Misplaced Pages

• Stephan, consistent with consider this your "polite note" that I believe your comments regarding skeptics and what you see as their level of dedication to the integrity of the project seem to unnecessarily attack a number of editors in good standing and, therefore, the "refactoring or removal" of that part of your comment "would be appreciated". Let's all try to promote a more collegial environment moving forward. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. --GoRight (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Show me an example where a "sceptical" editor has ever disagreed with a Scibaby sock, or reverted it, or reported it at SPI, and I will refactor accordingly. Until then, my comment stands. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's not focus on the "enablers" portion. We may have a chance here of getting consensus on more sensible handling of Scibaby, and I'd not want to mess up that chance. --TS 00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@Stephan - I was unaware that reverting Scibaby was somehow an official litmus test for caring about the integrity of the project. Since Scibaby tends to promote a skeptical perspective on the issues it should not be surprising that the AGW proponents would be more active in trying to keep his edits out. However, it is Scibaby the user that is banned and NOT their POV so your comment is clearly inappropriate and an attack. It is a sad state of affairs when we can't even get the administrators to adhere to the civility restrictions which have just recently been proposed for these pages.

Consistent with , the above notification, and Stephan's refusal to refactor his incivility I would ask that an uninvolved administrator refactor it for him. Specifically, the portion of his statement that I think is objectionable would be "In particular, apparently no "sceptic" editor has ever found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community." --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with GoRight. Stephan should replace the words "maintaining the integrity of our community" with "reporting or reverting Scibaby sockpuppets." Keeping in mind that it's now wee hours of the morning in Germany, we should give Stephan a reasonable time to repond. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A perfectly acceptable suggestion and given the time I perfectly agree with giving him time to respond and am more than willing to accept that the time may have been a contributing factor. I have certainly been in the same situation myself. --GoRight (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarified. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How many socks are you requesting enforcement against exactly? 57? 205? Heyitspeter (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm requesting action against the sock master(s). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I repeat. 57? 205? The one you list has already been blocked indefinitely .--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Broken record? As I said, I'm looking for action that is effective against the sock master(s). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we're both spinning in circles, so in that sense the metaphor holds. I asked you a question twice and you haven't answered twice.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain. Sock master: A real human being. Sock puppet: A disposable Misplaced Pages account created by the sock master (see there). I'm looking for sactions that are effective against the sock master (see there) and as a consequence reduce the disruption caused by the sock puppets (see there). Some examples of possible actions are listed above (see there), I'm sure this groups of brilliant brains can come up with more than I can after 5 minutes of thinking. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that your enforcement request shows examples from one sock master, Scibaby, who has been blocked, whereas you use the plural. You also appear to be requesting sanctions against "scibaby enablers." Who?--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My complaint allows for the case that Scibaby is several cooperating sock masters. The convention with the (s) is short hand for "sock master or sock masters, as appropriate" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of WP:SPADE, I suppose I should make myself more clear. This is what McCarthyism is. Please close this request and warn the filing editor.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to this comparison. Please refactor or strike per Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Comment_refactoring. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The comparison is unambiguously apt. I honestly can't find any feature of McCarthyism that doesn't directly apply to what you are here attempting. Please bring any such incongruity to my attention.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We cannot put people into prison for contempt, we cannot force them to witness against other, we are not even asking them to witness. How is it like McCarthyism in any way? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are attempting to instill in the community a diffuse fear of a faceless enemy (a "Scibaby several cooperating sock masters"), are brandishing an as yet unrevealed list of names of people who sympathise with this faceless enemy whom you intend to penalize on that basis, and you are trying to take this unspecified opponent and unspecified list of names as a justification for the removal of restrictions on controls of said community. That is what McCarthyism is.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No. No. No. No. The last is debatable but irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've listed this article for temporary protection on WP:RFPP because of what looks like it could turn into a lame edit war over the tag. Perhaps starting a discussion here (not on the merits, but on conduct) might help to thwart the warring (which is, of necessity on an article under 1RR, by multiple parties). --TS 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I see a couple of reverts, but no more than 1 per party (please correct me if I am blind). Discussion is occuring on the talk page. If we are looking at conduct and not the merits, I see no breaches of the probation (yet). Arkon (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Not clear what the problem is. Would there be a problem if there *was* an edit war over the tag? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

One edit followed by three reverts in less than six hours is far beyond my comfort zone in normal editing. On a 1RR article, in a probation, it rings alarm bells. Yes, I think edit warring over a tag is (as I said above) lame, and we should discuss this for a bit without the distraction of unproductive jostling and pushing. . --TS 23:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A tag war confirms a dispute exists on face value and the tag should stay, it's harmless. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, in that case lets just tag *everything* with the least hint of controversy; what an excellent idea; pointlessly wasting page space is obviously harmless William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No an ugly tag at the top of a page is not "harmless". Let's focus on our general readership, we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia for readers - not just to push a pov or play a game. Therefor when I observed an apparent consensus on talk to remove said "ugly and distracting tag", I removed it. It appears a bit prematurely perhaps. So, do we have a legitimate dispute, or a pov pushing battle? If it is a legit. dispute among neutral editors then resolve it. If it is simply pov pushing by spas then nix it and get on with legitimate editing. Vsmith (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's focus on our general readership That's why the tag is there. To let outside readers know that this article in in a different status than one without the tag. It provides useful information to the reader.--SPhilbrickT 20:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Two points; Firstly, this is not formatted per the template at the top of the page and may therefore be dismissed (I am going to wait to see if there are any more comments regarding that) and, secondly, the aesthetic ramifications of a page being tagged is more suitable for a meta discussion and if such (discussions regarding the) removals of templates from CC related articles were intended to highlight that argument then I shall be looking to see if there are any sanctions that might be enforced regarding abuse of WP:POINT - and if there are any indications that the "aesthetic argument" was a smokescreen to simply remove a template some editors didn't want there then I shall be seeking extended sanctions on all parties responsible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, will you be seeking extended sanctions if there are any indiciations that the "NPOV dispute" argument was a smokescreen to simply keep a badge of shame on an article that complied with all of our policies? Just wondering. Hipocrite (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that would work - someone is proposing that placing the template upon the page improves the aesthetic appeal..? My understanding is that it was suggested that the template was removed as aesthetically unpleasing, which I advere is not an appropriate reason for the action. The aesthetics or other issues with placing a template on a page should be discussed on the templates talkpage, or indeed the related policy/guideline page in respect of placing such templates on pages, but never on the effected page itself. My comments is that WP:POINTy actions on a page covered by a probation run a greater risk of sanctions even if the action does not relate to the probation subject - and if it is in fact done with regard to the probation subject, but camouflaged as a POINTy action, then even more severe sanctions might ensue (if proven). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, sir, someone is suggesting there is an NPOV dispute when there is actualy not an NPOV dispute. If you determine that their POINTy argument that there is an NPOV dispute is designed to put a POINTy NPOV badge-of-shame on a page, will you be sanctioning them? Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Broadly editorial notices on main page articles are always a bad thing and we should not have NPOV tags simply because some editors have other POVs. NPOV tags in particular should never endure long term: consensus defines the NPOV of the article. Calling the notices distracting is right, and detrimental to the project but sometimes needed whilst a process is underway to sort a recognised problem. There is a recognised problem with the conduct of the talk pages in Climate Change but not with POV. "Ugly" is irrelevant and for template talk. And this thread should be close as it was not a proper request for enforcement. --BozMo talk 14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"consensus defines the NPOV of the article" No, it does not. Only reliable sources can define what neutral is. We as Misplaced Pages editors are simply supposed to repeat the bias of reliable sources.

"There is a recognised problem with the conduct of the talk pages in Climate Change but not with POV" I find this comment very disturbing. Of course, there's a legit POV issue here and if you can't see recognize this, then I'm not sure it's a good idea for you to be involved in this probation. Even Jimbo agrees that there's POV issue here and goes even further than I do: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I rather feel this comment is a misunderstanding on both counts. Consensus is what establishes the subjective application of policy to an article, and hence NPOV. There is nothing I can see in Jimbos particular comment to suggest that the article is not NPOV. And as for my involved I am an uninvolved Admin in the terms of the probation and don't have the time to get involved in the content issues. --BozMo talk 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo is seeing the current version of the article which I agree is WP:NPOV. There is no indication that he read through the revision history or talk archives to see all the POV pushing from both warring factions. In any case, you said, "There is a recognised problem with the conduct of the talk pages in Climate Change but not with POV " It seems to me that you just commented on a content issue and took sides with one of the warring factions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I commented on whether a problem was recognised not whether one existed. I have not read the article, but AFAICT there is no general recognition of a POV problem, just some individuals who claim such exists. I wonder that this is unclear to you. --BozMo talk 17:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what LessHeard vanU means. This thread informed ScJessey about the circumstances of an edit he had just made and he asked the protecting admin to revert that edit. That is a very good result and I consider this thread to have served its purpose in restraining sharp-elbowed editing on a particularly sensitive article.

A Quest for Knowledge has often said he spent a lot of time on the neutral point of view noticeboard. In view of that, I don't understand quite how he got the idea that the pivotal, "non-negotiable" neutral point of view policy was in any way subject to the quite ignorable and superfluous reliable sources guideline (hint: it's intended for people who don't quite understand the meaniing of the word "verifiability", which is also a key policy). So many newbies, so little time, and so we end up arguing the meaning of policies that we ourselves created and expanded, increment by increment, with people who have failed to digest them and think they know everything. --TS 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• No specific enforcement action is requested here and Tony indicates he is satisfied with the result, so this should now be closed. If there is specific behaviour that needs looked at (edit-warring that skirts 1RR) a properly formed request can be made. To stray to the merits of the tag, it should at least clarify whether it is title or content that is disputed. Franamax (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• I was responding to the comments by Vsmith about consensus for 'removing "ugly and distracting tag"'. Never mind, the intent seems to have been missed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• My 10¢ here: The tag has ended up being a "hostage tag" rather than a helpful tag. As i see it, i doubt there will ever be a resolution of it. If you were to ask the editors: "Should the tag be removed" - you get "no concensus". Were you to ask: "Should the tag remain" - you would get "no consensus". Not very useful at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. It tags an 'NPOV dispute', not an 'NPOV dispute consensus'. --Heyitspeter (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So let me be more specific: I doubt if that particular NPOV dispute is ever going to be resolved. Thus the tag has no meaning whatsover. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plenty of creationists who would like to slap an "NPOV dispute" tag on Evolution. For that matter, there are any number of people who dispute the content of Global warming, a featured article. But those are unresolvable disputes arising from fundamental(ist) ideological positions. This particular dispute is very much the same. It is clear that anti-science editors are not going to agree with pro-science editors any time soon. That being so, what is the point of the tag? To tell the reader that "someone doesn't like this article"? That surely can't be a viable basis for tagging it; would we accept the same people tagging Global warming, which I'm sure they'd like to do? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, any issues with Evolution have nothing to do with the Climategate article which is not an article about science, but an article about a political and scientific conduct controversy. It would be more helpful if you came up with an analogy that fits the situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having NPOV tags on articles. That's the nature of a wiki. Cla68 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. There is nothing wrong with having NPOV tags on articles. But there is something wrong in having NPOV tags permanently on articles, especially so on articles which have a large amount of editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So topic ban editors from both warring factions and let neutral editors work on the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can tag an article; no one may remove the tag until the dispute is resolved, but there have to be some checks and balances. The tagging editor has to come up with well-sourced suggestions as to why the current article is not verifiably accurate or neutral. Then we reach consensus, fix the article, and remove the tag. Trouble here is that we have no concrete suggestions within WP policy and guidelines, we only get asked to look at speculation and propaganda from uninformed sources far from the events, and there is no consensus that anti-science viewpoints should be given equal weight to established science. --Nigelj (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not true. Whenever there's a violation of WP:NPOV, I always base my arguments on Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines and cite reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(To Kim) No, the nature of a wiki is that a few can NPOV tag the many. If we don't like it, we can find another website to mess with, including me. Cla68 (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, allow me to disagree. NPOV tags are not there to be used as pressure items - but to be used as a help in recruiting editors to resolve a particular issue. The easiest resolution here, should be to have a timelimit on such tags, for instance a month, if consensus cannot be gathered for or against a solution to the perceived problem within that timelimit - then some other dispute resolution should be tried. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a strong argument for saying that a tag, like any other article space content, should either be supported by consensus or removed. Certainly the existence of a minority of people who do not think an article is NPOV is not sufficient to imply a tag is needed. And the subjective application of Misplaced Pages policy, where the application is in doubt, has to be ruled by consensus (since consensus determines policy in the first place). But as I say, I have not read the article and do not know whether in fact lack of NPOV is agreed.--BozMo talk 20:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to disagree in principle. I think the tag should remain unless there is consensus that it's wrong. If there is consensus that it was wrong, it shouldn't be readded unless a different issue is brought up.

For this specific instance, although I think the tag is inappropriate until such time as the FAQ is corrected to note the error in the answer to Q5, I don't actually see consensus against it at any time. I could be wrong, as I haven't spent my life that much time editing this article, like some of the editors here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that if the same process covers the tag as covers the content, then you may as well get rid of the tags. The tag is for readers, and indicates that there is not a clear consensus regarding the content of an article. Readers should be aware of this if it is the case, and at least in my view there should be a presumption in favor of alerting the reader. If the same process that got the current version of an article in place can also go directly to removing the tag, then it removes the last bit of incentive that the tag provides to really try to iron out the problems so that there are not significant complaints. But above that, the reader should know. Mackan79 (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

When I last looked there seemed to be neither strong consensus for or against the NPOV tag. I'm not sure where that leaves us. There have been many attempts to change the title of the article, and so far they have not been successful.

The basic article content has been stable for some time, subject to added content as the various inquiries progress. There appears to be a sizable minority of editors who consistently describe the article content as lacking in neutrality, but despite extensive discussion they have not been successful in gaining consensus on what needs to be done to resolve the problem.

There is a quite diverse set of editors involved. Over the past month, excepting wikignome work, the following people have edited the article:

• Hipocrite, Arthur Rubin, Tony Sidaway, Heyitspeter, William M. Connolley, ChrisO, CurtisSwain, Cla68, Thparkth, A Quest for Knowledge, Dave souza, Moogwrench, ScJessey, Vsmith, Pytom, Enescot, Guettarda, J. Sketter, Nsaa, Nigelj, ScienceApologist, Rumping, Stephan Schulz, Jpat34721, Mikenorton, John Hyams, 86.7.19.159, Unitanode, Arzel, Grundle2600, Haeb,

In addition the following editors have each made at least one significant comment to the talk page:

• Stuarth, 91.153.115.15, JohnWBarber, Q Science, 99.142.1.101, Sphilbrick, AMR, Wikidemon, Oiler99, 130.232.214.10, Thepm, Tarc, Macai, 130.232.214.10, Collect, Arkon, Splette, The Four Deuces, Bill the Cat 7, DeepNorth, NickCT, Ignignot, Jonathan A Jones, KimdDabelsteinPetersen, 72.192.46.9, 24.11.186.64, GoRight, Tilman, Junder1234, 95.103.140.64, Spoonkymonkey, 99.141.252.167, 173.9.22.85, Marknutley, David Crabtree, TMLutas, 128.243.253.112, Masudako, 94.193.96.114, Ronnotel, 64.244.99.100, Sirwells, Ucacha, K10wnsta, Psb777, Labattblueboy, 138.162.8.58, 86.7.19.159, 88.110.2.122, Farsight001 , HideTheDecline, 88.110.16.230, Itsmejudith, 69.201.160.76, Weaponbb7, Pontificalibus, 207.237.162.147, Evensong, JCBergman, Gerardw, 125.2.117.51, Jarhed, Oren0, Nil Einne, Robofish, 74.248.53.52, Lumos3, Jeni, Isonomia, ATren, Kittybrewster, 99.141.243.97, Greenbough, Plain jack, Smallman12q, Xanthoxyl, Weakopedia, Cardamon, 24.11.186.64, Textmatters, TenOfAllTrades, On2u2.

This is a quite impressive number of page watchers, commenters and editors, and they represent a similarly broad range of opinions and biases. My first thoughts are that, if there are significant POV problems remaining, then there should be a strong enough consensus to drown out any opposition, resulting in steady improvement of the article. This steady improvement seems to be what is happening, but at the same time there is no consensus that the tag should remain. Perhaps it should not remain in the circumstances, but I don't know. Possibly a content RFC is the best way to take this.

But I don't think there are any significant conduct issues involved, outside the recent mini edit war which prompted this thread. --TS 21:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

LHvU has opined that this malformed request may be closed and I concur. I believe it is beyond the scope of this noticeboard to consider appropriateness of NPOV tags, although inappropriate conduct of individual (or groups of) editors within the dispute may be considered. No such conduct has been presented here that is specific to the CC dispute. Placement of tags should be discussed either on the specific article talk page, WP:NPOVN, or in a more broad discussion. Thus, closing as no action requested, not actionable, no action. Franamax (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Request concerning TMLutas

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

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

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

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

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

Other sanction

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning TMLutas

Statement by TMLutas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning TMLutas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning TMLutas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed close: User:TMLutas is warned to avoid soapboxing on talk pages, and to be careful that sources are accurately summarized or paraphrased. I do not think we need anything about arguing tendentiously, as the question of whether a particular paper needs to be included in an accurate and well-weighted summary of the spectrum of opinion is a genuinely complex problem and it would not do to discourage such discussion. Changing a guideline to support one's own position in a content dispute could be done highly disruptively, but I think that TMLutas acted appropriately here. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest changing "warned" to "requested", since it appears that there is no finding he violated anything, but would accept as written. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Prefer LHvU's reformulation (warned -> requested) but am willing to accept as written if that will help reach consensus. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Per my remarks above I would prefer to include paraphrasing other people's comments as sources (paraphrasing opponents in an argument in a less civil way than they used) but am happy with requested. Also happy if no one else agrees to drop this point. --BozMo talk 19:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable admonishment to include to me. As long as we don't get stuck in After you, Alphonse mode :) I'm fine with that. ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC0)

Looks good to me - closing. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Ratel

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of request

Discussion concerning Ratel

Statement by Ratel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Ratel

• For the record, just in case admins here didn't see it, I think this adequately reflects Ratel's current attitude (at least as of that timestamp) and reaction to all this: the opportunity I gave him to reconsider and Ratel's response . Taking a larger view, I'm really wondering why anyone would subject themselves to this kind of constant uncivil, bad-faith-assuming behavior by multiple editors. It's the opposite of fun, and the encyclopedia ends up not being improved or even worsened. Editors, admins and arbs who are watching this page should think about how normal human beings would naturally be repelled by the antics that go on around here and the good and bad reasons why certain editors decide to stick around and endure it. I have more productive interests (someone in a coma would have more productive interests). No, if I go through that door I won't let it hit me on the way out. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I see NW archived as I was typing this. I have nothing further to say, but I think admins here should follow those two diffs before closing this, and I don't think this comment should be archived if it means admins won't see it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Ratel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also endorse as written. --BozMo talk 20:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Jehochman 22:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)