as you can point to a reliable peer reviewed third party source, then the content cannot be deprecated. How intelligent and well versed in the subject matter do you need to be to understand that? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus, which is what determines what ultimately is included or not within the article space, is not a question of numbers, loudness, or even durability, but reference to the available reliable third party sources. Like Stephan, you must be new around here. Glad to make both your acquantainces. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

If I may suggest it, I think section headers with profanity may not invite the broadest desired participation. Mackan79 (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The header originated as a subsection of a Request on the mainpage, and since it was an honest expression of the editors reaction it was appropriate then - since the discussion has diverted into general philosophical it might be appropriate to change, but check with the originating editor. In essence, when it was created it was appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually thought it was a bit more off-putting on the enforcement page, considering it should especially be protected from developing an environment where editors won't feel comfortable participating. A lot of us may be pretty bull-headed, but we should try not to make it a pre-requisite for commenting. A conversation that starts with "What the fuck" doesn't sound like it's going to be respectful to differing viewpoints. Obviously this single header isn't a major issue, but I'd nevertheless suggest it be changed by an admin, as I don't think editors are really entitled to control the section headers. Mackan79 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) does have sysop privileges, and he created the header. Why not drop him a request on his talkpage? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WTF? ;) I moved the thread here, then Tony S changed the heading, unless that Olaf Davis is messing with time again. I'm still chuckling that Tony's whole contribution to the discussion was to say "fuck". [4] :) Franamax (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets"

It's not clear what the point of that section is, given that it won't be used as a basis for running checkuser or any other concrete action. So far it has only been used for joking around. (I heartily endorse joking around, but still and all...) Can it be deleted? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive it, manually? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Creation of the section was the outcome of an enforcement action. Let's remove the jokes manually to an archive. If after waiting some additional time we find no use for it, let's archive the whole thing. ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Lar's approach sounds about right. I created the section when closing the relevant section, but did not participate in that discussion as I did not have any brilliant brainstorms beyond the current WP:RBI. If we get some use out of it, great, but I would say give it another two weeks or so before reclaiming that space. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman: April Fool's is a couple days in the past now, joke's over. 2/0, sounds good to me. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

April Fool's? That was purely a coincidence. But I can see that there is no chance of The Truth® being heard, so let's remove the subsection as you suggest. But remember, I've got my eye on you! (/me points at Lar/Scibaby) Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The self report is gone already, and the rest of the section, if no other use comes of it? Wait a couple of weeks and then archive it, as 2/0 suggests. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK, someone reported a suspected sock, a real one, not a joke. What now? I don't see any CU doing anything about it. (I'm not currently active as a CU here due to my role as an Ombudsman). So is this section working, or ???.... The report was several days ago, it reports an ID, but gives no detail and isn't signed. We may not need an SPI level formal report but a bit more to go on may help the CU if one turns up. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason i marked it there was because there apparently weren't any CU's active, and that this one comes up extremely high on my scibaby detector. The current scibaby SPI is 2 days overdue. Which imho isn't good, since there always is a chance of false positives - and letting these be under suspicion for that long isn't (again imho) OK. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to have that section work - then either the SPI report needs to be dropped (and something similar needs to be here), or the documentation needs to be low, otherwise the "paperwork" simply gets too tedious. If CU was fast, then the section would have no meaning... It is only because its slow that i've marked up the user, so that the revert i made couldn't be confused as editwarrring. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree we need low paperwork. But I think a bit more than just the ID might be good. Like a diff or 2, and a signature of who reported it so if there are questions they can be raised. I also agree it's not good to let stuff sit. There's a CU election coming up, I'd encourage those qualified to consider standing. ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I forgot the signature - that would be an oversight... i did follow the procedure requested there though. Diffs make rather little sense with Scibaby socks - since the contribution history is usually so small that it can be overlooked easily. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind signing it, as a personal favor? Thanks. To the larger point, so far nothing's happened. Is that enough to conclude this section isn't needed? Should another sample be taken? Do we try flagging down a passing CU? If this section doesn't work we should scotch it, and instead ask to keep open a Scibaby page at WP:SPI instead, (which I realise now I suggested back when this subpage was being mooted... but then I was an active CU at that time) ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Signed. I think that if we want to change this, then the "enabling" thread should be reopened or rediscussed in a new one. There is a problem here, and it is one that is rather frustrating. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing entries in Climate change probation log?

On Febuary 27, Guettarda received a warning[5] and on March 3, Nigelj was blocked and Unitanode received a warning.[6] However, I do not see a record of these 2 warnings and 1 block in Climate change probation log. Unless I'm missing something, can someone please add this to the log? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of warnings, should non-admin warnings be logged? For example I've had a chat with User:Macai about 1RR here. I can see both advantages and disadvantages of logging non-admin warnings. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A warning made without input from "uninvolved" parties might not be suitable for inclusion in the log, since an entry may infer an "officialism" that might not exist. In Requests for enforcement there is a provision for noting previous warnings, which I take indicates that such notices are made outside of the the Requests process and are not necessarily found in the log. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(resp to AQFK) Thanks for the heads up, I have duly noted "my" warning. I shall bring the other matter to User:2over0's attention, it being "their" close. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The block of Nigelj and warning of Unitanode were enacted and recorded by LessHeard vanU ([7], [8]) on 28 February, and appear to still be logged. I suspect that the confusion is that I archived the request a few days after LHvU acted on it, and signed the header. Still, thank you for checking up on this - having an accurate record helps us make informed and proportionate decisions. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Duh, it was my block and warning, and I recorded it, and did not remember when commented here? I might be taking "uninvolved" to an unnecessary extreme... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Should always topic bans be discussed here?

The current wording of the probation, to my understanding, encourages individual uninvolved (as defined there) administrators to act independently to take any measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Should we so desire, we could amend the wording to encourage or require that any topic ban or other lengthy sanction be referred to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement for discussion. I moot this question here. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising it. I think in urgent situations, acting first may be key but we should always bring it here for validation. First, if not urgent, but at least after. That's my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin (even on TV) but point out that the terms of the probation here and here say nothing about requiring noticeboard posting or extensive discussion before imposing sanctions. My reading of the discussion leading up to the probation was that the probation is intended to encourage admins to act quickly and decisively, not to require exhaustive discussion at a noticeboard before acting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation of the probation as written. Nevertheless, I think the process that has evolved is beneficial and the moderating influence of several admins discussing among themselves (either first, or after when it was urgent) is a good thing. If things shift, that's OK too, that's why we're having this discussion. But I've always held back, made my views known, but left the actual enforcement to others. I guess I'm willing to change that if that's the consensus. ++Lar: t/c 11:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that last part. By more-or-less making reporting at the noticeboard ("whining") mandatory, we have created a heavyweight process, and we run the risk that admins rely on these reports, so they don't get a global picture. In many other areas under probation, admins actively participate and monitor the articles under probation, and act without special prodding from one side (or the other). I think this takes a lot of the battleground mentality out of probation - actions are not (necessarily) initiated by an involved party and framed as an attack from the get-go, but rather by (hopefully) uninvolved and (hopefully) neutral people. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IOW, 2/0 having followed the established rules and Macai having appealed the imposed sanction at the /Requests_for_enforcement page, should the process be changed to mandate an entry by the acting administrator at the /Requests_for_enforcement page prior to implementing the sanction? This is tantamount to saying that admins now need to request enforcement just like any other user. Please note that this has evident implications across the wiki. Other than that, I have no opinion on it so long as the rules are consistently followed. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

One more observation:
....... For those unfamiliar with the norm, an ordinary block is a "discretionary sanction", and normally no one other than the blocked user is notified unless the block might be controversial, in which case WP:ANI is the usual place. If the sanctions are related to a community or ArbCom decision regarding an article, group of articles, or editor, then there is a log page for that specific decision or ruling. For example, the Barack Obama log page is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions. In this case, the sanction is noted at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log, where 2/0 duly noted the sanction minutes after implementing it. It appears to me that the only thing 2/0 missed under the current norm was anticipating that the sanction of Macai would turn out to be controversial. An unanticipated controversy about a sanction is something that has happened many times before across the wiki, and will undoubtedly happen many times in the future. But the sanctioned user has recourse in every event, since such sanctions are appealable at WP:ANI and WP:ARBCOM. In this case Macai chose to appeal here at the Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement page, at first requesting enforcement against 2/0 (which was declined) and then reformatting the request as an appeal of the sanction(s) imposed by 2/0.
....... As I indicated above, I've no objection to making it standard practice to give "advance notice and an opportunity to be heard in a public hearing where all can weigh in" to those who are potentially subject to escalating sanctions (as here), so long as the established rules are consistently followed. But please note carefully that the proposed new administrative procedural rule here has the effect of reducing administrators' discretion in a topic area under probation (i.e. an enforcement priority), as compared to the established procedure that has become the norm for discretionary sanctions imposed by admins. My impression is that a move like this should perhaps be under discussion in a wider forum such as WP:AN or other wiki-wide forum. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Unlike Kenosis, I do have an objection to this - there has already been discussion, else there would not be a community sanction. The admins are trusted, otherwise they would not be be admins. Often, sanctions are discussed already - but this should not become required. In the rare occasion that a sanction is considered to be misapplied, it can be modified. But requiring discussion prior to any implementation is self defeating - we will be wikilawyered to death, and might as well not have these sanctions at all. I forsee endless bickering if this becomes a requirement, while those disrupting the 'pedia run unchecked. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Against administrative discretion

I have previously requested that 2/0 refrain from taking unilateral action without discussion, because his record of enforcement is heavily weight against the "skeptical" editors -- I believe he's blocked or topic banned at least half a dozen skeptical editors for far less violation than WMC, and in fact he posted a lengthy defense of WMC here in defense of his repeated lack of action. I had actually begun to prepare evidence for an arbitration case against 2/0, and the evidence I had examined was compelling. For example, here is an abbreviated listing of his block log, showing his blocks related to CC articles:

• 17:44, 3 April 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked Macai (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (WP:edit warring at Climatic Research Unit email controversy.)
• 00:10, 2 April 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked TMLutas (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Violation of climate change probation sanction; see User talk:TMLutas#Climate change probation Request.)
• 15:35, 1 April 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked Marknutley (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Marknutley)
• 19:21, 5 March 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked Dikstr (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (WP:Edit warring at Global warming.)
• 02:54, 28 February 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked Marknutley (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (WP:Edit warring at Rajendra K. Pachauri. See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation)
• 13:55, 24 February 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked ClimateGate (talk · contribs) (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (usernameblock)
• 04:21, 23 February 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked HideTheDecline (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (usernameblock)
• 11:00, 22 February 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked Jprw (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (WP:Edit warring at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation)
• 18:54, 16 January 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked GoRight (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive and tendentious editing and abuse of discussion and dispute resolution venues.)
• 21:32, 11 January 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked Dcowboys3109 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (WP:Edit warring at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident)
• 23:17, 2 January 2010 2over0 (talk | contribs) blocked ZuluPapa5 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (WP:Edit warring at Global warming)

I believe every single one of these editors edits from the "skeptical" side. He also imposed signficant topic/article bans against skeptics (JPatterson, Macai, Marknutley). In all that time, I don't believe he's blocked or banned a single editor from the non-skeptic side, and in fact, he posted a lengthy, diff-by-diff defense of WMC in one of his RFEs.

Based on this history of biased enforcement I have requested (repeatedly) that 2/0 refrain from unilateral action -- I have no doubt that he is trying to act in good faith, but the record shows a definite bias. For a while, he did refrain from acting hastily, but this latest action seems to be another hasty act (whether warranted or not). So I am requesting that 2/0 formally retract his unilateral decision here and let the RFE run its course. ATren (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So how many of those bans do you think are wrong? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume this is the question you below accused me of evading? Here's my answer: by the standard set forth in their treatment of you, they are all wrong. None of these editors had as lengthy a list of enforcement requests documenting long term, persistent bad behavior, yet they all got worse than you. Why are you so special that you get away with things for which others get long term bans? ATren (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that just shows how appallingly bad your judgement is. "climategate" was username blocked; that block was appealled (twice) and upheld by totally uninvolved admins. If you're really going to whinge about such flawles decisions - why should anyone bother listen to you? You need to up your signal/noise ratio William M. Connolley (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

ATren, Rfc Admin Conduct is thatwway-->. This is the wrong venue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not clearly so in practice. Allegations are raised here all the time that one admin or another is unilateral or biased. ATren's have the advantage of being actually supported with information rather than being snide remarks made in passing. ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And people will keep asking for vandalism blocks at ANI, too, but that doesn't make it the correct venue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - ATren has raised a valid point. To WMC, the point is not that any of the blocks are wrong, but that they have all been directed at skeptics, whereas equal behaviour from climate change advocates has always gone unsanctioned. I know for a fact that 2/0 has been aware of said equal behaviour from advocates and has always chosen to turn a blind eye to it. I could find diffs, but I loathe these petty diff based witch hunts, so will not. I do think 2/0 is a good administrator who acts in good faith and is sincere and I'd have to note further that he's shown an enormous amount of patience to me, personally, so I must thank him for that. But it doesn't change the fact that he's clearly biased, that his blocks have all fallen in one direction, and he doesn't have the confidence of skeptics or neutrals on the climate change pages. ATren's observation should be supported here. Involved administrators -- those with a known bias -- should refrain from climate change probation. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If an editor is immediately and obviously identifiable as a "skeptic", then that tells me two things. First, their contributions are defined by advocacy of one side of a single controversial topic. Second, that advocacy drives Wikipedia away from the generally accepted state of expert knowledge in the relevant field. Both of those aspects are potentially problematic in terms of Wikipedia policy. It therefore seems reasonable to expect that "skeptics" might be sanctioned at a somewhat higher baseline level than non-"skeptics". In fact, an admin who neutrally and objectively applies Wikipedia policy is very likely to seem "biased" by people who misunderstand Wikipedia's particular definition of neutrality. MastCell ^Talk 05:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • Do you believe WMC is not defined by advocacy of a position in this debate? Why is one advocate treated differently than another? And who's doing the "driving away" here? Probably dozens of good editors have been put off by the abrasive behavior of a small few on those pages: are you saying that all those good editors combined, who avoid these articles like the plague, are worth less than a single editor who twice tried to get the ridiculous POV phrase "The book has been enthusiastically and uncritically reviewed by the skeptics, and ignored by everyone else." into an article? Mastcell, how is such level of contribution considered "expert" in terms of creating great encyclopedic content, so valuable that all those other good editors who've been chased off are expendable? ATren (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's a big misunderstanding to see this as a debate between "skeptics" and "believers", with he truth, presumably, somewhere in the middle. The scientific position broadly described by the IPCC is the moderate middle-of-the-road opinion, accepted by all competent scientific organizations, the vast majority of scientists, and, if that is relevant, recognized by nearly all governments, including in particular those of the large, democratic, developed countries (like e.g. Norway, a major fossil fuel exporter [9]). The radical side of the debate consists of Gaia huggers and end-time preachers, not the scientific establishment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• (@ATren) I'm not talking about WMC, or about any specific editor. I'm talking about the assumptions implicit (and explicit) in your summary. Specifically, the assumption that "skeptics" should be sanctioned at an equal clip as other editors seems misguided. Using that assumption as a basis to accuse an admin of being biased seems similarly misguided. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

To WMC, the point is not that any of the blocks are wrong, but that they have all been directed at skeptics, whereas equal behaviour from climate change advocates has always gone unsanctioned - that is why I asked if *all* the blocks were bad. I'm not aware of *any* username blocks on "climate change advocates" (whatever that might mean; I certainly don't advocate climate change, for example). So I think as a bare minimum the "padding out" of the list above needs to be corrected before it can start to mean anything. Incidentally - you appear to assert, with no evidence, that it is obvious that blocks only of one "side" indicates bias - you exclude, by definition, any possibility that one "side" might behave worse than another? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

• I think that any violation specifically relating to the probation should be noted here; Consensus between the uninvolved admins - informed by comment from other parties - makes for less contested actions. This need not be before the imposition of sanctions where there is obvious violation(s) of the probation and the tariff is either as previously advised or not of a duration of more than a few days - and in the later case longer sanctions may be imposed on the basis of being subject to review. If there are questions of interpretation of the probation or of appropriate duration of blocks or bans, then perhaps a discussion before actioning is appropriate. Simply, if the block and or ban is within both the terms of the probation and the general remit of the sysop then any notification will hopefully not draw too much more than a few "concurs".
  The only other point I would make is that unless an admin is responding to serious violations of the probation - ones that would likely draw sanction outside of the probation area - unilaterally imposing blocks and bans without notification places another instance of the differing standards applied to admins and none sysopped editors; the latter have to use the enforcement process - I am for adopting as much of the same process for both types of volunteer, so to diminish any perception of differing status. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Killer Chihuahua. This won't surprise anybody, I've consistently argued that the probation is intended to strengthen and encourage individual admins and proactive measures. I also think that some aspects of the talking shop that has developed actively hamper the intended beneficial effects of such action by encouraging case-by-case dissection of sanctions.

In other words, at its worst the talking shop reproduces exactly the same wikilawyering that has made the climate change articles and talk pages such a mess for so long. We need to be vigilant and make sure we don't let that happen.

Some people have tried to recast the probation as a way of "leveling the playing field." That kind of thinking simply accepts and condones the battleground mentality.

I don't think the case presently under discussion should be controversial. A previously sanctioned editor is perforce on a shorter leash than he would have been had he not already damaged the area under probation. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, my telephone's Wizard Wheeze of the Day appears to be to remove all paragraphing. My apologies, and do feel free to refactor in a rhetorically pleasing manner. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with LHvU. What is being advocated is NOT "always have a lengthy discussion FIRST" it is "have a discussion first if there's time and need, or at least a mention AFTER if it's urgent, if it's routine, etc." It is not a request for enforcement to bring it here, it's gaining consensus on what exactly needs doing. BUT, if consensus is to not do this, that's fine, I'll change my practice to conform. ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Then you're (Lar) saying sanctions should be logged. Great, we agree. Log them. But "have a discussion first" is completely counter to the point of these sanctions. Have you all forgotten how and why these came to pass? It was because all these sanctions were independent, and ended up being endless messes on ANI. Then Sanctions, to be implemented by any independent admin at their sole discretion, were implemented. A place to bring cases to the attention of admins was later created, and now you want to bog it down with the exact same issues this whole procedure was set up to resolve! Thank you, no. We just got out of the bog. Lets keep our feet dry this time,a nd not make this another forum for endless committee debate. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    • • I think characterizing my position as calling for logging is inaccurate. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
        • "at least a mention AFTER" - that would be the logging bit. Yes, we should log. If someone forgets to log, we should take care of it and remind them. All done with what little you have said here which I agree with. Otherwise, not so much. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Adding: The whole point is that we already have consensus. That's why there is a community sanction for Climate change. Look, consensus for sanctions, all listed out and labeled! We don't need to re-evaluate the entire mess each time a problem arises. We need to apply the sanctions appropriately, log and move on. Done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think this bogs down the way that AN/I does, as it's a narrower audience, and the last part is restricted to admins only. AN/I tends to be a circus with all and sundry opining. If there is controversy about whether a sanction applies our practice here has been to discuss. Not just log. But as I say, if consensus changes, no worries. I will switch to enforcing and logging instead of suggesting. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
        • We are also told to "direct all discussions of this remedy to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." not to discuss each remedy applied anywhere, there or elsewhere. This page is only for requesting action, not for endless debate about each and every remedy applied. This is not consensus changing. This is what is. That you somehow misunderstood the purpose of this board, or scope creep has begun, is a problem - one we can nip in the bud. But that there is a probationary status, with each independant admin able to enforce by applying sanctions as they see fit, has already been decided. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't think you addressed my point, which is that this process works. Far better than AN/I does. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes, it works fine, as a general rule. So please stop trying to change it, thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
              • I'm not the one trying to change the practices at this page. Review the archives. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
                • Since the archives only cover what's been brought to this page, and no other instance of applying sanctions, of course you see only instances brought to this page and discussed. You are saying all cases should be brought to this page, and that's counter productive, and a huge change. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
                  • How many enforcement actions are logged that had no discussion here first? I'm curious as to how many there are. I'll review the log. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
                    • Yes, do. Make sure you review all the cases on Wikipedia:General sanctions, and especially Sarah Palin, which doesn't even have a Requests page. Make sure to check every sanction on the Barak Obama log page. Check them all. Take your time. Compile a full report in your sandbox. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
                      • We're talking about this sanction. Not Sarah or Barack. Preliminary results below. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
                        • So now you're saying special rules apply to Climate change, which don't apply to other Community Sanctions or ArbCom sanctions and probation? Please do link the discussion where that was decided. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
                          • I don't think there was one. Nor does there need to be, unless it turns out there's an issue. It's just how things have evolved here. Seems to work here. I'm not against changing it, I just think it's best to acknowledge how things are first before you start. So you're starting from the right premise, that you want to change the status quo here. Hope that helps. As I said below though, I'm done. I want to hear from the other admins who have been here for a while, actually doing the actual enforcing. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The basic message is this: just sort it out, and stop agonising about the details. If the probation should happen to make it harder to block or ban an obviously problematic editor, then the probation has become the problem and can be ignored. The longer you spend arguing over this, the less effective you are as administrators. You should be empowered by the probation, not hamstrung by the bureaucratic nonsense that has sprung up in its wake. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, except I can see like a prophecy someone claiming discussion is required prior to any action, if we do not lay this silly idea to bed now. Call me cynical, but I calls 'em like I see 'em. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As a non-admin observer, I would now proffer that if there is serious interest in a change such as this, which dilutes administrative discretion in a probation area already discussed by the community, it should definitely be discussed in a wider forum such as WP:AN. If the issue is whether to modify or overturn the topic ban imposed by 2/0, lacking consensus here, it should perhaps be raised at WP:ANI. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion. Discussion is NOT something "new", it is current practice here, which IS to discuss things in advance for the most part. We started the sanctions agreeing that we would modify things as we went along and this is what evolved among the admins that were most active here (LHvU, 2/0, BozMo and myself, I'd say). I feel like I'm repeating myself when I say that this current practice doesn't mean that discussion is always required, in advance. That's a strawman and I wish that argument would stop being used. Further I think it's a bit rhetorical to call what we have been doing "this silly idea"... it's been working fairly well, I think. But if consensus among the body of enforcing admins changes, great. Just be sure you know what you're getting. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

RE "Discussion is NOT something "new", it is current practice here, which IS to discuss things in advance for the most part. " Actually, no. It's a page created for non-admin users to request enforcement. Admins don't need to request enforcement. What's being proposed is for admins to be recommended or required to do that. Further, 2/0 had two independent bases for implementing an escalated sanction, either of which would have been adequate grounds under current administrative norms to proceed with the sanction and simply log it in the required places, on the user's talk page and in the appropriate log (which he did, anything further being simply an administrative courtesy). The first basis for escalating sanction(s) is provided for by the community discussion leading up to the climate-change probation. This is in the terms of the climate change probation itself, which provides for escalating blocks in situations where an admin judges behavior to be disruptive. The second basis is specified in the sanction of the prior request for enforcement involving Macai, notice of the terms of which was given on Macai's user talk page.
....... Lacking a consensus among admins here or a unilateral action by another admin to modify or overturn 2/0's sanction, if the issue is still up for grabs it should be discussed in a wider forum, where, because of the implications of a dilution of administrative discretion such as is being proposed, it should receive the attention of the broader administrative community. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to review the archives of this page. As I told Tony. We discuss things here. Time and again. You may not yet be aware of that but the archives will help clarify it. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This speaks to exactly the point KillerChihuahua has been making, which is that the purpose of the probation is to provide an expedited path for discretionary administrative sanctions. If this issue and/or the question whether to modify Macai's topic ban can't be resolved by consensus among admins here, it should be brought before the wider administrative community which implemented the probation in the first place. And there, in front of a wider forum of admins, by all means argue that "this is the way we've been doing it over at Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, so therefore the terms of the probation should be so modified". ... Kenosis (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there are two questions: firstly, should 2over0 have the power to ban a previously sanctioned editor for problematic behavior without further discussion? secondly, should this probation be altered to require discussion here prior to admin action? While I find both suggestions to be blatantly contrary to the interests of a well run encyclopedia by inserting an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, I would gladly accept the consensus of a deliberation by admins at WP:AN. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree those are the questions. The latter question is, more properly, should the practice here, now, be turned over to STOP encouraging discussion in advance. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, quite often you behave in a cheeky way, and usually you get away with it. That's okay. To suggest that your own preference is now a norm, against the wishes and practice of other editors and admins, is too cheeky. You're free to continue discussion here. You're not free to abridge administrative discretion, encouraging which is the primary purpose of this probation. Stop being a cheeky bugger. You've gone too far. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't agree. It's not merely my preference, it's what we actually do here. Policy at WP evolves by people doing things. Take a look at this page and the archives and you will see what the status quo is. Discussion, consensus, action. If we want to change that, so be it, but it's wrong to say it's not what we already do. We have several months of precedent. ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. Stop being so tendentious. If a complaint/request is brought here, we discuss it - but its not necessary in every freaking case. Now drop it; you don't have support for your very special view of how things are "actually done". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Review the archives. I think you're starting to verge into unhelpful rhetoric now with the tone you're taking. "very special view"? "oh please" et al? I was glad to see some new faces here and I'm as open to change in process as the next fellow, but you have to at least start by acknowledging the facts on the ground of how things have been done here. And drop the snarkiness. ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the archives only cover what's been brought to this page, and no other instance of applying sanctions, of course you see only instances brought to this page and discussed. You are saying all cases should be brought to this page, and that's counter productive, and a huge change. And yes, Please. There is a problem now with asking politely? I am begging you to end this silliness. You're brighter than this, usually. Please also pick one place on this page where you plan to make your argument,(s) rather than repeating yourself all over. You've said "read the archives" in at least three different places, and all the archives show is how instances brought here were handled - not instances not brought here, which you have been arguing must now be brought here. I disagree with this new requirement you have suggested, strongly. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I respond to responses. Can't help that it's sprawling around a bit but I'm not the only person who needs to pick one place, I guess. ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, I hate the term, I think it's childish if it means anything, but at this point I think an American would say that we have "called you out". The probation, indeed all probations, are intended to increase administrative discretion. If you feel that you and some friends have built a forum for limiting administrative discretion, that's interesting and I'm happy for you. But you're wrong. You have to do a bit more than discuss stuff to stop other people doing stuff without getting your imprimatur. This is not your kingdom. If it were, I'd dissolve it (for obvious reasons). --TS 20:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Second that. Can we be done with this now? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, TS's framing of this discussion, and especially the terms he used used, and the motives inferred, is completely off base. IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Rhetoric

Such rhetoric. Here's a link to the log. Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log#Log_of_sanctions Looks like most, but not all, imposed sanctions came from here. I could be misanalysing. ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Super. So then please bring it into WP:AN, where the issue can be reviewed by the same community that implemented the probation, and proceed to argue how it's been successful this way in most cases so therefore the terms of the probation should be thusly modified. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is working fine. Feel free to bring the matter up at AN/I if you feel the need. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't feel the need unless the local decision here is to change the terms of probation formed by the wider community, in which case I imagine I wouldn't be the only one interested. I said earlier that I don't mind such a change so long as the rules are consistently followed, though it's now much clearer to me than before that such a change would cause a substantial inconsistency with the very purpose of the probation, and that such a change would amount to this local group overruling the broader community. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It already has. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"but not all" kinda says it all. It is therefore not a requirement to discuss a sanction here prior to applying it. As I've previously stated, the idea that an admin must discuss a sanction that he is expressly empowered to impose, prior to imposing it, goes against the principle of administrative discretion which is the engine of all probations. --TS 20:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall saying "must". ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Great. Then we all agree. This is the page for non-admins to request sanctions; otherwise, Admins act at their discretion in applying such sanctions. All done now. Thank you all for your input. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. See below. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What does "see below" mean? If you want to overturn administrator discretion, make a case for it in an appropriate forum.

And please stop saying that such an abrogation is the status quo and somebody who opposes it must broach the question. You know that won't wash. --TS 22:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The status quo is what we do here. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion from one Arbiter, which may or may not have a bearing on the current discussion

(after ec, being on a cell modem sucks) I find this exchange (from here ) enlightening

I asked:

To Carcharoth, who asks why this hasn't been handled via the enforcement process: As far as I can tell, this has not been brought to the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement page, unless I missed it. If it had been it probably would have been handled, and probably close to how Guy suggested at AN. But the admins that hang there don't tend to cruise other areas looking for things, they wait for reports to be filed. Is that the incorrect approach? Does ArbCom wish that mandate expanded? If so please clarify. That said, Guy's proposal at AN strikes me as a good approach and if ArbCom chooses to deal with this by motion I recommend adoption of it. ++Lar: t/c 13:10, 4 Aril 2010 (UTC)

and Carcharoth replied:

* To Lar: waiting for reports to be filed is the correct approach, but I would suggest someone does file a report at the page you indicated, as any resolution there is likely to be faster than any resolution here. Maybe ask Guy if he would consider refiling there? Hopefully Guy or whoever takes this on will take all the comments here into account (not just the ones they agree with). Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC) (emphasis added ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

There's always the danger of reading too much into one arb's reply but that seems pretty strong to me. Requests are brought here, and acted on, rather than admins cruising the pages like cops on a beat. Maybe other sanction pages work that way. I don't hang there so I don't know. But this one doesn't and at least one arb seems to think that's the right approach. Again. (and again) if there's consensus for change, I'm all for it. I'd like to hear from LHvU and BozMo who have done more enforcement work than I. ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom is not involved in this probation. It's a community probation, not an ArbCom one. How do they come in now? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You could ask them. I think they seem to be involved in everything. Even stuff started elsewhere. The above comment by C is a view, not a mandate. But it's supportive of how things have been done here. I'm done. If the consensus of admins actually doing the enforcing here is that the way that we've been doing the enforcing here is wrong, and needs to change, great, I'll be first to shoot first and ask questions later. I don't see it yet, but maybe the other admins actually doing the enforcing here just haven't spoken? ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All he is saying is this page gets faster results than asking for ArbCom to do something, which is true. It has nothing to do with what you've been pushing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, no, that's not how I read what he's saying. I used the term "looking for things" and he said "waiting" is better. What I am "pushing" (there's that rhetoric again, could you try using more neutral terms???) is the status quo here. And I'm not opposed to change. Just want to start from the right place. Hope that helps. As I said, I'm done. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're not pushing for change that's okay. Your earlier comments seemed to suggest that you were pushing for change through the evolution of this page, which I read in context as having an effect on the viability of actions under the probation. Now that you have clarified that you do not intend to limit administrative discretion in any way, and that the talking shop is just that and nothing more, I am happy to drop the discussion. --TS 22:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that I am not pushing for change. You and KC are. In this local eddy, the status quo seems to be that most requests get brought here and talked about rather than admins explicitly cruising the beat looking for things to do. It seems to work well. Maybe at Sarah and Barack's pages it doesn't, or it's not the norm, or whatever... I don't hang there, I'm happy to take your collective word for it. But here, it works. I happen to like the status quo as it is here, I think it works well. But I'm not wedded to it, and if there's a clear consensus for change (and just saying "we don't do that over there, we do this other thing" isn't a consensus), great. That consensus needs to come from the admins who operate here, OR it needs to be raised at AN/I or wherever and sought there. But I'm going to continue to respond to requests brought here, and criticise those who seem to shoot from the hip sometimes, until consensus changes. Which it hasn't yet. You, Kenosis and KC (one seasoned person, one person I don't know how seasoned, maybe just as much, and one admin) do not consensus make. I want to hear from LHvU and 2/0 and BozMo. They are the feet on the ground here when it comes to actually imposing blocks and sanctions and stuff. Especially LHvU. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• The probation was intended to streamline the handling of disruption and give enforcing admins greater discretion. If we require every potential enforcement to undergo microscopic pre-emptive scrutiny, then we're going in the diametrically opposite direction. It's a bit perplexing that the probation, which was intended to increase administrative discretion, is now being used to constrain administrative discretion. In my experience handling other probations at WP:AE, there has never been any requirement or restriction remotely like the one being proposed here.

  The appeal to consensus seems a bit off to me. You can't hermetically isolate this one page and claim that "consensus" or the "status quo" require prior discussion. It is appropriate to view this probation in the context of other such probations, both community- and ArbCom-imposed. In that context, the status quo quite clearly permits administrative discretion and does not require a prior formal request and discussion. Admins have a responsibility to take on board feedback about their actions, and if one of their actions is controversial to the point that consensus develops against it, then they have a responsibility to heed that consensus. But you can't look at this one page - which is not exactly an example of best practices on any level - and declare it the operational standard. MastCell ^Talk 00:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion brings to mind the paradox of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. Instead of continuing the argument, how about bringing it to the attention of WP:AN or arbcom and get a consensus? I'd do it myself but as a mere commoner and one who is involved in the general topic of the probation I'd rather the uninvolved admins do it. In the ideal world I'd prefer a joint, cooperative request for clarification -- "we have a difference of opinion on this, what do you arbs (or admins) think?" -- rather than opening yet another venue for arguing back and forth. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see different interests at play. Generally I think admins are free to enforce the probation without bringing it here. On the other hand, we've had quite a bit of discussion here, and we know that there are numerous admins with different viewpoints involved on this page. If an admin wants to take action that they know would be controversial with other admins, then I think they should bring it up here, since otherwise we can expect to see a break down in communication on this page, and a break down in the ability of the various admins to work together. If certain admins no longer have faith in the ability of the admins here to reach consensus, then perhaps this page should be abandoned. However, that seems likely to be a step in the direction of an arbitration case, so perhaps the question is whether that is wanted. In any case, I think while admins are free to act unilaterally, such actions should involve an assumption that their actions would be supported by uninvolved admins, a question which currently is evaluated on this page. Mackan79 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Refocusing - when time is not of the essence

I think it is pretty clear that from the above that people do not want to be in a situation where requesting enforcement here is slower than AN3 or more dramalicious than AN/I. We also do not want to go making dramatic changes to this probation without throwing the question open to the wider community. I am not, though, seeing any real resolution to the question of how to make best use of the RE board. Based on my limited experience at the Obama probation (warned a user following an AN3 report, then blocked and logged when they went back to edit warring; some weeks later, another editor opined at my talk page that the board was understaffed), we should future-proof the best practices against waning need or interest. I think we can all agree that blatant violations of #RR should be dealt with swiftly and uncontroversially. The civility and WP:DE threads tend to wax a bit more argumentative, but there is a common refrain that we are letting requests sit open for far too long. For topic bans and sanctions of longer than say a week, though, there is little danger that an issue will go "stale". The precedent record for such bans is also smaller, making it more difficult to judge what action the community would like to see done. I would be open to throwing to AN the question of modifying the probation to require prior discussion before long sanctions are imposed, but I think I would prefer just to acknowledge amongst ourselves that the culture here is to take advantage of the wealth of interested opinions. This preserves the quick and targeted response goal of the probation while encouraging informed discussion of complex cases.

Summary of advice for administrators acting under this probation:

• Consider the whole of the relevant diff log
• Act decisively but not rashly
• Requesting input from other interested parties can be helpful, particularly for long sanctions or complex cases.

Does that sound about right? - 2/0 (cont.) 15:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. ++Lar: t/c 00:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So per question on your talk page how does this fit with you Lar "unilaterally" promising to block WMC if he says septic again? I am not, please understand, objecting to the promise but it does not quite fit with this pattern. In general I think we are getting the balance too far in favour of talking things out and support 2/0 being a bit more decisive than the rest of us. And I think talking to death reduces the effectiveness of admins being able to say "cool it right now" to a participant versus forensic etymology leading to a warning a week later. --BozMo talk 07:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider it an experiment... (NOT a WP:POINT, just trying something that is within policy but a bit off the norm here) I'm trying to see if the regime that KC and TS were proposing is workable. Their shoot first most of the time approach doesn't feel right to me but we may have swung things (over time) too far the other way. ++Lar: t/c 14:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification re civility

Is This is pathetic, i fix the article, which you should have done instead of slapping tags on it and not i have to revert the fix, how stupid is that? considered acceptable from an editor under civility parole? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a diff? I'd say it depends on the context, but almost certainly not. ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To say a situation is stupid is hardly uncivil now is it? mark nutley (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping for a reply from someone less biased. How about unfounded (and known to be unfounded) allegations of vandalism? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark: It depends on the context. There are almost always better ways to phrase the matter. Do you have a diff? Or is this an entirely rhetorical example, since WMC hasn't provided one either. A general note, people complaining of civility ought to themselves be on their best behavior. Can you say you are, Mark? Can WMC say he is? I'm dubious

WMC: Less biased than yourself? Than Mark? Who were you referring to? ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe what you did was vandalism, that is my opinion. You believe it was not, that is your opinion. To insert the text you did was a deliberate shot at being wp:disruptive disruptive behaviour is something vandals excel at mark nutley (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained to you it was not vandalism, and directed you to WP:VAND#NOT. Now, if you wish to change our vandalism policy, then feel free to start a discussion, but it is most assuredly not vandalism. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Do YOU have a diff? I bet I'd agree if only I knew what was referred to. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation against and identifiable living person Blatant Vandalism diffs mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And now he`s done this [10] He is being disruptive and i want something done about it mark nutley (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

These are diffs of what, exactly? Isn't WMC correct that you are sneaking a complaint in via the back door? Analysis anyway

• This edit summary from here (rv: if it was notable, you'd be able to find an english-language ref. and one right-wing(nut) US senator is not news) is unacceptable. It is indeed a BLP violation, albeit a mild one. We should not be putting our personal views about article subjects into edit summaries BUT it is not vandalism. WMC knows better.
• This edit [11] is POV pushing. BUT it is not vandalism. I suspect it was done for humorous effect. But WMC knows better.
• This edit [12] is fine (and it's not vandalism either). Based on a quick review it seems that tag is very warranted.

Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The above edit is MN violating his parole about complaints. Here [13] is MN making an unfounded allegation of vandalism, subsequent to his accepting advice that he was wrong [14] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Analysis. I agree, the above is MN sneaking in an enforcement request all right. The vandalism allegation is unfounded indeed. You are not a vandal, WMC. Alleging vandalism against long time contributors is not helpful. At all. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We should all be reminded of WP:BAIT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@ Lar How is the tag warranted? If there has been no crits of the book then how can i add some? The article has been copyedited by a guy from the peer review section which is the first step tp GA status, he saw no issues with it. And WMC as i said it is a point of view, from my perspective you added that text to be disruptive, which as i said is something vandals excel at. And i am not sneaking in anything i am asking for help with wmc`s disruptive behaviour mark nutley (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You've been told now by two admins, who are busily having a huge disagreement over the rest of this page, that you're in error. You might want to consider that accusations of vandalism or bad faith can be viewed as personal smears, and you're under a civility parole. You might also want to consider that asking me, responding as though you accepted my judgment, then coming here, is tantamount to forum shopping. And after you've considered all that, I suggest you strike your level 3 vandalism warning on WMC"s talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I know what i was told, I also would like to point out it was lar who asked for those diffs. So were do you get forum shopping from? I`ll remove the warning but i still think he was being disruptive mark nutley (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked WMC for diffs. I asked KC for diffs. Heck I asked everyone. No harm no foul on that. But bare diffs of what WMC was talking about would have been far better than sneaking in an enforcement request, sort of, which used "not" the diffs I asked for as it turns out.

As for the rest you need to stop calling things vandalism. Seriously. Until you're competent at identifying vandalism you should avoid the term completely. Because what WMC is doing may be (in the view of some anyway) unhelpful, it may be POV pushing, it may be snarky mean spirited commentary, it may be poor attempts at humor or article control, I can think of dozens of descriptive terms here.... stop me before I go too far! ... but it is NOT vandalism. Write that down and pin it on your monitor, ok? Sooner or later if you keep calling things vandalism that aren't you are going to get blocked for a long time. ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nods, by the time I saw your request MN had already linked and you'd commented on his difs. Same dif (heh, that's my bad pun!) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so now that MN has struck the vandalism charge (MN, I trust you know now that the vandalism charge doesn't apply in these kinds of cases) can we deal with what were clearly unhelpful edits by WMC? In addition to the diffs cited above, he continues the personal attacks ("trolls and fools", "biased bozo", "skeptics (k-less, of course)"). The last is yet another "septic" reference, something which he has been directly warned to avoid [15]. Should I file a new enforcement report encompassing these recent diffs? ATren (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We are getting a very very long way from what this is about, when we consider a users talk page a probation area, and when such rather mild comments are seriously considered to be enforceable. My only real comment to this is "tsk tsk" (and that goes for WMC as well as you). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If calling someone a troll, a fool, and a bozo is a "mild comment" to you, what would you consider a serious breach of civility? FellGleaming (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not unknown that an editor may choose to vent spleen within a thread on their own talk page where they've been informed of their current block. You have the option to unwatch the page. Franamax (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, AT, why are you evading my question in "Against administrative discretion" above? Was it just a "throwaway" complaint that you've now forgotten? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

AGF, WMC. Or don't you AGF for us "skeptics without the K"? What question are you referring to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATren, at a guess (talk • contribs)

I thought you were pretending not to be a sceptic (see - no k? Geddit?). But I see you've found the cunningly hidden question William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

I'm not pretending, I used quotes because I was referring to your oft-stated opinion that I am a skeptic, or perhaps even more accurately, one of those "k-less skeptics" (i.e. "septics"). ATren (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Franamax, does that mean I can say whatever I want about anyone I disagree with on my talk page, even things I've been specifically warned not to say? If that's so, it's good to know. Now I know where I can go to vent my own frustrations. I assume that courtesy extends to all, so that (for example) someone like Marknutley, who has been in conflict with WMC, can simply go to his own talk page and release all frustrations he chooses?

And what of the BLP vio in the edit summary, or the disruptive article edits (twice), both mentioned above? If someone like, say, Macai, were to twice insert "The book has been enthusiastically and uncritically reviewed by the believers, and ignored by everyone else" into a an article about a book supportive of the theories of AGW, would he be extended the same leeway? Was Macai extended any leeway for his use the word "scandal" in the Climategate article, even though dozens of sources call it that? No, he was quickly topic-banned. Yet once again, WMC gets away with worse. When will the admins on this page stop pussy-footing around disruptive editors who do not happen to be "skeptics"? ATren (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What I read was a series of responses to a block. If you get blocked for some reason then yes, for the first while I personally will give you a ton of space to vent on your talk page, including all the special words you're not allowed to say - unless you pass my own subjective criteria for "gone too far now", which is rather elastic. When you get it all out of your system, I expect you to rejoin the living and start trying to, you know, "conform to expectations" and "build the encyclopedia". Franamax (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

MN's chanrges of vandalism - which he knows full well to be unfounded - remain unstruck at Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion, as do his attempts to sneak in an enforcement request against his parole. I'll serve him notice of this William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have already said i was not trying to sneak in an enforcment request, i supplied diffs which were asked for. My opinion remains the same with regards to your edit of the article in question, i struck the warning i will not strike my opinion of your disruptive behaviour as well mark nutley (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice of pending unilateral action

The next time I see WMC use the term "septic" or "skeptic without a K" or any variant of it, broadly construed, whether on a talk page, or in an edit summary, or anywhere else onsite, broadly construed, he will be subject to a short block from me. This term is unacceptable when referring to others, and its use needs to be discontinued. Forthwith. Polite requests don;t seem to have done the trick. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it unacceptable - that is something that i have never found out (not even from the enforcement request, that this relates to). What other words can't we use anymore? Can we get a ban on "Pro-AGW editors" and the like? (yes - i do find that quite uncivil and polarizing) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you not know what septic is kim? It has two meanings, one is an infected oozing wound, the other is septic tank, a place for excrement mark nutley (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, because it is "a septic" which rules out both of your interpretations. But i do know for certain, that WMC isn't using "septic" in either of the two meanings that you are stating. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes i can see how dropping the "a" makes all the difference, what is his meaning then if you know? mark nutley (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Originally i thought it was a pun on SEPP - but apparently it is just a description that the s[ck]eptic in question isn't a true s[ck]eptic (or pseudos[ck]epticism - by dropping the [ck] you make it distinct. Most will read it exactly as s[ck]eptic - but will notice that apparently there is a difference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That is the most convoluted logic i have ever seen :-) but if you think that`s his reasoning then more power to ya mark nutley (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Notified. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lar, that would be fine, and well within the parameters of the probation. I'm sure that if the action is controversial, it will be brought here for discussion after the fact, either by you or through an appeal by William, and the consensus of uninvolved administrators will be sought. MastCell ^Talk 19:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe it is, we'll see. I want to try the unilateral thing on for size. See if it works better than the reasoned process we mostly use here now. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you're proposing to be WP:POINTy. Sounds disruptive, could you please put improvement of articles ahead of playing games? . . . dave souza, talk 22:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. It has been asserted elsewhere that our current process where we talk first isn't the right way to do things. I think it works well, and has benefits. But I'm willing to try other approaches. This is the approach TS and KC advocate. So let's see how it works... That's the wiki way, we try things and see how they work and then take that on board. No pointyness in evidence. ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In case this remidy is broadly applied, I'd like to note, yet again, for the record, that I have a not insubstantial case of dyslexia that requires me to spend not-trivial time running all of my main-space edits through a spell-checker multiple times. As such, I very well may have written septics at some point, and if I did it was a mere typo, and further, I will be unable to fix that going forward without undue burden. I consider myself exempt from this blocking threat, even if directly requested of me, but allow anyone to refactor any offensive typo I make into the obviously correct verbiage. Here from WMC's talk page, not watching this page, so any response to this must be made on my talk page if you want me to read it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, WMC isn't dyslexic. Further, I don't think you've been asked multiple times, warned multiple times, and even prohibited via sanction, no less, about the use of a particular phrasing, the way WMC has. SO I don't think you have anything to worry about. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, "Neutral Lar" intends this to only apply to WMC, not to all editors. Not only is this another triumph of form over content, it's still ok for "sceptics" (without a k!) to call others "liars" or "frauds" or "alarmists" or "stooges". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You do of course realize that WMC has a direct warning not to use this term (see the enforcement log page) and he's used it as a derogatory term for more than 6 years (see below), right? ATren (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So? Does that make it any less stupid? We do nothing to improve civility or cooperation by ruling out certain words. It's idiotic to think so. I can insult nearly any arbitrary person using only approved clinically certified and clean terms (some are below insult in any language...), and I can engage in a meaningful and productive dialogue using robust language. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"We do nothing to improve civility or cooperation by ruling out certain words".... False. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this comments indicates that the intellectual capacity of the writer is slightly below that of the common potato, Solanum tuberosum. Argument by bold assertion is something most people grow out of some time before reaching puberty. Especially in the face of obvious counterexamples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to be snarky about it. You can ask for a counter example if you like, but just attacking me... well, you make my arguments for me, quite nicely. Your team just doesn't play well with others, does it? ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I was very much trying to make the point that it's not individual words or phrases that matter. It seems to have passed you by completely. And I think that grouping editors into "teams" that apparently all share some, usually undesirable, property, does display a battleground mentality and is uncivil just as much as calling someone an asshole. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate on the point I was making. I'm a firm believer that civility blocks, taken in a vacuum, don't work. You can't block someone into being civil. But, I'm also swayed by the argument that if you can improve the overall collegiality of the environment, things get better in other areas as well. An analogy is to combatting graffiti. See Graffiti#North_America, paragraphs 4 and 5, in which government took the approach that by cracking down on the small crimes, things that made the environment unpleasant, much of the larger nastiness would go away. It seems to sometimes somewhat work. Not always. That's why ruling out certain words can sometimes improve civility or cooperation. I don't say it's always true, but I do say it's not always false. That doesn't make me a potato-head. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC and "septic"

See this. He has used this term in a derogatory sense on and off wiki for 6 years now. Note the line "Which is why I prefer septic. Its close enough that you recognise the term. And it describes their style of debate quite accurately." As that post is about the meaning of words (indeed, he quotes the dictionary for other terms), this is obviously a reference to:

septic: 
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin septicus, from Greek sēptikos, from sēpein to putrefy
Date: 1605
1 : of, relating to, or causing putrefaction
2 : relating to, involving, caused by, or affected with sepsis <septic patients>
3 : used for sewage treatment and disposal <a septic system>; also : of or relating to a septic system <septic effluents> 

Is there any other "recognizable" use for the term septic? Apparently not, but if someone can point me to a flattering connotation of this term, I'd be happy to AGF. ATren (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it is cockney rhyming slang for American William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And what about this, where you lay claim to originating the term "septic" as "the malodourous end of the skeptic range"? How does "malodourous" fit into your claim that it is not a reference to decaying waste?ATren (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Err shirley in view of Lar's comments above all this amounts to BAITing. You're trying to tempt me into using this word but I won't, ha ha. Come talk on my blog if you want to - or alternatively, go just up there, and tell Lar he is being silly. Then we can talk William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, actually it was a response to Kim's statement above: "But i do know for certain, that WMC isn't using "septic" in either of the two meanings that you are stating." This is obviously untrue, and I provided evidence to correct his misconception. ATren (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, no. You are reading something into that comment which may or may not be there. Had it been on Wikipedia - you would have assumed bad faith. Strangely enough it is possible to notice that it also could mean this after having used it for years (which i infer from old usenet posts that WMC has done..). But of course this is not the first time - nor i guess - will it be the last time that you are inferring things, without sufficient background. <- That is a hint that you should soon come up with the RfC that you have been promising for ages now, as a "fortification" against complaints of you ABF'ing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like anyone who ever calls me an "AGW believer" or anything like that (broadly construed) to be blocked forthwith. I find that description of me, and my hard-won and sceptical scientific background, demeaning and offensive. Where do I apply for that? --Nigelj (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you not believe man made climate change is real then? And when have you been called that? mark nutley (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As a sceptic, Mark, I find your comment odd. We sceptics can accept the weight of scientific evidence, but that's not a matter of belief. As for the subject of this discussion, do we apply a septic equation to evaluate use? Perhaps the preferred usage from now on is climate change denier, so be it. . . dave souza, talk 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Septic equation is derived from septem (lat. seven, 7). So??? It's not right to call a '7' a piece of shit... that should obviously be reserved for '1's and '2's.130.232.214.10 (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Defense of WMC's use of the term "sceptic" or "septic" is simply not worthy of discussion. Arzel (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you may not want to discuss defense, but in some countries accused people are entitled to a defence. Your worthiness may be better engaged elsewhere. . . dave souza, talk 21:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So you defend WMC's intentional insulting of people that don't believe in AGW? Perhaps you should check your own worthiness at the door. This is all the more ironic given his crying about people not using his full name. Arzel (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a "believer" Mark - nor am i "pro" AGW - in fact if anything i'm "contra-"AGW. I'm also not part of a club (notice to Lar), nor am i part of a cabal. I'm not an environmentalist, i have no feelings towards Gore (he is simply a US politician) or any other censored thing - i'm an editor period. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, but there are different sides to this debate, right? When referring to the side you identify with (which, by the way, is the side I also identify with, though I am not at all passionate about it), how would you like to be called? How about "editors whose edits tend to defend the theories of anthropomorphic^oops anthropogenic global warming"? ATren (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds scary. "Anthropogenic" would be more likely. But your suggestion, whilst obviously too long, is inaccurate. Since we're on names, and you want to split us all up into sides, what name would you like for the "side" that you, MN, AQFK, Cortonin, Lar, Jon Gwynne, GR all share? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Since WMC has mentioned my name, I prefer to be called the "editorially neutral side" which is the side everyone is supposed to be on. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, people keep introducing bias to counter the bias of reliable sources, and we're not supposed to do that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you do. So do I. But we don't seem to be on the same "side" in practice William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"So do I." ... not sure that's true, actually. "But we don't seem to be on the same "side" in practice". Correct. You are apparently not on the "side" that holds with neutral editing, working together in a collegial atmosphere and in a spirit of compromise, with adherence to NPOV and avoiding undue weight, and which eschews edit warring, treating other editors high-handedly, making snarky or disparaging comments, and which in general actually edits the way people are supposed to edit here. That's too bad really, because if you were, perhaps you wouldn't be here at the enforcement page quite so much. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll discard your comments re collegial atmosphere - I think you're wrong there too, but that is tired old ground. Rather more interestingly you seem to have finally dared to put a foot delinately onto the ground of actual content, which is rather welcome. You're wrong there too, though. Your problem is that you don't know the state of the science so you don't know what neutrality is. So: you've brought up "undue weight". Lets have some examples then William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The kerfluffle around the name for the climate change email incident. Nothing to do with the science, really, everything to do with spin control and perception management. The choices around the areas of emphasis of the lead article (science versus politics) Your mistake is that you think I think the science presentation, per se, is awry. It's not. It's everything else that is awry. This has been explained to you before but it may not fit your preconceived notions. AGW is about more than the science, and your argument that the science presentation is correct (it is properly weighted, by and large, we don't need massive exposition of fringe views) misses the real issues of article control. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

None of that seems to fit the claims of undue weight. Forgive me for ambiguity: by "examples" I meant "diffs": this is a wiki after all, and all you've said is far too vague to be of any use. Please supply diffs demonstrating clearly undue weight from my edits William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How about you defend this, for starters? ATren (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That edit (whatever problems you may have with it, and with which as you know I don't agree) doesn't suffer from undue weight. The challenge is to find an edit that does. Since you've joined in, you can have another go William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem: you seem fundamentally incapable of recognizing your own POV pushing, and you react with hostility when someone else points it out to you. That edit is POV and disruptive, yet you see nothing wrong with it, and until you do, you should be topic banned from those articles just like the POV pushers from the other side. ATren (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

ATren, you can say alot about that text - but however much you turn it.. It is entirely correct. It is not POV-pushing (in fact given that particular article and its "in-universe" writing - it moves it more towards NPOV than it was before). The one thing that you can say about it though - is that it is unsourced, and therefore when challenged should be sourced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

ATren is now (now?) reduced to making things up. yet you see nothing wrong with it - nope, I didn't say that. And Kim is entirely correct - it is unsourced (but then again so are many other things). Had you, or indeed MN, (correctly) objected that is was controversial and unsourced, I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. But your task as Lar's proxy (which you've now had two goes at, and failed, so please step aside and let the organ grinder step up to the plate, if he isna frit) was to find a diff with undue weight problems. Lar: over to you William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered (note the deliberate indent level choice) I gave examples. Sorry if you can't see the problems in them, but the problems of undue weight are there. Sorry if you wanted diffs, but I think the examples thematically show the problems just fine without the need for specific diffs. And what is "isna frit" ? I'd appreciate it if you used less colloquial english. ++Lar: t/c 00:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Erh? No. It hasn't been answered. I'd like some diffs as well - if you make accusations, then when challenged, it is your responsibility to provide evidence - or retract the accusations. There is no "i'm an admin, so therefore i can say what i want" clause anywhere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

@Lar: "Assumes facts not in evidence" - the comment on WMC not being on the "side" that holds with neutral editing is not something that at any point has come up factually. I also object to with adherence to NPOV and avoiding undue weight. These seem all to be your personal opinion, and not something that has been addressed at any board (to my knowledge), in fact it has been confirmed by several admins that exactly the opposite is the case (do read back in the archives). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it your assertion that there is nothing about WMC's approach that should be changed? A yes or no answer will do. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Mu. Question does not address my comment - it seems to be related to an issue i didn't comment on. Please try again without attempting to divert the thrust of my comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I said, again, with the stuff you did not object to italicized:

" You are apparently not on the "side" that holds with neutral editing, working together in a collegial atmosphere and in a spirit of compromise, with adherence to NPOV and avoiding undue weight, and which eschews edit warring, treating other editors high-handedly, making snarky or disparaging comments, and which in general actually edits the way people are supposed to edit here."

So then, you agree that all the other stuff I mentioned is valid, correct? Let's get all that common ground established first, shall we? Then we can deal with where we might disagree. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Once more you are trying to side-step the thrust of my comment. "not on the "side" that holds with neutral editing" is a definite and strong statement that must be backed by evidence - which it isn't, and the same goes for " with adherence to NPOV and avoiding undue weight".

It is entirely possible for any J.Random Editor to be both extremely uncivil, blatantly offensive and perverse ... and at the same time be "on the "side" that holds with neutral editing" and have a "strong adherence to NPOV and avoiding undue weight"

So please try again - and once more try not to divert the thrust of my comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in 100% agreement with you that global warming is real and primarily caused by mankind. But in an article about a scandal, you have to explain what the scandal is about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure which article you have in mind. Are you 100% that labelling whatever it is you're thinking about a "scandal" is totally neutral? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to the Climategate article, which is pretty much the only article I edit in this topic space. My POV is this: The real scandal is that scientists don't publish their source code. As a software developer, this seems ridiculous in the extreme that all code isn't open for peer-review. But my POV is irrelevant. We're supposed to represent POVs in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is all your code out in the open? I agree that that's a good ideal to follow, especially for scientists. But it has, so far, not been the standard in most areas of science. And there are legitimate reasons why code is kept confidential. It represents significant investment in time and money. If a postdoc spends 5 years developing a piece of software and immediately publishes it, chances are that others will snatch many of the research plums he wanted to apply his software to. If he is lucky, he gets two publications (one on the software, one on his first proper subject), and is left in the dust by others who don't "waste" 5 years to develop software but just piggy-back on his work. You don't get to use the LHC for free, either - why would you get my software? I don't think those are good enough reasons (and my scientific software is not only published but even Open Source), but it is a legitimate point. Science is competitive as well as cooperative. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

@AQFK: if that is what you mean by "scandal", then I think you are simply wrong. Even now you can't bring yourself to refer to the article by its actual name, which is indicative of your biases. So I think by trying to insert "scandal" you're just pushing your POV: so your assertion that you are editing neutrally is unsustainable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As a software developer, this seems ridiculous in the extreme that all code isn't open for peer-review - sorry, I missed this risible comment earlier. As a software developer, it seems perfectly natural that code is not available to general inspection. You might perhaps bemoan the existence of commerically or militarily or governmentally secret code, but you cannot credibly claim to find its non-availability "ridiculous" William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "editors whose edits tend to defend the theories of anthropomorphic global warming" - should be all editors. You must have realized by now that that is the mainstream scientific opionion - by an extremely large margin. Should we name all editors on Wikipedia something when they do "defend" WP:NPOV? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC) [as a small sidenote - you are aware that you are being involuntarily comic here - right? Look up what anthropomorphic means. I doubt that the warming is attempting to behave and look human. It is Anthropogenic] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I've corrected my anthropogenic (i.e. manmade) mistake. Kim, as I've said many times, many of the content disputes involve aspects that only tangentially relate to the science (for example, the BLPs, public opinion). These topics, when covered in an NPOV way, may contradict the mainstream scientific opinion, but they are still relevant and worthy of coverage. But frequently, in the zeal to present the science, some editors feel the need to squelch the other aspects of this topic which may (rightly or wrongly) put the science in a bad light, even though those aspects are quite notable, by virtue of their extensive coverage in mainstream press. The Climate emails situation is exhibit A of this problem, where the controversy has been skirted around in the article for months despite extensive media coverage. Yes, Climategate was overblown, and yes, the revelations don't impact the overall conclusions, and yes, the scientists involved could have behaved better. These are all well documented, but this last point is still being contested in the article by those who believe any documentation of anything negative should be suppressed, in the name of scientific consensus. ATren (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but while i do agree with your description of the CRU debacle. I do not agree that WP:WEIGHT is put out of effect with regards to negative facts. Most factoids, that i assume that we are talking about here, are simply too small to merit weight in the articles that people are trying to put them into, and that is where the trouble comes up. We do not have critique for critique's sake - we must always address it from a weight (NPOV) position. For instance it really doesn't merit mention in the main global warming article that Sen. Inhofe thinks that AGW is a hoax - it represents a too small minority to be mentioned on that level of abstraction (yet it is rather often discussed on the GW article, and quite correctly gets "squelched"), it belongs in the correct context on the correct article. And this is where you assume wrong - i'm for having these discussed - but i'm against them being discussed in a context where it doesn't belong (per weight) and without the proper description of what the mainstream view is. And that is the essence of NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I think we agree on weight. In practice, however, weight is an editorial judgement and good faith editors often disagree on specifics. Being on the side of scientific consensus does not mean an editor is infallible in editorial judgement, especially in areas that are only tangentially related to the science. In fact, it can be argued that a single editor (or a small group of ideologically aligned editors) is probably incapable of getting it truly neutral, for the simple reason that only those most passionate on the issue would participate in a hellish topic like CC has been here. That's why a large number of editors from different viewpoints working together is essential to NPOV for something as controversial as this. That can't happen until editors like WMC learn to accept editorial disagreement. This is of course true of the "skeptics" as well, but the troublesome "skeptics" are much more quickly removed. By the way, when I refer to "skeptics" in quotes, I am referring to any editor who has opposed the status quo on the CC articles, even if they are not truly skeptical of the science. ATren (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You are entirely correct on everyone being fallible. You are also partially correct that "ideologically aligned editors" seldom can get things right. But then hardly anyone is "ideologically aligned" - i certainly haven't met anyone here on Wikipedia that i am "ideologically aligned" with. Assumptions of "ideological aligned"-ness is unfortunately all too common though.

But let me point you at a very much more serious problem: Several editors in this topic-area, do not attempt to understand or read up on the various viewpoints, hypothesis' and theories that exist in this topic-area. And it is a very simple fact of reality, that if you do not have a broad knowledge-base about a topic - then it will be impossible for you to determine whether you are suffering from confirmation bias, or that you are adequately assessing weight. There is a very good reason that i read the sckeptial literature more than the mainstream science.

On your comment about viewpoints: Some viewpoints are correct - others are not - and in between there is a whole slew of gradients. We wont get anywhere if people aren't capable of determining (and pointing out) where a specific viewpoint exists. When Inhofe states that "AGW is a hoax" he is wrong - as simple as that... It is quite simply, a conspiracy theory. [and please do not raise BLP here, this is very easy to back up with authoritative references] Had he stated "AGW may be wrong" then it would have been a dodgy (but valid) viewpoint.

You are incorrect in your assumption that WMC doesn't accept editorial disagreement - he does - what he has trouble suffering - is people who are stating certainty without complete information. (the "doesn't suffer fools easily"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs) 2010-04-09T00:48:37 (UTC)

AGW is a rather loose term. To some, it means "man is most likely influencing climate". To others, it means "a proven looming catastrophe; the largest problem mankind has ever faced, and one that requires immediate, far-reaching action". When Inhofe refers to AGW in that context, it is indeed a hoax. FellGleaming (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is a red-herring. First of all because we aren't talking about Inhofe, we are using him as an example and secondly because Inhofe's meaning is broad, and not limited like yours. (on which i have no intention to be dragged into a discussion about). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think we agree in principle on most things, but it's the details where we come into conflict. I tend to agree about stuff like the Inofe/hoax statement - that's certainly over the top. But at the same time, I disagree with the tendency to demonize the people who make those statements with paragraphs full of coatrack criticisms. That's where the disagreement comes in. And as for WMC and suffering fools, it's one thing to mock people we disagree with on your private blog (I myself have been known to do that) but it's quite another to bring that attitude here. I highly respect WMC's intellect, but I don't believe any editor should be above the rules here. Not because I'm a process hound, but because the rules are necessary if editors of different stripes are to work together, and I believe the latter is a requirement of NPOV. I support skeptical editors not because I agree with them, but because there is a shortage of good editors from that perspective, and they can spot subtle POV problems that scientific-consensus-supporting editors (is that an OK label?) wouldn't. In the long run, that will make for better, less POV articles. And in the long long run, that will make Wikipedia a more trusted authority on such controversial topics, giving less fuel to the detractors who use Wikipedia as a highly visible data point in their conspiracy theories. ATren (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

AEB ("pro-AGW")

I agree Nigelj - i'd like that as well. It is right up the same alley, as is pro-AGW and it is very common amongst the sckeptics to use that. This includes the claimed non-sckeptics[16]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Then which term would you prefer? I will gladly use it. This is the first time I've been notified that it was offensive. On the other hand, WMC is well aware of the negative connotation of his term, yet he continues to use it. ATren (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, i don't believe that this is the first time you should have noticed of this, but i really can't be bothered to go search for one of the threads where the usage has come up, where you've participated - so i'm just going to assume that you've overlooked it. I'm an editor here and that is it, and strangely enough as an editor i stick exactly to the mainstream, and yes (to catch things before they are said), i do comment the same way to people who are to "the green side" - look up my history with Andrew J. Lockley, and quite frankly i can't stand the 350 POV-pushers that we see troll around the place. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Pro-AGW is not a derogatory term. Would you be included in that 350 POV pushers? Just asking. Arzel (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is derogatory. AGW is likely to have a significant negative impact on many people - more dramatic in the third world, less dramatic, but still very noticeable (if mostly indirectly) in developed countries. I'm definitely not supporting that. In fact, I'm quite anti-AGW (but more important, I'm pro putting the best possible description of AGW out there so that people have the best possible chance to properly understand and evaluate the issue for themselves). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

When I have used that term (and I'm sure I have), the intent was to refer to those who actively support and defend the theory here. If I offended, then I apologize; I will certainly cease using it now that I know it's offensive. But do you really not see the difference between my use of "pro-AGW", which is at worst a clumsy abbreviation which happened to offend, and "septic", which was crafted specifically as a demeaning term, and which has been used despite formal warnings not to? ATren (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the difference - and from reading the various comments in which the wording "pro-AGW" is used, i'm rather certain that it in the majority of cases, doesn't refer to a good-faith division of editors. You should be aware that when you write "crafted specifically as a demeaning term", you are not referring to fact - but an assumption of intent. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that I (and you) don't run to RfE and cry "X called me a bad word" over and over again. We need a certain degree of tolerance as much or more than we need a certain degree of civility. I think this tolerance has to go so far that terms like "pro-AGW", while strictly false, and "septic" (a funny word play with a kernel of truth) have to be accepted. Neither of these terms is a serious impediment to civil discourse, as few rational people will take them seriously. It's quite obvious that I'm not "pro-AGW", and it's quite clear that ATren is not qualitatively more of "a drainage system connected to a septic tank" than most humans (I've got no concrete information of how long different parts of humanity "connect" themselves to a a septic tank - do tanks in motor homes count? Dry australian bush toilets?). What is much more damaging are claims about cabals, "ideological alignment", collusion, or "being paid for POV pushing", because those a at least partially credible claims that do poison the atmosphere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So Stephan, you think it's OK to refer to the opposition as festering waste? And you once again refuse to acknowledge that WMC has been specifically, formally warned to avoid such terms (indeed, THAT term), not because of some schoolyard "sticks and stones" argument but because of the hostile battleground atmosphere it fosters. I, on the other hand, have apologized for offending, clearly stated that it was not my intent, and committed to not using the term going forward. WMC never apologized, has admitted he uses the term to imply his opponents are "malodourous", and has used it repeatedly after being asked not to. Yet you see no difference. Well I suggest, if you're so convinced there is no difference, bring a request against me for using the term you find offensive, and maybe I'll get the same warning. Except I'll adhere to it even without the warning, because knowing that it is offensive is sufficient for me to not use it. ATren (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not put words into my mouth. I've not claimed the terms are equal. I do think both fall within the limit of what reasonable discourse must bear. I think the complaints about the use of "septics" are intentionally overblown not because anybody felt seriously insulted, but because they try to use WP:CIV as a stick to win brownie points in a content dispute. I find the warning to be misguided and I find Lar's posturing to be ridiculous and counterproductive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. If an editor came to these pages and started spewing terms like "true believer" and "climate huckster" (both terms which HAVE been used off-wiki in this debate), how long would it take for that editor to be topic banned? And rightfully so. But "septic" is defended here, and this continued defense of the indefensible is a stark example of the slanted playing field in this debate. Further evidence is the heat Lar takes for trying to treat editors equally. I mean, really, are we still defending "septic"? Really? ATren (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please indeed. Contrary to your insistence, you are painting a reality that doesn't exist... Such editors are not banned and they are tolerated for quite a long time.... Several such editors are active within the topic area. One example (since otherwise i'd be out of line) is Dikstr, who has made far worse comments. ("AGW mullahs"[17], "AGW theocracy defence"[18] etc.). You are painting a myth - hardly anyone sckeptical who is just incivil have been banned - but of course such users eventually do get banned - but that is not because of such small things - but because they go too far. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Kim, there are exceptions, and Dikstr may be one of them. But you cite 2 diffs, I can cite dozens of "septics" and related smears from WMC (browse this list if you doubt that). Dikstr has been blocked three times (including 2 from 2/0 and BozMo in the last 6 months) and his total edit count is less than 500 spread out over nearly 2 years. I think he's probably still around only because is activity level is so low that he falls under the radar. You will not get an argument from me if he continues to be combative and is banned. The point is, I am not objecting to the banning of aggressors on one side, I am objecting to the lack of similar action against aggressors on the the other side. (And, BTW, feel free to let me know when a "skeptic" editor is crossing the line, I will try to intervene). ATren (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of "pro" and what not, I had an interesting and related experience last night. I was up in Tokyo having a few (actually, a few too many) at an Irish-style pub. A friend introduced me to an Australian friend of his who worked in the finance industry. The guy mentioned that his company hoped to be heavily involved soon in the carbon credit trading market. I asked him if he believed in human-caused global warming and he replied, "definitely." I mentioned the alternative theory that warm and cool climate periods, including the most recent warm period, might be caused by solar variation, not CO2 emissions. He laughed and said, "Oh, the skeptics", then became serious and said, "Carbon trading is necessary and important and there's a lot of money to be made off of it." Then he changed the subject. His comments reinforced for me that AGW isn't only about science. Cla68 (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Red herring. No one ever said it was. Our current Global warming article is about 30-40% non-science. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I suspect, if it did then almost anything he could have said might have reinforced your view? Six years ago I was responsible for Gas, Electricity and Carbon permit trading (plus a billion dollars of other stuff). I would probably have given similar answers and been similarly misconstrued. No one in their right mind wants Global Warming to be true whatever the short term financial gain. Left minds are perhaps the problem. --BozMo talk 15:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"No one in their right mind wants Global Warming to be true " This fallacious "looming disaster" viewpoint is what fuels the skeptics more than anything. According even to IPCC AR4, the net effect expected warming over the next century is likely to be somewhere between mildly and moderately annoying. It's not the greatest problem mankind has ever faced, and such unfounded hyperbole is what's damaging the public's view of both scientists and the entire scientific process itself. FellGleaming (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Aside from saying that "you should take the quoted comment in the context of the right mind left mind construction, that I made no comment whatsoever about disaster and any hyperbole is not in the my comment but in your interpretation of it" I am happy to leave you to your opinion. No one in their right mind (a) likes paying taxes (b) wants bad health (c) likes the UN (d) goes to Oxford but none of those are disasters (even Oxford is useful for distracting tourist from Cambridge). I could add some more about Texans but I would hate to cause offence. --BozMo talk 18:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought some of humankinds greatest leaps in advancement and prosperity came during warm periods and some of the most difficult times, such as the Dark Ages, came during cool periods. If so, then being "pro-warming" appears to me to be a defensible philosophy. Cla68 (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You would be mistaken. Human advancement and prosperity has been directly correlated with climatic stability. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is actually self-evident. Any change in climate (no matter the direction), changes the basis for agriculture, transport, commerce, production etc. And change in those is inevitably costly. Of course the equations change constantly - the question is rate of change. There is no optimal climate, any climate can be exploited optimally... but not if it changes while you are optimizing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, not self evident to this mathematician, just wrong. Stress on society may be good for creativity. But there are so many gaps in logic and causality before it could be defensible that one might as well defend Zeno's position about Achilles and the Tortoise. --BozMo talk 21:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Editorial bias

That's an interesting exchange of views, but its relevance to the subject of climate change sanctions seems obscure to me. I'm not asking for an explanation of why some people think it is, I'm suggesting (politely for now) that those engaging in this discussion take it from Wikipedia entirely, to some blog or forum where such discussions are welcome.

On the substantive question, I suggest that it's unhelpful to Wikipedia to use terms in describing one another that are unwelcome. Whether "septic", or the less inflammatory (merely confusing in my view) "pro-AGW", don't do it if you want to work with others in a collegial manner--and to be seen to do so. --TS 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone self-identifies their real name and evidence shows that he/she is an advocate for any particular point of view regarding this or any other topic in Wikipedia, it is ok to question their motives and ability to follow the policies if their editing appears to be skewed. Otherwise, we shouldn't try to label each other. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that the argument you define above is blatantly ridiculous. Accusing somebody of bias because they think global warming is real is almost like accusing somebody of bias because they think evolution is real, whereas somebody who thinks evolution (or global warming for that matter) isn't real is the one who is out on a limb. Global warming really is the only game in town--scientific opinion is as close to unanimous as one could ask.

But that wasn't my point. Attempts to stigmatize those who are with the majority of reliable sources obviously won't work in the long run, but such attempts are obviously damaging in the short term and we should certainly avoid giving the false impression that the mainstream is not the mainstream. Leave that to the bloggers, it has no place here. To imply that adopting a predominantly "pro-AGW" viewpoint is wrong--even by labelling other editors as such--is to say that the neutral point of view is wrong, because the neutral point of view is bound to recognize the overwhelming scientific consensus. To use the term about another editor is also evidence that the person using the label lacks the detachment necessary to follow the neutral point of view. There goes, one might say of a person who uses the term of another, an editor who is either unaware of or is being deliberately dishonest about the science of global warming. --TS 23:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't take sides, including the competing theories that modern warming was primarily caused by either human-produced greenhouse gasses or by solar variation. If an editor here is known to be a strong advocate for either position off-wiki, and then has difficulty adhering to NPOV or any other policy in his/her editing, then administrative action my be required. Otherwise, we shouldn't be spending any time trying to label each other. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That raises an important point, which AQFK inadvertently touched on earlier when he talked of "editorial neutrality". The problem with such an approach is that you can't be editorially neutral between mainstream science and fringe viewpoints (or, let's face it, pseudoscience). There is no editorially neutral middle ground between, say, creationism and evolution, or between those who claim the Earth is 6,000 years old and mainstream geology. It's the classic "teach the controversy" paradigm that those familiar with creationist tactics will be aware of - incorrectly treating mainstream science and fringe viewpoints as equal, thus giving extreme undue weight to the latter. You have branded me off-wiki on a certain attack website as having "a strong environmental POV." Of course, what I have is a strong scientific POV. That means I have a proper appreciation of where the mainstream scientific viewpoint lies. By contrast, when you refer to "competing theories" you are showing that you don't understand the relative level of acceptance of the ideas in question. In this case, one (human-produced greenhouse gasses being primarily responsible) is a nearly universally accepted scientific theory while the other (solar variation being primarily responsible) is a fringe hypothesis that was discounted a long time ago. You appear to regard them as having equal validity; they don't. That relative level of acceptance is reflected (or should be) in the way articles on climate science are presented here - namely that the overwhelming mainstream viewpoint is given primacy while the fringe viewpoint is given relatively little attention. That is as it should be. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If there were no reliable sources which detailed opposing viewpoints to the IPCC's theory on AGW, then perhaps you might be right. In fact, however, as the recent series of articles in the Guardian made clear, there is a lot of disputed issues surrounding the modern warming issue, running the gamut from scientists who believe that the IPCC's stance is a bunch of hookum to scientists who believe that the problem is more severe than the IPCC's opinions and predictions. Again, we don't take sides on any of it, we just report what the sources say. To try to say that it is neutral to accept one of the sides is wrong. It isn't neutral to do such a thing. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a straw man. Of course there are reliable sources disputing the IPCC's reports (again you show a lack of understanding: it's not "the IPCC's theory", it's the collective summary of the entire climate science profession's research). The issue is what weight to assign to the dissenters. And not all dissenters are created equal; those who believe the IPCC is understating the impact are well within the scientific mainstream, those who "believe that the IPCC's stance is a bunch of hookum" (as you put it) are way out on the fringes and usually aren't scientists in the first place. We don't equate the fringe viewpoints of non-scientists with the mainstream viewpoint of the vast majority of experts in the field. Or are you implicitly arguing that we should be putting more weight on creationist viewpoints in biology articles? The logic's the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"There is no editorially neutral middle ground between, say, creationism and evolution, or between those who claim the Earth is 6,000 years old and mainstream geology." Sure there is. Editorial neutrality means that we repeat the bias of reliable sources without accidentally (or intentionally) introducing our own bias into the articles. When discussing life on Earth, we can plainly state evolution is a fact while ignoring creationism as fringe. Editorial neutrality is about us, not article content. Article content should be biased against fringe viewpoints such as creationism or a young Earth. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(To ChrisO) Who's talking evolution here? We're discussing the causes of the earth's most recent warming period. For various reasons that I won't go into here, critics of the IPCC are getting quite a bit of press lately. The other day I listened to a recording of a radio broadcast on the web in which the moderator interviewed three experts: James Hoggan, a database designer, and Lawrence Solomon. The first two support the IPCC's theory, the last one is a skeptic. So, she was giving 1/3 of her program to a dissenting view. I'd say that proportion is about right to the amount of press that dissenting views are getting right now. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Define "expert." Neither Hoggan on the one side nor Solomon on the other are experts on the science. (You didn't name the database designer, but database design has very little to do with the science.) Oh, and once again, it's not "the IPCC's theory." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC) When discussing life on Earth, we can plainly state evolution is a fact while ignoring creationism as fringe. If you're bringing this point into the debate, you should note that a recent survey of U.S. scientists found that the proportion who accept evolution by natural selection is similar to the proportion who accept that global warming is occurring and is primarily human-caused (87% versus 84%). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So? I would prefer numbers from scientists in related fields (as opposed to all scientists). But I don't think those numbers disagree with any edit I've made, unless of course, you don't understand my edits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

CNN: "Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role." NW (Talk) 01:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...then it sounds to me as if you don't understand my edits. I do not edit in any articles about climate change science. The one article I do edit is about the Climategate scandal which is more about politics, public perception and (eventually) history. In this political article, I've argued for explaining what the controversy is about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You said you would prefer if you had something, and I provided it. I really don't care about the other part (though I think it is a good thing that you allow people who accept scientific conclusions to edit scientific articles) NW (Talk) 01:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I take it that you don't understand my edits. Honestly, this is sad, since it mean that we are entrusting users (no less admins) to follow WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV who don't seem to understand what they mean. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not looked at your edits beyond what I have seen here and at Climatic Research Unit email controversy. NW (Talk) 01:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps, you should not issue blocks against good faith edits regarding WP:BLP issues without fully examining the WP:BLP issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

We are not rearguing your block here. Three other administrators (Black Kite, LHvU, KC) agreed with my conclusion that your edit was not covered by Wikipedia:EW#Exceptions_to_3RR. Stop with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT please, and take this to WP:RFC/U (I will even waive the normal two-person certifying rule if you wish). NW (Talk) 01:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If they review it with the same scrutiny that was used when it was applied, I expect no difference in outcome. Regardless, you are not addressing my comment about editorial neutrality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 is correct to state that Wikipedia doesn't take sides. The Neutral point of view and the way it works in the field of science has been well understood for some time and is continually refined by a succession of arbitration cases. Why he persists in arguing his point, given that he seems to accept that Wikipedia doesn't take sides, worries me. Perhaps he thinks that "Wikipedia doesn't take sides" means that "Wikipedia treats the beliefs of creationists and global warming deniers on the relevant science as the equal of the mainstream scientific opinion."

Or perhaps he simply disbelieves that the overwhelming consensus on global warming is that it is real and is most likely caused by human activities. Well in that case he is simply wrong on the facts. That's a bit extraordinary, given the undeniable fact that he has free access to articles on the subject in at least one, and probably two world-class encyclopedias on that very subject.

Wikipedians do not have the luxury of ignoring the facts and substituting their own beliefs. --TS 01:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to cite your sources SBHB. Anyway, as Tony's post above indicates, feelings definitely do run deep on the issue which is why it's even more important that Wikipedia live up to its standards and give neutral reporting on the topic. As an example of some interesting opinion on the topic, here's George Monbiot, "Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial." Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Cla68. why do you insist on referring to statements of fact as "feelings"? Please stop your mischaracterization. It doesn't impress. --TS 01:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's from the survey referenced above (thanks NW), "Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement." If climatologists are at 97%, but other scientists are much less in support, then how can you say that it's a fact? Did you read the recent series of articles in the Guardian? I assert that your own bias is showing and would ask you if you really believe that you can edit AGW articles and comply with NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientists in the relevant field. Petroleum geologists obviously don't have anything to do with climate science and nor do meteorologists (weather, not climate). That's like polling climatologists for their views on biological evolution - the results would be interesting in themselves but would not have any bearing on the status of opinion in the field of evolutionary biology. Again, you are making the mistake of believing that all dissenters are equal. They're not, particularly when they're not even in the same field of study. Treating them as equal is a fundamental misconception on your part. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ye gods! "Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters..." Well, DUH! Geologists of all kinds are the scientists who have the most to lose, in numerous ways including prestige, employment and remuneration (even the existence of their careers and college faculties will be threatened) when AGW is accepted by all the idiots who are currently dissenters, deniers and doubters. It's no accident that the man who wrote the "Denier's Bible", Ian Plimer, is a geologist with lots of financial interests in mining. ► RATEL ◄ 03:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I note also that I warned, in an earlier section on this page, and just a few hours ago, that attempts to turn this page into a forum for discussing alternative views on climate change should be consigned to a forum or blog far from Wikipedia, because they have no place here. I repeat that warning, and I'm in a less polite mood (as I said I would be if my warning was not heeded). This isn't the place to air your unconventional views on global warming. It's the place to discuss the progress of the probation and suchlike. --TS 01:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I related it to this page by pointing out that we don't take sides. Being an advocate for the IPCC's theory on AGW, or for any side, for that matter, is not NPOV and anyone who does it deservedly risks being asked to leave. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Cla, the general tone of your edits make are making me think that you are starting to treat this as a battleground issue. Stephan Schultz above said, "It's a big misunderstanding to see this as a debate between "skeptics" and "believers", with he truth, presumably, somewhere in the middle. The scientific position broadly described by the IPCC is the moderate middle-of-the-road opinion, accepted by all competent scientific organizations, the vast majority of scientists, and, if that is relevant, recognized by nearly all governments, including in particular those of the large, democratic, developed countries (like e.g. Norway, a major fossil fuel exporter [9]). The radical side of the debate consists of Gaia huggers and end-time preachers, not the scientific establishment." Do you disagree with that post, and if so why? NW (Talk) 01:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The IPCC's stance is the theory that currently has the most press, documentation, and information about it. So, WP's articles are correct to give that idea more weight. What I have noticed, however, is that some editors have violated WP's policies when it comes to their treatement of editors who try to introduce contrary viewpoints, no matter how small or reliably sourced. In some cases, a few editors were introducing derogatory information to BLPs on skeptics, while, at the same time, removing derogatory information from proponents. Or else fighting to keep positive information out of skeptics BLPS. I can back that up with diffs if needed. Also, I have seen certain editors treat other editors in the AGW articles who had contrary opinions in a bullying, condescending, and insulting manner. In other words, some editors refused to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise, which made it appear that they were advocating a certain position on this topic. Again, this is something we (I mean all of us, not a nosism) cannot do. Cla68 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Currently" is not strictly wrong, but "for more than one generation" or "twice as long as the IPCC has even existed as a formal body" would be as correct and more informative. This is not a flash in the pan. Public perception waxes and wanes, but the core scientific consensus, while continually refined, has remained extraordinarily stable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"I have seen certain editors treat other editors in the AGW articles who had contrary opinions in a bullying, condescending, and insulting manner." Indeed, this is unacceptable. It's also unwise for many reasons, not the least being that it is counterproductive to their own "side." On the other hand I have seen certain editors treat other editors in the AGW articles who had opinions reflecting the mainstream view in a bullying, condescending, and insulting manner. That's equally unacceptable, don't you agree? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen that also, and I've told them to knock it off. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I say the following without any judgments about the WP:CIV and WP:NPA debate here. These are not "sides", as in a stage debate, wrestling match or soccer game. There is, essentially, the overwhelming mainstream analysis of the evidence accumulated to date, and then there's the fringes. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong framing. ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is... The survey mentioned by NW showed that 97% of climatologists agreed with the mainstream view on climate change. (The remaining 3%, incidentally, represents just two individuals. [19]) This is as solid a scientific consensus as you're going to find in any field of science. It's comparable to the 98% of biologists and biological anthropologists who reject intelligent design as an alternative to evolution [20]. Would you regard ID as non-fringe based on those figures? A viewpoint held by a mere 3% of professionals in the relevant field is, pretty much by definition, a fringe one. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that many of the scientists in the other fields would object to characterizing climatologists as the only credible witnesses to global warming theory. I just receieved a reliable source in the mail today, The Deniers, by Lawrence Solomon, which argues that there isn't anything like a consensus on the theory, and then does its best to back that up using primary and secondary sources. Again, we don't have to decide who is right or who is wrong, we just report what those sources are saying. Anyone else can have the last word, I agree with Tony that this thread has served its purpose. Cla68 (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"a reliable source , The Deniers" - you owe me a new office, I just laughed myself through the wall. How do you possibly get the idea that The Deniers or anything Solomon writes is reliable? [21] and [22] are apropos... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the wrong framing because it's not really the basic science that is in dispute. ChrisO's response shows exactly why it's the wrong framing, he busily defends the basic science when few reasonable persons actually question it, instead of addressing the actual problems with the AGW articles. The problem with the AGW articles is not the basic science, it is in the details, the emphasis, the choice of coverage, the choice of terms, and the control exerted and general unpleasant atmosphere. ++Lar: t/c 11:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It becomes rather obvious that you aren't following the articles within this topic space, or even this discussion. What is disputed by Cla68 (and his reference of choice: Solomon) is the basic science. What the (self-declared)s sceptical editors are trying to change in the articles of the topic space is things about the basic science, it is not politics or a discussion of politics. The "actual problems" with the AGW articles, as you formulate them on your talk (your personal opinion), is never addressed or attempted to be discussed by the editors that (by common myth) are being "oppressed" or hampered by an (equally mythical) "general unpleasant atmosphere". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, this is just false. Your entire comment ignores my long term concerns on the BLPs, not to mention the Climate emails article, which was perhaps the most contested article in the whole topic area over the last 6 months and has very little content related strictly to the science. ATren (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick to reality, Lar. Cla68 in particular has disputed the basic science to the extent of arguing that somebody who like myself accepts the assessments of the scientists lacks sufficient objectivity to edit articles on the subject. and he isn't the only one, or even the first, to climb out on that limb. If you do not know this you have some catching up to do. Tasty monster (=TS ) 11:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

TS: I'm with Cla68 on this: 1) You're not correct in your assessment of Cla's beliefs. 2) Your tone may not be the most constructive, it comes off a bit condescending. ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

@Lar: Your comment above seems to me to go right back to your position(s) about the climate-change article probation, where, in the prior very long section about administrative enforcement, you argued for more case-by-case discussion than was provided for by the community action which deemed the article probation necessary in order to gain better control so as to bring reasonable compliance with WP policies.
....... Here, you say "the problem . . . is in the details, the emphasis, the choice of coverage, the choice of terms, and the control exerted and general unpleasant atmosphere." The last of these (general unpleasant atmosphere) I doubt anyone would seriously dispute. But when you say the problem is in "the details, the emphasis, the choice of coverage, the choice of terms, and the control exerted" it seems very much like an argument against current community practice in the climate change articles. We've heard similar complaints from countless socks, anon IPs, new SP accounts, and others who appear to dispute the mainstream scientific account and/or demand equal time or more time for their particular contra POV. Surely you've scanned the archives--among the common protestations are (roughly paraphrased): "WP is a tool of the left wing", "it's tyranny of the majority", "the article reads like an infomercial", "it fails to give due credence for X, Y, and Z polls that say average citizens vote against the theory of climate change", "it fails to give due weight to Professor x's and Dr. y's paper published in a peer-reviewed journal", etc.
....... The climate change probation was intended to get control over these and other kinds of repetitive and ultimately tendentious, disruptive points. In light of these oft-rendered complaints (recently diminished in number due to the probation and diligent enforcement of the sockpuppet problems), I am most interested to learn what you mean by "the problem . . . is in the details, the emphasis, the choice of coverage, the choice of terms, and the control exerted and general unpleasant atmosphere". ... Kenosis (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Amusing it would be to have had Wikipedia back in the 70s, as editors try to shut out the fringe theory that planet is warming, opting instead to reinforce the mainstream notion that a new ice was coming and that dust from man-made pollution would accelerate it. Comparing AGW skeptics to creationists is a red herring; creationism is by definition essentially non-falsifiable, being that it is a religious belief and cannot be effectively disproven by any scientific means. Coincidentally, a belief in AGW has become nearly non-falsifiable and religious in character among some people. When one can equally accept weather phenomena of extreme heat and extreme cold as evidence of climate change, ignore 30 years of cooling during a period of massive industrial expansion [1940-1970] (or conveniently blame it on sulfate aerosols, with theories tortured to work in a way similar to that of the geocentric models of the solar system), as well as ignore heat island issues with surface temperature sensors, the "debate" more closely approximates the Council of Nicea rather than a meeting of scientific minds. "Global warming is occuring and mankind is reponsible for it" is the catechism of this religion, and woe unto those who heretically question the orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming/climate change theory. It's only a model, folks, and notable criticism of the model, whether you feel it is sound or not, deserves a place in these articles. 75.16.135.253 (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If global had been the dominant climate theory in the 1970s (it was not, but that is not germane to your point) then had Wikipedia existed at that time the correct thing to do would have been to report that scientific consensus. Science changes. You argue that significant criticism of the dominant theory should be covered, I agree and add that it is indeed covered in considerable detail. Tasty monster (=TS ) 12:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The beginning of my comment above, "If global", should read "If global cooling". Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

To the IP contributor: Thanks for your perspective. Yes, it's true that present-day global warming was a fringe theory at one time, just like Galileo's Starry Messenger, plate tectonics, special relativity, and countless other theories and perspectives that are today part of the accepted scientific mainstream. In Wikipedia we're responsible for summarizing the range of reliable sources, from a neutral point of view, giving due weight to the prominence of each. The purpose is not to quash dissent, and when a fringe theory becomes mainstream WP editors are obliged to present it accordingly. The same goes the opposite way--if the presently overwhelming scientific mainstream were to change, for a hypothetical instance, to accept criticisms of the models such as to say "we [the scientific community] were wrong about X due to our sampling methods", or if there were to become a notable alternative scientific school of thought, we'd be obliged to present it as such. As to skeptical views about climate change, there are numerous articles stating the views of the skeptics, Global warming controversy, Public opinion on climate change, Climate change consensus#Dissenting, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and many other articles and sections of articles that properly report the contra views. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Err no not quite. See global cooling and in particular [23] (the link on the GC page is broken alas) for a survey of the sciecne at the time William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WMC, I've seen your 2008 paper before--nice work in reviewing the science of that period and counteracting some popular myths. I wasn't referring to the 70s per se, only that at some stage it was not yet accepted by the scientific community that significant present-day GW was occurring and that its causes are largely or wholly anthropogenic. I shouldn't have used the words "fringe theory" to make the point, but rather something like "not yet widely accepted by the scientific community" or "the available evidence was early in the process of being scrutinized". ... Kenosis (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed rather saddening that even on an encyclopedia we frequently encounter missonceptions about the state of climate science in the 1970s. I think it's appropriate to post the above correction, but of course that still doesn't change the basic argument: had global cooling ever been the mainstream paradigm it should have been, and no doubt would have been, expressed in textbooks, encyclopedias and whatnot, of the day, including any equivalent of Wikipedia. Science does change. It's a shame that some people aren't willing to wait to see if science does change, and want us to give a weight to fringe science which is not merited. We can compare this, perhaps, to the cold fusion dispute which even involved some of the same actors and a similar attempt to misrepresent Wikipedia's coverage as unbalanced. --TS 17:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Tony, you really need to stop attibuting false beliefs to people you disagree with. You've done it at least twice in this thread already, and have done it elsewhere also. You do it one more time and I'll be asking for administrative remedy. I've don't believe I've ever said that I dispute or disagree with "the basic science", because I'm reserving judgement on it. What I've always said is that there is debate and dispute in reliable sources as to what is going on with AGW and the earth's climate and those views need to be represented fairly and neutrally. As Lar and ATren say above, that hasn't always happened in AGW articles, especially in BLPs and articles on controversial subjects like the CRU emails. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'm in any danger of administrative sanction when I point out that, despite his protestations, Cla68 has repeatedly disputed the scientific consensus, openly so and even on this very page. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a fact, and no amount of denial will change it. And no, sitting on the fence when there's an overwhelming scientific consensus isn't a sign of being unbiased. There's nothing wrong with it, but unbiased it is not.

My specific comment was a response to Lar's apparent belief that nobody is disputing the basic science. Clearly Cla68 does, though he himself seems to be unaware of the fact. --TS 23:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, you've amended your statement to "disputed the scientific consensus", which is more accurate, I guess. One caveat, however, is that it's not me disputing the "scientific consensus". The people who are disputing the consensus are notable observers like Christopher Booker, Lawrence Solomon, etc. These guys, and others, have had books published by reputable publishers and their opinions have been supported by others in the media that we consider to be reliable sources, like The Guardian, for example. Since we don't take sides, their opinions get included in Wikipedia articles on the subject. Right? Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right. The claims of no consensus made by partisan commentators with no scientific training deserve at least equal weight as the claims of consensus made by the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries (to name a few). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that the majority of warming is most likely anthropogenic, which means it reserves the possibility it could be something else. Therefore, a person reserving judgement on whether AGW is definitively proven is not "biased", but agreeing with the consensus. FellGleaming (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, don't get me wrong--I'm not amending my statement. By "the basic science" I take Lar to mean the temperature measurements that show a warming trend and the theory that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide, on which there is an overwhelming scientific consensus. And above you demonstrate one of the problems that have plagued your approach to this subject: that you regard opinions of commentators such as Lawrence Solomon and Christopher Booker as highly relevant to the science. Their opinions are certainly relevant to articles on their own books, and their biographies, but both are very far out on the fringe.

FellGleaming, I agree on your characterization of the consensus and I believe I stated it as such earlier on the page. However, fence-sitting is not Wikipedia's approach. When I say it is biased, I mean it is inconsistent with the neutral point of view. The term "definitively proven" is, as ever in science, a non-issue. Scientific opinion changes over time and definitive proof is for mathematicians. --TS 00:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Taking a side on a controversial topic and editing to support that side is not neutral, Tony. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Then we should jolly well amend our articles on evolution, gravity and so on to reflect the alternative views in all their glory. Do you agree? Or perhaps we should stay with our current policy under which the opinions of Messrs Booker and Solomon on global warming are given very short shrift indeed in articles on the science.

Added some hours later: To clarify, I disagree with Cla68's characterization of our giving due (and overwhelming) weight to the overwhelming view of the scientists as "taking a side on a controversial topic and editing to support that side." I hope it's obvious that Cla68's characterization of the science of the matter as controversial is considerably at variance with Lar's earlier expression of his belief that nobody was disputing the basic science. Cla68 even now says that the science is "controversial" and that in reflecting the state of the science we're "taking sides." He could not be more wrong. (TS 01:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

In short, where there exists at any time an overwhelming mainstream view, we will present that view and give far less space to the alternatives. --TS 00:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Come now, you know that isn't a reasonable comparison. If even the most ardent physicists said they only believed gravity "probably" existed, you might have a point. There are many earth scientists who dispute AGW, some of which are or were IPCC authors and reviewers. Their view may not be mainstream, but it's not a flat earther fringe theory, either. FellGleaming (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fell. Alo, if those articles you mention aren't written neutrally, then yes, we will need to change them. If there isn't at least a small mention of the minority viewpoint, reliably sourced, of course, then those articles aren't neutral. From what I've seen of your approach to the AGW articles is to remove most, if not all, mention of dissenting viewpoints, no matter how well sourced they are, saying things like, "they're fringe" or "newspapers aren't reliable" or "the New York Times isn't a reliable source on this topic" (yes, I think you did say that once and I took it to the RS Noticeboard where the regulars there were noticeably aghast at the idea). Remember, if an article is written neutrally, the reader won't be able to tell which side the article is taking. Many articles in the AGW topic in the past did not read that way, and many still struggle with this issue. Attempts by editors to correct this have been treated dismissively or rudely. If the articles had been written right the first time, we probably wouldn't have a need for this enforcement board now. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Our articles on global warming (have you read them, by the way?) contain copious discussions of the non-mainstream viewpoints. Cla68, you refer to some past period in which the global warming coverage was less balanced--I am aware of no significant changes in balance in the past couple of years.

On Fell Gleaming's point, well I didn't intend to imply that global warming was as firmly accepted as gravity. But it's overwhelmingly accepted, and we reflect that in our coverage.

I would fervently hope that none of our science coverage, anywhere, ever relies on newspaper articles. --TS 00:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony, the articles aren't as biased as they used to be, but from what I've observed, other editors had to fight way too hard to get them to be more neutral. And, if there wasn't a problem with the conduct surrounding the AGW articles, then why do we have this enforcement board? Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You've simply repeated your claim that the balance in the climate change articles has changed. Justify that claim or stop repeating it. --TS 00:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

On the purpose of the probation, it seems to me both from my memory of the original discussions and from perusing the log of sanctions, that its purpose has been overwhelmingly to restrain disruptive activities by people who think the articles are biased too much towards the mainstream. With rare exceptions, those are the editors who have been sanctioned. --TS 00:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Easy to do Tony, I'm surprise you're even asking. Here's how Global Warming looked in June 2006. Notice that there is no section on contrary theories or opinions. The article now contains a small section. It's not that no editors were trying to introduce that section back in 2006. If you check the talk page for that time you'll see that they were trying very hard, and getting responses like this one (note the use of the word "septics"), this, this, (again, with "septics", and this. I rest my case. Cla68 (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice that there is no section on contrary theories or opinions. Wrong -- the 2006 version contains a substantial section on solar variation. Did you actually read the 2006 version? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, there is now a skeptical section in addition to the solar variation section. In addition, read the diffs I provided from the talk page from that time and then try to tell me that "regulars" at the page were doing their best to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise. That's one of the big reasons this enforcement board became necessary. Cla68 (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess it was too much to hope that you actually would rest you case, as you said you would. Ah well. Your talk page diffs are deeply unconvincing. Take Your premises are so far off that no reasonable discussion is possible. Please read some relevant articles on and off Wikipedia and come back - you appear to find this intolerable. Do you exclude the possibility of it *ever* being true? Is your position that anyone, no matter how ignorant, may turn up and must be humoured? Remember, this is not a usenet bulletin board; the purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to educate the ignorant. Also, it is notable that you present only talk page chatter. You haven't presented one single diff that you consider to have been invalidly rejected. Yes, the regulars on that page were, and indeed still are, doing their best to "collaborate, cooperate, and compromise" all within the overriding context of making the article good. You sound, as ever, as though your idea of a compromise is "the science says this but Inhofe says that". Obviously, this is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Except, where the scientists get it wrong on weak evidence with only face valued validity, then newspapers have just as much creditability. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. A newspaper may be a medium for a scientific discussion, or may publish a report of the state of the science, but newspapers are not equipped to conduct scientific investigations or reviews. Even newspaper reports of existing well understood science is notoriously poor--as we see every time a new fossil hominid is found. --TS 02:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WP policy specifically favors secondary sources, such as newspaper accounts, over primary sources such as scientific papers. And for good reason. Journalists may have a poor track record in interpreting papers, but Wiki editors have an even worse one. FellGleaming (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that some scientific papers (especially, some review papers) are secondary sources. Scientific papers that are secondary sources are often more reliable than newspaper articles about the same subject. Cardamon (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You've conflated two points. Wikipedia policy favors secondary sources over primary sources (true), and Wikipedia policy favors newspapers over scientific papers (false). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A newspaper's analysis of a scientific paper is to be preferred over a random editor's analysis of that paper. If you can source a point with a direct quote from a paper, that's a kumquat of a different color. FellGleaming (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And just to make it absolutely clear, I'm certainly not advocating that we use our own interpretation of primary sources in favor of citing accurate, reliable secondary sources. Newspapers, alas I wish it were not so, are of little use on many specialised subjects where they lack the expertise to do a decent job, and this is especially true of science. But there are usually enough specialist sources to help us. --TS 02:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to look at how this question has been addressed in medical articles. WP:MEDRS is the relevant guideline. Whether these approaches are readily exportable to scientific topics in general would be an interesting question. MastCell ^Talk 02:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be interesting but it is not an example to follow. Some of medical articles on WP, particularly on procedures, (where I am not involved at all, I hasten to add) from an outsiders point of view seem have a systematic bias in favour of medical intervention. There are all sorts of reasons why, but broadly by the time that the views of someone as prominent as Germaine Greer do not get into the controversy section on the Wikipedia article on Breast Implants you know the problem could not be sorted easily. The people who edit many of the medical articles are US private practioners who make money out of people opting for private surgery. People on the other side who appear from time to time tend to be ill informed and upset by personal surgical outcomes so can easily be dismissed on POV grounds and no one else from the broad scientific camp has got the energy to try to get things neutral. There is also a strong pro-USA versus European perspective (which is pro intervention for similar reasons). --BozMo talk 06:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. That hasn't been my experience, but then I don't think I've worked on the breast implant article, nor on articles about procedural interventions in general. I haven't witnessed private practitioners editing in an effort to increase their revenue stream, but that may be a function of the subgroup of medical articles that I frequent. The physician-editors that I've worked with most frequently, like Jfdwolff (talk · contribs), Stevenfruitsmaak (talk · contribs), and Davidruben (talk · contribs), are all Europeans and lack a discernible pro-treatment bias. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Those three are certainly all ok. But as you say thats a different area. --BozMo talk 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A newspaper's analysis of a scientific paper - is almost invariably worthless. Can you point to a decent example from a recent UK newspaper? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I like this one [24] from the IPCC article, cause it evidence for the topic of "Editorial Bias" in the IPCC. I have yet to see a scientific journal address editorial bias in the IPCC.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You fail, multiply (surprise!). Thats not an analysis of a scientific paper, and its not from a UK newspaper William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The ignorance and civility problem

Getting back to the issue that started this discussion - the civility problem - I think it's inextricable from another problem, that of editorial ignorance. We've seen numerous examples of that in this discussion; e.g. the claim that AGW is "the IPCC's theory" (it's not), that Lawrence Solomon is a scientific expert (he's not), that fringe viewpoints are of equal importance to the mainstream science (they're not), that global cooling was a mainstream theory in the 1970s (it wasn't) and that AGW is a "religion" (it's not). People pick up misinformed or simply false ideas from partisan commentators, the media and denialist websites. They either don't bother checking our own articles for the facts, which we're generally pretty good at providing, or they reject the contents of those articles for partisan ideological reasons. They demand that their inaccurate ideas and unreliable sources be given primacy or equal prominence with bona fide science and get upset when this doesn't happen. This has often resulted in incivility as a result of frustration on both sides. It's not uncommon for some people to be incivil from the start - they come to Wikipedia to fight an ideological war, denounce "leftist" editors and Al Gore and end up quitting or being blocked.

I don't know if there's anything we can do about this. I suspect not; much of the difficulty we're having with climate change articles is due to the rabid ideological partisanship that surrounds this issue in the media and blogosphere. There's a huge amount of misinformation and disinformation out there, so it's no surprise that editors should come here ignorant of the facts. Given the partisanship it's also no surprise that they should come here expecting a fight, and it's understandable that established editors - especially the scientifically literate ones - should get exasperated when facing an endless stream of angry scientific illiterates. This is where the Wikipedia model fails, unfortunately - in a proper academic encyclopedia, articles on science would be written by the scientifically qualified, without expecting them to deal constantly with challenges from people who have distorted or false views of the science. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

When two people have an argument about climate change, shouldn't they be able to come to Wikipedia to see both the facts that support and those that discredit the argument? The main ideological arguments I've seen here are related to the suppression of everything possible about fringe arguments. To the contrary, we should clearly explain as many fringe arguments as possible, AND explain exactly why those arguments are fringe. To me, WEIGHT and FRINGE are being misused to suppress what many editors (and probably readers) want to see.

And since this is supposed to be about "civility", how about not using words like "leftist", "right wing", "partisan", and "denialist". That is like begging for a fight and the first three are US specific (I think, based on some of the comments I've seen). Q Science (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The main article should not spend a lot of space clearly explaining every possible fringe argument, no matter how little credence given it, although a subsidiary article can give additional coverage. It is sufficient to note they exist. The mainstream view, that something is happening, and that it is likely caused by us, which the vast majority of scientists in the field accept as very likely true, is what should get the vast majority of emphasis in the scientific part of the lead article. It should not be presented as absolutely certain, nor should the exact details of how much will happen by when be presented as absolutely certain. It also should not take up the bulk of the lead. The lead should be primarily emphasizing the societal impact, the politics of the matter, the coverage that has been given, and so forth. A subsidiary article can give more detail on the science. ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, the last point is arguable at best. Our main global-warming articles have always been predominantly scientific in character, and the politics have been handled in detail in subarticles. (As an aside, this structure has been praised by reputable independent sources). What you propose may in fact be a change for the better, but it's still a change from the way the coverage has looked (supported by editorial consensus) for years. This seems like a subject for editorial discussion on the appropriate talk pages. If you have a clear vision for the specific emphasis that you'd prefer in the lead - one that conflicts with the current and historical emphasis - then you should articulate that viewpoint on the appropriate article talk pages, rather than as an administrator enforcing discretionary sanctions. MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm articulating it, but I'm not advocating for it. Merely providing an example, one of many, of the control exerted to keep these articles congruent with a particular POV and weight. So, no. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, when you say that the lead "should" look a certain way, you are advocating a specific change in content and emphasis. The proper venue for that advocacy is as an editor on the article talk page, not as an admin enforcing probation. MastCell ^Talk 21:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Assumes facts not in evidence". Your claim that this is an example of "control exerted" would demand that you could actually give examples of this. Over all the time i've edited Global warming, i can only remember one person arguing this particular line (which was quite recently). So can you give more than one example of this? If you cannot - then i will assume that you are picking this out of the blue air - based on your personal views. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Since there were so many edit wars that this probation was created, I don't agree with "supported by editorial consensus". I also don't agree because so many people who disagree with the "editorial consensus" have been banned. Obviously, discussing this on individual talk pages has not worked. Q Science (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the article content is contentious, subject to edit-warring, marked by ineffective talk-page usage, and supported by abusive bans. Even if that is the case, a distinction remains between advocating specific changes in content and neutrally enforcing an administrative probation. I'm mildly concerned by comments like those above, which suggest that this distinction is being blurred. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is very hard to have, effectively, a "FAQ" section in the way AQFK QS seems to want. Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Findings_that_complicate_attribution_to_CO2 might be the best example. The problem is getting reliable sourcing (it would be easy to write the FAQ if all we needed were known facts). The more wacko "skeptic" theories don't have scientific rebutalls because they are just too silly. It isn't really clear just what AQFK QS would like to see but isn't present - examples might clarify this William M. Connolley (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please refrain from loaded terms like "wacko", William? FellGleaming (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a perfectly appropriate term here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, "more wacko" implies there are no alternative theories which are not "wacko". The civility policy is a good one to follow. FellGleaming (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it implies no such thing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, since you're here, do *you* have any concrete examples of the kind of the AQFK is talking about, since he doesn't seem to have? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"a "FAQ" section in the way AQFK seems to want." Huh? When did I suggest a FAQ? What on Earth are you going on about now? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong Q. I've corrected it now William M. Connolley (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• ChrisO's opening paras in this section are bang on the money. As for WMC's comments about a FAQ, there is a great article in the New Scientist called Climate change: A guide for the perplexed. I can think of a lot of troublesome editors who would benefit from reading that, slowly and carefully. ► RATEL ◄ 04:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I vote for increased understanding of the different positions. To refer to the IPCC's theory does not mean one believes they did the research themselves. Lawrence Solomon may be a RS without being a scientific expert. I don't believe people have promoted "equal importance" for fringe views; the meaning of "importance" here is also unclear. The comment on global cooling may be fair, but comparing views on AGW to religion could probably be defended (I think the skeptic side is more religiously-motivated, but no one asked me). So is any of this a reason to be rude? It would certainly be too bad if the rudeness were actually more effective in driving away reasonable editors than it was in driving away those hypothetical pig-headed partisans, and if a more civil discourse would, though less cathartic, better achieve the desired effect. Mackan79 (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Debating content with sceptic editors is a Sisyphean task — thankless and pointless. My position is that the whole area of global warming on wikipedia needs to be maintained by a select group of scientifically literate mainstream editors, with the undertaking that sceptical views and theories be given due weight. ► RATEL ◄ 14:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-ingorance leading to incivilty is the greatest comspiriacy we will ever encounter. Knowledge has true meaning when put forth by and for civil purposes. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So your argument is that is Einstein had said "fuck" a lot while developing relativity the theory would have been wrong? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

To take an extreem absurd WMC, if Einstein where a complete a-hole, then his work might have allways been obsurced in fringe theory land. Bingo on collaboration, it is the internet age now. I expect people learn better in polite circumstances. Thank you.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

[25] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@ WMC It`s a theory, nobody knows if it`s right or wrong :-) @ Ratel, your idea of due weight is that anything which might cast a slight doubt on "The Science" is that it should not be there, that is not how science works, your`s is a belief system which is more akin to religion that science mark nutley (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Einstein developed SR on his own. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Civility is an integral part of the process. FellGleaming (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The ghost of Henri Poincaré shakes its head sorrowfully... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So if Einstein had wandered around the Solvay conferences saying "fuck" a lot, or said "botties" in his extensive correspondence, would that have made any difference to the validity of the theory? I think it is sweet the way all the "skeptics" are rushing to defend this nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A much better analogy is if Michelson had spent his time telling Morley to "fuck off", they never would have conducted their famous experiment. I'm sure you can see the difference between collaboration, and simply drawing on another's results. In any case, whether or not you agree with it, Wikipedia policy requires civility. FellGleaming (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In his book, Christopher Booker says something interesting about the level of civility he sees coming from "one side" in the AGW debate, "Equallly revealing had been the peculiar form of intolerance shown by supporters of the 'consensus' towards anyone who didn't share their beliefs. Nothing had become more familiar in discussions of 'man-made climate change' than how often it prompted its 'true believers' to resort to ad hominem abuse, suggesting that those who disagreed with them could only be doing so from corrupt and venal motives. Rather than being willing to engage in debate, they were more likely to respond with insults." From what I have seen solely in Wikipedia, Booker's observation is dead on the mark. I would say that several posts in this very thread, especially including the first one, fit this category. Cla68 (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You've never attempted "engage in debate" about the science. You can't, because you don't understand it well enough. You know so little about it that you don't even know that you don't know about it. The only solution, which I think you'll never find, is to approach the science humbly and try to learn William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) The (not so) hidden secret about the "science" is there's much less to it than certain people would have you believe...which explains the heavy-handed emphasis on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority and "consensus". Ask any physicist about why a theory such as QED is correct, and no one would even think to invoke consensus. They'll just give you a straightforward answer.

And before you impugn my understanding as you have everyone else's here, William, I do have a MS in a relevant field. There is some good work being done in certain areas, but the threadbare assumptions being made on the all-important climate sensitivity issue are ludicrously pathetic at times. And from the paleoclimatic record alone, it seems clear that the assumptions being made about positive feedbacks are, shall we say, "optimistic", to say the least? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 22:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that the basic science is quite simple. I've never suggested otherwise. You'll find greenhouse effect fairly helpful (or you might like Idealized greenhouse model if you want the nice simple version). Attribution of recent climate change is less so, alas. And I don't think your QED analogy helps: you'd get the same kind of answer form a climate scientist. There simply is no "appeal to authority": you're not reading what is on the actual pages. Try reading global warming. Of course, if you read scientific opinion on global warming then you'll get... the scientific opinion. Like it says. And of course if you wanted to *know* if QED is correct, but were not prepared to study it enough detail to understand the answer, then you would have no option but to rely on "consensus": which is to say, the mainstream scientific view. And of course if you asked someone to explain QED in enough detail to allow you to verify it, you wouldn't get just ... a straightforward answer. but the threadbare assumptions being made on the all-important climate sensitivity issue are ludicrously pathetic at times is vague - but if you have problems, the talk page of climate sensitivity is open. As for the palaeo/+ve - who knows what you mean William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, FG, whilst you are pushing your expertise, you're not demonstrating it [26]. Perhaps some of this might be a little more complex than you first thought? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What are the odds of this discussion producing any result that improves the encyclopedia? Thparkth (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It at least serves to show Lar that his claim that no reasonable person(s) actually question the basic science - is based on a faulty assumption, since we have a multitude of editors here who question the basic

I think the problem, Kim, is that some people define "the basic science" as being "CO2 is a GHG", whereas others present it as "catastrophe is imminent". There are loons at either end of the spectrum, those saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, and others screaming we're facing the largest threat to humanity ever seen. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 00:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right.... (not). "Catastrophe imminent" has nothing to do with the basic science - it is a value judgement [what defines a catastrophy?] (and btw one that i don't buy). Climate sensitivity is basic science though, and you just disputed it. Sorry - a redefinition of what constitutes or doesn't constitute basic science isn't in the cards. Working group I stuff singularly. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"...and you just disputed it." I think you may have misunderstood a word I used, if you believe that. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 00:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

whereas others present it as "catastrophe is imminent". - you won't find that in wiki, but you will find a lot of folks who seem to think it is present. One reason you won't find it is because a number of the science-based editors have helped to keep it out - no thanks to you or your ilk - we've kept out extremism from both ends; unlike those who whilst loudly proclaiming their neutrality have edits from one side only William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What are the odds of this discussion producing any result that improves the encyclopedia? Thparkth (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal to the human breast. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 00:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Right on, best to stick to this [27] which can be a plain as a nose on a face except to the owner. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm hoping what everyone, including me, take from this discussion is to put personal beliefs on global warming aside and collaborate and cooperate to produce some NPOV articles on the topic. It is possible to do. Look at that article's talk page and history and see who has helped out with it. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there actually any evidence or agreement that most of these articles are not already NPOV? I haven't actually read or edited most of them for quite some time, but the main GW article got to FA status and sees still to carry a heavy consensus of being Neutral? Some of the BLPs I have misgivings about but otherwise I think the issue in this probation is more about conduct than POV. --BozMo talk 07:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The BLPs are the real issue, agreed, and I've been slowly working my way through them. I usually try to avoid most of the other articles, but the Climategate entry has been so whitewashed its impossible to even discern the magnitude of the controversy. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 08:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The BLPs are where the worst abuses have occurred, and it's unfortunate that most of the editors who have done so haven't been called to account for it so far. Most of the other articles actually aren't too bad as far as NPOV goes, but if you check the talk pages, you'll see that editors have had to fight tooth and nail and spend way too much time to get them that way. Cla68 (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The BLPs have a few false light issues; however, the other articles are under a blatant and specific campaign to exclude POV's that are not from the IPCC or accepted scientific norms. There is due weight room for these in Wikipedia; however there is an ignorant bias to exclude. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sugested reading from Jimbo [28] for all on this civility topic. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sooo... we really are at a situation where none of the skeptic side care to name even a single science-based article as POV? That is splendid, perhaps we should have had this discussion rather earlier. but if you check the talk pages, you'll see that editors have had to fight tooth and nail and spend way too much time to get them that way is indeed true - it has been a hard fight to keep the extreme skeptic (not to mention the plain ignorance) stuff out; but it is good to see you acking the result as success William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget the problems with keeping the "global warming, we're all gonna die!!!" stuff in its proper place too. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I did that just up above: whereas others present it as "catastrophe is imminent". etc William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right. There's a low SNR here (which I have just degraded further, come to think of it). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Might be better to take the view of "finding the right home" for reliable sourced POVs rather then "keep it out". A judgmental attitude may be leading to unnecessary conflicts. IMO some articles read and look like a wasted battleground. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Amen. Instead of, whenever someone brings a reliably sourced but contrary opinion to an AGW article of, "how do we keep this out", the attitude should be, how to do we work with this editor to include the material appropriately while maintaining a cooperative and collaborative atmosphere? Cla68 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning FellGleaming

Regardless of if I actually get warned for "baiting" in my response to WMC I accept that I could have conveyed what I wished in a more approachable manner and that AGF is an important principle that could have been more easily adhered to had I stuck to the facts and left my opinions out of the matter. My apologies to those involved in the probation process. I would gently remind all however that general accusations of bias generally do not help the discussion about specific topics.

The case against FG has, in my opinion, been open too long. It concerns an incident from several days ago, and it seemed like several days ago it was on the verge of being closed, yet nothing came of it and the discussion requested in the uninvolved admin section has not really taken place. There is a danger that specific cases, when left open this long, can escalate into needless discussion of any and every edit an editor has made. It also puts the person against whom the case has been made on a sort of probation where their every move is noted and analysed by someone.

Part of the problem is the small pool of uninvolved admins that work on these probations. Perhaps a means could be sought to encourage more uninvolved admins to participate. That would also combat the danger, however small it may be, of a small pool of uninvolved admins slowly becoming more involved than they realise, and help assist the uninvolved admins who have participated up so far. Weakopedia (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

[... Bad faith accusations, off topic discussion ...]

   [

Reveal your old account, or waive any WP:OUTING claims against me when I do so. Hipocrite (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that I'm not going to stop checking all of FG's sources, even if this request is closed as "no action." My next complaint, of course, won't be to here. Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no previous account to disclose. This is the third time [29] [30] [31] that you have accused me of sockpuppetry in as many days. Rather than accuse me again and get the same reply you could open an SPI, which I can assure you will give you the same answer. Weakopedia (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't discuss this further unless you waive any claims that I am OUTING you, sorry. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, don't threaten or hang aspersions over another editor's head. You should know better than that as an adult and a long-time Wikipedia editor. Either put up or get back to editing in a cooperative, collaborative, and compromising manner. Cla68 (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Find evidence that my editing has been anything other than cooperative, collaborative and compromising. You're just casting aspersions based on this joke of a page. Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the administrators comments in the motion you brought. Cla68 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

They commented on my editing? Diff, please. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Cla68, I'm going to ask for more than a diff - I want an apology from you, and I want you to place it on your talk page and my talk page and here. I want that apology because of this edit. You tell me why that edit makes me "cooperative, collaborative and compromising." Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

]