Misplaced Pages

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

Request concerning Scibaby and enablers

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

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

N/A, already blocked sock master.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Scibaby and enablers

Statement by Scibaby and enablers

Comments by others about the request concerning Scibaby and enablers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current disruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ditto the above to Stephan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverted IN or reverted out? Is it being found and dealt with? If not, something does need doing, somehow. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that H refers to an edit by Biltmowre (talk · contribs) which was reverted as Out-of-context cherry-picking then reverted back in (by an editor who later explained his or her reasoning here), reverted out by H, reverted back in by Biltmowre, reverted out by H, reverted back in by IP 173.116.120.246, and reverted out by H after which the protection level of the article was changed and the IP blocked. The article content issue has been resolved, I have no idea if anything else needs doing. . . dave souza, talk 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC) plot thickened 19:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Scibaby and enablers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Close it as LHvU suggested, as I think we are as far as we are going to get. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

More than a week has went by with no further action. I will close this shortly, with wording as LHvU suggested, absent a suggestion from any uninvolved admin to do differently. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 30 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)