Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ATren (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 1 March 2010 (→WMC removed MN's comment: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:GS/CC/RE

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Is edit-warring actionable on an editor basis?

Due to an edit-war, the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article has been blocked for three days. I'm not sure that this is the best course of action since not all editors are guilty of edit-warring. Instead of locking the entire article, why not simply warn or ban those editors who were doing the edit-warring?

As far I can see, Grundle2600 was the first editor to add this content to the article. This edit is fine as we assume good faith.

Scjessey then reverted the edit. This is fine, too, as again we assume good faith.

After this point, there should be no further reverts, correct? We're supposed to discuss this on the talk page until consensus has been reached. Any further reverts is edit-warring, correct?

Well, this content was reverted an additional 9 8 times:

• Unitanode reverts.23:28, 15 February 2010
• HaeB reverts.23:40, 15 February 2010

* Grundle2600 reverts.

• Nsaa reverts.08:35, 16 February 2010
• William M. Connolley reverts.08:48, 16 February 2010
• Arzel reverts.14:46, 19 February 2010
• Tony Sidaway reverts.17:58, 19 February 2010
• Unitanode reverts.18:01, 19 February 2010
• ChrisO reverts.18:10, 19 February 2010

As far I understand the situation, it appears that Unitanode, HaeB, Grundle2600, Nsaa, William M. Connolley, Arzel, Tony Sidaway, Unitanode and ChrisO all engaged in edit-warring. These editors are well aware that this article is on probation. They have no excuse as far as I can see. In fact, many have already been warned and sanctioned for previous violations on this vary same article. By placing the article on protection, everyone gets blocked. Why not go after the editors who are actually causing the problem? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I were to block everyone mentioned above for edit warring there would be much the nett same result... Tempting, but then I would be left alone to stop the proxy edit war. Of course, the talkpage remains open for consensual edit requests - I wonder why the talkpage has not flashed up on my watchlist? Lastly, and this is a serious point, the right to edit should not be a war of attrition, because that leads to proxy wars. I shall seek the comments of the other admins previously involved in this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My procedure in this was, on seeing the link added while there was a discussion I was aware of, to check the discussion, ascertain that consensus had not been reached, and revert, adding a comment to describe my findings on the discussion. There were a few more cycles of reversion after that, and as soon as I noticed this I asked for page protection. I later noticed that there was a second discussion on the same subject, further down the page, and I then merged the two discussions.

Edit warring? I don't think so, though I'm aware that a higher standard of behavior is expected of me (as an ex admin, veteran editor, and because dammit the article is on probation) so a reasonable argument could be made. I think I would have asked for protection rather than the first revert if I had realised that the second thread (whose section heading I did see on the talk page) was about the same edit war, and that there had been far more than just William M Connolley's revert on 16th. --TS 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I waited for three days after the previous removal. There seemed to be little discussion within talk, nor was there any apparent real concensus for removal. Absent that I made a bold move and reinserted material that some seem to be against for no really valid reason. It doesn't violate UNDUE, NPOV, SEEALSO, or a myriad of other rules. The main objective is that a few don't think it is related, which is really subjective. By that logic I can simply revert anything I want once because of my subjective reasoning and be assured that there is very difficult to be put back in. I don't think that was the purpose of this ruling, and I don't think subjective reasoning is a valid approach for removal in the first place. Arzel (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning behind your restoration of the link. I don't think you did anything particularly wrong--any more wrong than I did by observing the lack of consensus and removing it. I think we all could (and should) do better. As Lar has said, we all need to raise our game. I agree that subjective judgements are involved, as always in content matters. The point is that talk pages exist for us to resolve such matters. I regret that my inattentiveness contributed to an ongoing edit war. --TS 21:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am getting weary of this overzealous use of BRD - because there is some question whether placing something like a link in a See Also section meets the definition of WP:BOLD. I feel that such link does not need to meet the criteria of content inclusion, because by its nature it is only related somewhat - not enough to be included in the main body - per

Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. (My bolding of a point already made in the discussion)

My reading of that is that there is a wide degree of inclusion permissible, and that to remove something from that list requires the consensus, not the other way round.

There is also the question of the "edit warring", insofar that as soon as an editor of one perceived party makes an edit which is done by a member of the "other group" there is a reflex revert war - perhaps regardless of the value of the initial two actions - by the aligned editors. This is an example of the WP:BATTLE mentality that so frustrates the collegiate editing of this article. Even minor edits, elsewhere considered regular, are squabbled over. It is unseemly, and to the discredit of the editors concerned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So you think there is a relationship, if perhaps a peripheral one, between the CRU hacking and the fuss about the IPCC? Please don't explain, that's a matter for the talk page. --TS 22:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What I think is irrelevant, what the guideline says is not. When a guideline provides a wide criteria for inclusion, then consensus is required for what is not allowed - the reverse of what appears to have happened here. Thus I don't need to explain anything anywhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Er. no. Read the full text of the guideline you yourself have cited. And I did warn you, this is a matter for the talk page. I must add that I consider the notion that consensus is required for non-inclusion to be a little novel in this case. So you wouldn't object if somebody added pedophilia in the "See also" section of an article about a famous deceased pop singer? After all, some people thought Elvis was a pedophile, and Albert Goldman openly depicted him as such, so anything goes. Right? --TS 22:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Strawman, and disappointing. I have written to your talkpage anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Tony is right in terms of interpreting the guideline. I think the burden is on anyone who wants to include anything to get consensus. I'm not sure if this applies to longstanding elements, but it might -- and therefore we could end up with a stub. (On the other hand, "topic" seems to refer to something beyond the "subject" of an article -- but it's a content question not for this page.) I endorse the idea of permanently topic banning every editor who participated in that series of reverts. It would be totally unfair and very probably overturned at AN/I, but who would disagree that it wouldn't be ultimately better for the encyclopedia, whether or not those editors "deserved" it? We're not here for just desserts, we're here to improve the encyclopedia. You could use WP:IAR as a justification. If you do it, you could ban me, too, or I'd ban myself, just for good measure. Another idea would be to permanently topic ban anyone who edited the article or talk page in the last month or two. Let other editors take over. Think of how efficient it would be. Much less difficult than an ArbCom case or continual battles everywhere else. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a novel idea: turn the articles over to sockpuppets and those who have no background knowledge in the subject matter, and see what they make of them. Hmmm. --Nigelj (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It was William F. Buckley Jr. who famously said that he'd rather have the government run by the first 400 people in the Boston telephone directory than the faculty of Harvard University. Same issue here. It doesn't take a content expert to improve this article. Expertise ain't the issue. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I might have been misunderstood, so I will try again; In among the links above (per a JohnWBarber) there was a reference to WP:SEEALSO for inclusion. If those who wish to not have the content are unable to provide rationale why there is reason of policy or guideline to keep it out, then the consensus is that it is included because it apparently satisfies the guidelines. Thus to remove it requires a consensus it does not. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT do not over-ride the apparent guideline under which the content was included - so yes, consensus is required to remove it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

LVHU, this part of WP:SEEALSO simply throws the whole decision over to consensus: However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Although I wouldn't want to have to defend the proposition that there's either "editorial judgment" or "common sense" around these precincts, the passage clearly indicates a content decision is to be made on the spot in individual cases, and that's always a consensus decision. It isn't up to anyone but the editors on the article talk page (or a consensus formed elsewhere) to figure out what common sense and editorial judgment means for an individual article. No admin can take that away from them. I think only copyright and BLP overrides that. If admins can override content decisions of any type, I've got a bunch of POV violations throughout the encyclopedia I'd like to suggest you fix, since I think you'd be more sensible (even if we disagree on a lot of things) than the current consensus on those pages, and in my view they're out of whack with that policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent a bit) That part you refer to, as I read it, is judgement and common sense regarding the application of the guideline's wording - not an option to disregard it. Therefore the primary concern is whether there is a good faith application of the guideline, and the need to find a consensus that there is not to disallow such content. All guidelines and policy, bar one or two, have the proviso that the wording is descriptive and not prescriptive, is open to change, and is to be applied thoughtfully - but that is not an open invitation to disregard it (with the exception of IAR, of course). Not much point in having these pages if everything is marked "Please note, optional!" at the end. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of annotating the links in A Quest For Knowledge's original comment with timestamps. I have not annotated the edit attributed to Grundle2600 at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=next&oldid=344301605 because it did not involve the disputed content but rather was a tag proposing the merger of this article with the other. I think that can be classified as bold editing. --TS 22:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've amended the OP to exclude the edit by Grundle. Thanks for the correction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Are posts to this project page required?

Can one file a request that would otherwise go here over at WP:AN/I?--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI is a good place to go if a rapid response is required, but the vexatious litigants and frequent filers will find themselves less well tolerated than here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, is that barb aimed at Heyitspeter? Yes or no question. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a barb, and I apologize if it was perceived as such. I was simply stating that if you are going to go to WP:ANI, it is better to be "one and done" (to use a NASCAR qualifying term) because the admins there are generally annoyed when there are multiple reports covering the same individuals or topics. That is contrary to the system here, where it seems multiple filings are encouraged. I was berated a few hours ago for adding a second issue to an existing thread, which is apparently discouraged, but would definitely be the normal approach at WP:ANI. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that my barbs are way more obvious! -- Scjessey (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't aimed at anyone, then there's no problem. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't take it as a jab, but thanks for taking the time to explicate, Scjessey. Comments tend to be viewed through varying degrees of tint on these protected pages.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving and a header

I found that the archive nomenclature set up wasn't quite standard (for automatically listing archives in an index you need the space between the word and the number) so I moved the first archive /Archive1 to /Archive 1, adjusted the instructions to MiszaBot at the top, and then added the {{talkpageheader}} with search box option and a notice that this is bot archived. I think maybe 7 days is a bit short but whatev... If anyone thinks I erred in making these changes, or spots any errors please advise. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that breaks the archivebox that I stole closely copied from Template:Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox. On the other hand, a more standard archivebox would probably work just fine and be more aesthetically pleasing. I will go dig one up in a day or three if nobody gets to it first. I would tend to think that any shorter than seven days would be off, but longer would be fine as long as it does not leave the page enormously large. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I see now that you were referring to this page, not the RE page itself. I just added the |minthreadsleft = 5 parameter so the bot will leave 5 open threads no matter how old they get. This can, of course, be tweaked at will. This takes care of some of the worry about a high archiving frequency, but feel free to up that as well if you would like. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

1RR for admins?

Perhaps there should be a 1RR limit for admins closing / reopening this. Sauce for the goose, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps... see next section. The problem there is that the reopen wins, as the closer will then have shot their bolt. As experienced tacticians in this area presumably already know. ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're happy enough with 1RR's on people editing articles. Why only "perhaps" for yourself? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's work this example, then. J closes, I reopen. 1RR adhered to, all is well, lots of discussion happens. J closes again, within 24 hours of first close, by the way. HE gets sanctioned under your regime for a 1RR violation and a previously uninvolved admin would have to reopen the matter. Are you sure that's what you meant? ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're wriggling. No-one gets sanctionned; for this, simply having the rule would be enough - you're admins, you don't edit war, yes? So come on: behave William M. Connolley (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're stuck either way. Because if we were all behaving as you would like, Jehochman wouldn't have closed again, that was the 1RR violation. Sorry if you're still confused about that. ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're inventing imaginary confusion. I'm not suggesting re-writing the past. I'm suggesting a rule for the *future*. Clear now? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. That's perhaps something I can support. But it's important to note that I was running a scenario to see what would happen, and I drew it from recent past, assuming that the regime you proposed was already in place, and I got (presumably) unsatisfactory outcomes. Twice. Hence the "perhaps"... In the branch of science I work in, that's called use case testing. ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Who are these outcomes unsatisfactory for? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, presumably, since he wanted it closed when others were discussing matters, but the outcome would be that it remains open. And perhaps you, since the close Jehochman prefers leaves you untouched. That's just a guess though. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to guess for me; you don't understand me, obviously. I'd suggest you don't try to guess for JEH either. So, to be clear: you're happy to accept 1RR for yourself in these matters in future? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That conclusion is unwarranted from the facts in evidence. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As a rule I'd suggest that reverting a close made by an admin on this page should be strongly discouraged because this is supposed to be a lightweight, not talk-heavy, process and protracted discussion should be discouraged.

Instead, if there are still serious matters arising, other admins should take the discussion to the closing admin's talk, and if multiple admins oppose the closure consensus on re-opening can be achieved by discussion on this talk. I'm sorry to get all meta, but this is the only way I can think of to discourage admin edit warring and restore the credibility of this process.

I'd also like to repeat my past encouragement to admins to use this probation as a vote of confidence and empowerment. Action under this probation does not require any discussion. It's enough to warn an editor prior to imposing a sanction, and if Connolley should merit action under the probation no further discussion is needed. Too many cooks spoil the broth. --TS 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that last paragraph means, exactly. But If we are going to go with a "first admin acts when they get here" approach, I fear we are going to have wildly inconsistent outcomes. ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent outcomes are part of Misplaced Pages administration. No two admins will have the same approach. What we need to avoid is having competing admins treading on one another's toes. The final paragraph means that admins should take the probation as what it is: encouragement to use their powers as they see fit in order to restore some kind of order to this fractious field. The last thing we need is a talking shop where nothing gets done. --TS 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking beats fighting. And I think we are getting things done. The process where several admins comment, a consensus seems present, someone proposes a close, and it gets enacted... that process worked well for many many of these requests. I've never myself been the closer I don't think, but often the close incorporated my ideas as well as those of others. If w are going to move to unilateral actions, then I will try to be first as much of the time as possible. Which seems a recipe for more fighting and less talking, and most importantly, less innovation. But if that's what all the other admins want that's what we will do. ++Lar: t/c 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Too many cooks

It has suddenly become too sysop heavy? Wow. That is a distinct change from when I waded in only a couple of weeks ago. My first efforts, when I arrived, were to block two content editors for removing other editors talkpage comments - something I would not have blinked at doing in any other area of dispute - and caught a fair deal of shit for doing so. I would not do so now, because I now understand there does need to be an acknowledgement of the issue being addressed, and that there are parties attempting to use process as a means of shifting the editing balance toward their viewpoint. I found myself needing to discuss aspects within the existing sysop reviewship, so I might be certain that any action of mine was not going to be appealed to one of the others (I think revert would be unlikely, but I wanted to take care not to fractionalise the admin contingment - see what is happening to Lar, right now). Really, if we are going to make the probation work we are going to have to have working majorities within the admin function. As this progresses the processes will streamline and practices will standardise. If we don't talk, then there will be as much continuing dispute within the enforcement as there is in the article space (oh, and while we are talking those who will be effected by consensual sysop action have the opportunity to effect it). I am currently confident in those admins involved that I would not oppose any action, regardless whether I agree with it or not - simply because there is sufficient internal discussion that the decisions are transparent and open to dialogue. Were that the content talkpages so open to diverse comment and opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More eyes needed at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement behold the power of AN/I? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My "too many cooks" reference is not to "too many eyes" but rather, to "too many voices". Administrative discretion, and respect for it, should be prominent if this probation is not to become over-bureaucratic. More action, less talk. --19:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed procedure for dealing with uncivil comments

reply to Lar moved from below to new heading

I rather like your proposal of requesting editors to remove uncivil remarks, then if refused getting an uninvolved admin to impose a strikeout template. Questions – should the remarks be struck out by the editor, or removed completely? Where would you suggest placing requests for this action by an uninvolved admin? . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(feel free to move this subthread somewhere (?) if you like) I like struck rather than removed, (as I do on my own talk page...) because that way others can see, and judge for themselves. As for the process, I think as lightweight as possible... perhaps something like one place on the WP:GS/CC/RE page, periodically archived to a special archive, where requestors presented 1) the diff(s) of the remark(s) at issue, and 2) the diff of the discussion on the remarker's talk where they were asked, and didn't answer satisfactorily. (perhaps using a template?). Admins then either strike the remark, or explain why they did not. X number of days later the request is swept off the page if unanswered (or swept earlier if N admins say no, it's not strikable)??? something like that? That was just off the top of my head. About as lightweight as I can think of without being easily gamable. ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds good. Saves wondering where to raise the issue, and a brief explanation on the standard talk page GW template with a link to the reporting place would make it easy to find. . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Lar has the right idea. This is not for complex or difficult cases, it's just housekeeping to help keep a lid on the tendency to drift into ad-hominem or WP:FORUM-style discussion. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral closes

I have reverted Jehochman's close of a section. For the second time, he closed it unilaterally once before. After reopening it, substantial discussion ensued, much of it, in my view anyway, productive. And there appeared to be motion toward a possible resolution and outcome. I think we need to not close things when there is ongoing discussion without seeking consensus from the other participating admins first. Or else I think we are going to be playing "chase the ambulance" and whoever gets there first gets to impose their solution unilaterally. Which I think is a very very bad idea. I welcome further discussion. Maybe I'm all wet, please tell me so (and I will shift from a hang back and seek consensus approach to one of "get there first and shoot everyone involved") I'd rather we tried to find innovative solutions that actually worked instead of throwing up our hands. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're all wet. You've "unilaterally" reopened the thread twice. That word unilateral doesn't really mean what you think it means, because there are several other editors who support the view that sanctions were not warranted. You can't place sanctions without a consensus, and what you've got here is deadlock, at best. I am disgusted that WMC is chided for incivility while rampant tendentious editing is ignored. Misplaced Pages needs topic area experts to help edit articles. I do not agree with "civility at all costs" and "every edit is sacred" (no matter how uneducated, or inaccurate). WMC is not the most diplomatic editor, but what he said about ZP5 was supported by the evidence (ZP5's contribution history). We should not punish people for using plain talk to identify a real problem. Jehochman 19:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big softie, but agree that a statement on tendentious editing and persistent misrepresentation of content policies would be very helpful. WMC's statement needed clarification that it was specifically about ZP5's lack of sound constructive edits to global warming articles, and would have been greatly improved by some more evidence, but these points were clarified in the statements he made here. My reading of the proposal is to improve procedures for dealing with allegedly uncivil comments, without chiding anyone. Perhaps appropriately distributed chiding would be useful in improving the editing environment and avoiding yet another attempt to restrict WMC's useful contributions. . dave souza, talk 19:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, we weren't stuck. Progress was being made and a consensus was being arrived at as to what to do, which you upset. Twice. That's a purely procedural observation, separate from your statements about what you think the outcome ought to be, which I don't necessarily disagree with. ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that tendentious editing is on the table, I hope it will not be beyond the powers of the uninvolved admins to do something about it. Topic bans should not be considered a step too far, not at all. Where Misplaced Pages is being harmed by abusive and often ridiculous wikilawyering and the "I don't hear that" approach to discussion, those with a history of such practices should be excluded to see if things improve. --TS 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"those with a history of such practices should be excluded to see if things improve." - And just who gets to be the arbiter of such decisions? You? Me? Excluding people from the debate only fosters discontent and creates more problems in the end. Can't we actually try to find constructive ways of dealing with things rather than proposing bannings? I think you fancy yourself a peacemaker but I fear this particular proposal of yours goes decidedly in the opposite direction from peacemaking. Just my opinion, mind you. --GoRight (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A large part of the problem is that we have a number of editors who are not interested in finding "constructive ways" but came to Misplaced Pages specifically to fight over climate change issues. HideTheDecline (talk · contribs) is a perfect example. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

GoRight. please take a look at the log of this probation. There you will see that several disruptive editors have been removed from the discussion. That's one thing this probation was set up to enable. --TS 21:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

While the log certainly shows that some editors have been removed, I don't believe that the neutrality of those removals has been universally accepted which renders your point rather moot, IMHO. It also likely contributes to the current string of requests regarding WMC (and hence we have MORE arguing and tit for tat behavior). I believe your proposal will only exacerbate and already volatile situation, not defuse it.

Returning to my original question, though, who gets to be the arbiter? The actual answer is obvious, the admins. My point is more subtle: there is no universally accepted "disruptive editor bar" that can be objectively applied here. Ergo, the banning decisions would be subjectively enforced and would likely lead to MORE discontent and arguing rather than LESS. I pledged to work towards making these pages a more collegial environment and, IMHO, seeking the banning of your fellow editors is NOT a collegial thing to do. Please don't go down that path. --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

By "I don't believe that the neutrality of those removals has been universally accepted" you seem to be ignoring the fact that universal acceptance is not nor has ever been the standard for administrator action. In other words you just raised a man of straw and bashed the hell out of it. That's timewasting so please stop it.

If you believe that the enforcement requests against Dr. Connolley have something of a tit-for-tat nature, I agree with you. This perception may well be shared by some admins, making them more reluctant to sanction Dr. Connolley even when he's pushing the envelope. I note also that at least one editor has been sanctioned for making multiple enforcement requests against Dr. Connolley.

I thought it was obvious that the admins are the arbiters, and your question struck me as unworthy of response. You say "please don't go down that path" of individual admins sanctioning editors. But we went down that path many years ago and it's long been an integral part of Misplaced Pages. The sky hasn't fallen. Disruptive editors need to be told when to stop. Nothing makes them more pleased than an opportunity to mess up discussions with wikilawyering and other abuse. --TS 23:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"you seem to be ignoring the fact that universal acceptance is not nor has ever been the standard for administrator action" - I never said nor implied any such thing so please take your own advice with respect to men of straw and time wasting. And worse still, you never addressed the substance of my point thus wasting more time. So, how do you propose to address the issue of neutrally and objectively determining who is "disruptive", or not? Who specifically would you consider to be the current crop of "disruptive" editors who require banning in your eyes, vs. NOT "disruptive" editors who you would keep? I ask so that I might get a feel for the characteristics you apply to such a determination.

Note also that this brings us to the relevance of the point you have referred to as a straw man, namely that the application of sanctions and bans issued up to this point is currently NOT viewed as having been neutrally administered. This view is apparently held by quite some number of editors as evidenced by the myriad of discussions on this very point which have taken place in many areas across the project. Thus, this point is not a straw man but is directly relevant to the question at hand. --GoRight (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Stricken since I am somehow apparently being tendentious. I apologize for the transgression. --GoRight (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: The matter of purportedly tendentious editing was (is?) being discussed here. I believe the tone of the various participants speaks for itself. My conclusion is that I was not being clear in my communications which led to confusion and misunderstanding on the part of TS, and so possibly others as well. Therefore let me summarize my point as follows:

TS's point that the probation has already removed some editors via sanctions is moot, IMHO, because those sanctions are viewed as controversial (i.e. not universally accepted) as evidenced by the myriad of discussions about them where various editors assert that they have not been evenly and neutrally applied. Thus, implementing even more bannings is likely to INCREASE the discontent and acrimony in this environment rather than DECREASE it, all other things being equal. In other words, don't throw more fuel on the fire that you are attempting to put out. It should be obvious that more bannings will have very little chance of leading to the amicable outcome that would be required to achieve a collegial atmosphere. We have to find ways to work together not seek to toss each other out. --GoRight (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of process needs to be stopped

In reading the latest complaint against WMC, I think some conclusions are inescapable:

1) WMC has been and is currently being subjected to a campaign of off-wiki vilification that is unprecedented in my experience as a Wikipedian (and I've been around since 2003). It's important to note that he is not being vilified for civility issues but because of his entirely mainstream and conventional scientific views.

2) This is not just about WMC. There's an ongoing Internet-driven campaign of vilification and intimidation against those involved in climate science, even journalists merely reporting it. See e.g. and for recent reporting on this issue. WMC's troubles on Misplaced Pages are merely a symptom of a much wider campaign going on worldwide.

3) WMC's opponents on Misplaced Pages - some of whom have come here specifically to fight over climate change issues and target him personally - are being deliberately hyper-sensitive on civility in an attempt to get him topic-banned. Most of the complaints made have been bogus or unactionable. Where there have been civility transgressions, they have been minor. You could easily find equally "incivil" comments by any of the complainants. This is ultimately not about WMC's civility; it's about civility being used as a pretext to drive out an editor in good standing, or to wear down the enforcing admins to the point that they sanction WMC on the "no smoke without fire" principle. It's worrying that Lar seems to be moving towards the latter position. Admins, be aware that the complainants are seeking to exploit your goodwill here.

4) None of this means that WMC has a free pass on civility issues. However, it is unconscienable that this process should be abused to harass an editor. When this article probation was established, it was set up to resolve disputes, not to be used as a cynical and vindictive means of harassment. The ongoing abuse of this article probation needs to be stopped. It will do Misplaced Pages no credit at all if a mechanism to deal with abusive conduct merely ends up being another means to carry out abusive conduct. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair process here on the actual complaints must start here first. Abusive stops and closes seem to be the norm on WMC complaints, as supported by Admin discussions Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there is one further conclusion that may be drawn, and that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with all, any, or none of the foregoing, is that WMC's seeming disdain to the sensitivities of those who complain provide sufficient material for claims to need to be reviewed. That may not be the intent, but it might be borne in mind should there be further complaints. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The guy is being hounded very severely. His incivility under the circumstances is excusable. The hounding should be dealt with quite strictly. Jehochman 22:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, there is no excuse for the way WMC addressed ZuluPapa in the instance in question. ZP had not personally attacked WMC, so WMC's personal attack was unjustified. As I've pointed out, WMC has baited me, but I haven't responded with a personal attack because I have chosen not to. WMC has the same freedom. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're smarter, perhaps, but you're also not quite so famous, and not nearly as heavily targeted for abuse. Jehochman 22:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We expect more from the famous, rather than less. I don't think the hounding card plays well here. I think if you continue this line of arguement you open yourself to the same charges of not being uninvolved that are being levied against other admins. ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

An intriguing line of argument: if an admin differs from another admin's opinion on the matter of whether an editor is being "hounded", he opens himself up to "charges of not being uninvolved"? If such absurd charges are to be made, wouldn't they be reciprocal? You as the other admin seem to be open on the same basis, that your opinion on this question appears to differ from jehochman's. Of course I think your argument is absurd on its face, but it could be quite amusing seeing you try to fend off the complaints of some earnest seeker after truth insisting that you must have an animus against some editor because you don't perceive him to be hounded whilst another admin does. --TS 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Since that seems to have led to a contradiction, it can't well be right. Something went wrong somewhere. I don't think it's about differences of opinion. Nor do I think I myself would be the one charging Jehochman was involved. I just said I think some folk might. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, you're "just sayin'". I got that. It was your careful circumlocution that I was trying to lampoon. I'm a little concerned at your attempt to leverage this whispering campaign against jehochman that started on your talk page with a "hypothetical" question. It's just not cricket. I hope that's blunt enough for you to get the point. Don't talk down the other admins. --TS 23:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all clear what you are getting at. I think you are being coy. I have no idea what is going on in that thread on my talk. I certainly do agree about not talking down other admins, and having been the victim of many a whispering campaign myself, I don't care for them at all. That said, I still have no idea what is being alleged or not alleged. Or whatever. ++Lar: t/c 23:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he is "involved". I would say that he apparently either disregarded, or neglected to actually read the probation page. I don't think he's the only one either. Arkon (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have zero edits to this subject. Zero, and don't much care for it. I prefer higher impact disasters, such as gamma ray bursts, shipwrecks, or nuclear submarine accidents. WMC is a person just like everybody else. The famous often lose their cool under pressure. Jehochman 22:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The guy is being hounded very severely. Yes. His incivility under the circumstances is excusable. No. The hounding should be dealt with quite strictly.Yes. --SPhilbrickT 22:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with points 2 and 3, very strongly. I'm not directly aware of point 1 since I don't follow a lot of blogs and etc but if someone could point me I could study up more. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I both filed a request for enforcement against WMC and agree that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. I resent the insinuation that there is a tension between these two things. I also note that biases in this article space favor "pro-climate" (whatever that means) POV warriors to a fault, and these biases need to be recognized so that they can be minimized (having biases isn't the problem, it's letting them inform arbitration that hurts). The transgressions of these groups are perceived in an unrealistically positive light or are explained away while those of anti-climate change editors are exaggerated. For a case study, look at 2over0's descriptions of Goright's contentious diffs and their corresponding content - with his description of WMC's contentious diffs and their corresponding content. Content-wise, WMC's edits were far more problematic than GoRight's, and yet in each case a rosy view/description is given for the the former's edits while a negative spin is given to the latter's.

On a semi-related note, the idea that "expertise" should annul civility, as Jehochman suggests on the project page, is astounding, especially at Misplaced Pages where most editors write anonymously (). Add that to the fact that WMC's content edits over recent months have not required expertise (mostly reverts and removals of content he disagrees with for personal reasons: ) and the argument comes across as hollow.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is really pussyfooting around the issue. We all tend to make up our minds, in this particular dispute, on the basis of whether somebody is a useful part of Misplaced Pages. The reluctance to sanction such vested contributors has been called a serious problem, but I've been around long enough to see that valuable editors don't become liabilities at the drop of a hat. There is a strong and widespread perception that many of the science-minded editors, of whom Dr Connolley is the most prominent in this area of editing, are A Good Thing and should not be chased away. There is also a strong perception that there are far too many POV-pushers on the global warming area and that our long tolerance of such abusive behavior has led to over-reaction and a circling of the wagons by the few science-minded editors who have ventured into the global warming area and stayed. This is the reality we have to deal with--unwinding the knot without cutting too many vital threads. --TS 23:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I take no position on WMC's civility or lack thereof either way preferring to let others debate that issue. You seem to be implying, however, that WMC is NOT a "POV pusher" and that his opponents those editors that would disagree with him ARE "POV pushers". You also appear to be using "POV pusher" as a pejorative. Were these your intentions? If so I consider this to be a uncivil comment and would ask that you kindly refactor it accordingly. If not kindly clarify your meaning. In either case I would be interested to hear how you define the term "POV pusher" and how you would propose that we determine just who is, and is not, a member of that group so that there is no misunderstanding as to your meaning here. --GoRight (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's generally recognised that Dr. Connolley does an excellent job of writing about the science and keeping nonsense out of the articles. I can appreciate that, from some viewpoints, what he does by representing the science well is pushing the point of view that the science is a valuable thing that people should be able to read about in our encyclopedia unadorned by accompanying dippy nonsense, but that is not the way the term "POV pushing" is used on Misplaced Pages. POV-pushing is certainly a pejorative, in the sense that is used on Misplaced Pages, and we should really not be enabling those who come here to engage in it. We should encourage those people to start a blog, in keeping with What Misplaced Pages is not, which by the way is one of our policies that expresses the point of view that encyclopedias are too important to be used for political graffiti. --TS 23:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

TS: I think you're making some assertions that are not necessarily universally held. ++Lar: t/c 23:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is pussyfooting around the issue. WMC is a near-SPA account who's contributions beyond this topic area are minimal. Within the climate change topic area, WMC's edits are among the most tendentious and disruptive one is likely to encounter. I see no reason an account whose total edits are a net negative to the project should continue to be tolerated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you been bitten by the same bug that got GoRight, Lar? When I say "generally" I mean that, and not "universally". I accept your right loyally and patriotically to register your dissent. --TS 23:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's a relief. Here I thought you'd completely papered over that there are significant numbers of editors who think that there's a fair bit of ownership/control/POVpushing going on in this area, among other things. Certainly, at first blush your words read that way. ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute: you say you thought I'd "completely papered over that there are significant numbers of editors who think that there's a fair bit of ownership/control/POVpushing going on in this area." I expressly referred to the POV pushing and the ownership problems in the comment at 23:26 to which you replied--in other words I am one of that "significant number" and I stated so. Is it possible that you read the first sentence and a buzzer went off in your head, distracting you from reading the following statements? It certainly looks that way at first blush. --TS 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction. My comment on POV-pushing and the resulting overreaction an ownership problem was at 23:02. You may have skipped that comment and only seen the comment in which I used the word "generally", to which I assume you were replying. --TS 00:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we may be talking at cross purposes. I've explicated this before I believe, but it's my view that while there is a great deal of disruption and POV pushing happening from the fringes inward, there is also control/ownership and POV pushing from the center out.... that the "AGW cabal" (I wish there was a less pejorative term but that one is more efficient than "the loose group of like minded editors that has on and off worked in this area and who all seem to react in similar ways even though there is little or no evidence of on or off site coordination or even ill intent") has resorted to some less than ideal tactics in their attempts to keep the articles where they think they belong, and that the pendulum has at times swung too far. You may not agree, you may think that it's one sided, the fringe is entirely at fault, but that is not a universally held view, I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why we would treat this differently to 9/11 conspiracy theories or the creation/evolution argument. There is a well-established scientific consensus view, there are a few dissenters inside the scientific establishment but the majority of dissent is effectively religious, people who reject the science out of hand and collect every possible scrap of evidence to support that rejection, because they have deep-rooted philosophical objections to the necessary actions which the science implies we should take. The links discussed recently to an unreliable source are a perfect example: it's "teach the controversy" all over again. If WMC feels embattled it's because he is: when the world is not as you like it, it seems these days to be of paramount importance to reshape Misplaced Pages to reflect the world as you wish it to be, because somehow that will make it all better. The length, depth and bitterness of these disputes is continually escalating as the profile of Misplaced Pages increases. I believe there will come a time when even the sorts of sanctions we have on these articles will no longer work and we'll have to start some formal process of editorial review for the most contentious areas. I hope we're not there yet. In the mean time we should be helping people to stay focused on content not personalities and stamping hard on circular argument and argument which is "source X says Y, we must include it because Y supports the One True Way". It's pretty clear to me that this is a politics v. science collision, and I'm afraid I don't trust politics over science. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do think some editors are of that opinion. That isn't a controversial statement and it isn't inconsistent with any statement I have made. People on Misplaced Pages are diverse and there are many opinions. Now a test of whether an opinion on this is true would be whether or not the articles on global warming misrepresent the science due to this alleged POV-pushing from the avowedly pro-science editors. I've not seen any evidence that they do, and the global warming article has even been singled out for praise by qualified experts, but if you have some examples we could discuss them. --TS 01:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I've already went on record as saying that although I disagree with some of the editorial emphasis, (that the lead has more science and less impact to society than I would expect) that I think the articles generally aren't bad. What I'm referring to is the process, not the product. The product is what we really need to care about but this process, seems to me, has a reputation for being... not so good. Sharp elbowed, or worse. Do the ends justify the means? Sometimes I wonder. (we had this discussion before somewhere or another, I raised how Milhist produces high quality work with far less sharpelbowedness) ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay you and I at least seem to be agreed that if there's a problem with "Team Science" it's not that they push their points of view into the articles but that their interaction on talk pages is less than ideal--I believe that is similar to what I referred to as "overreaction" and "circling the wagons". But generally the content is good. It's ownership, but it's a relatvely benign form with regard to content. The problem, such it exists, is not POV pushing but a proprietary approach and rather savage manners.

This is why I earlier referred to the problem as "unwinding the knot without cutting too many vital threads." These are really great articles. How do we have these great articles but without the endless fuss? I think making it harder for the POV pushers to thrive would help. A clear statement that content policies are not to be messed with, and talk pages aren't for endless attempts to insert nonsense. Identify the characteristic behavior and put a sign on the talk pages of all articles saying this isn't the way we do things here, then sanction the POV-pushers until they stop trying. That would take the weight off "Team Science" and they'd have a chance to mellow and become less abrasive towards legitimate discussion. And for those members of Team Science who won't mellow, even when the last POV-pusher has given up, we can direct them to Citizendium or something. There'd be a plentiful supply of more laid-back, less stress-addicted editors anyway, once the POV-pushers had been sent packing. At the moment many of these chaps don't want to go near global warming because it's such a harsh environment for experts and the scientifically literate. --TS 01:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mostly agree, with the exception that I do think there may be a bit of POV pushing and ownership from "team science", as you call them. (I like that term better than "AGW Cabal" for sure, and it trips off the tongue better than the variant I had) The core articles are balanced enough, I suppose but there seems a lot of wasted energy around stuff like whether to call the email thing "climategate" "hacking incident" or what (just one example) Further, some of the stuff around the edges, like the allegations of keeping BLPs tilted pro/anti depending on whether the scientist is consensus/skeptic respectively, if true, would be very very concerning. It better not be true. So I'm worried. But yes, if the entire environment can be improved, it will hopefully bring more editors in and things will be mellower. I've avoided this topic area for the most part, for years, for exactly the reasons you outline. (hence I'm "uninvolved" :) ) ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that this can be "one size fits all". If there are egregious BLP violations in articles covered by this probation then those supporting the methods that uphold that bias can be sanctioned, whatever their views on the science. As an aside I would be most sympathetic to parties raising concrete problems with the BLP, and to remedies including stubbing down and rewrites--Jimbofication--in the worst cases. This is after all the way we've handled really toxic BLP problems.

So perhaps we have a basis for a basic principle: that content policy is to be strongly enforced on this probation. The elaboration of that principle can be worked out if we can get agreement from enough admins. What do you say? --TS 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of political bias in science editing

This thread grew out of #Abuse of process needs to be stopped

Why continue to beat around the bush. The outside problem that many editors have is that several of the "science" editors appear to be applying a political aspect to their approach to the GW articles. If they would stick to the science and leave the political conjecture out of the picture this whole area would be far less contentious. Now perhaps it is the view that some of supposed AGW deniers come into these articles with their own political bent, but the reaction seems to be the circling of the wagons around these articles with a pro AGW view where any digression is viewed as a political position against their own. Also, since there are a number of editors that do seem to be "in control" of these articles the result is stronger pushback against that percieved control and percieved political approach to the science. It is no surprise that people would feel that way when some of these same editors move outside the science articles and into the political articles with the appearance of promoting a certain political point of view that backs up their belief in the science. It is hard for people like me to really believe that they are approaching the science from a strickly science point of view when they also delve into the political world that would call out those that don't believe in the science. Climategate a culmination of this issue. The whole current view of AGW is that is it a poltical issue using questionable science as a reason for control of others. Until the real root of the problem is addressed I find it unlikely that any of this is to change. WMC is just the most public face, and since he is/was also a politician the link only appears stronger. Arzel (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT – "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Imhofe's minority viewpoint on science is notable, and should be properly described as a minority view. WP:PSCI may also apply. . . dave souza, talk 07:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. I am not arguing either for or against any content on Inhofe, rather that those that claim to be applying the "science" also appear to be playing the role of advocate for regulations on the reduction of greenhouse gases. How can one take their view that they are neutral in their regard of the science when they also are promoting, or appear to be promoting a political point of view, which by its nature is not neutral. From a science point of view, what difference does Inhofe's view on AGW have, UNLESS, your goal is to not just report the science, but also frame the view of AGW as a political wedge? That is the root of the problem, and until the appearance of a political bias is removed from the framing of the GW articles you will not solve the problem. It is a problem of your own unduing, so you can't solve it from the other side. Arzel (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the validity of the science of global warming, which is a clear scientific consensus, with possible amelioration or adapatation, and political discussions on what to do about it. When Gore or Imhofe say we should do x or y, that's a political argument based on agreement with or rejection of the science. When Gore gives incorrect sea level rise figures, we don't say "that's political" and leave it, we show the scientific majority view. Similarly, when Imhofe says global warming is a hoax, we make the scientific majority view clear. Have a read of AR4, where sections show I. the hard science, II. the potential impacts assessed from a range of sources, III. possible ways of mitigating anticipated change, and a synthesis agreed with government representatives summarising these sections. The whole thing is an attempt to reconcile the science with political agreement, as far as that can be achieved. So, if you think that can be made clearer, please help. If you think that climate change denial should be given equal validity, that's the wrong approach. . dave souza, talk 14:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that the "science" editors should stop acting like they are impartial arbitors on these articles when it is clear that they have a political view as well. I am not saying that fringe views should be given equal weight, and I wish you would get off that point. I am saying that if the so called "science" editors really only care about the science then they should care less that Inhofe or others don't believe in the science. They clearly are, as you continue to show, thus they are clearly do not have an impartial view of the science. They should stop acting as if they have the "righteous" view of GW and stop being so immeditately dismissive of anyone that disagrees with them. I was trying to make a simple point of how you and others are missing the root of the problem, and all you have done is dig in your heels and prove me to be correct in my assertation. Leave the political aspect OUT of the science discussion if you ever expect those that you view as problematic to work in a colaborative manner, because until you do they simply will not believe you are truly impartial with regards to the science. You and the other "science" editors are causing this problem and until you come to grips with that you will not solve it. Arzel (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe views shouldn't really be given any weight. The science is indisputable, and each new piece of evidence that emerges reinforces that fact. As long as people like Inhofe use their politics to meddle with science, it seems only fair that scientists cannot be blamed for meddling in politics. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If the science is correct then there is no need to meddle in politics. The science will stand the test of time. Your statement that the science is indisputable is what got the UN in trouble. Arzel (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Arzel, if politicians like Imhofe didn't make notable statements about science, then we wouldn't show their views on science and wouldn't be required by undue weight policy to make clear the majority scientific view of their statements. But they do, and we are. Take it up with them. . . dave souza, talk 19:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You have missed the point, and I don't know how else to explain it to you. Arzel (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

On reliable sources

As I've pointed out in the case comments, ZP5's repetitive and disruptive attempts to give undue weight to a book by an unreliable source, an author with fringe views, were repeatedly supported by Cla68's interpretation of verifiability policy. Even after I pointed out the fact that the policy specifically refers to the writer as a source to be considered for reliability, shortly before this case was opened, Cla returned to the theme that "All that matters it that they were published by reputable publishing houses, like Booker's book." Cla described his work contributing to military history articles. A parallel in that area would be a persistent editor insistent that Churchill behaved badly during the Battle of Britain, who demands that the World War II article includes a statement that the battle is described in Len Deighton's Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain. Not an exact parallel, as Deighton is a respected writer. As Deighton is published by reputable publishing houses, in Cla's view that is enough to make Deighton a reliable source whose views should be shown. In contrast, when I edited the Battle of Britain article using that book as a source, other more experienced editors pointed to more detailed work by specialist historians, and I fully accepted their reasoning in evaluating sources.
In subsequent discussions Cla still did not acknowledge the need for such evaluation: I've pointed out more reliable sources than Booker. I'm certain that Cla is acting with the good intention of improving coverage of minority views, but he everyone must accept that reliable writers are required for anything other than a primary source in which (fringe) proponents give their own position, once the significance of their position in the specific area is shown by reliable third party sources, with due weight being given to mainstream views of these fringe positions. . . dave souza, talk 23:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC) modified 23:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think one could make a good case for an administrative ruling that content policies are to be applied more strictly in the probation area. Selection of the right words might be difficult, but the key problems appear to come from editors ignoring due weight, verifiability and the BLP in an effort to shoehorn some bit of fringe stuff into the article. That even experienced editors with many years experience of editing articles are supporting this dilatory behavior is worrying. --TS 00:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Which dilatory behavior are you referring to? Perhaps you need to bring another enforcement action request so it could be examined? ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a systemic problem, which is why I think the solution might be a motion encouraging admins to treat tendentious behavior with respect to content policy more strictly. So as to attenuate this kind of pointless "discussion" over doomed attempts to add bad sources pushing fringe points of view.

I raised the specific details (which I don't think are actionable in themselves) in the last William M. Connolley request. The head comment of this section refers to the same discussion. --TS 00:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@DS - How, exactly, do you propose to determine which authors are reliable and which are not? Who is the arbiter of such a decision? Where is the objective test that we can apply? The ability to selectively declare who is reliable, and who is not, is effectively a tool for pushing a particular POV. So how do you propose that we prevent arguments such as the one you are presenting here from being used as such a tool to effect the introduction of a personal POV into the articles? I would argue that there is a reason that WP:V explicitly states as its very first sentence "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true." As an editor you are NOT granted the privilege of determining who is telling the truth and who is not precisely BECAUSE doing so is an indirect form of WP:OR. --GoRight (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The verifiability policy is quite mature and well developed, and it shouldn't be difficult to identify egregious wikilawyering like the attempt to push a biased book by an author with a very poor record for fact checking into the article on the IPCC. Those prepared to indulge in such behavior will out themselves and can then be sanctioned --TS 02:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias runs both ways, who is to say yours is better than someone elses? Arzel (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The policy requirements were discussed on the article talk page, particularly here and here.
@ GoRight, the policy answers your question. See WP:V#Reliable sources. "The word "source", as used in Misplaced Pages, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...." and so onwards. Note WP:V#Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight, and should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. See WP:SELFPUB for requirements when using them.
@ Arzel, see NPOV policy. As WP:V#Reliable sources reminds us, "All articles must adhere to Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them."
Perhaps familiarity with these policies is helped by experience in editing more contentious areas than milhist, areas where the subject is hotly debated in the mass media and where bloggers actively encourage sockpuppets and meatpuppets to push their fringe pov on Misplaced Pages. As has happened at GW articles. I always assume that those pushing minority views do so in good faith, and may need guidance to appreciate the nuances of verifiability and neutrality policy. It's difficult to communicate these nuances when media and bloggers like Solomon are actively pushing wildly incorrect claims that The Cabal or WMC are unfairly Hiding The Truth. In the end, strict adherence to policies is needed. . . dave souza, talk 07:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You underestimate or fail to fully realize the extent of the minority. You are not talking about a 5% fringe hear, it is closer to 25-30%. Consistantly calling them a tiny minority sounds dismisive and does not improve the situation. Sockpuppets are largely the effect of the control by a few. Meatpuppets work in both directions. Arzel (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that only a tiny minority of peer-reviewed published scientists on the subject differ from the view that AGW is occurring and is significant, we don't cover science according to public opinion polls. Your assert that sockpuppets are the effect of the control by a few, do you mean they're controlled by a few bloggers, scibaby etc.? I've seen evidence of calls for meatpuppets on "skeptic" blogs, not elsewhere. If that does work in both directions, all the more reason to adhere strictly to policies. . . dave souza, talk 14:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Global warming is not like other large-scale issues of the past: it is based on physical processes rather than political ones. It cannot be 'fought' like Communism or terrorism can. Like wars and revolutions, these are people all the way down. Normal political tactics, like hack a few emails, dish some dirt on key private lives (or manners), discredit someone's morality, vilify their personalities, don't work to stop physical processes. All such tactics do is provide delays, during which the gasses continue to build and climate change accelerates. Arguing that black is white, "until you can prove me wrong", and then arguing that blue is yellow after that, do not help Misplaced Pages at the best of times, but they are seriously misplaced in this area. Gathering public support against scientific facts may make people feel better about themselves, but in the long run can only delay the inevitable and lead to increased suffering worldwide. We have articles on the politics, the economics and public opinion, but the main articles on the science itself (like Global warming) and on the scientific bodies (like Scientific opinion on climate change and IPCC) are key targets for those who want to discredit it and them. Such actions are hopeless, the facts are clear, but they will keep trying none-the-less. It is important that WP remains clear-headed over this, as increasing numbers of people worldwide begin to rely on it for factual analysis when it appears in their Google search, as well as increasing numbers hoping that by altering the WP text, they can alter the climate change facts themselves, or make it go away. An even-handed approach to anti-science activists, their acolytes, and the gullible, in the articles on the actual science is potentially disastrous, and not just for WP's reputation. Having editors with sufficient academic background to apply WP policies, to be able to sort the reliable sources from the fringe, the science from the lies, the proven from the made-up, and the courage to support them when they do, is essential. Sorry for the long post, but sometimes... You know. --Nigelj (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your view which is worth bearing in mind. One point, the IPCC provides a meeting point between hard science, estimates of impacts and possible ways of dealing with it, and government involvement to reach agreement on the basis and wording of the final report. Ben Santer describes some of the process. . . dave souza, talk 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@DS - Yes, I am familiar with the policies as written but thank you for the primer none the less. You seem to have misunderstood the primary point of my question so let me clarify and ask it a different way.

My point was directed more at how we neutrally address the subjective aspects of the policies that you are referencing. For example, how does one neutrally and objectively determine which sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? This is an inherently subjective determination and one that is open to personal bias. There are other subjective aspects to those policies as written as well. This is why I was raising the question of who the arbiter of these subjective determinations will be as this will have a significant impact on both the nature of the outcome and the acceptance thereof.

I also question your fundamental assumption that the GW pages are, and should be, a science only topic. As far as I can tell in the available sources recognized by WP:RS the peer-reviewed literature only comprises a small percentage the the third party sources. By WP:WEIGHT the science aspects of the GW debate (as represented by the peer-reviewed sources) should therefore be limited to a comparable percentage and the social and political aspects of the topic should dominate our coverage as long as we intend to follow our stated policies. I believe that currently the articles are giving undue weight to the scientific aspects of the subject. YMMV, but hopefully you don't wish to ONLY cover the scientific aspects of this important social and political topic. --GoRight (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@ GoRight, thanks for coming back on that. I didn't give the "primer" originally because I assume that experienced editors are reasonably familiar with policies, but I'd been surprised in the article discussions, and thought that might clarify things.
At the risk of quoting acronyms, both WP:SOURCES and WP:NPOV#A vital component: good research set the ground – the latter summarising the former as "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available..." That's subjective, and like all subjective matters we look for sources. If respected reviewers and experts in the field praise a source, that's a good guide. That was far from the case in this discussion about the writer, who for our purposes is required to be a reputable source, not just published by a reputable publisher. It's also context specific – Booker may be a great source on satire of the early '60s, Pro Patria Pro Fumo to quote the Eye, but he's an active actor in the debate and not a reliable historian. Like everything else it's down to talk page consensus, but that has to be in line with policy. Others presented sources to support his reputation, and again these were subject to critical examination.
I certainly wouldn't limit the search to peer reviewed publications for a historian of science, but authors have to be shown to have a good reputation in the field. Such historians would be a good source on the political and social aspects of global warming..
Far from wanting to only cover the scientific side, today I added mention of Imhofe here as he's mentioned by the source as significant, with Congress becoming politically involved. More coverage of these aspects seems worthwhile to me, but based on independent experts rather than campaigning journalists, and always with the science aspects being dealt with as policy. . dave souza, talk 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see this Reliable Source dispute being taken up on this talk page. Misplaced Pages has clear paths to content dispute resolutions that precede this project. Now as I have asked in good faith on the article talk pages (to be met with distraction PA bringing us here). What dispute path would the the source removers like to proceed? (Perhaps, it is obvious that it is this one. In which case .. launch a formal complaint that does not involve a content dispute). Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• There are a few editors who appear to have strong personal feelings about using Booker's book as a source, although I've found that they don't seem to have a very good idea of what he actually says in the book. Again, discussion of this book should be taking place on article talk pages or on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Cla68, good to hear from you. That's a very evasive statement, you seem to be dismissing a well sourced evaluation of whether the writer as a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or indeed sourced expert evaluation of the book as whole, as "a few editors who appear to have strong personal feelings". Of course if you're willing to accept the policy, and use the book as a questionable source, or present full and equal support for the author's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for talk page consensus, then that will be good. However, this stateement about "what he actually says in the book" looks like you want to ignore such evaluation, and base the use of the book on your own personal reading of it. You were one of three editors insistent on ignoring evaluation of anything but the reputation of the publisher. If you persist on that tendentious and disruptive course it will become a behavioural issue. However, I hope that will not be the outcome. . . dave souza, talk 04:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, Dave. Please try to keep discussion of sources on article talk pages or associated noticeboards and if you have a personal problem with me, please take it up on my talk page. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC case

I have closed the WMC case again. ZP5 reopened it for "further diffs within 24 hours"; that is not the purpose of this page. If he wants to start an RfC that's up to him, this page is about managing the general article parole. The original report by Cla68 is being addressed as a wider issue affecting more than one user, so the report has served its purpose. We're not here to serve as a repository for vindictive diff-mining. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The intention of that case was to address the behavior of the complained editor. I would like to file an RfC on this project page, about this project's enforcements requests. I resent the accusation of "vindictive diff mining" when there was clearly a desire for additional context for the case. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you are determined to prove me correct. I think that is regrettable; I'd far rather you tried to demonstrate taht I'm wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In time, I will, have faith. You may correct yourself ahead of me. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

But until you do something of value, there is nothing for me to correct. Take a look at your contributions one day, and weep William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this and the related essays will help you. My value is not for you alone to judge, thank you for the concern. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not a newbie. You've been editing since December 2007. You should know how to edit within community standards by now. Jehochman 21:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your problem is that anyone *can* judge you, by looking at your contribution history. From yours, it becomes obvious that you've forgotten that we're here to write an encyclopaedia. Please: prove me wrong: actually make some valuable contributions to real article-space William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me WMC, I took your concerns to mean I am new to the Climate Change articles, and I have yet to have a sustained contribution? @Jehochman, according to WMC, I have yet to contribute to the Climate Change articles ... I call that new. I am new to the Climate Change articles, however I am not new to wiki. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the community accepts me elsewhere, but for some reason, I haven't been accepted in the Climate Change articles. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not yet to have a sustained contribution, you're yet to make any valuable contribution at all. You've "contributed" a couple of articles that were correctly deleted. according to WMC, I have yet to - no, *according to your contribution history* which is visible to all William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What was that joke about arguing on the internet again? Ignignot (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, given the concerns raised about me, I'll take some time to review my Climate Change contributions history with a cause analysis. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) This one? Or there used to be a chap with a sig on usenet: "when you are arguing with a fool, chances are that he is doing the same" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You have obviously misunderstood my comment and I would appreciate it if you would AGF. Furthermore "usenet" is not a RS for retard quotes. Nice try, but your xkcd comic represents a PA and your WIKI:TEND is inexcusable. Also welcome to wikipedia. Ignignot (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Gotta love those links! So if WMC didn't get it right, what were you referring to with the arguing-on-Internet comment? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

psst, I was being ironic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignignot (talk • contribs)

@WMC, how about you take a timeout from the reverts and deletions for a while, self imposed Zero RR might help both you and wiki? There must be greater value in adding content over deleting it. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Goad, goad, goad; needle, needle, needle. What is the purpose of this page? --Nigelj (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - It depends. If the reversion/deletion is happening because the content is wrong/propaganda/against consensus/stupid then obviously the greater value is in the reversion/deletion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that reversion is just another editing tool. It can be put to good use or bad, like any other tool, but it isn't bad in itself. If reversion removes bad content, that is a net benefit. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

1RR violations: Question about procedure

If an editor violates the 1RR rule, are we supposed to report them immediately or are we supposed to ask the editor to self-revert first? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be polite to ask the editor to self revert mark nutley (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mark. Solving a situation amicably is always the best solution. NW (Talk) 22:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A request to the other editor will confirm whether they thought it was outside of the restriction (vandalism, 24hrs+ etc.) or a simple mistake that is then rectified. It can be brought here in the first instance, but it would be hoped that the first response would be to inquire of the "offending" party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I politely asked the editor to self-revert but he's refused. Formal request for enforcement coming shortly.... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A diff to the refusal, so the reviewers know under what basis it was refused, would be helpful. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

His explanation doesn't make any sense that I can see. But you can read his explanation here and here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(Late return to discussion) I meant the diffs should be presented in the request. I apologise for the lack of clarity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "baiting" hangs over certain discussions on this probation. We shouldn't be baiting one another. We must raise our game, and that means we walk away from that attitude. --TS 23:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make obviously false accusations, Tony. Nigelj violated 1RR all by himself. I even gave him the opportunity to self-revert before filing the request so he has no one to blame but himself. To be honest, even his first revert was disruptive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This attitude must die if the probation is to succeed. --TS 23:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dealing firmly with the people who hold this unconstructive attitude would be a good start. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What attitude is that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The attitude you have epitomized in the above comments. --TS 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What attitude is that? If you have something to say to me, come out and say it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No. The "dealing firmly with people who..." route works up to a point. But we must not eat ourselves. As I suggested the ther day, once the habits of POV-pushing are identified those who are engaged in it will become sanctionable and things will get better. But not before, and that applies to all POV-pushing. We must all work towards normalization, ane preferably before things reach the point where we can even begin to consider that somebody like Nigelj may be sanctionable. --TS 00:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

But the probation hasn't been applied to all POV-pushing. In fact, most of the editors who are the most guilty of tendentious editing are still around and still being disruptive. The only difference as far as I can see is that the POV-pushing is more civil. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Hochman's removal of other people's comments

This is not acceptable. Perhaps it might be necessary to remind Mr. Hochman that having a few extra buttons at the top of your screen doesn't make you a superuser. Removing other people's comments isn't acceptable, and it needs to stop. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you asserting that you and AQFN are exempt from following the instruction This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

When the "uninvolved administrator" chooses to drop a notification of a warning that had nothing to do with the request that was initially made, then yes, I have every right to respond to him there. If he has a problem with my usage of surnames, he needs to draw up a request against me like any other user would have to do, not insulate himself with his few extra buttons, and simply drop a weird warning on an unrelated case. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize. I didn't realize that I had added my comment to the wrong section. I've removed it per Jehochman's request. Was placement the only problem with my edit? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove, Mr. Hochman?

Moved here from User talk:Jehochman

Why do you think you have the right to remove other people's comments from the CC board? Having a few extra buttons doesn't make you a superuser. Please refrain from removing other's comments. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do have the right to remove offensive comments from the board that are posted in the wrong section. Please go refactor your remarks and place them in the appropriate section. Jehochman 04:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Two points: (1) there was nothing close to "offensive" in my comments; and (2) they were made in response to LHvU's odd statement about my using a surname, which wasn't even an issue that was being dealt with in the request, so they were not misplaced. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not an uninvolved administrator. Please move your remarks to an appropriate location, and refactor them for civility. Also, stop this forum shopping where you post the same complaints in multiple places. Keep the conversation together. Doing otherwise is disruptive. Jehochman 04:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "refactoring" anything. Nothing I wrote was uncivil in any way. And unless LHvU removes his odd "warning" of me from his "result" post, shouldn't my rebuttal of it stay there as well? I think so. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed your tag

Please explain here how my response to LHvU was uncivil or inappropriate. This bullying needs to stop now. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The heading reads: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. You are not an uninvolved administrator. Thus, your edit was inappropriate. MastCell  06:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode, you made a trivial mistake which Jehochman quite rightly corrected, as he or one of the other admins would do for any non-admin user who mistakenly posted in the admins' discussion section. It was not aimed at you personally. There's no need to go ballistic over it. Calm down and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WMC removed MN's comment

. MN's comment was not inflammatory, and in fact was supporting Boris. I believe WMC is restricted from removing others' comments from conversations (other than his talk page) so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Not sure if it merits a RFE, so I'm raising it here first. ATren (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)