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

Climate science and culture wars

In the 1970s, climate scientists informed public policy, working closely with politicians from both sides of the aisle. However, beginning in the 1980s, climate science and its scientists became targets of persistent and repeated attacks from the political right, involving organizations and individuals operating outside the relevant sphere of science. This campaign has been described as one component of a larger American culture war surrounding the politicization of science, public policy influence, and climate change mitigation. Proponents of this culture war often promote climate change denial, a minority POV in stark opposition to the accepted, scientific consensus on climate change and the data that informs its discourse. Wikipedia does not take sides in such disputes, but seeks to best represent the scientific opinion on climate change and any significant, corresponding minority views, scientific or otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 04:14, 28 August 2010

Discussion

And, ah, skeptics have been targets, too. Right? (See evidence page for copious details.) And some of these campaigns have come from the pro-AGW side as well, haven't they? If the proposing editor can't acknowledge that, then the proposing editor is part of the culture war that the proposed language is denouncing. Why is it so difficult for people denouncing partisanship to avoid partisanship even while they're denouncing it? And why aren't these proposals signed by editors who make them? Please put your signature to your proposals, OK? I'm not wild about the specific language above, but I support the intent, so long as the intent covers all sides. The politicization of science (and Wikipedia) doesn't come from just one side. To deny that is to participate in it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

All climate scientists are skeptics by definition, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you trying to say that deniers have been attacked? Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Of all the things you could have focused on in my comment, that is what you focus on? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be outside the remit of ArbCom - as it asked not only to abrogate NPOV in favor of SPOV, but to make a specific content ruling. Collect (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not true. It seeks recognition of the fact that behaviorial problems on this topic are due to partisan editors bringing a real world conflict spanning three decades to this website and turning Wikipedia into a battleground as a result. Nothing about content at all, but a direct acknowledgment of the agenda driven, POV pushing behavior and its cause. Denial of climate change, attacks on climate science and scientists, and the resulting POV pushing on this topic are all intimately related and connected. There's no need to dance around the causes and conditions, the historical record is clear and without dispute. There is a political war being fought against science and its proponents, and this goes against the very foundations of what an encyclopedia is and how it works. There is no more central issue. It is its very core. Failure to recognize this is ignorance of the worst kind. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

this goes against the very foundations of what an encyclopedia is and how it works. There is no more central issue. What a perfect distillation of the AGW faction's defense in this ArbCom case: Since We Defend the Truth, Our Battling Is Justified. How many essays have been written based on clear policy that refute this position? We could start with WP:ADVOCACY, WP:GREATWRONGS, and WP:TRUTH. I suspect that even if this argument convinces some arbitrators, they're going to be embarassed to be openly agreeing with it or even admitting to themselves that it carries weight with them. You might want to think about ways of disguising it to make it palatable to them. It seems nobody has been able to do that so far. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas' analysis here, and do not think the (official) PD addresses this issue directly enough. Some details and refs have been mentioned above, but I'll repeat some of them here for conveneience, due to archiving, hatting and rearranging:

• The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism (included by N)
• William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (included by N)
• NASA 2009 (included by V)
• The Republican War on Science (included by V)
• Merchants of Doubt, Oreskes and Conway (mentioned by N)

--Nigelj (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is where skeptics are supposed to insert their list of links to WP articles and Web pages and whatnot accusing the other side of doing the exact same thing. As I said before, The politicization of science (and Wikipedia) doesn't come from just one side. To deny that is to participate in it. Thank you for illustrating my point. Why you and Viriditas would try to hijack an ArbCom case about behavior in order to make a content point to push your faction's political views and think it would help your case is beyond me, but thank you for showing your colors. I guess the idea that it's justified to violate behavioral policies to further a POV most of us agree with is a sort of desperate defense that will probably convince a few arbitrators. Will derailing discussions about behavior in order to discuss content result in distracting some arbitrators? Hard to say when arbitrators don't say much. Kinda sad. Principles aren't supposed to work that way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The results of painstaking work over several decades by thousands of scientists worldwide, accepted as real and significant by all the world's national and international scientific bodies, and most of its governments, are not one 'faction's political views' that can just be shouted down by any political group that doesn't like them. This case is not just about behaviour, but also about NPOV, sourcing, due weight, fringe, and all the other fundamentals of Wikipedia's work. No one is saying that anti-science political views should not be well covered in the CC articles, but they should be covered as what they are, not as some equal-and-opposite alternate reality. --Nigelj (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

For an even earlier history of the present denial movement, specifically from the 1980s through the 1990s, see Chapter 8: Denial and Environmental Destruction, a psychological and historical analysis by Michael A. Milburn and Sheree D. Conrad in The Politics of Denial (1998; MIT Press). The authors note as early as the late 1990s that "environmental issues have become a major focus of conservative denial...What is fascinating and disturbing...is how conservative ideologues start with a particular viewpoint and then ignore the evidence, and the vast consensus of scientists, that contradict it." Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• A note here on background findings. As can be seen by the extensive changes, extensions and copyediting done by Viriditas on this and other proposed findings, if background findings try to go into too much detail, they end up reading like introductions to Wikipedia articles on the subject (and should arguably require rigorous sourcing for what is said in them). The Arbitration Committee should not be in the business of writing article-like content for its background findings, and should only paint with the lightest and broadest of brushes to define the scope and locus of the problems here. Background findings should only be a preamble to focusing on on-wiki conduct. Real-world background should never be used to justify poor conduct as an editor, as Viriditas seems to be attempting to do below with the two proposed Harassment and Baiting findings. Such findings can be used to justify sanctions on Wikipedia editors engaging in such baiting and harassment, but if Wikipedia editors are deciding to descend to the same level and 'fight back', they will also be sanctioned. If an off-wiki conflict is brought onto Wikipedia, the answer is not to continue and escalate the conflict here. This is covered already in the existing proposed principles. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you please clarifly what the current proposed decision says about the background of this case? I don't see anything. I also fail to see anything substantive as to the locus of the dispute. It's one thing to describe the general problem, but it's quite another to ignore it. As for your interpretation that I am justifying poor conduct, that is something that never actually occurred to me, so I will defer to your judgment. From where I stand, the background I describe only illustrates the problem, it does not justify the actions of any individual or group. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• One thing I think should be noted about this discussion is how the terms faction and deniers and so on stand out to poke and continue the battles. There has to be a way to stop the 'titling' of editors like this, esp. in an arbitration case but also everywhere else. There are scientific editors, there are those who question the science and then there are the socks and spas. The case has three different groupings though so please lets keep this in mind. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of climate scientists is well documented

There is a long history documenting the systematic attack and harassment of climate scientists. Notable examples include James Hansen of NASA, the late Stephen Schneider from Stanford University, Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona, Andrew J. Weaver of the University of Victoria, and the scientists involved with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I would suggest that making comparisons with the harassment of abortion providers may cause offence to some. Best to stick to just the topic under discussion, even if this comparison has been made by others it is not necessary to go into this level of detail for an arbitration case. Could people also please sign these proposals that are being added here. I think Viriditas added the above, but people shouldn't have to dig through the page history to work this out. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the bit about abortion and added my sig. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. What does the alleged harassment of these others have to do with this case? Are any of those you named Wikipedia editors? And what do parties like me, AQFK, SlimVirgin, Cla68, Lar, etc, have to do with that harassment? ATren (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I'm in the process of answering that question with another followup proposal. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Update. Should have it posted in the next 2-3 hours if I get the chance. In this new proposal, I will show, with good evidence, that the documented pattern of harassment of climate scientists off-wiki is directly connected to the harassment of climate scientists on-wiki, as well as the promotion of climate change denial over and above the scientific consensus. Contrary to your claim of irrelevancy, this is completely relevant and topical. Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

First update complete. See below: "Harassment of William M. Connolley off-wiki". There's a lot more where that came from. Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lengthy discussion collapsed. Mostly a back-and-forth between two editors who should summarise their positions on this, rather than continuing an ever-lengthening discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever asked WMC if he is a scientist? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Please address the discussion and stop trying to distract away from it. Mathematics is the foundation of science, and science projects in the public and private sector are composed of teams of members in interdisciplinary roles, such as mathematicians, software engineers, technicians, etc. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Connolley was a computer programmer whose role was simply to write code in support of the climate research being conducted by others at BAS. He does not claim to be a scientist himself. His background is in Numerical Analysis which is a theoretical domain within mathematics with no direct relationship to climate science at all. --209.204.76.33 (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Odd how his article puts him in the category of "Climatologists," (source?) but really not that odd considering the group that has been writing his article.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I'll take that as a "no." And no, despite the protests, it is relevant if you are going to keep on bringing this sort of thing up in order to excuse poor behavior. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you didn't get it the first time. If you have nothing to say about this topic, please refrain from responding with distractions and red herrings. There is no excuse for poor behavior. That there is a long history documenting the systematic attack and harassment of climate scientists is not in dispute. That these climate scientists also work on teams composed of mathematicians, software engineers, technicians, and other contributors, is also not in dispute. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Asserting that something is a red herring does not make it a red herring. The best argument to make that it is a red herring is that the entire topic is a red herring - despite your continued assertions of facts clearly not in evidence. Why didn't you just answer the question? TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC) There is a documented history showing that climate scientists have been attacked and harassed, and that this "campaign" has spread to Wikipedia via leaders in the climate change denial movement, such as Solomon and many others. The facts are clearly in evidence and not in dispute. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC) And there is a documented history of (i.e. Climategate) of some scientists trying to marginalize journals or scientists that dare to publish papers that cast doubt on AGW. I could put forth all sorts of proposals like that if I like (and actually provide real evidence), but it should be irrelevant to the task at hand. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Please stop trying to disrupt, distract, and change the subject of this discussion. Please confine your comments to only the topic of the documented history showing that climate scientists have been attacked and harassed, and that this "campaign" has spread to Wikipedia. If you can't comment on that topic, simply remain silent. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry you feel that way, but I think these proposals of yours are marginal on the best of days. As I said, I or any number of editors could be adding proposals that are irrelevant in any meaningful sense. I think you are wasting a bunch of time on these things (and not just yours). Even if I went through and posted the diffs of the people who have shown up over the course of the last decade to defend this group of people, showing a clear pattern of the defense tactics, it would basically be irrelevant to the situation at hand. What matters is the behavior of the parties involved - not the same Chewbacca defenses thrown out by the same defensive line year after year.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I find the usage of the "Chewbacca defence" here interesting, since during GS/CC/RE the name of the defence has been the "WMC defence" ("never mind what i did .... over there in the corner is WMC!") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Is this really the road you want to go down KDP? Viriditas has been trying to construct some vast internet/rightwing conspiracy to excuse WMC's actions. Pointing out the huge disparity between actions and sanctions between the two sides is needed context and in my mind a core problem that needs addressing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry if you do not like the comment. I believe it to be a true and verifiable statement, and to be more specific, that it is true and verifiable regardless of whether or not WMC is the devil portrait by that type of defence. All one has to do to see this, is go to the enforcement board and pick a number of random samples of enforcement requests, and read the discussions, they will almost invariably contain the "WMC defence" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I neither like nor dislike it. I simply found it to be a non sequitur and also rather amusing that you think people are pointing to WMC to excuse their own actions when Viriditas is literally creating an entire mythos to defend WMC. Anyway to your point, I don't think there are too many people running a "WMC defense" so much as people are pointing out how the rules that apply to some don't apply to others. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I find it rather illustrating. It shows that WMC has been demonized on-wiki to a rather extreme extent, certainly beyond anything that i have ever seen before, and again that holds regardless of whether one thinks that WMC is a demon/devil or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC) What I find illustrating is that with the plethora of contentious topics on wikipedia no other editor has been singled out by the media or blogs to such a degree (sans yourself of course KDP) as an example of what happens when activists find the perfect medium for their cause - and yet despite this unique position, the fault doesn't lie in WMC or those who emulate and enable his behavior, but in some implied conspiracy secretly orchestrated by fossil fuel companies. It certainly is odd that such "demonization" doesn't happen to this degree with editors in other topics. TheGoodLocust (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC) To break this off, and start another line, since i believe this has left the productive aspects, and entered the speculative region (though i will state for the record, that i do not think that WMC is a devil, but also that he has faults, though not to the extent of the picture being painted of him) I'm curious as to what you define as "activist"? Do you consider me an activist? And if so, what exactly makes you think this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC) What activists, Thegoodlocust? Do you even know what the word means? Point to a single activist "pushing" a POV regarding the scientific consensus on climate change. You can't, because there aren't any. On the other hand, how many editors, how many accounts on Wikipedia, are pushing a minority, fringe POV denying climate change, a POV that has been pushed by politically conservative, right wing special interest groups for thirty years? Also, please note the timing of Solomon's columns in 2006 and the arrival of Scibaby on Wikipedia. Pure coincidence, of course, right? After the Kyoto Protocol went into action on February 16, 2005, climate change denial went into overdrive. You can actually go to the Google News archive and look at the timeline in detail. The uptick in denial after Kyoto is measurable, and Solomon and Scibaby rolled out the red carpet. That the climate change deniers have received money from the fossil fuel industry has not been seriously disputed by anyone since the early 1990s when it was first revealed in the major media. Time to update your paradigm. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC) "What activists ... You can't, because there aren't any." This is a false premise. The activists in this case are the ones coming here to (a) present their specific POV and (b) minimize and if possible eliminate all other points of view which do not agree with theirs. The faction calling themselves the "science faction" distinctly fits this description whereas the faction referred to as the "skeptics faction" do not. The former tries to limit information to that with which they agree, whereas the latter tries to broaden the perspective to include skeptical points of view (while maintaining the dominant consensus view as well). The term "science faction" is actually a deliberate misnomer to try and occupy some high moral ground, but the tactics being employed are explicitly counter to a scientific approach which encourages skepticism as a means of identifying scientific truth. In this sense they are more appropriately referred to as the "anti-science faction" and it is actually the skeptics who are more properly termed the "science faction" because their tactics are in line with scientific inquiry. As far as I can tell your admonition of Solomon as a leading denier is misplaced. He himself has not advocated for any particular position. He has instead done what any good journalist would do and that is report what others more qualified than himself are actually saying. That he focuses on giving a voice to the skeptics out there does not prima facie make him a skeptic, nor is there a need for him to try an provide any balance in his chosen niche in the debate since the other side is already receiving adequate media representation. Solomon's work serves as part of the media balance in this respect. Your implication that Solomon is actually Scibaby is amusing and paranoid. The bottom-line is that your proposal above leaves me with a rather "duh" and "so what" sort of reaction. The point is obvious and therefore dull and wholly irrelevant as a justification for Connolley's behavior. The civility policy does not contain a free pass clause just because other stuff exists outside of Wikipedia. --209.204.73.229 (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC) There are no "activists" pushing the scientific consensus, they are simply good editors. This is a form of misdirection used by those pushing the minority and fringe climate change denial POV. And, there is no "implication that Solomon is actually Scibaby". The implication is that the publication of Solomon's columns and the appearance of Scibaby on Wikipeida fall into a post-Kyoto timeline, when denialism increased across the board to unprecedented levels. The idea that "Solomon's work serves as part of the media balance" has been shown to be one of the primary problems in the coverage of climate change science by journalists. While studying the UK tabloid press, Boykoff and Mansfield (2008) found that people in the media faced political and economic "constraints", where the "combined influences of contrarianism and the utilization of the journalistic norm of balance jointly contribute to informationally biased coverage of anthropogenic climate change...the journalistic norm of balanced reporting has contributed to a skewed public understanding of human contributions to climate change...it may continue to significantly contribute...to eventual public resistance to climate mitigation and adaptation plans..." Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC) It's obvious that what I've written must be very important, after all, look at how many off-topic replies you've made attempting to distract away from it. To remind you once again, the topic at hand concerns the history showing that climate scientists have been attacked and harassed, and that this campaign has spread to Wikipedia. Please directly address it. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC) You think I'm trying to distract from it? Oh on the contrary, I think it should be considered very carefully for what it really is - and once again I keep on thinking back to the projection article. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I don't think you are trying to distract, that's basically all you do on Wikipedia, after all you don't write articles, remember? Since you might have missed it the first time, I'll copy the words you can't address: There is a long history documenting the systematic attack and harassment of climate scientists. Notable examples include James Hansen of NASA, the late Stephen Schneider from Stanford University, Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona, Andrew J. Weaver of the University of Victoria, and the scientists involved with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Completely relevant to this case as I show below, as the same people and groups making these attacks on climate scientists, are also making them against Wikipedia and editors who edit climate science articles, and this is part of a larger campaign of POV pushing involving a minority, and some would rightly say "fringe" POV. Furthermore, the tactics being used on Wikipedia are virtually identical to the tactics being used off-wiki, namely, the filing of frivolous reports in order to harass editors. The close similarity of off and on-wiki attack strategies is an amazing coincidence, don't you think? Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with external activist groups

It is apparent that some Wikipedia editors may be working to advance the agenda of various external activist groups in order to further the so-called "culture war", rather than in adherence with the purposes of the project. Editors are expected to respond to this in a professional manner. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• This topic has received no discussion so far; I suggest the topic heading be broadened to something like Dealing with activists or Dealing with ill-informed activists to attract more input, but it is not my heading to change. --Nigelj (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I copied the section from the WP:CAMERA decision. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• I would like to ask in all seriousness, what is the Wikipedia 'professional manner' of dealing with the persistent addition of fringe, badly-sourced, out-of-date, and undue-weight material, and POV tags? It seems that WP's policies are quite heavily biased in favour of the activist commentator in article space: Anyone is encouraged to make a contribution, but reverts and removals of dodgy factoids is strictly controlled by #RR and other rules. If a large number of well-informed, long-term contributors make a sustained effort to 'share the load' of removing the cruft and activist rubbish, they are open to be accused of acting as a tag-team or a faction. --Nigelj (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Lastly, am I the only one to have noticed that some editors seem to have have learnt to copy reasonable arguments used against their disruption and use them exactly as written, back against their accusers, even when they clearly do not apply when so reversed? Examples include "I'm not an activist, you are", "I'm not advancing a political view/blog-sourced POVs/fringe theory, you are", and one from this very page, here. Although I cannot comment on the details of that particular argument without a trawl through all the diffs and sources, the tactic employed was clear, and has been quite commonly used, sometimes with more subtlety, over recent months. --Nigelj (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of William M. Connolley off-wiki

Connolley was the subject of several personal attacks in the media stemming from his contributions to Wikipedia. Global warming "skeptic" Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers (2008) and writer for the Canadian conservative newspaper The National Post has written columns promoting climate change denial[1] and is known for criticizing Wikipedia's coverage of global warming. For several years, Solomon has specifically targeted William M. Connolley in his column.[2][3][4] Solomon has also actively edited Wikipedia. Journalist James Delingpole of The Daily Telegraph, whom The Guardian refers to as a "climate change denier",[5], referenced Solomon's work when he himself personally attacked Connolley and Wikipedia during the "Climategate" controversy.[6] A month after the media began reporting on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, a heated edit war broke out on that page on December 22. Simultaneously, an attack site, "Connolley Watch: Documenting the every move of William M. Connolley", appeared on Blogger.[7] The very next day, Solomon published a column about Connelley and the "Climategate at Wikipedia" edit war on Wednesday, December 23, 2009, with the first response appearing on The National Post at 3:32 PM, and the last revision to the article by Solomon at 7:47 PM.[8] A link to Solomon's article appeared on the "Connolley Watch" attack site at 4:13 PM, December 23, 2009.[9] Solomon later describes the previous 24 hours on Wikipedia as a battleground: "Battles like this occurred on numerous fronts, until just after midnight on Dec 22."[10] On the same day, at 7:54 PM, ten minutes after Solomon's last revision to his NP article, someone adds a new entry to "Connolley Watch", adding a link to an older attack article about Connolley on "Conservative Blog Watch"[11]. The article is attributed to writer Matthew Sheffield of NewsBusters,[12] a blog run by the conservative Media Research Center, founded by conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III. Sheffiled's blog post consists mostly of quotes from Lawrence Solomon, and is dated December 19, 2009, 15:34 ET, just days before the edit war on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

If you are going to bring Solomon's off-wiki postings and writings into this, then Connolley's off-wiki postings will also have to be considered. Also, any edits Connolley has done to the Solomon article need to be considered in light of this off-wiki dispute between the two of them. This is the whole point of the principle Wikipedia is not a battleground. Just as an example, someone who either is or is claiming to be KimDabelsteinPetersen, posted at the comments page to one of the links you provided. Wikipedia editors who let themselves get dragged out into the arguments out there, or bring them back here, are doing Wikipedia a dis-service. Editors need to be able to leave their off-wiki conflicts at the door when they edit here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators have determined that "this dispute revolves around Wikipedia's coverage of climate change", not Connolley. In that light, Solomon's writings about Wikipedia and contributions to this site are germane to this case. It is also evident from his writing and those of his critics (for example, Hoggan & Littlemore 2009), that Solomon's "battle" against global warming (as a proponent for climate change denial) exists independently of any interpersonal conflict he may have with Connolley. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not someone who pretended to be me, that commented on the Solomon articles - it was most definitively me. I have commented on two of Solomons articles [13] [14] (these links are presented on my User page btw). My comments had only one purpose, and that was to describe to the journalist what happened, and how Wikipedia works, I do not consider myself involved in a conflict with Mr. Solomon. (although he seems to have a different opinion :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Has WMC criticized any Wikipedia editors in his blog, or only other climate change scientists and journalists he doesn't agree with, like Solomon? I don't read his blog except when it becomes a part of Wikipedia, like here. ChrisO has declined to say what exactly he was expecting WMC to use his blog for here and why ChrisO felt that WMC might be willing or able to do whatever he was asking. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Harassment and baiting of William M. Connolley on-wiki

William M. Connolley is the former climate modeller for the British Antarctic Survey. On Wikipedia, Connolley is the primary editor responsible for the featured article on global warming, with 1080 edits as of 2010.[15] Connolley has been the target of a persistent baiting campaign by editors who promote the minority view of climate change denial. Such editors often game Wikipedia policies and guidelines to harass and bait Connolley when he responds to their edits. Many of these accounts focus solely on adding contentious climate change denial POV, and show bad faith that thwarts the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I think this grossly distorts reality -- or at least ignores a good deal of reality. Connolley may have contributed to a feature article but that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Why would you throw that in with discussions about behavior? I would say that it is Connolley who is the baiter and antagonizer, as opposed to those who "promote the minority view". If you are going to make this claim, actual diffs of this behavior would be helpful. You reference "many of these accounts" and mention several really bad behaviors but not a single diff. On the other hand, multiple diffs of Connolley's baiting and tendentious editing and article ownership and revert warring have been provided. Are you suggesting that he was baited into those policy violations? Note that I did not mention his incivility. Minor4th 22:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok to ask you to share your experience as an example? When did you first encounter Connolley, and how? Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind you asking, and I also don't mind answering, but I'm not sure that is an appropriate discussion as part of this case. My first encounter was a rather oblique encounter on wiki and unrelated to climate change -- quite by accident, and I had never heard of him before, either as a Wikipedia editor or climate personality. Please provide the diffs for your statement above about harassment of Connolley and all the "minority view" accounts harassing and baiting Connolley. Minor4th 22:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The evidence section is below, in the frivolous probation request section, not here. This is an overview which connects his on-wiki harassment with the off-wiki in the prior proposal. I will continue to improve it with more evidence. I am curious how you encountered WMC in an unrelated topic. Could you briefly clarify? Since you are a new editor (first started editing 16 April 2010) with a somewhat fresh perspective, how do you see Connolley's role in climate change related articles? To answer your earlier questions, Connolley's contribution to the global warming article and bringing it to featured status have made him a target of climate change deniers. He's had to do a lot of work to keep it free of fringe POV. I do not see this as "completely irrelevant to this discussion", but rather, the basis for him becoming a target of harassment in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked at every one of your diffs below, and I would have to say that those diffs actually cut against the case you are trying to make. Not a single one was frivolous, unless you are saying that difficulty enforcing against WMC makes a RfE frivolous -- I would say it might be pointless, but the complaints were legitimate complaints where William had violated wiki policy and behavior guidelines, in some cases worse than others. If mark nutley had engaged in the same behaviors, he would have been blocked in some of those "no action" cases brought against William. I also don't see how those diffs show baiting or harassing of William -- in fact, there is some evidence there of William taunting and baiting others. I will answer your question about my first encounter with William after dinner. Thank you for clarifying the purpose of mentioning the feature article -- that was not clear initially. Minor4th 23:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you can find this info very easily at the article about WMC called William Connolley. I think this article shows taunting and baiting that WMC didn't rise up to. I have this article on my watchlist for those who are curious. Check out the history of this article. HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Frivolous probation requests intended to harass William M. Connolley

William M. Connolley is the primary target for editors promoting a minority, climate change denial POV. According to the climate change probation archives, a total of 23 probation requests were filed against Connolley from January to August. For the month of January 2010 alone, Connolley was the subject of six separate requests for enforcement.[16][17][18][19][20][21] In February, five more probation requests were made.[22][23][24][25][26] In March, one.[27] In April, one.[28] In May, four additional probation requests were filed. [29][30][31][32] In June, one.[33] In July, three.[34][35][36] In August, two.[37][38] Viriditas (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Note, the 3rd diff was not closed no-action; WMC got a civility warning and a sanction from editing others' comments. And the 4th diff was closed no-action, but with a note that some of the issues were handled in the other request (the civility parole). ATren (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've removed "all were closed as no action" for the moment. I intend to update it in an hour or so. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The 4th diff is the request (only one?) that I filed against WMC. I believe it was the first one filed completely up to format and with extensive and described evidence. 2over0 closed it unilaterally and refused to reopen it despite being asked by other admins and editors. In fact, that set of diffs is a fine example of how 2over0 has played defense for WMC and prevented sanctions that might've corrected his behavior. It also shows how devoted Bozmo has been to defending WMC. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok Vriditas, now list all the probation requests that were initiated by WMC and also were closed without sanction against anyone, and then list all the requests against WMC that resulted in sanction. WMC has chosen his own path and all you are doing is empowering his bad habits. These endless cries of they started it first are rather boring - if none of you can reasonably claim to be taking the higher ground then you are all in the gutter. Weakopedia (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating how to assume bad faith. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, speaking of assuming bad faith, why is it that you ask us to believe that the large number of requests is, in and of itself, evidence of all those other editors "harassing" WMC; as opposed to the other interpretation, which is that WMC is the most reported because he is the most frequent offender? The latter assumes bad faith of one editor, but your judgement assumes bad faith of everyone single editor who reported him -- IIRC, it was at least 8 different editors, and several of those reports did result in sanction.

So it's OK to assume bad faith of all of those other editors, but not OK to assume bad faith of the one who was being reported? ATren (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me help you out again: I was responding to Weakopedia's poor commentary and even worse edit summary which read: "misrepresenting statistics is useless when we are all aware of it".[39] That was an entirely bad faith assumption on the part of Weakopedia, whose choice of account name and user page speaks volumes. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your belligerent presentation style in this section has in general been unhelpful. I was also left wondering if we should read more into names than we do? What of "Wikidemon" for example? Or even your name? I actually don't think that's a good path to go down. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Belligerent, as in "thanks for catching that" and "we both agree"? I hang my head in shame. The content over at User:Weakopedia says more than enough. As for my name, you are welcome to visit Viriditas, or its related synonyms such as chai, prana and élan vital. "Life" is a threatening concept, for some, I suppose. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, "belligerent" as in abrasive, argumentative and strident, and thus unhelpful. My point merely is that focusing on usernames is not particularly useful. You are perhaps too quick to criticize others. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. I will make an effort to criticize no one but myself. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So, quoting absolute numbers of RFE requests as absolute proof of "harassment" is not a misuse of statistics? Interesting. Let's expand on your thesis: by your logic, which presumes reporting an editor is equivalent to harassment, the single most harassed editor in the history of Wikipedia is... (wait for it)... Scibaby! :-) Seriously, do you not see how flawed your purely numerical analysis is? ATren (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You are assuming that I've already "proved" something; We both agree that I have not. This is one small piece of a larger puzzle, and there are only so many hours in a day. Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WMC's behavior earned these requests. These were serious issues. Simply characterizing them as frivolous is irresponsible, and calls into to question the intention of this characterization. Viriditas, did you abuse the term "frivolous" when you enforced against GoRight?Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that the RfE process was being used abusively by several activist editors. I think it is clear from the many closed-without-action RfEs that a good number of these requests were frivolous (including at least two of the three filed against me). I am not sure I agree with the "harassment" characterization though. I think it's more sinister than that. It seems to me that the process was being abused in order to get opponents sanctioned (and, therefore, off the playing field), and the large number of requests filed against WMC suggests as much about his success as an expert-in-the-field editor than it does about his editing behavior. Quite a few requests filed against WMC were valid, but far more of them were frivolous. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that evaluation of matters. Perhaps it's more that it is extraordinarily difficult to get effective sanctions against WMC in the environment than that they are frivolous. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It is clear from an examination of the requests filed that a great many of them were made by editors seeking to have WMC removed from the arena. This is to be expected when agenda-driven activists without a sure-footed grounding in the science are faced with what they perceive is an "opponent" who is an expert in the field, with a superior command of the facts. There is no doubt that WMC does not handle criticism well, and many complaints against him were based on legitimate concerns about his behavior; however, it is clear that the RfE process was abused to exploit these difficulties in an effort to "gain the upper hand". The evidence is quite clear in the RfE archive. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd how those people with a "superior command of the facts" got the facts so very wrong in their opposition to criticism of the IPCC. Of course, most of their obstructionism has very little to do with facts at all, but with extreme and varying interpretations of various policies and invented policies (e.g. WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:TRUTH). It seems pretty obvious that if one side is so arrogant that they think they are 100% correct all the time that this would indeed be a source of conflict since they've be shown not to be correct so many times - the facts of these failures has never provided cause for introspection for some reason though. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about there, or why. I'm sure you think it was constructive though. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Were people wrong about the IPCC criticisms? I doubt it. The Himalaya issue was accepted immediately (it was an obvious error), "Amazongate" has been retracted by the newspaper that broke it, Pauchari's alleged "money on the side" thing has been retracted as well. The errors were mainly in the WGII, and had very little influence on the conclusions etc. etc. All reports that have been checking the IPCC have come back with the conclusion, that the "errors" were over-inflated by media. Of course it does have a good side, the IAC review will make the IPCC processes even more transparent. All in all, this story tells us that we (as an encyclopedia) should never "jump" on a media-blaze (as WP:NOTNEWS tells us). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are full of it. This revisionism crap needs to stop. As you can see here I'd been edit warring in the "glacier information that was immediately accepted" and was put on 1rr for it. I'd been in very few edit wars on the topic area (compared to the constant reverts your side does). Anyway, I was actually talking about their use of non-peer reviewed sources which we arguing about for PAGES, you people rejected every source imaginable from the New York Times to ABC until finally the IPCC posted a statement admitting its fault. You guys may be able to fool everyone who isn't paying attention by saying this is "about the science" but not those of us who've actually been editing in the area. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the best thing to do would be to walk the diffs just to see how many times the glacier info was reverted, who was reverting it, and to see that you yourself reverted it several times. This is again a perfect example of how you people keep on rewriting history. Unfortunately, ArbCom seems to be ignoring these facts and not sanctioning you guys which is why I'm staying away from this area - it is too hard to edit the articles because you ALL show up to revert stuff you don't like.TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You are presenting a rather one-sided view, aren't you? (revisionism yourself?) The objections in the IPCC article was that the minute nature of the glacier error (1 paragraph in a 900+ pages report (for just the 4th assessment) would be WP:UNDUE there - it of course got included rather fast in Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report[40], by...... WMC! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC) And what you also forget to mention is that everyone accepted that it was an error - the conflict was over where and how to present it, not whether it was an error. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition: And of course the issue had already been noticed, discussed and corrected by WMC and User:Sphilbrick on Dec 1. on Effects of global warming where the information was used already.[41]. Kudo's to both btw. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

lol this is incredible. First of all it was SPhilbrick who pointed it out, but most importantly is that this was a discussion to remove that info from the effects of global warming article. That's right, the alarmist baloney that was shown to be completely wrong was in the "effects of global warming" article and yet you people were arguing that it was "UNDUE" to put it in the section criticizing the IPCC. To make this clear, there is a huge difference between having someone else (not WMC) correct a huge error and trying to make sure that error wasn't mentioned in an appropriate spot (i.e. not some esoteric satellite article). What the hell Kim? Were you expecting me not to go and look at your link and just accept what you said at face value? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hell, Nigelj didn't even think such a ridiculous statement on the IPCC's part was likely to even be an error because nobody had pointed it out yet. And amusingly enough, the source you all argued against (Cogley) was actually mentioned by WMC in that section - I guess he was a good enough source then eh? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Could you try to moderate your language? The issue was not that there was an error, but where and how it should be described. In EoGW the "dodgy" information should of course be removed. And in hindsight it is very good to see that people in that discussion are transcending WP:V and acknowledging that we should not present an error despite the error being reliably sourced. Once more: Kudo's to them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

lol a one-sided view? As with most of these cases you guys kept coming up with new excuses - first the sources (and you guys claimed it was incorrect), then claims of synthesis, and when none of that would stick you claimed "UNDUE" (a perennial favorite) and tried to shuffle it off to a satellite article like you guys always do with criticism you can't excise. As I said, anyone can walk the diffs and see what happened - less are willing to look at the pages of conversation where you all tried to keep this stuff out. I'll file away this entire conversation in the same category as WMC denying he ever called people "septics" even when shown diffs of him doing it. Simply incredible. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No, TGL, we didn't dispute that it was correct. On Dec 23 where you attempted to edit-war it into the main IPCC article, it had already been noticed and accepted as a very real error in the very thoughtful and civil discussion on Effects of global warming (22 days earlier)[42]link corrected --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC). The dispute on IPCC was about whether the error was significant enough to mention in a top-level article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Kim, check your dates, you little diff there is from JANUARY and as you just showed I put the criticism in the IPCC's article on december the 23rd - over a week before WMC put it in a satellite article (to keep it out of the main article). You other points I've already addressed above, but try to respond here so we can keep this streamlined - I want this to be as easy as possible for people to follow. Again, all anyone has to do is walk the diffs in the history article and read the edit summaries. Odd how all you experts with "thousands" of edits (reverts) had that info in the "effects on global warming" article and yet someone not aligned with your group was the one to point it out. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Link corrected (it was also to the wrong article). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a large number of climate related articles - do you think that all of the information is error-free, or that even obvious errors can't sneak in? In that case, i'd say that you are being naïve. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah for well historical accuracy here is the original diff before your "correction." It clearly shows how after a week of edit warring that info out the strategy was shifted to put it in a satellite article. Again, there is a huge different between removing an obvious error from an article supposedly about science and preventing the criticism of that error from going into the article about the organization that propagated the myth. And as for the errors, no I know there are a huge amount of errors, but this one was highly publicized and even in our wikipedia articles (any idea of who first put it in the article?). The IPCC has made a huge number of these errors due to their use of grey literature, but the article tends to include "criticism" like about how it burdens the poor scientists who volunteered to work on it - that's like an interviewee saying their biggest problem is that they are a workaholic.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And just so we can be really clear on this situation. Here is WMC removing that info from the article on the IPCC's 4th assessment report citing "undue" (a shocker!) in the same time frame as the edit war on the IPCC article. So not only is this error "undue" in the IPCC article, but also undue in the report where the error came from, oh no, the only place it isn't undue in the "criticism of the IPCC's 4th assessment report" an article which received 6% of the views that the article of the 4th assessment report received, or 2% of the views that the IPCC article received. Again, this is pretty typical - put the crap you don't want people to read in articles that nobody will read. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar is right, there would have been less WMC enforcement request, had WMC been held to the same standards as others. In place, there were many long discussed, appealed and very specifically designed enforcements for him. Had he been subjected to outright topic ban for disruption (like the others) then there would have been less requests. There is no doubt that WMC enforcements are highly controversial. Blaming the messengers, when they carry the community message, is hardly frivolous. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WMC was deliberately targeted because he was seen as the greatest "threat" to the "skeptics". This is clear from the off-wiki campaign against him, with "calls to arms" appearing in various blogs, etc. You're misrepresenting the facts here. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming facts not in evidence. How many enforcement requests were successful out of the 23? How many were made by editors who were having trouble pushing their POV? Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

SCJ, Viriditas: do you claim that BozMo, Cla68, SlimVirgin, LHvU and Off2riorob are part of this so-called off-wiki skeptic horde attacking WMC? Those 5 editors alone account for SIX of the requests against WMC, which is more RFEs than any other editor except perhaps Marknutley. There were also other reports from AQFK, Heyitspeter, and ChildOfMidnight, all of whom have significant edit histories outside of this topic area and aren't SPAs by any stretch. So, if this is simply about some "skeptic" boogeyman campaign, why are so many of the reports from long term previously uninvolved editors? ATren (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's "horde," not "hoard." Unless the point is that SCJ and Viriditas are stashing these unfortunate editors away for later use. Mr. Language Person (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected ATren (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I will only say that my perception is that many of the editors who filed enforcement requests against WMC appear to be doing so because of an ulterior motive. I'm not interested in being drawn into naming names by your baiting. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Scjerssy, WMC has many RFE's because he is uncivilly abusive to many and his POV has offended NPOV. That's what the evidence has shown. The bit about "greatest threat to the skeptics" is unsupported hyperbole. The kind that contributes to battleground mentality. Viriditis, how many WMC RFE's would have been unnecessary, if the RFE community found what ArbCom is now proposing ... that is to give WMC a vacation? How many editors found WMC's POV, standing obsessively in the way of a NPOV? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. WMC is being targeted. His "transgressions" are always the subject of an RfE, whereas many of the transgressions of others are ignored or passed-off with a simple talk page request. Everything WMC does "wrong" is immediately jumped on. Surely you can see that WMC must be under considerable strain when faced with this level of scrutiny? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's clearly not true, I know I've informed WMC of when he has broken 3rr, know Mark and others have others have also told WMC when he has broken various rules/restrictions and he is given the chance to self-revert. Oddly enough, this courtesy has rarely been repaid and skeptics are often immediately blocked or reported for transgressions. But hey, you and Viriditas have been making a great case that the the behavior is poor because your very defense relies on there being some vast conspiracy of people, out to get WMC, who have given him the chance to numerous times - if this is a conspiracy then we really need to get our act together. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please review ALL the RfE processes. The pattern I have identified is clear (note: example given by ScottyBerg below) -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight: you are acknowledging that they are transgressions on his part, but you object to them being reported? In fact, you accuse these reporters en masse of being part of some vast blog conspiracy simply because they reported transgressions by this one user, even as you brush off the transgressions themselves as irrelevant. This is a perplexing stance. So let me ask you this: since you seem to believe that accusing WMC of anything is prima facie evidence that they are part of this nebulous, blog-driven anti-WMC conspiracy, does that mean that the drafting arbs are part of it too? ATren (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you stop putting words in my mouth and drawing ridiculous conclusions about what I'm saying, please? You and ZP5 keep mischaracterizing my words. Stop it. Let me be as plain as I can. It is my opinion, based on looking at the bulk of all CC-related RfEs, that given the same "transgression", a request is more likely to be filed against WMC than any other editor. Minor matters that are usually ignored or brushed off with other editors draw RfEs if they involve WMC. Filing editors are employing double standards, judging WMC more harshly and filing more requests against him than other editors. That's how I see it. I am entitled to comment on it without prejudice. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a fair comment. A good example, which I remember as I commented it, was the case filed against WMC by Cla68 in July.[43]. Note the comment by the closing administrator: "no case to answer." Unfortunately, no action was taken against the editor who brought this meritless case, which was the only action that was warranted under the circumstances. What worries me is that the arbitrators just see "a lot of cases," but you have to really get into the weeds to see just how absurd some of them were, with this one a good example. You have to read all the diffs in each case to understand them all. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Scjerssy, it seems your analysis is attempting to "target" a group of folks for "targeting" WMC. It all fair balance, WMC has offended the/a community and its operating principles. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@Scjessey: I do somewhat agree that WMC has been more likely to have complaints filed against him, sometimes for trivial things, but this is due to the fact that he gets away with so many things that aren't trivial. You can call it the "Al Capone" effect if you like (jailed for tax evasion not his more serious crimes). TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Popular press articles have been misused in climate change articles to further the "culture war" and detract from the science, often emphasizing a minority or fringe POV. This results in an unencyclopedic approach, focused on recentism and popular opinion at odds with scientific consensus. News reports, editorials, and opinion pieces are often inappropriate for reporting scientific results or theories, but are useful when discussing the context of science topics, including the social, economic, and political context, and may provide an important source of criticism. News articles should be used with caution when describing scientific results, studies, or hypotheses. Science news articles may fail to discuss important issues such as the certainty of a conclusion, how a result has been received by experts in the field, the context of related results and theories, and barriers to widespread adoption or realization of an idea.

ChrisO previous sanctions in 4 Arb cases for disruptive editing and BLP violations

1. Kosovo: Edit warring [44], [45]
2. Kosovo: POV pushing [46]
3. Kosovo: Disruptive use of admin tools [[47]]
4. Scientology: POV pushing, bad sourcing, BLP violations, protecting BLP violations [48]
5. Scientology: BLP banned [49]
6. Israeli Apartheid: Disruptive use of admin tools/disruptive editing [50]
7. Macedonia2: Admonished for editing against protection and consensus [51]
8. Macedonia2: desysopped for long term pattern of disruptive editing in several contentious topic areas [52]

ChrisO has been warned or restricted by this Committee in 4 prior cases. Within the CC topic he is now engaging in the very same behavior for which he has been repeatedly sanctioned. Throughout the evidence and workshop and on this page there are multiple editors bringing forth multiple diffs of Chris' BLP violations, extreme POV pushing, edit warring, revert warring and generally being unable to tolerate the collaborative process. At some point, enough is enough. Please deal with him in this case or we will be back here asking Arb to deal with him again after a great deal more frustration among editors who edit near him. Minor4th 06:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

New Proposed FoF: ChrisO previously restricted for BLP violations

In the Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology arbitration case (December 2008 - May 2009), ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) significantly edited, between August 2005[53] and September 2007[54], a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material[55] and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion.[56] In his sysop capacity, he protected the article[57]; declined a CSD[58]; and blocked the subject of the article herself.[59] and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material[60][61] from an inadequate source to a BLP; and restored self-published material[62][63][64][65][66]. ChrisO has proposed a binding voluntary restriction[67] that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

New Proposed FoF: ChrisO disruptive, antagonistic behavior and BLP violations

ChrisO (talk · contribs) has committed a long series of disruptive behavior, including incivility, edit-warring, mass deletions of content during GA and AfD discussions, personal attacks (PA) and edit-warred to include BLP violations in a BLP during the course of the ArbCom case.(Selection of representative examples: [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75] incivility, failure to assume good faith and personal attacks, [76][77][78][79][80][81] interfering with GA/AfD nominations, and [82][83] edit-warring to include include BLP violations in a BLP during the course of this ArbCom case.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears ChrisO was not informed of this case until after the evidence phase was closed. While there have been broad hints that proposing additional remedies involving specific editors is acceptable at this time, I think it is too late to be adding a name that has not been formally notified. This is not to say that I find ChrisO's editing satisfactory—many of the diffs are quite troubling on their face. However, rather than go through a complete presentation of evidence and rebuttal at this stage, I'm comfortable that the proposed enforcement process, with a significant increase in the ability of admins to sanction editors who are editing inappropriately, will ensure that ChrisO will contribute positively or face sanctions if prior practice is repeated.--SPhilbrickT 15:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO has made many BLP violations and edited disruptively and has been persistently uncivil and unable to edit collaboratively on BLP's especially. Minor4th 18:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As noted below, ChrisO did a great deal of work to overcome BLP violations added by others – as it happens, one diff shows him removing a BLP violation inserted by Minor4th. Collaboration does not extend to going along with giving undue weight to dubious material attacking the subject of the article, there can of course be reasoable differences of views on each case, and that goes for the Monckton issues as well. Dealing with blatant nonsense promoted by a non-expert is always difficult, especially when it receives little mainstream coverage; whether pointing out that it's nonsense is a BLP violation is something that needs careful consideration, not the knee-jerk approach that seems to be evident in much of the proposed evidence here. . . dave souza, talk 23:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion (1)

I haven't gone through all these links and don't yet have an opinion, but there's an interesting contrast I see in two edits. One, from the Christopher Monckton article [84] in which there is a link to an unpublished criticism of Monckton which includes disparaging statements about him, according to Atren (who says here [85] Monckton's critic, in his unpublished statement, starts the presentation by discussing Monckton's qualifications in a way that would imply that Abraham thought Monckton to be unqualified.) Now, compare that with ChrisO's BLP justification for removing information from the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article, which I linked to above -- edit summary (emphasis added): rm accusations from self-published source per WP:BLP [86] (which, by the way, was factually incorrect -- the information was from from a WP:NEWSBLOG). So what we seem to have is the same double standard that's in KimDPetersen's edit history: When the subject is a disbeliever in AGW, the BLP standard is low and negative information must be included; when the subject is a supporter of AGW, the BLP standard is high and information must be kept out. This looks like partisan editing. That it is done in groups (KimDPetersen, for instance, was involved in both discussions) indicates that we have factions involved, and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. This makes it worse. But I'd like to know what ChrisO has to say about this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

JWB, see this diff for an analysis of what personal criticisms were contained in the unpublished presentation that ChrisO was forcing into Monckton's BLP. ATren (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you what ChrisO would say about it because he's already said it [87] -- He'll say it's not a BLP violation if the offensive link is included inline in the text of the article rather than as a "source" at the end of a sentence. No kidding. He says it's ok to use self published attack pieces from non-notable associate professors, as long as you link the attack directly in article text. He would also tell you that NuclearWarfare and BozMo said it's ok, so it must be ok since they're admins. See this discussion for his inability to account for his actions: [88] Partisan editing? Nah. Minor4th 06:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly a tendentious pile-on. At least you are finally stepping back from your earlier false claim that I was using the Abraham presentation - and thank you for noting NuclearWarfare and Bozmo's concurrence - as a source. I've explained my position here. I've not bothered responding further because I'm fully aware that I would be talking to a brick wall - your mind is made up, quite obviously. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

And my response to your "explanation" is here [89], which you did not bother responding to, but you are apparently taking the position that it's ok to smear a BLP as long as you cite self published attack blog inline rather than as a "source" in the references. Quite amazing, that. Minor4th 21:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment here: Despite your assertions to the contrary - my view of what is and isn't reliable is exactly the same regardless of what article i'm editing, you simply have failed to follow my arguments. For exactly this situation, i've jotted down my view here, do please go through my edit-history again, and verify each case against these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that. But you opposed inclusion of information from a NEWSBLOG reporting on potential legal liability [90] and at another point supported an attack on Fred Singer because the attackers were so-called "experts". Here's what the source you fought to keep in the Singer article said about the subject of that BLP: S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries [...] served up a similarly dishonest ‘assessment. (See the evidence page for diffs.) What counts is that you're violating Wikipedia's consistent BLP policy, not that you can come up with some kind of standards that disallow fair reporting or allow an attack under cover of "expertise". Now I see you're supporting the same thing with Monckton. ArbCom needs to be concerned about your actions, Kim. Your pattern of misbehavior should not be left to some AE admin to try to figure out in a future complaint. ArbCom should at least issue a finding that you're wrong and tell you you should stop. Especially when you're doing this in conjunction with others. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but the typical pattern is that those most deserving or likely to get sanctioned suddenly get very quiet and well-behaved, while they are defended by those who've taken on that role for years. It has been an extremely effective tactic because it works on impressions rather than facts - make the defendants look meek and mild while the prosecutors look argumentative and hostile for calling out the defense attorneys on their misrepresentations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes? My views on usage of blogs (and other opinion material) are rather simple:

• Don't use blogs/opinion to reference information directly about a person or persons.
• Blogs (and to some degree opinion) can only be used when they are covered by the exception rules in WP:SPS.

Your first case is directly about persons - it states that persons (identifiable) may have done criminal acts (red lights raised). It is not written by an expert. (red lights raised).

Your second example is not directly about a person, it is critique of a work by persons. You cherry-pick a sentence which you do not like, but which has never been considered as usable. So it passes #1 as a grey zone. It is written by published academic experts in the area of the topic. Which means it passes #2 with a Green.

I have explained this before - several times. And i'm certainly not the only one who has these views (see for instance the BLP/N discussion). Ths of course is not a thorough description of these particular situations, both situations are significantly more complex than this - but as you can see, both in context as well as in the properties of the references the situations aren't remotely similar.

Context is everything when you are dealing with sources - you cannot put a simplistic template over them and state that both are SPS refs so therefore they can be used equally without glancing at the context within which they are used and what context of information they are dealing with.-Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikilawyering:

• It is not written by an expert. It was written by an expert journalist citing a legal expert: According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. [91] Wikipedia cites reliable-source news organizations all the time, including on sensitive BLP topics, and you know it. We all know it.
• it is critique of a work by persons. You cherry-pick a sentence which you do not like It was an attack on a person by partisans. I don't need to quote again the same passage which proves that. You had no business edit warring to keep that source in the article.

None of this was obscured by the "complexities" of the situations -- the points I'm making were all mentioned at the time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion (2)

I'll point out a couple of things in response to AQFK's claims in his so-called findings of fact:

1) Accusing me of "interfering with GA/AFD nominations" is nonsense - how is voting to delete "interference"? [92] And how does a single edit to an unrelated article [93] have anything to do with this? As I recall, someone elsewhere had highlighted what they thought was coatracking in that article; I agreed and edited it in response. It was certainly not related to any GA discussions. I agree that I overstepped the mark in editing Bishop Hill (blog) and was briefly blocked for it by LHvU; I've taken care not to violate 3RR since.

2) "Edit-warring to include include BLP violations in a BLP" is equally nonsensical. This was in relation to a discussion here on the article talk page. The piece in question was a critique by a published scientist, on his university's website, with the full support of his university. Other editors had sought to include it, using it as a source. This was rightly removed for BLP reasons, as it was a self-published source. [94] I tried to find a compromise here in which only reliable sources were used. I've already explained the reasoning behind inline-linking it along with Monckton's response here.

I was also not in any way "edit warring". I reverted Marknutley once [95] and then took it to the talk page. As the discussion on the talk page shows, I reached an amicable agreement with other editors in which neither Abraham's critique nor Monckton's response would be linked, but the issue would be covered by reliable sources from both sides of the Atlantic. Note that Marknutley was repeatedly removing the entire section, not simply the inline links, under a false claim of "BLP violation". His objection was to the inclusion of any mention of the Abraham-Monckton debate, not simply to the inline links, regardless of the reliable sourcing. [96]

It's completely false to claim that I have been responsible for BLP violations on this article - on the contrary, I've repeatedly acted to take out BLP violations (defamatory content, self-published sources, unsourced claims etc) that affected Monckton's own reputation and that of others. - see e.g. [97], [98], [99], [100], [101] etc. Monckton is a controversial figure and the article has repeatedly been affected by BLP-violating edits. The fact that the article is in pretty good shape is due in no small part to my own vigilance. BrownHairedGirl, an uninvolved admin who works mostly on British political biographies, commented "Even without the addition of ChrisO's good work, this biography is in much better shape than that of many current cabinet ministers." I think that speaks for itself. [102] -- ChrisO (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, this is the problem with editors inserting proposals without attaching their signatures and timestamps immediately beneath each separate paragraph. I did not write any of the proposed findings of fact or related proposed sanctions against you. I think that was ATren. I just started the "Discussion" sections underneath some of them. Since I didn't write them and haven't even had time to look over all the diffs, I don't at this time support them, as I stated. In order to avoid more confusion, I may go back and check exactly who did propose each one and attach a note identifying the authors of each one, although I wish a clerk or arbitrator would do it. It needs to be done. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. The attibrution should have been to AQFK - I've amended the above accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO please just answer this simple question: why did you edit war to add a link to Abraham's unpublished presentation when it is obviously a blatant BLP vio to do so? You knew that the presentation was unpublished and so controversial that it was the subject of potential litigation between the parties, yet you edit warred to put the link back. Why? ATren (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Abraham's presentation is available on his university website and has been referenced in several of George Monbiot's articles in the Guardian [103] [104] [105] [106]. I'm not sure I'd call it "unpublished". Moreover it addresses the arguments made by Monckton in a presentation, and does not say anything negative about Monckton except, of course, that his arguments aren't based on the facts. --TS 15:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I'm happy to be of assistance to you: I believe that if you think just a little harder, the meaning of "unpublished" in relation to WP:BLP#Avoid self-published sources will pop into your head in an instant. If not, go ahead and follow the link to the policy section I've provided for you. No, no, don't bother to thank me -- it really only took a moment. (I've actually been confused by it, too, in the past.) I don't think an opinion writer's citing Abraham's comments will launder them enough to insert in a BLP. Some assertions of Abraham's have been quoted in regular news accounts and are fair game for the article (and they're in the article as of yesterday when I checked). None of that justifies linking to the self-published source. That would be a violation of WP:BLP. You say it does not say anything negative about Monckton I'm not so sure, there's some disagreement on that by editors who have quoted from Abraham's self-published piece (see [107]). Some of those quotes seem to skirt the line between criticism and attack. Monckton seems to have threatened a lawsuit. That tends to make the BLP violation look a bit serious. In any event, WP:BLP seems to be silent on the actual content of the self-published pieces -- it just issues a blanket ban on them. ChrisO violated the policy. The same exact policy that he cited to keep out of an article a careful statement by a reporter from Science magazine that said there may be legal liability if the UK's FOI Act was not followed. Do you think there might be a pattern of partisanship to ChrisO's editing that is not in Wikipedia's best interests? (edited after a few minutes)-- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

JWB: You are aware that "there's some disagreement on that by editors who have quoted from Abraham's self-published piece" is incorrect - right? (those are quoted from Monckton's claims - not Abraham). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? Unless your contesting Monckton's quotes. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is to be accurate instead of inaccurate. And there are several good reasons for considering Moncktons replies as questionable. [amongst them that a cursory view of the actual material show that quite a few of his claims are incorrect] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of the discussion is that Wikipedia is not to be used as a weapon against notable people we dislike. I'm not interested here in Monckton's replies but the professor's statements -- but even that is ultimately irrelevant. The point is that Wikipedia doesn't allow self-published criticism, attacks or anything else self-published in a BLP (except by the subject). We need to crack down on editors who repeatedly violate BLP. I've submitted some evidence that you do and evidence has been submitted that ChrisO does. That you support each other in violating it is an additional reason for ArbCom to be concerned about you. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@TS: Are you seriously questioning whether that presentation is unpublished? Really? ATren (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. really. It's certainly published otherwise I wouldn't have been able to watch it, and as the university has refused, through an exchange of attorney's letters, to remove it, it takes responsibility for the content which was produced by one of its faculty and is published on its website. The Professor is certainly a reliable source for a critique of Monckton's claims, and it has been reviewed by the Guardian, so I don't see much of a problem here. This isn't just something on some random blog. --TS 02:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The university didn't hire the professor to engage in political controversies and isn't regularly in the business of "publishing" controversial texts in the sense that a book publisher, magazine, webzine or newspaper would be, much less an academic periodical. It's role here is closer to a web hosting service. Do you have evidence that the professor consulted with someone acting in the role of "editor" at any stage? It seems to me that the university stepped in after the fact in a situation they're not used to dealing- with. That's one of the problems with self-publication: care and responsibility is a learned behavior, usually accompanied with some kind of supervision. This situation doesn't have the marks of that, particularly as we get away from expert analysis of specific claims and toward criticism of a personality. Instead of reverting, we settle this kind of question on the talk page -- otherwise we're violating WP:BLP, as everyone reading this already knows. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ATren, first, what "edit warring"? Did you miss the bit where I pointed out above that I reverted once? I was under a self-imposed 1RR at the time; on what planet does reverting once constitute an "edit war"? Second, it was far from clear that the inline link was a BLP violation. There was a vigorous discussion about it here and in this CC enforcement page discussion both Bozmo and NuclearWarfare rejected the claim that it was a BLP violation. In the end I and the other editors found a solution that met everyone's concerns. The process worked as it was supposed to. It's gratuitously misleading to claim some kind of violation here. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I went to that noticeboard discussion. It is bizarre. It was brought up that WP:BLP#Criticism and praise states (emphasis added) Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, The idea that the "criticism" must be criticism of the person and not the person's actions or statements is what is gratuitously misleading because it will always skirt the edges of a BLP violation and BLP is about creating wide-enough margins so the edges can't be skirted (from the first paragraph: Editors must take particular care [...] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity). We are extra cautious with BLPs. That discussion did not mention that the self-published source itself went either to the edge of criticism of the person or overstepped it. After all, it's easy to do. ChrisO, you and the editors who supported you, including KimDPetersen and William M. Connolley, were reckless. That NuclearWarfare and Bozmo didn't reject your arguments at WP:GSCCRE is something ArbCom should be concerned about. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: I tried to use the proposed decision as an example. The diffs are a selection of representative examples. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO: you joined an edit war and you knew the content was a contentious BLP issue due to the fact that the presentation was unpublished (it was all over the talk page and RFE) and you added it back in anyway [108]. Then, after reverts by MN, WMC, and MN -- the last one citing BLP -- you reverted it back in again! [109]. How is that not edit warring? Your continued attempts to change history are not working, ChrisO. You edit warred to add an unpublished smear to a BLP. Period. ATren (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

At my last reading, ChrisO was providing properly published evidence that a non-expert was presenting nonsensical pseudoscience, and supplementing it with courtesy links to the detailed originals cited in the source. Arguably not a good idea, but clearly done in good faith. Revisionist history blackening the reputation of a conscientious editor is not good. . . dave souza, talk 23:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dave, judging from ChrisO's history regarding the BLPs of people he apparently regards as idealogical adversaries, not just in the CC topic area, I don't think any revisionist history is going on here. Anyway, it doesn't matter now since ChrisO has invoked "right to vanish" which means he can't come back without arbcom's permission. If he does ask to come back and they agree, I hope for everyone's sake they ban him from BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Cla68, since there appears to be a finding about ChrisO based on a last minute pile-on, it's essential that any findings should be based on properly considered and analysed evidence. While I'm unconvinced about your assertion about ChrisO's history, I do note your own history of late, including edits such as this using a questionable source to introduce allegations against Tom Wigley, who you seem to regard as one of your idealogical adversaries. It would seem more appropriate to ban you from BLPs. . . dave souza, talk 12:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

New Proposed Remedy: ChrisO topic-banned (Climate Change)

User:ChrisO is banned from all Climate Change articles and their talk pages, broadly construed, for long-term violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BLP for six months. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a topic ban ChrisO for tendentious editing, edit warring, and persistent BLP abuse. Minor4th 18:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC) :Addendum -- I have made a proposal to Chris regarding collaborative editing on the Monckton article to the point of jointly proposing a revised article to be added through the edit protection. I have said that if he will work in good faith with me on this, then I will withdraw my support for his being topic banned. If he agrees and tries to work with me, I think that is a show of good faith and good intent. Minor4th 00:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

New Proposed Remedy: ChrisO topic-banned (BLP)

User:ChrisO is banned from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person, where the person's notability or the subject of the edit relates to the topic area of global warming or climate change for one year. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Since these are repeat violations, I think the ban time periods should be doubled. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Vindictive and completely unnecessary. I've been working hard to keep BLP violations out, as my comments above demonstrate. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of what Chris says about working hard to keep BLP violations out, he is a repeat and pernicious offender as far as adding BLP violations to CC skeptics. Monckton is absolutely atrocious. Minor4th 03:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur. If it is one that is a skeptic, ChrisO has used very questionable material while insisting on perfect material for AGW activists. ChrisO has consistently pushed a POV in the BLPs. GregJackP Boomer! 20:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I was honestly surprised to find that Chris hadn't been named an involved party (y'all know what I mean) and that the PD did not make any mention of him.

Because Chris had no idea there was a case going on or that any of his edits might be considered problematic by anyone. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar: Even if true (which I don't think it is), I'm not sure why that would matter. A BLP violation is a BLP violation is a BLP violation. Not sure how the existence of an ArbCom case some how makes it OK. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Lar was being sarcastic -- of course Chris is aware of his own BLP violations and knows that it's sanctionable. There's no way he didn't know about the arb case, and in one of his comments above he said he has been following the case. Minor4th 23:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I honestly thought that ignorance (on the part of an editor with 7 years experience who has had multiple experiences with ArbCom already) of this minor case of little or no importance that just happens to be about one of his current primary topic areas of interest is an excuse. I thought it was, but perhaps you guys are right. As for Chris saying he's been following the case, that doesn't mean he's aware that he might be a party does it? ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it means he knows he can get away with saying he's not a party to it because he knows there are no named parties (which, in essence, means everyone is a party). Minor4th 00:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As always, sarcasm is really helpful. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is that remark directed to? I'm not seeing any actual sarcasm here, but perhaps I'm missing something. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was directed to you. Your remarks about ChrisO seem clearly intended as sarcasm. MastCell ^Talk 19:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I was just repeating what ChrisO had said elsewhere, and assuming in good faith that he really honestly believed it. That you saw them as sarcasm suggests that perhaps you didn't think ChrisO's view was reasonable? ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate myself for pointing this out but that is as poor an excuse for sarcasm as I have ever seen Polargeo (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO topic-banned from CC articles

Sample of problem edits:

• Mean spirit comments toward JohnWBarber.
• Edit war on BLP necessitating protection of the article. [110], [111], [112]. When article protection ends ChrisO gets into more conflicts and reprotection is needed to end the dispute between him and other users. [113].
• Particularly troubling is disruptive comments on BLP that make cleaning up the BLP more difficult.

• Examples of comments on talk pages and edit summaries that show incivility of the type that will keep impartial users from coming to edit CC articles with him. "spelling this out for the hard of thinking", "pig-headed obstinacy", "reply to nut markley", "Booker is a crank, put simply" (edit summary), "Garbage in, garbage out. It certainly explains where JettaMann is coming from."
  • Recommend a topic ban from CC articles since ChrisO has a history of problematic edits in this and other contentious topics. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Another: BLP vio on a talk page: "Watts' anti-science bloviations... crank blog". I asked him to refactor, he refused, so I redacted the smears, then he added back a revised version that said "blog that promotes crank conspiracy theories" ATren (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've looked over the diffs FloNight and others have presented, and I agree with the topic ban. I hope ArbCom ignores the "resigned" sign User:ChrisO has posted on his user page, because he can always return. The editing environment will improve without ChrisO's presence. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that ChrisO's retirement should not in anyway prevent ArbCom from enacting my proposed FoF and remedies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. How many times has Hipocrite "retired" under a cloud? 5+ times? Only to come back after the dust has settled. These actions are little more than going to the bathroom when the check comes.TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposal that ChrisO be topic banned from CC articles. I also agree that his "retirement" should not have a bearing on Arb's acting on this proposed finding and remedy. Minor4th 22:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oh well. I spent some time thinking what to say including showing all of the various provocations ChrisO has recieved but I can only come up with ChrisO bites the dust and his corpse will be food for the trolls Polargeo (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ridiculous proposal by people who have completely lost their way. ChrisO was a valuable editor driven off, as PG notes, by trolls William M. Connolley (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• ChrisO claimed above that I was not notified of the case at any point, nor was I even aware of its existence until after the evidence page had closed. Hence my limited involvement in these discussions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC) ' That doesn't quite square with the facts. He knew about the case as of July 14. [114] Note the link in the edit summary to a case he later claimed not to know the existed. (Arbitrators had accepted the case weeks earlier: [115]). I find it impossible to believe ChrisO had forgotten that the case existed. As Lar points out elsewhere, Climate Change has been one of ChrisO's major topic areas of interest for months. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

New alternate proposal: Marknutley CC topic 1RR + Sourcing/editing mentorship

Mark nutley is currently under a sourcing parole, that has recently been relaxed based on an acknowledgement that he has made improvements under his restrictions. In light of that, I don't think mark now needs to have stricter sanctions of banning and topic banning after he has shown improvement and a willingness to accept help with the issues that he has had. The proposed findings also reference that mark has been involved in several edit wars, but if the particular edit wars are closely scrutinized, you'll find that many of those reverts are BLP reverts when another experienced editor is knowingly introducing material that is BLP violation. In those instances, I don't think mark should be named as one of the edit warring parties. In other instances, mark reverts poorly sourced content -- blog and SPS sources. He's reverting too much, but he's following policy and trying to improve the article with his actions. Mark has also shown a willingness to take instruction and advice from other editors, and a ban and topic ban are way over the top sanctions in terms of what is needed to bring mark into line with the community expectations.

I propose that mark be placed on a indefinite 1RR restriction across all article space. That sanction can be enforced by block. As far as sourcing, I propose an indef sourcing parole/mentorship whereby mark is permitted to add peer-review articles and main stream media content without prior approval, and any other source he must first discuss with his mentor and gain approval. I will agree to be mark's mentor on the sourcing issue if this is approved. Minor4th 19:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems a good idea to me. The proposals about marknutley are far too draconian when considered against those suggested for other, more problematic editors. ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley's record shows misuse of sources, massive plagiarism, edit warring... name just about anything a Wikipedia editor can do wrong, and Marknutley has done it. He also abuses BLP to get rid of information he doesn't want to appear or as a weapon against editors on the "other side" (in one case he argued that providing the address of a U.S. government office building was a BLP violation; see this diff and related discussion at article talk). This trivializes the very real problems with BLP that exist on this site. And I don't see any evidence that he has improved in his understanding of site policy. As for his reverting "poorly sourced content -- blogs and SPS sources" as Minor4th argues above, from seven hours ago we have this. Pray, by what criterion does the Sydney Morning Herald, Australia's longest-standing newspaper, qualify as "poorly sourced," a "blog," or "SPS"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. MN didn't claim it was poorly sourced; he removed it as undue weight. [116] And furthermore, looking at that edit, Mark removed what appears to be the opinion of an environmental reporter who claims that Carter "appears to have little standing in the Australian climate science community." Doesn't any of this raise red flags for you Boris? An environmental reporter in what appears to be an opinion piece making an offhand critical remark about a living person -- Boris, you consider that so reliable that you cite it's removal as evidence of abuse? Consider a similar situation: Lawrence Solomon devoted entire columns to criticizing William Connolley, one of those columns was actually republished by CBSNews, and they've been frequently cited by others, yet if anyone tried to add Solomon's criticism to his BLP, they'd not only be reverted, they'd likely be banned for trying. So to summarize: in a skeptic BLP, offhand commentary in an opinion piece is so reliable that it's a sanctionable violation to remove it; but in a BLP for someone on the consensus side, a more extensive commentary that was more widely published and cited is so unreliable that it's a sanctionable violation to include it. This is what Lar means by the tilted playing field. note: in no way am I arguing for inclusion of Solomon in Connolley's BLP, only pointing out the double standard which is so frequently applied in this topic area ATren (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone should write an essay about the employment of double standards with regards to BLPs by certain editors. Cla68 (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone should. It's quite remarkable. So do either of you have any comments on my proposed alternative remedy for mark? Minor4th 05:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo

• Polargeo topic banned from CC articles:
  • redirect, unprotected an article in the area where he was directly involved and makes contentious edits.
  • Also agree with diffs in Fof 11.
  • Recommend a ban from CC topic area since he repeatedly adds heat to discussion and has trouble separating his work as an admin and editor. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Absurd, but hopefully so obviously absurd that it will be rejected William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo Discussion

Firstly, this includes a presentation of new evidence. Understandably FloNight has not looked deeply enough into this. It is not her fault, but a quick surface skim of the situation from someone who has no background in the area is insufficient. For example what she categorises as a redirect was part of a full merge on an article which I had never edited previously and had been under merge discussion on the talkpage for some time. At the time I did the merge it had 10 editors for the merge and 3 against with 2 neutral. Please also bear in mind that this was a stub of marginal notability on the blog of a marginally notable person who is notable mainly for his blog. LessHeard then immediately undid my edit and protected the article against me, an admin who had not edited the article previously. I foolishly did an unprotect, stating clearly that I would not edit war and I would uphold LessHeard's version. The situation between me and LessHeard was quickly resolved and I left the article alone completely after reprotecting the article exactly as LessHeard requested and I kept myself out of the discussion. After a considerable amount of partisan wrangling with editors weighing in along predicatable lines the merge was put into effect sometime later exactly as I had originally done with my initial assessment of consensus. That FloNight is now holding this episode up as the main reason I should be banned from editing CC articles is quite simply sad. I do believe this unprotect is the only admin action I have ever taken on a CC issue and it was done entirely on the basis that I viewed the protect by LessHeard as a "revert and protect" with the revert being against a strong consensus, which is obviously highly dubious. To prevent a wheel war I then immediately reprotected on LessHeard's request. Polargeo (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not being familiar with arbcom cases having never been involved in one before it took me a while to work out what was meant by Fof11. Polargeo (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you know what he meant by that, but I don't and I'd guess most people wouldn't. What is it? I really wish people would avoid shorthand and acronyms that may not be understandable by everyone. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Fof11" = "Proposed findings of fact, number 11" on the Proposals page. Isn't there a page somewhere on Wikipedia with a glossary of Wikipedese or Wikipedia acronyms? One can always ask, too. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is a high-enough pile of accumulated bad behavior to topic ban Polargeo. I've mentioned before that his bad behavior stemmed from CC disputes, so if you allow him to edit pages related to CC, he'll likely get into another dispute and the dispute resolution will likely cause more bad behavior, so: No participation in CC-related RfCs or AE request discussions either. If ever another editor thinks he can get away with similar behavior, admins can then rely on the example of Polargeo. I've said before that the current proposal on the PD page is too light to do much good. Polargeo was told numerous times that he was going beyond the pale and it never stopped him. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

More unexplainable and rather nasty hysteria from JohnWBarber is in my opinion enough reason to ban him from ever editing wikipedia. But that is my own opinion. Polargeo (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators, don't ignore his reaction. He can't take the criticism one gets as the subject of a complaint at a dispute-resolution forum. As I just said: ...and the dispute resolution will likely cause more bad behavior I didn't expect it would take only nine minutes for my prediction to come true. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

More nastiness from JohnWBarber conveyed as originating with me when I am simply defending myself. JohnWBarber is true to form. Polargeo (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Could we get a civility restriction placed on this page, as there was at WP:EEML. If there are any further nasty comments here, I think the clerks should block on sight. This sort of discourse is just burying legitimate concerns. Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A civility restriction would do no good whatsoever as this has been gamed so much by users such as JohnWBarber. I think we should strive for truth not civility on these pages. Polargeo (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that almost every counter-measure we have tried has been gamed. That's nothing new. Of course, every user has the opportunity to restrain themselves from trolling, baiting and insulting others on this page. Each should worry about themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 15:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"one for all and one for all" Every user for themselves then. A sad indictment and a general lack of backbone. Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad behavior by others does not excuse one's own bad behavior. I wish you'd follow that. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would stop your double standards in which view yourself as separate from the issues we are involved in here and from which you make judgements on others. Polargeo (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary restrictions

Editing Wikipedia in general often involves accepting that you can't get your way. So, it makes sense to look for solutions in terms of voluntary editing restrictions. Jehochman took such an initiative before the start of this ArbCom case. If we look at the issues under discussion at this ArbCom case, we can see that the vast majority of the problems occur in the BLP area. I think it is possible for all the involved editors here to agree to a collective 1 RR restriction.

This means that if someone (whether from the group of involved editors or not) makes a particular edit on some issue, then only one revert of that edit may be made by the group. So, if e.g. Cla68 reverts ChrisO then no one else is allowed to revert back. Disagreements about the edit can from then on only be discussed. One can also post a RFC, one can discuss on the RS board, the BLP noticeboard etc., but no further reverts should be made by the group until there is a clear consensus on how to proceed. Such a consensus will in practice mean that there will be a few who agree to disagree and won't oppose whatever the other editors have agreed on.

I think that this can calm down the area, we may see hitherto univolved editors stepping in who will edit the BLP articles like real biographies are written (Carcharoth has made some comments about this) instead of narrowly focussing on the climate change issues. Count Iblis (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I know you are well-meaning but this will be incredibly gamed. The BLP violations in the articles will never be removed or it'll become such a hassle with the RfC's that most editors won't bother. Any criticism of the Hockey Stick team (Real Climate was founded to defend that graph) will be reverted and endlessly "discussed" until less ideological editors give up and move on. Consensus is a farce when a specific subset of editors is selected and even more so when long term sockpuppets are rarely checkusered and caught.

Ban the people gaming the rules and ignoring/inventing policy in order to get their preferred version of articles. This has been demonstrated in the evidence. More rules just mean the wikilawyers have more toys to play with - kick them out of the playground. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. But note that agreeing to a voluntary restriction requires a change of mindset. People who agree with this should decide to take a step back and be less protective about the BLP articles. BLP violations can be addressed at the BLP noticeboards, so it amounts to putting one's faith in the judgement of other editors.

Perhaps ArbCom could think of suggesting this also as a plea bargain for some editors who are now considered for topic bans. So, for them, agreeing to this would mean that any topic ban would be suspended as long as they stick to this and act in good faith (i.e. they don't game this). Note that the people who have not be named in the PD can, after the connclusion of the ArbCom case, also be brought at AE and be sanctioned. So, it may help to stay out of trouble to stick to a voluntary restriction like this. Count Iblis (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a Prisoner's dilemma situation. It requires trust on all sides, where all sides are extremely motivated (save the world/save scientific truth/avoid being taxed back to the dark ages/save NPOV from the SIFs), and view others as evil. We need more than advocating voluntary bans and self-restraint. However, the voluntary ban/restriction in a plea bargain sounds useful: perhaps all new sources should be discussed on talk pages for 24 hours for the climate area? Slowjoe17 (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Habits are formed by practice. The voluntary topic ban has been very useful in calming the area and in teaching editors how to retire from a dispute for a time. Those who have agreed to, and honored, voluntary bans should not need external bans; they have demonstrated the ability to control themselves. If these editors get out of line in the future, it should be sufficient for an uninvolved editor to ask them to take a break.
• The idea of 1RR may be useful. I'd be willing to see that placed selectively on particularly divisive articles by any uninvolved administrator. In addition, we ought to form a list where editors in the area can subscribe to a personal 1RR restriction for themselves.
• The idea of rotating administrators out would be a good one. Perhaps we should set a voluntary target of 60 days maximum in the "hot zone". As long as people abide by voluntary suggestions, there is no need to employ an actual rule.
• To implement these suggestions we may want to create a WikiProject where we can keep central lists. One that I have been involved in for a long time, and it seems to have worked, is Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Jehochman ^Talk 01:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

K10wnsta raised the issue of the name "climategate" below. This is also a good example for this discussion. You can ask yourself if this is something you can agree to disagree with in the future. Or perhaps not even that, as all you would be doing is putting your faith in the wider Wikipedia community to resolve this issue. You can make clear your disgreement and raise the issue at some appropriate venue, but then you leave it to others to settle the issue. Count Iblis (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Individual 1RR is fine. I'd be happy with an agreement on this. Collective 1RR is much harder William M. Connolley (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification Of Naming Policy

Would the term Climategate, as an article title, violate naming procedures per established policy?

I'm not asking the committee to rule whether such an article should or should not exist (or what content it should contain), rather, I'm requesting clarification of policy as it relates to the title specific so a more effective consensus may be established. The matter has been through RfC's, merge attempts, straw polls, and countless discussions in an effort to do so, but invariably gets waylaid in a stream of wikilawyering based on individual interpretation of naming conventions.
I'm at first submitting this for consideration based on the committee's understanding of said policy and the term itself. If the arbiters require more information, evidence, or clarification, it can be provided.
--K10wnsta (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Climategate" absolutely not be the primary title of any article, nor should the term appear in any context other than the discussion its use by reliable media (such as mainstream newspapers and blogs under their aegis), which means that it should not be used wholesale in any article. With that said, it should remain as a redirect to Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which is its current status. YMMV, of course. Horologium (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's like saying our Great Leap Forward article should be named Mao Zedong's rapid modernization plan controversy. But anyway, this is a content issue, and ArbCom's not going to rule on content issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Perhaps you'd like it to be GreatleapforwardGate? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Or we could, I don't know, use the terminology in the vast majority of sources instead of using invented in-group vocabulary. Am I Clear? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's genuinely the funniest thing I've read this week. I hope that WMC isn't going to catch flak for inserting levity into proceedings. Although I'd be delighted to see this word accepted as an article title, let's face it that there is never going to be a concensus on this.Slowjoe17 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is more a content dispute than a matter of conduct. What the arbitration committee would consider is the conduct associated with this, such as edit warring the term in and out of articles, misrepresentation of sources, disruption of RfCs and other polls of editor opinion, disruptive moving of articles, and so forth.

We wouldn't rule on the actual article title itself (if that is still a problem), but (if there was sufficient evidence that the editing community was unable to resolve this without moderators overseeing the discussion process to prevent disruption) could direct that a final settlement process be set in motion to allow the issue to be settled by the editing community once and for all for a set period of time. This is generally done to ensure maximum participation in the process (outside of those most closely involved) and to allow editor efforts after such a process to be redirected to improving other aspects of the article (you have to remember that outsiders looking at Wikipedia are generally astounded that editors would spend so much time on a single matter such as an article title, rather than trying to improve the rest of the article, or indeed the rest of the encyclopedia).

If certain accounts were focused on this dispute to the extent that they could be considered SPAs on the issue (in the sense that they were commenting on that issue to the exclusion of everything else), or advocating for a name change as part of an overall pattern of agenda editing or POV pushing, that would be a matter for ArbCom to consider.

Having said that, correct use of terminology is important. Indeed, I read an article in the news today (on the BBC website) that used a similar term ("Himalayagate"), but that article (a news article, not an encyclopedia article) was careful to put the term in what I believe are scare quotes. However, I see that our article on scare quotes says "Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion." So that may not help.

One final point: I know the mention of the news article, and the mention of another -gate term, in my comment here was strictly speaking off-topic, but it was intended to illustrate by example. If anyone here must discuss that news article or other -gate terms, please do so elsewhere, not here. All that should be discussed here is what could feasibly be put in a proposed decision, and what sort of conduct ArbCom could address on this matter (as I did in the first part of my comment here). Carcharoth (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Rather disconcertingly, the BBC news article in question has been updated and "Himalayagate" replaced with "Glaciergate", though I see that the typo in the same sentence (a double "the the") hasn't (yet) been corrected.... Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• In a similarly protracted and unpleasant naming dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria, the Committee explicitly declined to rule on the "correct" name for a disputed subject, and even refused to rule on naming guidelines and policy, instead referring the matter back to the community. Given that precedent, I don't think we can expect the Committee to rule on whether "Climategate" is an appropriate naming choice here. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

While the matter of West Bank - Judea and Sumaria was similar, the scope of this request has a couple key differences:

• The West Bank - Judea and Sumaria issue was a dispute between two distinct article names. The intent of this proposal is to determine the validity of an article title as it relates to policy.
• How policy affects our use of the term Climategate has been discussed (at great length) for over 9 months with no clear consensus resolved.

I debated this extensively prior to submitting it and ultimately resolved it was more a matter of policy than content, because regardless of what the committee decided (if they opted to rule on it at all), it would not directly alter the state of any content in the encyclopedia. The procedure of establishing consensus among editors would still be required to make changes.

It's basically a proposal for guidance - if use of a term like Climategate is, in fact, prohibited by policy, there's no point in making further efforts to gather consensus for its use without first establishing consensus to change policy.

If the committee finds it beyond the scope of their authority to resolve, then I propose they issue a request for definitive consensus from the community, on not just the matter of policy, but use of the name in general (ie. the request in the above mentioned case).
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - Proposal for Sanction

Our naming policy clearly states:
Sometimes [a] common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids. In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.
Said policy further prescribes remedy for the resolution of such naming issues:
Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a common name (taken from reliable sources) or a descriptive title (created by Wikipedia editors).

...we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources...

The following source listings support use of the term Climategate (with and without 'quotes'). They were compiled and presented throughout various discussions on the matter.

• List 1
• List 2

And for the committee's assessment, I append the following (which do not use 'quotes' in referring to Climategate):
[117] Guardian.co.uk
[118][119][120] CBS News
[121] Fox News
[122] U.S. News & World Report
[123] Telegraph.co.uk
[124] Yahoo! News
(Note: there are hundreds more)

The term's use even pervades foreign language news coverage:
[125]French, Spanish, and Portugese (at least I think that's Portugese)

Despite these sources clearly meeting the criteria of policy, a contingent of editors have perpetually cited personal issues and assorted guidelines in an ongoing (and so far successful) effort to circumvent it.

In addition to my above request for clarification of this policy, I propose sanctions for Scjessey, ChrisO, Guettarda, Nigelj, dave souza, and Hipocrite* for tendentious editing and gaming the system (specifically, 'using policies in bad faith by finding within their wording apparent justification for stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support'). Evidence of these efforts is exhibited throughout the initial RfC regarding the title of our Climatic Research Unit email controversy article (and the tangent 'Merge' discussion that disrupted it). In fact, their efforts have been persistent throughout the life of the article, right up to the most recent discussion and suggested compromise.
*Hipocrite's involvement is exhibited in the latter RfC
Again, policy states: ...we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources.... It even explicitly dictates how we resolve the use of a potentially POV term (by assessing if it has been taken from reliable sources or created by Wikipedia editors). The editors mentioned above are intelligent and experienced enough to understand the intent of this policy and have demonstrated a meticulous and either knowing or willfully ignorant intent to undermine it.
--K10wnsta (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey: proposed findings of fact

Background: Scjessey has a history of personal attacks, and ArbCom cited some of them on June 21, 2009 in its Obama articles case.[126] Scjessey and I also have had quite a few run ins. It's a long history, but I think it's sufficient to say we don't get along well together. After many months of having no contact, IIRC, we discussed a CC article topic on a talk page back in December, and that discussion sunk into him attacking me. I then stopped participating on that talk page for a while. Recently our paths crossed here, and he's again attacking me. More to the point, he's continuing to attack editors he disagrees with. I think it's bad enough to warrant ArbCom's attention, as it was in the Obama articles case. Over and over again, Scjessey poisons the atmosphere when he participates in talk-page discussions for controversial articles. In addition to doing that with personal attacks, he does it by baiting other editors and assuming bad faith among those he disagrees with, so I include diffs of those policy violations as well. I actually think an ArbCom finding of fact is more important than whatever sanction is imposed because I think such a finding would back up any request at AE if he misbehaves in a similar way in the future. I think the community is then unlikely to overturn any sanctions imposed at Arbitration Enforcement because he doesn't have the longstanding AGW-faction ties to generate support from there and his sanctionable comments are almost always so over the top that a consensus to overturn is unlikely at AN or AN/I.

WP:NPA violations:

• 1. [127] 15:24, 31 August -- Grappling with assholes just covers you in their shit. The context makes it clear he's talking about me. And don't tell me this is outside the case.
  2. [128] 14:13, 27 July -- Wikipedia should be a shining beacon of common sense, not a cesspool of ignorance. This statement in response to: "Jimbo has suggested above that perhaps "Climategate" Controversy would be suitable, any thoughts on this?" So Jimbo's suggestion contributes to a "cesspool of ignorance". This invective goes beyond strongly objecting and beyond even criticism. If I say your ideas would create a "cesspool of ignorance" I'm saying something about you, not just your ideas.
  3. [129] 21:02, 18 February "The tactics that science deniers are now employing to try to bend this article to their point of view are scandalous." In context, he's attacking ATren specifically and editors who agree with ATren on the issue at hand.
  4. [130] 21:12, 18 February "Climategate" is much ado about nothing, and the perpetual rants of POV pushers determined to use Wikipedia to further their anti-science agenda will not change that fact. In context, this appears to be specifically an attack on ATren, and Scjessey made a related comment here [131].
  5. [132] 00:25, 9 December 2009 -- Thank you for your usual spin-doctored, scare-mongering version of the facts with special bold bits that were the same bold bits Glenn Beck showed the other night. I think this was the first discussion in which Scjessey and I had addressed each other in many months.

Baiting: [133] 21:55, 31 August; [134] 21:00, 12 July; [135] 20:03, 13 July

WP:AGF violations: [136] 15:30, 28 July; [137] 23:27, 11 July

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Collapse Scjessey discussion, it's been noted

I think you've done plenty of baiting right here on this page and even in this thread.[138][139][140] When an otherwise productive contributor cracks after being baited and trolled by a disruptive editor, the first thing to do is to stop the disruptive editor. If the upset contributor then settles down, the problem is solved. Jehochman Talk 15:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Scjessey discussion After a bout of diff-diving and barrel-scraping, JohnWBarber (formerly Noroton) has carefully constructed a narrative to support his desired outcome to get me sanctioned. The diffs he has presented do not support his analysis when all the layers of mock outrage and rhetoric are peeled away. Not content with an introductory paragraph consisting almost completely of falsehood, he has mischaracterized and misrepresented every diff he has listed with bad faith assumptions and outright lies. I consider JohnWBarber's submission to be an absolutely disgraceful act of gaming. Specifically, this is a textbook example of example (4): "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction." -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC) OK, you claim JWB has mischaracterized your actions, so please explain the good faith interpretation of your words. Let's start with "Grappling with assholes just covers you in their shit" and "the perpetual rants of POV pushers determined to use Wikipedia to further their anti-science agenda will not change that fact" -- exactly how is JWB gaming these quotes to make you look bad? ATren (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I sadly see this in a similar way. I agree some diffs show that scjessy has been extremely fed up with JohnWBarber but I can only sympathise. In this arbcase JohnWBarber has also called for extremely harsh sanctions against myself based on the most tenuous of diffs. JohnWBarber has shown himself to be a sort of diff warrior, portraying any annoyance with his own actions as a personal attack against himself (for example this very diff will probably end up listed in his next attempt to get me sanctioned). Sadly ATren is very much a fellow diff warrior to JWB, throwing as much mud as they can scrape up to defeat anyone they disagree with. Their recent conversations at JWB's talkpage and ATren's offering of diffs to Cla in the Lar RfC are fair evidence if anyone wishes to call me on this. Polargeo (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Whenever Polargeo puts the word Sadly near the beginning of a sentence, a personal attack is about to appear within the next couple of sentences. I think Collect could statistically analyze it, incorporate it into a graph and present it as evidence by Sunday. The two Sadlys above are the mother lode. Translations: diff warrior = "victim who knows how to respond"; any annoyance with his own actions = "violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks", mud = "evidence of violations of Wikipedia behavioral policy, presented in a dispute-resolution forum", anyone they disagree with = "those who attack them", fair evidence -- well, why bother ... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Sadly JWB construes any criticism of his actions or motivations as a personal attack. However, when it reaches the point when one simply has to question his actions and motivations this ceases to be a good defence. Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Several of the diffs are attacks directed at me, and I had no prior history with SCJ. ATren (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - lengthy block log for disruptive editing: [141] JohnWBarber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - one block for socking I didn't realize JWB was Noroton. That's interesting. Jehochman Talk 14:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC) The [banana] you didn't: "Prior account of the filing party: Noroton" [...] Jehochman Brrr 14:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC) And since I posted on the evidence page a couple of dozen links to the thread in which that statement was made, and discussed that thread on the Workshop page with you, it's a tad difficult to believe that you forgot it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I don't care about you that much. Users change names all the time, and it's not easy to keep up with everybody's newest moniker. Could you please be a little less hostile and take it easy on the assumptions of bad faith. Jehochman Talk 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC) You don't care about me that much but you brought up my former user name in that discussion and suggested a long block. Then I filed evidence against you on the evidence page here. Then on the Workshop pae I discussed with you that evidence against you. Then yesterday I criticized your complaint about the way your name got into the Proposed Decision page. Then you say you forgot the fact you yourself had brought up. Then you start saying (just below) that I'm POV pushing (without evidence) and that I should be named in the Proposed Decision (without showing why). Well, .... sorry, my faith in your good faith is slipping ... just a bit. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Nobody should show you good faith here so please stop calling for it. The fact that you have had conflicts under a previous username with an editor you are trying to get sanctioned and the way you are going about doing it with calling for other editors to give you diffs does not seem to be at all good faith in any sense of the definition to me. I personally have no good faith regarding your motivations anymore so please do not request it. Polargeo (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Yep, and this sounds a lot like an AN/I Barber/Noroton filed on me earlier this year (not able to find the link to it just yet) where he cherry-picked some comments here and there from my contribs, discussions he had nothing to do with, in order to paint a picture of "harassment" or some such lunacy. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Here, let me help. Eight of your previous 50 edits were violations of one of three behavioral policies. Cherry picking? Oddly, you seem to have nothing to say about the diffs concerning Scjessey. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Also this seems to be an attempt at revenge for a long term dispute between Norton and Scjessy if you look at edits to Norton's (AKA JWB's) talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Why isn't JWB mentioned in the proposed decision? An editor with this lengthy block log jumping in and continuing the same sort of activity probably isn't a good thing. Everybody is entitled to their politics, but using Wikipedia for advocacy is not allowed. Jehochman Talk 15:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately he comes under the general umberella of the superficially-civil POV warriors who collect diffs against users who disagree with them. This sort of nonsense should really blow this arbcase to pieces but probably will not. Polargeo (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I suspect that once this matter moves over to WP:AE, and sort of civil POV pushing will quickly result in escalating blocks. Please be civil and follow policies. If you meet editors who act uncivil (even if they use polite words) while damaging content, be sure to report them. Jehochman Talk 15:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC) What you are saying is don't call a spade a spade because it is political suicide. Well I call WP:SPADE. Polargeo (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC) You SCJ can call them a disruptive editor if they are causing disruption, but don't he shouldn't make a comment that could be misconstrued as calling them a name unless you he likes the taste of crow. Jehochman Talk 15:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC) This is a clear mistake which implies I have said something I have not said. I have asked Jehochman to correct this. Polargeo (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Can a clerk please hat the above? If Polargeo and Jeh wish to propose a finding on JWB, they are welcome to do it in a separate section, but the above is just noise in this section, starting with the references to Noroton by Polargeo. ATren (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I was not the first person to refer to JWB as Norton. Also Norton/JWB has had a long term conflict with the editor (Scjessy) who he is proposing sanctions against. That he asked you on your talkpage (and two other sympathetic editors on their talkpages) to help and that you are now turning up here trying to help him speaks volumes. Polargeo (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I'd prefer to address what's been brought up, and I very much want Arbs to read it because they'll see Scjessey, Polargeo and Jehochman in action, making personal attacks right on this page. I think as all three of them continue to do this it becomes more and more difficult for ArbCom to ignore their behavior and assume that it's something best left for AE to deal with. Why ArbCom hasn't already dealt with editors making personal attacks on ArbCom pages is beyond me. As far as using my old name goes -- it's evidently supposed to hurt me or embarass me, but it doesn't. I didn't do anything wrong in changing my user name and I told ArbCom that, very forcefully, when I brought an ArbCom case last year. At the time, by the way, Lar and I were not, ah, getting along all that well. There's nothing like seeing Lar continually doing the right thing and getting a truckload of attacks dumped on him by the likes of William M. Connolley and Polargeo to change my mind. So let the discussion run a bit and read it, ArbCom. Read it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC) As I have previously said anything that criticises you is thrown back as being a personal attack and is then used by you as "evidence" Why not take a good look at yourself (and your previous incarnation Norton) and consider why editors make these statements about your behaviour. Polargeo (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Collapsing this as there is more heat than light right now, and it has been seen. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Under the above hatband, Jehochman accused me of baiting. I disagree, and I think the edits he points to prove I'm right. Also under the hatband, ATren responded to Scjessey's statement and made two pertinent points which deserve responses from Scjessey and consideration from Arbitrators and everybody else:

• OK, you claim JWB has mischaracterized your actions, so please explain the good faith interpretation of your words. Let's start with "Grappling with assholes just covers you in their shit" and "the perpetual rants of POV pushers determined to use Wikipedia to further their anti-science agenda will not change that fact" -- exactly how is JWB gaming these quotes to make you look bad? ATren (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Several of the diffs are attacks directed at me, and I had no prior history with SCJ. ATren (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the clerk wanted to cut off serious discussion and so, despite the hatting, I'm pointing out these sober observations, and I don't think Scjessey or anyone else should think that answering these questions is somehow off limits. I have nothing to say about Scjessey's own initial comment, also under the hat, other than to say I disagree with it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that this is just another example of baiting by JWB, but I'll respond purely for ATren's benefit:

• "Grappling with assholes just covers you in their shit" - nothing more than a figure of speech, akin to "if you dance with the devil, you're liable to get burned" or "don't stick your hand in a wasp's nest."
• "'Climategate' is much ado about nothing, and the perpetual rants of POV pushers determined to use Wikipedia to further their anti-science agenda will not change that fact." - not sure what the problem with this is supposed to be. It's a statement of fact. It's clear that determined POV-pushing by editors with an anti-science agenda is going on, and this entire ArbCom case is the result of that agenda-driven editing. Plus I was right - "Climategate" was indeed "much ado about nothing" as every single report into the matter concluded.

I hope ATren's questions have been answered satisfactorily. I am happy to respond to any further questions about the carefully-dressed diffs presented by JWB, but only if posed by arbitrators. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone being satisfied with those answers.

• nothing more than a figure of speech -- so, if I were to call you, oh, let's say a "jackass" ("Don't kick a jackass because he might kick back"), that would be nothing more than a figure of speech? I don't think so. I think it's a personal attack. Like "asshole". Figures of speech are used repeatedly and well known. And if it were a figure of speech, it still wouldn't get you off the hook, because it would still be a personal attack.
• It's a statement of fact. You're not really addressing the personal attack part of what you said in that diff -- the part that says the perpetual rants of POV pushers determined to use Wikipedia to further their anti-science agenda, which attacks motives and disparages, and the context that shows you're talking about ATren.

Basically, Scjessey's response has been evasive, blustering and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. The edits I linked to are actually a surprisingly large proportion of his edits to climate-change related articles, and it isn't hard to get a good idea of his overall behavior in them because he hasn't been editing much over the past eight months or so. Despite the relatively low volume (compared to others who regularly edit CC articles), his voice is pretty "loud" (in terms of invective) in those discussions. "Asshole" is a new low. What are arbs going to do about it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone an asshole. Please stop misrepresenting the diffs, and mischaracterizing my impact on Wikipedia in general. Perhaps ArbCom would be kind enough to enact an interaction ban on us both, broadly construed across the entire project (and the rest of the known universe, if possible) to prevent you from further sullying my good name with your fabrications. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Here again we see the double standard employed by certain editors in this debate: Scjessey can call me a "denier" with an "anti-science agenda" based on little more than his own prejudice (it's certainly not true), but when someone simply reports Scjessey's own words, they're "sullying his name". For what it's worth, in that debate I was arguing the use of "Climategate" in the lede of that article, and soon after that Jimbo himself went further -- saying it should be the title of the article. So, by extension, is Jimbo also an anti-science agenda-driven denier? ATren (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Simply reported" my arse. JWB has listed diffs with carefully-constructed bad faith commentary to maximise any perception of negative impact. And there's no double standard here - "Climategate" was (and will always be) a non-neutral term invented by science-deniers to draw attention to a faux controversy. Whether or not Jimbo said it was a good idea is completely irrelevant, since his opinion on the matter is no more significant than that of any other Wikipedia editor. Just like "Climategate" itself, you are trying to make nothing look like something by making a fuss over my comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The context is right there in the two comments above the foul-mouthed diff. [142] Anybody can see it and make up their own mind. Since my only contact with you in the past year or so has been to complain at dispute resolution boards when you do things like make personal attacks, you can very effectively create your own interaction ban just by not doing that. I wonder what the arbs will do about this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

←Another thought occurs to me. If my actions have been so terrible that they should be investigated by Wikipedia's "Supreme Court" (SCOW?), why has no other form of dispute resolution, such as an RFC/U, been pursued first? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Because your calling me an "asshole" occurred in connection to this case and it turned out there were a sufficient number of prior examples of your bad behavior connected to the scope of this case to bring the matter here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not call you an asshole. My comment was a figure of speech that had no particular target. You have chosen to interpret the comment this way, but your interpretation is in error. And the "sufficient number of prior examples" is complete nonsense that isn't supported by the diffs. Please stop lying. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I pointed out your statement about people believing in "dumb stuff like Jesus" [143] and you responded by calling me a liar on SBHB's talk page [144]. Also, I'll note that you have had a few enforcement requests filed against (not with evidence I would've used) and that both were closed by 2over0 as either "no action" or as a "warning" (i.e. no action)). What I mean by the last part is that it was made perfectly clear at the beginning of the CC enforcement that no meaningful sanctions would be applied to anyone other than skeptics. Also, considering the volume of evidence on our side we haven't file nearly as many RfEs - and those who have immediately had at least one RfE filed back against them (really obvious pattern of that). TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This makes no sense at all. First of all, I do think believing in Jesus is dumb, and I couldn't care less if you find that offensive. Get over it. Secondly, it defies all logic that you should think that two RfEs constitutes "a few". Finally, I called you a liar because you were lying. Get over that too. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't what you think that is offensive - it is what you say that is offensive. Personally I could care less about what you think of Jesus (I don't even think he existed). What I do care about is a battleground mentality that conjures words that are intentionally offensive to a huge section of the population. And let's be clear here, you didn't say that believing in Jesus is dumb (well, you just did that too - and that is also offensive), you said that Jesus himself was dumb. That kind of baiting and soapboxing is clearly beyond the pale - or it would be if you weren't shielded by the fact that so many admins share your ideology. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care about your mock outrage. I think the whole concept of Jesus is dumb, and I think people are dumb for believing in who is now generally understood to be a fictitious character constructed from various unrelated myths and legends. And I think people are dumb for being offended by someone who thinks they're dumb for believing in something dumb. And I think you're dumb for trying to exploit what was nothing more than a dumb simile about dumb people believing in a dumb mythical construct. And I'm sure this comment will appear in another dumb list created by another dumb diff-diver trying to make another dumb mountain out of another dumb molehill. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your mindset, so similar to that of your compatriots, can't even conceive that what you said was highly insulting - instead you have to pretend to yourself that my "outrage" (disgust actually) is feigned. It was a completely inappropriate statement in a completely inappropriate area. Your unwillingness to recognize this and insistence on continuing to attack me shows exactly what kind of person you are. As I said before, you are lucky that tribal politics is on your side, and frankly I'm glad that it isn't on mine, since I'd rather win or lose based on my arguments than the base prejudices of group affiliation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you, and I'm not in any contest that I need to win or lose. This thread is about me defending the baseless accusations against me made by Noroton (clarification: "Noroton and JohnWBarber are the same individual). You chose to take part in this thread yourself, and it is too bad if you don't like how I choose to defend myself. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You aren't attacking me? I guess I must've been reading a different thread but so far you've said I'm a liar, dumb and in your edit summary you just said you wanted to use "RAID" on me (not very original - you've used that one before). You've certainly done a bang-up job of proving how "baseless" the accusations are Scjessey - perhaps a better defense would've been to not demonstrate the behavior you've been accused of? No worries though, the Arbs aren't reading this so you can continue to be as insulting as possible because I'm just a "civil POV pusher" right? And if I ever lash out in kind (like I have occasionally done in the past) then that incivility can be used as an excuse to ban me. It certainly is a nice little club you belong to. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm done with you, and I will not be responding to your baiting any further. Please find a different crop to feed on. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty clear from the conversation that you've been baiting the entire time and that you are simply upset that I didn't take the bait. I don't expect you to admit this just like you refused to admit that you were attacking me and twisted your actions to be a "defense" in your mind. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I won't comment on much of the above thread, but your edit summary in that last edit was very much a personal attack.[145] Horologium (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

More of a "personal defense" than a personal attack. Sorry, but this guy has been "bugging me" for years now. How do you get rid of bugs, may I ask? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

New proposed remedy: Administrator tours of duty

Administrators are advised to periodically rotate out of hot disputes to help avoid the personalization of conflicts. Jehochman ^Talk 02:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This and the one below are both excellent. I'm discouraged that neither has been proposed on the PD page proper. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

New proposed principle: Stereotyping

It is not helpful to stereotype or label other editors. Calling somebody pro-foo or anti-foo, or identifying them as a member of a faction or cabal is unlikely to result in better collaboration. Instead, focus on the content and quality of articles. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to conflict with a principle already in the PD relating to confluences of editors. And with WP:SPADE which isn't policy but is considered a good idea by many. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My observation is that people who like name calling like WP:SPADE and that it is not helpful at all. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't see any conflict with any other part of the current decision. I'd put WP:SPADE in the general category of "problem," not "solution." There is too much spade-calling and battleground behavior in those articles. WP:NOSPADE is what needs to be applied by editors in these articles and, especially, administrators. Those who feel they can't abide by it should be directed to leave these articles. The "nutshell" summary of WP:NOSPADE seems to have been written for the CC articles: When "calling a spade a spade" means applying labels to an editor, doing so is just going to cause the dispute to escalate, and turn out to be really embarrassing if you turn out to be wrong. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

New proposed principle: Pointing out errors

If editors make persistent editing errors, insulting or blaming them is unlikely to help. Instead, concerned editors should find an uninvolved party to review the problematic editing and leave guidance on the relevant talk pages.

New proposed principle: Experts and amateurs

Experts are needed to help advance articles on complex topics to the highest quality levels. Amateurs are also encouraged to participate because they can perform many useful tasks, such as starting articles, identifying possible sources, copy editing, proof reading, formatting, giving feedback, and making articles accessible to a wide audience. Experts need to be kind and patient when collaborating with amateurs, and amateurs need to be respectful of experts who donate their time to the project. In any case, expertise is not a license to violate Wikipedia policies. Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

New proposed principle: Randy in Boise

Wikipedia does [not?] compromise factual accuracy to accommodate fringe views. See also Wikipedia:Randy in Boise. Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean does not? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh-yup. It boosts my morale to see that somebody is paying attention. Jehochman ^Talk 17:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought JEH meant that the encyclopedia was in the habit of compromising the "factual accuracy" of a subject by accommodating too much fringe content, per the example of Randy in Boise... I was aware that he disapproved of such adulteration, but thought the original wording worked equally well. I suppose I am just too adept at reading JEH's meaning, like his chucklesome misspelling of ego! LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Les, this statement works equally well with or without the not. With, it is a principle. Without, it is finding of fact. Jehochman ^Talk 21:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a nice idea, but sans anonymous trolls there isn't much of this going on. If there was then there would be evidence of such and it would have been presented as a pattern of behavior. This basic idea has been asserted countless times in various ways, but I've yet to see any proof other than the persuasive powers of repeated assertion over a long period of time (i.e. none). TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo - involved/uninvolved

I see remedies on whether or not Lar and Stephan Schulz are/were (un)involved, but no such determination for Polargeo. As I recall, these three were the key participants in this corner of the dispute. It would be good to see such a remedy, if only for Polargeo's peace of mind (though he may not see it the same way). I'm not sure though whether sufficient evidence has been laid out to do this. Franamax (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If remedy 6 were to pass wouldn't that be redundant?--Cube lurker (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed something: Noticeboard threads

Administrators are advised to attempt discussion before undoing each other's closure or re-opening of noticeboard threads. Taking such actions without prior discussion may set a poor example for other users, and could lead to edit wars. Jehochman ^Talk 19:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF: Minor4th has been disruptive

User:Minor4th decided to interest himself in climate change during this arbcomm case, but has not been helpful; indeed, he has been disruptive [146], [147], [148] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF: GregJackP has been disruptive

User:GregJackP decided to interest himself in climate change during this arbcomm case, but has not been helpful; indeed, he has been disruptive [149], [150] etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

The so-called disruption cited above involved restoring a deletion by WMC to the article, and using a peer-reviewed source, co-authored by WMC to support the material that I restored. I believe that the inclusion of peer-reviewed sources to an article can hardly be disruptive since the intent was to improve the article by showing a NPOV, even by using the SPOV to do so. GregJackP Boomer! 22:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The diff refers to you adding this source to support the statement, "Climate change alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming or global cooling." How in the world does the source you added support that statement? Please refer to at least one of the page numbers in the paper (1325-1337) to justify your edit. You should not be edit warring here or anywhere else, especially when it involves making controversial claims that are not explicitly supported by the sources. If the source and statement you edit warred into the article [151][152] are not supported, you need to start using the talk page more and stop disrupting the article. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

P 1326 gives a list of people who have commented on what they perceive was global cooling alarmism in the 1970s. I think the paper is a good source on the global cooling alarmism of the 1970s. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not true. The paper is not about global warming or global cooling alarmism. You are arguing that you support the misuse of the source. Page 1326 is about the myth of global cooling, not climate change alarmism, and Greg's change introduced the words "global cooling" and misused this source to support it. Page 1326 is a list of quotes from people who have "perpetuated" the myth of global cooling. It says nothing about the concept of "climate change alarmism". This can only be described as bad editing. We do not interpret sources to promote our POV. We use sources explicitly, and paraphrase closely and appropriately. This appears to be a deliberate misuse of a source to promote and push a POV. If true, there should be sanctions for this kind of bad behavior, which evidently, has not stopped. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the discussion about these proposed FoF's (Greg and Minor4th) on WMC's talk page looks to me like they are retaliatory because these two editors have been so busy editing the CC articles lately in ways that WMC and his friends do not approve of, but feel helpless to resist because they are currently under the ArbCom spotlight. It seems to me that if editors are following the rules with their edits, they should have no worries about being watched by ArbCom or anyone else. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And we see quite clearly in the above and below, that these two editors have not been following the rules, neither with their edits nor in terms of civility. Edit warring and battlefield mentality is also a continuing problem with Greg and Minor4th. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can go to the RfE archives and look for patterns of retaliatory enforcement filings - it is an easy pattern to see and from two editors in particular. Describing such actions as retaliatory would be used as evidence by certain admins to topic ban "skeptics." TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See above. It was not disruptive, and I made exactly 2 reverts. I stopped at that point, to stay well clear of 3RR and nowhere close to edit warring. How many did WMC make? I also discussed the matter on the talk page. The source explicitly supports the material, see sidebar beginning on p. 1330 and ending on p. 1331, and cited popular media (Science Digest, 1974, "Brace yourself for another Ice Age"; Time Magazine, 1974, ""climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."; Newsweek, 1975, "cooling trend would 'reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.'"; and several books, including "A more extreme book. The Cooling (Ponte 1976). predicts that cooling could lead to billions of deaths by 2050"}. All of these statements are pure examples of "of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming or global cooling." I also attempted to discuss it on the talk page, but was reverted without any discussion on the material in depth. I can't help it that WMC's article provided perfect examples of what he was trying to edit out - but it was not a disruptive addition. I stand by the source and the inclusion. GregJackP Boomer! 01:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is a type of disruptive behavior. Per WP:3RR, "an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Please remember that in the future. As for your examples, I appreciate your interpretation, but we must use sources carefully, paying special attention to explicit claims that any reasonable editor can agree matches the content in the article. So, instead of interpreting what you think are examples, find an explicit claim that supports your material and discuss it in good faith on the talk page. You will find, if you do this, editors from all sides of the aisle, jumping at the chance to help you. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. GregJackP Boomer! 01:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with Greg that the paper does support the text in question and I might be readding it as a source myself. The disruptive edits in question in this incident lie with WMC and Wikispan, because they deleted reliably sourced text from the article. WMC made three reverts, but I think he escaped a block because he didn't revert the same material each time. But, shouldn't that be considered as rather disruptive? Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this case at all and so I won't comment on the specifics, but as for 3rr, it doesn't matter if you revert different material each time - what matters is the number of reverts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, I just readded WMC's paper as a source to the article. I don't have time at the moment, but perhaps someone should study these three reverts by WMC [153] [154] [155] to see if it merits reporting to the appropriate authorities, since I doubt anything will happen by reporting it here. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Three reverts isn't a technical violation of the rule - you would need more than three. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Except as Viriditas was kind enough to point out (above), "an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Based on the pattern of behavior noted in a number of CC articles, I think that a reasonable admin could conclude that WMC was edit warring. Thanks V - your comments were very helpful. GregJackP Boomer! 02:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is really inappropriate here, as is bad faith editing. WMC was reverting POV pushing and bad faith addition of a source that doesn't say what you and Cla68 continue to claim it says. WMC should know this, since he was the co-author. This kind of continuous bad faith baiting and edit warring needs to be called out for what it is - disruptive and battlefield behavior. Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a moot point now, he's at 4 reverts on the article. GregJackP Boomer! 12:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

However, one of the main problems in the area is unequal enforcement. Most admins are completely unwilling to act against WMC et all on anything except technical violations (and often not even then) - this is why BLPs are grossly violated and their civil (and even uncivil) POV pushing is allowed and even encouraged - they are subjective and therefore either ignored or gamed. WMC should've been flat out banned for posting Fred Singer's address and telephone number while at the same time implying he was committing tax fraud - AFAIK that evidence wasn't even posted in the PD. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence of "unequal enforcement". The fact is, socks get blocked and disruptive editors get banned. Tell me, which articles are you currently working on, Thegoodlocust? Can you even remember the last time you wrote one? Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, on the contrary, there is plenty of evidence of unequal enforcement and I did indeed present some of it. The problem of course is that it takes a truly critical and neutral eye to gauge this sort of thing rather than vision that tints and blurs transgressions when looking in one direction while becoming myopically focused and shaded when looking the other way. And why do you keep asking me about my article content? I've explained many times before why I'm not editing anymore and if this ArbCom decision turns out like it might then it certainly would've been the correct decision and one made by many others. Would you rather I edit just for the purposes of appearing to be a hyper-productive and useful wikipedian so I could push my agenda more easily? Engage in obvious theatre with my facebook friends on talk pages to demonstrate my expertise and skillsets in order to avoid sanction? Sorry, but I'm not that devious or that motivated, but perhaps others are. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop bickering and look at the results. We have come to this:

"Climate change alarmism or global warming alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming or global cooling"

This would get you an F-minus in primary school. I'm sure that the average 10 year old can do some research and write about climate change alarmism as this term is used in practice. The conclusion about global cooling the student will come to is that in the 1970s, there was not an alarmism about global cooling, rather that this term is invoked today by sceptics to paint global warming discussions as alarmist by pointing to media reports in the 1970s on global cooling.

While ArbCom should in general not look at content disputes, they can still take a general look at the nature of content disputes. If it's not about two reasonable POVs like here, i.e. one POV would not be acceptable for a primary school level coursework project, then ArbCom can use this to make a decision like : "One group of editors is so much influenced by a POV that it affects their ability to contribute to certain articles in a resonable way."

It may not be the case that this groups is edit warring, they may well play nice and stick to all the rules we have at Wkipedia. It may well be the ones who try to correct the mistakes who, from the point of view of the Wiki-rules, are behaving more aggressively. But what it boils down to is that the group is simply not qualified to contribute constructively to get to good quality articles in a certain topic area of Wikipedia. And that is then the source of the friction. Count Iblis (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not just media reports Iblis, but the same things that are being quoted now (e.g. government reports). Historical revisionism is the term for this, often by people who were pushing global cooling back then and who now switched over to warming. Oh well, I suppose that'll be fixed eventually too - unless some people start claiming CO2 is responsible for cooling. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"F-minus in primary school" is of course exaggerated at best. I have a "10 year old", and she probably thinks "alarmism" is what wakes us up in the morning. Art LaPella (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

These proposals single out editors pretty far down the list if we rank by how problematic they are. If we want to go that far down the list, do we want to put everyone else above them on here too? It's a long list. Also the discussion seems to be mostly about particular content differences rather than about specific disruptive acts. ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The author of a scientific paper doesn't know what his paper is about - and thus we must go by what editors think instead

A rather long headline - but that is what the above discussion can be summarized to. Cla68 and GregJackP both indicate that this is the case (WMC is wrong about his own published paper - in fact he is misunderstanding what he wrote himself). Alternatively it should be added to policy, somewhere, that papers/articles/documents or whatever, can be cherry-picked for information unrelated to the paper/article/document, as long as it suits a Wikipedia editors fancy.

Now it may just be me, but this looks like original research... either in the really pure version where editors come to the conclusion themselves, or the more sophisticated one, where it is allowable to make a synthesis by combining references to conclude something that none of the references themselves do.

I find this rather disturbing. And this to me is indicative of rather a lot of problems in the topic area - but strangely not something that has been addressed at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not just disturbing, but entirely unencyclopedic, and in violation of OR, RS, SYN, DISRUPT, EDITWAR, and CIVIL. Cla68 and GregJackP should both be blocked. The very notion that WMC doesn't understand the paper he himself wrote, is frankly, crazy. I cannot think of a better example of deliberate baiting, gaming, edit warring, and disruption than this. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The paper says what it says. If WMC meant something different, he should have been more precise and clear in his language, but there is no question that pp. 1330-1331 list numerous examples of alarmism in the popular press about global cooling. I find it fascinating the contortions that KDP, WMC and V are willing to go through to exclude a peer reviewed source that cites popular media screaming about the new ice age and millions of deaths. There is no WP:OR or WP:SYN needed - that is what the article says. GregJackP Boomer! 12:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is a textbook example of disruptive wikilawyering. We do not loosely interpret sources or argue for ambiguous interpretations in order to push POV. Your edits are pure OR, SYN, and deliberate disruption, since the source does not support your inclusion, nor does the author who wrote it. The status of the sources as peer reviewed has nothing to do with the problem at hand. One of the prerequisites for editing Wikipedia is a commitment to intellectual honesty, and if you are unable to adhere to that most basic standard, then you need to move away from your keyboard and find another hobby. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a question for you: Is your view that these are "examples of alarmism" supported by the paper, or by another secondary source? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think blocking editors is a good solution because other editors with the same behavior will then step in. It is better to think of an agreement for the editors who find themselves in frequent disputes along these lines. If Cla68, GregJackP, William and a few of the other involved editors would stick to a variant of this, then what would have happened is that e.g. Cla68 could have made the edit about global cooling and William could have responded on the talk page. Then others could have continued the discussion and continue editing. GregJackP could have made his comments too, but he could not have reverted back to Cla68's version if others had changed the text.

By keeping Cla68, William and GregJackP involved, you actually prevent an influx of new editors editing in a disruptive way, because any such editor watching the discussoin from a distance can see hat his/her points are already discussed. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is a pretty clear and serious abuse of a source. The paper is being used to make a point that editors want made, rather than the point that the actual authors and publishers of the source made. That's tendentious and agenda-driven editing in a nutshell. This is how not to edit Wikipedia. GregJackP's rationalization is that "If WMC meant something different, he should have been more precise and clear in his language", which I think speaks for itself, as does the ongoing focus on personalities (WMC) over substance. Whether this sort of behavior is worse than, say, name-calling or rudeness is a judgment call. It certainly seems harder to address. MastCell ^Talk 16:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• This seems to be a simple case of a source misrepresented, spiked with the customary vilification of WMC. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Cla68 has been doing multiple such "experiments" during these proceedings in an attempt to bait/trap. An arbitrator warned him that it was disruptive but he is seemingly continuing? Bill Huffman (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Apparently GregJackP was banned[156] from the article climate change alarmism independently from this discussion, he has now appealed this to WP:ANI#Appeal by GregJackP --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm shocked that anyone is defending GregJackP's behavior here. Having reviewed the source myself, this is a crystal clear case of imposing one's own view on a source rather than fairly summarizing it. When an expert, who wrote the paper in question, points out your error the very least you should do is leave it out and have some very serious discussion with exact quotes and secondary sources that back up your interpretation. Disliking the expert or disagreeing with their position should never enter into this equation. These continuing edit wars (during the case) have now reached a stunning level of ridiculousness. Shell ^babelfish 19:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you add some names to the proposed decision? Jehochman ^Talk 19:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, am I missing something here? I'm only going by the diffs that WMC provided and from what I can tell he is upset that Greg added the words "or global cooling" to the article? Is that a fair assessment?

If those were the words added then they are clearly supported by the source[157]:

"Despite active efforts to answer these questions, the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent (see the “Perpetuating the myth” sidebar). A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today."

"The new data about global temperatures came amid growing concerns about world food supplies, triggering fears that a planetary cooling trend might threaten humanity’s ability to feed itself"

For heaven's sake the paper has a sidebar listing a lot of literature at the time and trying to debunk their findings, but you can't debunk what they were saying. Here is a quote from the siebar about some more literature at the time:

"The Cooling (Ponte 1976), predicts that cooling could lead to billions of deaths by 2050"

I didn't even read through the entire paper, and scanned through the first part and found dozens of examples of "climate change alarmism" from the 70's based on global cooling. That WMC and his friends are arguing that there wasn't alarmism in the 70's is ridiculous to anyone with half a brain, but fully expected by those with fully functioning equipment. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me give you the same question as GregJackP: Is your view that these are "examples of alarmism" supported by the paper, or by another secondary source? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, saying billions of people will die from global cooling is alarmist and I've heard the same thing said by alarmists about global warming. If you want a secondary source though, then you can look at this CIA report from the time period which says that the leading climatologists were concerned about a coming ice age, mass starvation was occurring, nations would collapse, and attributed all sorts of disasters to global cooling. I wouldn't use that as a source for the statement since WMC's paper does that so well, but it does demonstrate how people can rewrite history when they have an agenda. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So in other words - it is not said by the paper, but is instead your own personal view/interpretation/conclusion of what "climate change alarmism" is. That iirc is called WP:OR. Coming to a conclusion that isn't supported or stated by the reference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh were we playing the game where synonyms aren't allowed? I quoted several portions of the paper that make it clear that "alarmism" was occurring during the time period. No it didn't use that exact word, but it did use synonyms. This wikilawyery attention to detail is quite interesting since I've pointed out several instances in the global warming articles where claims are made which not only don't go by the sources, but that aren't even sourced at all. Play your games with someone else - anyone can read the quotes from the paper and reasonably translate that as "alarmism." Better yet, let's get WMC on record (!) and ask him if there was alarmism over global cooling in the 70's. Of course, he won't answer because if he did then this entire exercise would be revealed for what it really is. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no game here. If the paper doesn't draw the conclusion that you do, then it is you that is drawing the conclusion/interpretation, and that is the definition of original research. And the paper doesn't draw that conclusion does it?. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean if you read the conclusion section? A paper is more than its conclusion. Most of the evidence about global cooling alarmism is in the setup to the paper. But hey, since nobody is playing any games then go ahead and ask WMC for me if there was global cooling alarmism in the 70's - and get a "yes or no" answer so we won't have to worry about various interpretations. This should put the argument to rest pretty fast - and none of us want to argue endlessly over the minutia right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Its simple: The paper doesn't say that this is "climate change alarmism", in fact the paper has nothing at all to do with "climate change alarmism". The inference/interpretation/conclusion here lies entirely with you/Cla68/GregJackP - and that is original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but throwing around buzzwords that don't apply like "original research" won't fly with me (may hook in some of the gullible though). Either ask WMC the question and reveal this to be the stunt that it is or not. I'm not going to go into an endless "he said, she said" loop with you and until you do that there is no point in further discourse with you. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WMC has already clarified this. That is in fact what this thread is about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm going to AGF here and just say that you are wrong. WMC did not answer whether or not he thinks there was global cooling alarmism back in the 70's - his objection was merely to his paper being used. There, now you have no more excuses, go ask WMC, if I asked he'd just blank my comment. Go prove that this is just a stunt. Now either dazzle me with your ability to cross party lines or through more artful dodging. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the paper that is relevant here. The question about the paper has been asked, and answered. In this context i'm not interested in WMC's opinions outside of what the paper is about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(OD) The TheGoodLocust keeps asking the same question and getting the same answer, it's the paper in question. I really feel that comments like "Now either dazzle me with your ability to cross party lines or through more artful dodging." is totally unhelpful and is really part of the problems with all of this. Thegoodlocust for some reason seems like it's ok to behave the way he is in this thread, I do not feel it is though so I thought I would mention it. Also this same kind of attitude continues through the whole thread below too. This is not helpful to anyone, it's battlefield mentality that I see going on which has to stop with everyone. HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree I'm definitely upset over this (haven't managed to kill all my emotions yet) because it is so over-the-top ridiculous on multiple levels. WMC has once again played everyone here for an idiot with this useless drama. The reason I asked that question so much is because his honest answer of it would exonerate Greg and show exactly what WMC's MO is. Of course, nobody is willing to ask WMC the question or insist upon a straight answer and so we are left with making obvious inferences - which people can mentally avoid if they don't like the answer. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Section break

I see that Shell is adding FoF regarding incivility and battleground mentality.[158] This was the heart of my case and I wish ArbCom had focused more of their PD around these central issues. I think that GoRight and Scjessey should be added as well. Probably Hipocrite, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite should absolutely be added. He is a drama H-bomb and one could do an entire ArbCom case on his actions alone. He is obviously doing what he has done so many times before though and "retired" in order to avoid sanction. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, he didn't retire, he took a break for a month or so, IIRC. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

GoodLocust, you know the reason that Hipocrite took a break better than the reasons stated by Hipocrite? Isn't this the same thing as claiming you know what WMC meant better than he does? This does seem rather ironic, doesn't it? :-) Bill Huffman (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I claiming to know what WMC meant better than him? You are assuming he even wrote the relevant sections of the paper. However, what everyone should take note of is that none of you will ask WMC if there was global cooling alarmism in the 70s - you all know that was the case (or at least WMC does). The talking point of "Greg is disagreeing with the author!" was just too sweet for you guys to pass up though and so we are playing this stupid game where you all pretend like "or global cooling" was some outrageous edit. WMC is arguing against his own beliefs, you are helping him, and it is all just a stunt to try and get Greg banned. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The correct question would be: "Is the paper in question about global cooling as climate change alarmism? Or does it say something about global cooling as climate change alarmism?" And WMC has already answered those questions. You have chosen not to believe him. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Quit dodging, ask him my question and get a yes/no answer. I don't care about carefully constructed questions that are essentially irrelevant and designed to give you the answer that most benefits you. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stay within the context of the reference. It is the paper/reference that is of interest - not whatever personal opinions outside of the paper that WMC has. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The context of the reference? You've been ignoring that the entire time. It provides loads of references about global cooling alarmism, but you've ignored the context to focus on the fact that it doesn't use that exact terminology and that the paper as a whole isn't directly about that alarmism.

And you are wrong, his opinion is entirely relevant, and it is clear what his opinion is since you've been arguing so hard not to get him on record about it - he knows there was global cooling alarmism in the 70s. It is the implications of that which you have a problem with since it means he either removed a statement he knew to be true from the article instead of finding a source to his liking (easy since his paper contains so many) or this was all just a ploy to cause more drama and hopefully get another thorn in his side banned. These are the options, this is why you've been dodging, and hopefully a few Arbs will see this crap for what it is instead of being swayed by ridiculously simplistic talking points that ignore the actual facts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but i don't think this getting anywhere - i'm done discussing this with you. Feel free to draw any conclusion you want from that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the argument over the use of the paper shows another reason why WMC shouldn't be allowed to edit the CC articles. The paper does clearly state in the two sidebars that there was alarmism involved with the global cooling media controversy in the 1970s. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please quote the description in the sidebars, that "clearly state[s]" that there "was alarmism involved". Please try not to interpret/give your own view, i think that there has been enough of that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Why don't we take this over to the article talk page? I'll start a section there on Peterson's paper (Peterson appears to be the lead author since his name was listed first, so I don't think we should be calling it "WMC's paper.") Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this discussion is very much relevant to the arbcom decision, as it relates to the conduct of the individuals involved - as you yourself just said. I strongly disagree with you on your analysis just above, and I suggest that it illustrates, instead, the value that WMC brings to this project and how you and other editors have failed to adhere to site policies. The blue-tinted sidebar is a list of articles in the popular press, and is by no means intended to illustrate the existence of alarmism as a phenomenon. That is both a misreading of the article and is synthesis. As Shell pointed out earlier, you can't impose on the source what you want it to say.ScottyBerg (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I believe you made an assertion here, which directly casts aspersions against WMC, and that means that you would need to provide the evidence for your assertion here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You know this is ridiculous. You all throw out WMC's opinion with a great deal of drama, but the part of his opinion that actually matters, whether he thinks there was alarmism in the 70s, is ignored, obfuscated and minimized. "Or global cooling" is not some ridiculous edit, just about everyone here, WMC included, knows this is true, but you just can't help playing these one-upmanship games because, quite frankly, this is the best example you guys have of "anti-science" editing and it is pretty pathetic example at that since you have to ignore and exaggerate so much to get any of it to stick. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of this discussion is that he never said there was alarmism in the 70s. Please stop putting words in his mouth. Your failure to "get it" is just further proof that you need to stay away from these articles. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries about that; I'm done with all of you people. But let's see if we can get you on the record, perhaps you have a different opinion - was there global cooling alarmism in the 70s? TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If there was, the older folks here should remember someting about that. I think there wasn't anything more than a fear of a nuclear winter in the 1970s. Count Iblis (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have talked to people who do remember those fears, but memory is a funny thing. I doubt they were as pronounced then as they are now, and perhaps more subject to regional variances, but luckily we don't have to rely on such anecdotal evidence since WMC's paper does such a good job of compiling some of the alarmist claims from the time period (as does the CIA report I posted). I'd be really surprised if anyone informed on the subject didn't think there was alarmism in the 70s because of such a plethora of evidence. As an aside though, the "nuclear winter" fears were alarmist and inaccurate too, but fear has always sold well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The source is not about "alarmism". It's about the myth of the scientific consensus for global cooling. Please read it again. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, just because a paper is about a specific topic doesn't mean it is void of information relevant to other topics. The myopic focus on the topic of the paper ignores the massive amount of supporting evidence in it that justified Greg's edit. His edit was good, the source supported it, and no matter how loud the chorus of nitpicking gets those facts will remain. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit was bad and the source didn't support it. You may be interested in reading our policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Hmmm....I'm about half-way through reading the cited source[159] and it certainly seems to be about the article's topic. Can someone give me a quick 2 or 3 sentence explanation of what exactly GregJackP did wrong beyond edit-warring with WMC? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Show us how the source supports the statement GregJackP added. The source is not about the topic of the article. It's about the mythologizing of the repeated claim by deniers that there was a scientific consensus for global cooling in the 1970s. I fail to see how this explicitly supports Greg's edit. If you, Thegoodlocust, and Cla68 this this source best supports Greg's edits, then perhaps we have finally nailed down the problem that brought this case to arbitration. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't expect a straight answer. The edit improved the article and they know it. The mental gymnastics here is incredible. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A straight answer is requested from the editor or editors adding, defending and arguing for inclusion. That's the burden of proof on Wikipedia. Why don't you show us how the article supports the disputed claim? You can't, because it doesn't. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I already did (and Greg reposted it on the ANI board), I'm not going to repeat myself and I see no point in arguing about it with you any further. I'm sure you disagree with my reasons; I can't force someone to see my reasoning. Also, you reasoning is flawed, you don't convict a person of a crime (Greg) and then demand they prove their innocence - you charge them with a crime and have a trial. Innocent until proven guilty. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Diff? Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: I'm trying to keep an open mind about what has happened here. I've never read or edited this article before, and I've never read this source before. But I am trying to understand. At this point, it is not clear to me what exactly GregJackP did wrong beyond edit-warring. I plan on reading through all the talk page discussions, but in the mean time, it would help me if someone could provide a quick summary of what GregJackP did wrong. If you don't want to do that, that's fine with me. Perhaps someone else might be willing to explain it to me? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Then, let me refresh your memory. You voted keep when this article previously went to AfD in February under the title Climate change exaggeration.[160] The problem has been described several times in this thread. Feel free to read it from the beginning. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: Can you please explain why my vote to keep means that GregJackP did something wrong wrong beyond edit-warring? In fact, I don't even see the connection. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You wrote, "I've never read or edited this article before", implying you were somehow uninvolved in this topic, which isn't true, and you have a habit of saying or implying this in many CC articles. The facts show you were aware of the topic when it was called climate change exaggeration, and you voted to keep it on its AfD. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm...that article was under a different name, and likely had very different content if it was deleted/redirected. That AQFK forgot that he voted about a different article under a different name about a similar subject half a year ago is hardly proof of nefarious motives. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am still researching this, however, it has occurred to me that the argument presented by the OP, Kim D. Petersen, is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it's an Argument from authority. If GregJackP did something wrong beyond edit-warring (which I don't defend), it should be easy to explain why his actions were wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to research it for as long as you like. I've shown that your pretension at being "uninvolved" and unbiased on this subject isn't supported by the facts. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: I did not say that I was uninvolved. If that's the best that you can come up with, well, then I think that speaks for itself. In any case, my query remains unanswered. Can someone give me a quick 2 or 3 sentence explanation of what exactly GregJackP did wrong beyond edit-warring with WMC? Viriditas: Please don't respond to this question. Either you are unwilling or unable to answer it. Let someone else reply, please. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What he did wrong? He misrepresented a source. Knowingly, and willfully — it's hard to plead misunderstanding or ignorance when the author takes the time to tell you exactly how wrong you are. Wikipedia editors do not get to disagree with a source and misuse it to support statements it does not. WMC should not have edit warred to remove it, certainly, but that does not excuse the original source misuse. — Coren ^(talk) 01:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Coren, do you think I'm misrepresenting it? Peterson et al's paper does reference the global cooling alarmism of the 1970s. There was no misrepresentation here. Did you check all the sources I added to that article after WMC and Wikispan edit-warred to remove the content with Guettarda's support on the talk page? There is one side being disingenuous here, and I think it's obvious who it is. I hope that the arbs are now reconsidering Sir Fozzie's "start-from-scratch" nuclear option. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Coren: Granted, I haven't read through all the talk page discussions yet, but so far, I haven't seen any misrepresentation. Can you please explain how GregJackP misrepresented this source? Again, I'm not saying that he didn't. All I am saying is that so far, I don't see it. Direct answers to direct questions would be helpful. Viritas ducked my question, so I am hoping that you will not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that a very unhealthy dose of synthesis and original research was involved. When you have the author telling you "that's not what this paper says", arguing otherwise is difficult to justify — deconstructionism really doesn't apply to scientific papers. There are interesting COI worries about authors critiquing use of their own papers as references in an article, but they do not change the fundamental matter: a paper cannot be used to support a statement if the author(s) of that paper say it does not. Find another source, don't try to twist one to fit your favored interpretation. Especially when the author is in a dispute with you. — Coren ^(talk) 02:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Coren, I really disagree with you. WMC was obviously saying that because otherwise he would have lost the argument, and as the evidence shows in this case, WMC will do just about anything to win an argument, including attacking the BLPs of critics of his colleagues at RealClimate. There was no twisting here. Read the article again, especially those sidebars and answer the question, "Does this information reference the concept of 'a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of predicted, drastic changes in the earth's climate'" Clearly it does, as the paper documents opinions by observers and media predicting ice ages and such for the earth. Then, look at the other sources listed there. Do they speak of the same thing? Yes, they do, and not all of them were written by doubters of the AGW theory. If you and any other arbs are going to get into content decisions here, are you sure that you have looked at it closely enough? I personally don't believe so, because if you had looked at the topic closely enough there would be proposed findings on a lot more editors in the PD. Cla68 (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are misunderstanding OR. Determining what "[...] this information reference[s] [...]" is a conclusion for the paper to reach, not for Wikipedia editors. (Or, arguably, what an analysis of the paper in a reliable source concludes; but then you'd have to cite that analysis and not the original paper). Wikipedia editors do not get to analyze a paper and reach conclusions — we only report the conclusions reached by independent reliable sources. — Coren ^(talk) 02:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No OR is occurring here, Coren. The article text currently says (unless it was changed since my last edit) that commentators often state that there was alarmism over cooling in the 1970s and then compare that to what they perceive to be as alarmism now over warming. The Peterson/WMC paper in that first sidebar is saying exactly the same thing, it even quotes from contemporary climate scientists who are saying and doing exactly that. The problem here is that the RealClimate advocacy crew, led by WMC, wants to push the meme that there is no alarmism surrounding climate change except in the minds of agenda-driven skeptics [161]. That's where the problem occurred with the use of this paper. WMC, Guettarda, Wikispan, and KDP did/do not like that it was being used to change the message of the article from the POV they are advocating, and that's why WMC's 4th revert took the form that it did. Coren, look at it again. That's what is really going on here. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone seriously disputing Greg's edit and claiming there was no global cooling alarmism in the 70s? This drama is ridiculous unless someone actually thinks there was no alarmism back then. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Coren: Please don't insult my intelligence. Saying that WMC is the co-author and therefore can't possibly be wrong is nothing more than an argument from authority. Please explain how GregJackP misrepresented this source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Still looking for a simple 2 or 3 sentence explanation of what exactly GregJackP did wrong

I'm going to bed soon, but I'm still interested in getting a 2 or 3 sentence explanation of what exactly GregJackP did wrong beyond edit-warring with WMC. I'm going to bed soon, everyone have a good night. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To me, warning that an Ice Age is nigh is alarmism. If a source is needed for that, a dictionary is adequate. Nobody is addressing that. Connally's article is used only to prove that warnings of an Ice Age were once commonplace, a fact I remember from my childhood. That article lists several such warnings, no matter what one of the authors says and no matter if it uses the word "alarmism". If this is what academics are like, I hope their peer reviews are better than their Wikipedia debates. Art LaPella (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@AQFK - I appreciate the support, but they aren't going to listen. I can give you the summary explanation. I refused to bow down to a software engineer that the AGW crowd has deemed to be the resident expert, and I used the words that were written on paper, as TGL noted above. There is no need for OR or SYN, it is plain language from the popular media they cited, but he can say they mean that the moon is made of green cheese and the lemmings will follow him and repeat that mantra. That's why ArbCom won't ban him and why any BLP ban will be ignored by him. "It isn't about truth at all, it's about sounding plausible." That's why ScienceApologist can misrepresent 3 sources as peer reviewed and state that they say something they don't, but if we say something that is true and is in the source we get hammered. I've accepted that they'll topic ban me or give me an indef block, and there is nothing that I can do about it. It's not fair, but they make the rules up as they go, so that is the way it is. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 03:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that seems to be the case. You added info that was true, non-controversial and yet it has been blown up into some great sin because WMC disagreed with your use of the source. I've said repeatedly that minor sins from minor players will be exaggerated and harped on while serious problems from the other side are completely ignored - this has proven to be true time and time again. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

← The source doesn't talk about "global cooling alarmism". In fact, its whole point is that no one was ever particularly alarmed about global cooling. It was the subject of some scientific speculation in the 1970s, but no one was overly worried about it. The authors do cite a few examples of shoddy science journalism from the 1970s, but even there they take pains to point out that the scientists quoted were not particularly alarmist.

In fact, the article's thesis is that "global cooling alarmism" is a myth. No one was ever very alarmed about global cooling, and "the primary use of the myth is in the context of attempting to undermine public belief in and support for the contemporary scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change." The authors' point is not that people were overly alarmist about global cooling in the 1970s. Their point is that there was no real alarm over it, although it's convenient now for some people to pretend there was.

So to recap, the source says that "global cooling alarmism" never actually existed (except as a misleading rhetorical device to dismiss concerns over global warming). GregJackP is using the source to support the existence of "global cooling alarmism". That's the two-sentence version. In and of itself, it's a garden-variety poor choice - he's using a source to make a point he wants to make, rather than the point the authors actually made, because he knows better than the authors what their work means. But if you factor in the clearly provocative nature of GregJackP's presentation of the source, and the combative defense ("I refused to bow down to a software engineer that the AGW crowd has deemed to be the resident expert", etc.) then the problem takes on an additional dimension. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That is completely ridiculous MastCell. Even WMC doesn't make the argument that there was no alarmism over global cooling - he and his pals are trying to say there was no major scientific basis for that alarmism (I disagree with his methodology but that doesn't matter). Hell, I even posted a CIA document showing their alarm over global cooling. And yeah Greg has every right to be upset over his treatment here - it is completely over the top. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) GJP used the article as a citation to support a statement (Climate change alarmism is a critical description of a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming or global cooling") which it really didn't support. When an author of the article (WMC) told him he was misusing the article, he should have at least considered the possibility that the author knew more about his own paper than did GJP. Instead of stopping and considering that possibility (and allowing others to give their feedback) GJP chose instead to either assume he knew more about the content of the paper than did WMC, or that WMC was acting in bad faith. The assumption of many people is that someone with that mindset cannot function productively in that sort of an editing environment. (More or less. Four sentence, not 2-3, but as close as I could get it. And a lot of nuance and background is lost). Guettarda (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@MastCell - and exactly where in ScienceApologist's 3 "peer-reviewed" articles did it identify Watts as a "denier"? Yeah, I'm a bit combative - the hypocrisy and verbal gymnastics here is amazing, and speaks to the integrity of the process and the people. GregJackP Boomer! 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me, because I'm not familiar with that situation, and I'm not a big fan of tu quoque defenses in any case. MastCell ^Talk 04:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can read up on it at CC/RFE. I don't like the you too defense either, but I do believe that both sides of an issue should be treated fairly, and that means like violations receive like sanctions. There a hell of a lot of difference between no action for misrepresenting 3 sources as "peer-reviewed" when they are not and changing the word skeptic into denier, and facing a 6 month topic ban for using the plain language in an actual peer-reviewed source. Those that are screaming OR/SYN were doing far more in the other case. NW was involved in both. Guess what? If you support AGW, you get a pass, if you don't, you get an article/topic ban. Don't even begin to try to split hairs on the difference - only a hypocrite or POV pusher or liar would do so, and I don't think that you are any of those. The rest know who they are. The SA case is still open BTW - if you want to be fair about it, you could explain that one to us. Or not. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, ScienceApologist in this instance was an exception to how that bloc usually behaves. Those editors don't normally mirepresent sources like SA did, they just refuse to use sources which disagree with their POV. If someone else tries to use them, they use any argument they can to remove the source and its content [162], as WMC, Guettarda, and Wikispan are trying to do in this article. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that SA did not misrepresent sources. You and GJP, on the other hand, are doing just that in this case. Guettarda (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Also note that, once again, you really need to stop adding misleading diffs to your posts. The diff you linked so shows neither "WMC, Guettarda, [nor] Wikispan", nor do they show "this article". Guettarda (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

<ec> (a) You (GJP) misrepresented a source, SA substituted one term with another that's used synonymously; (b) you put your interpretation above that of the author of the paper, SA's usage was supported by scholarly sources; (c) you edit-warred, SA discussed. So, you see, the situations are not similar at all. Since the cases are not at all similar in substance, I can only conclude that your argument is that his action somehow forced you to act the way you did. And that...well, that makes no sense at all. Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think my earlier comment got a little lost since everyone got so excited about another opportunity for arguing with each other and slinging mud (some at people who aren't even participating in the discussion). There are some here who are not behaving in that manner and it is being noticed (and thank you). In 2-3 sentences:

GregJackP feels so strongly about a topic that he's looking for sources to support what he wants in the article rather than letting the sources write the article. This time he's seriously misrepresented a source based on his interpretation of isolated quotes, despite the source and the author being quite clear they don't support his interpretation. This is an excellent example of how not to write an article.

Several editors have noted that I have begun adding more individual findings; this is a work in progress and more will be added - please bear with me as I work my way through. If it would help, I will post something here when I'm finished so that everyone can make suggestions (with diffs preferably) if they feel anyone was missed. Shell ^babelfish 06:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
@Guettarda: Exactly which of the 3 articles were peer reviewed? Not a single one. That's misrepresentation. SA also reverted and included material, more times than I did.
@Shell: I inserted the ref, WMC removed with an edit summary of "great ref, shame you're abusing it. i should know, since i wrote it". He made a talk page comment of "Nothing at all. It is a shameless abuse of sourcing, presuambly in a POINTy sort of way, so I've removed it again. At a guess, this is part of the "skeptics" campaign to promote as many edit wars as they can in order to provide juicy findings for arbcomm" (note, I don't know where the "removed it again" comment came from, it was the first time it was removed). I reverted with an edit summary of "It is a peer-reviewed source that supports the cited material, please discuss and come to a consensus to remove." I then stated on the talk page "No, it's not, it is a perfectly valid source, and describes the material cited perfectly. The sidebar article clearly lists numerous popular media sources that were crying doom and gloom because we were facing a new ice age, to the point that WMC et al. had to write a scholarly article to "debunk" the "myth." The fact that the word "alarmism" does not appear is not relevant - clearly the common use of the words in the article describe an alarmist take, without having to resort to WP:OR." I made one reversion, before he went into any detail. I did NOT edit war it back into the article - I took it to the talk page for discussion, and did not try to insert it again after its re-removal. Are we not supposed to discuss these matters on the talk page? I still thought that the article was a valid source, but did nothing else - because I did not want to edit war. GregJackP Boomer! 06:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment here does the same thing that you did with the source - my comment did not mention edit warring nor can you even attempt to stretch things and say I used words commonly associated with edit warring. You've also failed to address my actual concern. Shell ^babelfish 08:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"These continuing edit wars (during the case) have now reached a stunning level of ridiculousness" -Shell Kinney, commenting on this case above. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I think I'm beginning to see why some people are pulling their hair out here. Shell ^babelfish 09:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh you think? Greg was accused of edit warring by multiple editors and when he defended himself you acted like he was fantasizing it from out of the blue. Most of the admins on the ANI board and here jumped the gun and assumed he was misrepresenting the source - and either don't have the ability to realize how wrong they were or don't have the moral fortitude to admit it. This entire process is a joke, but you guys finally seem to have found the great excuse you were looking for to ban the skeptics, that Greg added "or cooling" to an article and was absolutely correct in making that edit. Add to that the fact that every time some biting evidence or piercing questions are presented you all vanish like a fart in the wind, pretending not to have noticed, and it is clear what the outcome of this process was determined to be long ago. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@Shell. TGL beat me to it on the edit warring comment. Please let me know what your actual concern is, and I'll address it. I would also appreciate an answer to my question - are we not supposed to discuss these matters on talk pages? WMC deleted "global cooling" and its associated source. I did an Ebsco host search and found a peer-reviewed source. It happened to be co-authored by WMC, which I did not even notice until I was preparing the cite journal template (and which I thought was funny). There is an entire sidebar that covers the alarmism about global cooling in the popular media. I put "global cooling" back into the article, WITH A FOOTNOTE that the article was about debunking the myth of global cooling scientific consensus, and that the article cited numerous examples of alarmism in the press. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS. I did not misrepresent it, and anyone that says that I did is intellectually dishonest. I'm not the only one that thinks that this is what Peterson, Connolley and Fleck said, see Bedford, Daniel (2010). "Agnotology as a Teaching Tool: Learning Climate Science by Studying Misinformation". Journal of Geography. 109 (4). The National Council for Geographic Education: 159–165. ISSN 0022-1341. Writers of syndicated opinion columns in leading news publications occasionally quote the scientific literature in such an egregiously selective manner that only the most charitable interpretation could see the mistake as a genuine oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to misrepresent (examples are provided by Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck 2008). See also Hufbauer, Gary Clyde; Charnovitz, Steve; Kim, Jisun (2009). Global warming and the world trading system. Peterson Institute. p. 115. ISBN 9780881324280. In reviewing the earlier literature on climate change, Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck (2008) note that in the 1970s there was widespread concern about global cooling (escalating to fears of another ice age) I used the same examples as noted by Bedford and Hufbauer! Please also note that since WMC's article has only been cited 13 times, I find it hard to believe that he was not aware of the fact that his article had been used to support the material in exactly the same way that I was doing. Of course, that won't matter, you are looking to lynch a skeptic. GregJackP Boomer! 12:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Greg, this isn't making any sense. I don't see what the Bedford source has to do with your edits. Hufbauer is an economist, not a climate scientist, and the rest of the authors of the book you quote in Global Warming and the World Trading System (2009) consist of one attorney and one CPA, not scientists. The book is published by the think tank, Peterson Institute for International Economics. Hufbauer's quote in its full context can be found on page 115:

Despite the reigning consensus and Hansen's more alarming views, it would be a mistake to think that the scientific debate has been settled. To illustrate how scientific opinion can change, it is worth recalling the views of a few decades ago, when respected scientists were forecasting an episode of global cooling. In reviewing the earlier literature on climate change, Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck (2008) note that in the 1970s there was widespread concern about global cooling (escalating to fears of another ice age), prompted by a temperature drop in the 1950s and 1960s in the Northern Hemisphere...

It would be interesting to see what they say on page 116 (can't view it), but clearly, these economists and attorneys didn't understand Connolley's paper, as the central thesis of the paper is that the scientific opinion did not change. This fact evidently eluded a group of economists and attorneys who chose to cherry pick Connolley's paper and to misrepresent it in a book that "looks at the economic aspects of greenhouse gas emissions and seeks a policy method to reduce them without adversely affecting global trade." This is generally why we don't use books published by think tanks as sources. In any case, I fail to see how either Bedford or Hufbauer support your edits so we are back to square one. Do you think that Bedford or Hufbauer supports your edits? I would love for you to show us how. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

MastCell: You seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say that "The source doesn't talk about "global cooling alarmism". In the other hand, you say "the article's thesis is that "global cooling alarmism" is a myth". How can the article not talk about global cooling alarmism while simultaneously be it's thesis? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@GJP - I thought you were talking about the word "denier" (which was the focus of the RFE), not "peer reviewed". I apologise for my mistake. Guettarda (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No prob, that's understandable. Please look at the two sources (1 peer reviewed journal, 1 book) that cited Connolley's article in exactly the same manner that I did. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice find on the articles, the Bedford one especially, which made a very interesting read. The problem with them is that they don't support your usage. You used the Peterson et al. article to support a definition of alarmism. The Bedford article does not use to define "climate change alarmism", nor does the Hufbauer et al. book (at least the portion you quoted). Guettarda (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I was about to state exactly the same - Your new references also do not support the text either. The book does mention alarmism in the context (but that is in referral to James Hansen's "more alarming view" (on global warming in comparison with the IPCC's) - their statement is that there was "widespread concern about..", which certainly isn't even remotely "alarmism". It is possible to see the text of the book on Amazon (US), the text is on page 115-116. Your quote from the paper (which i can't access) is about misrepresentation not alarmism. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)i'd appreciate a copy from Guattarda, if possible :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Thanks :)

This discussion on secondary sources needs to take place on the talk page of the article. The discussion here is about misuse of the primary source by Wikipedia editors, which took place in the absence of any of these secondary sources. In other words, it's not about whether one can or cannot support their usage from reliable secondary sources because that's moot. It's about whether editors warred, in the absence of such sources, to get their way. --TS 13:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that i disagree - but unfortunately the two new references that GregJackP presents are equally misrepresented. They do not support his assertions, and that seems to be relevant for this discussion. I'll gladly forward both references (screencopy's of the Amazon book though) for purview. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose that we draw this repetitive discussion to a close

As I understand it, the situation is that a number of uninvolved admins have weighed in on the appeal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [163], and most seem to agree with the perspective that there was a misuse of sources and a topic ban is being discussed, while Lar has expressed disagreement. Count Iblis has proposed an alternative, which is a voluntary restriction within the topic to be adopted by GregJackP and a couple of other editors. As yet this alternative proposal doesn't seem to have gained traction.

Repetitively asking for yet another explanation of the nature of the disruption seems unwise, so I propose that we ask all parties to drop it. --TS 09:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What possible motivation would I have to do that? Roll over and play dead? Not happening. GregJackP Boomer! 13:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It has gone on for a long time but I think that it has been valuable and not a waste of space. I hope that the arbitrators have followed this discussion closely, as well as the related CC enforcement board and ANI discussions, because we have here a repetition, in real-time, of the kind of disagreements that have gone on repeatedly in the CC articles. In this case, experienced editors have willfully misused a scientific paper to make quite the opposite point that it was intended to make, which was to deemphasize the impact of global cooling allegations in the 1970s.

It's not often that the author of a scientific paper happens to be around to dispute the spin being placed on a source by Wikipedia editors, which only goes to underline the depth of the effort to POV push here. That author, however, happened to be WMC, so we have introduced a common theme in these articles, which are constant efforts to villify Dr. Connolley[164]. In the related AN/I discussion, we have unanimity that this was a violation of policy and a misrepresentation of soruces, with every administrator advocating sanctions except, predictably, Lar. There was much the same outcome on the CC enforcement board [165], and the discussion there seems to be continuing.

I hope that arbcom gets a sense of how frustrating it is to edit articles like this in the face of such determined POV pushing and misinterpretation of basic policies. The enforcement board discussion underlines the need for new administrators entering this area.

I don't believe that a topic ban on GregJackP will be sufficient or will prevent this kind of thing from recurring. There are other editors who argued just as strenuously for this source to be misused, and they need to be held accountable. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going through the diffs and the source, and so far, I do not see any misconduct by GregJackP other than simple edit-warring. I'm currently constructing a time-line of the incident on my talk page which I will comment on later once I have a better understanding of the situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, and Cla68 has raised roughly the same point (regarding the source, not the editor) on the article talk page. However, uninvolved administrators went through the same diffs and source at the CC enforcement board and ANI, and found that the source was misused, and imposed sanctions. This endless bickering over settled issues and misreading/misapplication of policy, sometimes by experienced editors, is what makes this topic area so frustrating. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not how it seems to be going. Yesterday seems to be a knee-jerk reaction based on argument from authority. So far, I'm not seeing much substance to the actual allegations against GregJackP beyond simple edit-warring (which I don't defend). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that you can give the admins who stepped in on this a little more good faith than that. As of this writing there has been no change in the consensus among admins on both enforcement board concerning the finding that the source was misused. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Cla68 replaces RealClimate by a book by Ian Pilmer to "improve" the sourcing of a statement. At this point we can still WP:AGF. A reasonable argument can be made that it is better to replace RealClimate by a published source. If you are sceptical about global warming, you may think that the book "The Hockey Stick Illusion" is a good source. However, after he is reverted, with an objection about his source, Cla68 decides to revert back, instead of taking serious the complaint and doing an effort to find sources that are better than RealClimate that he knows would satisfy the editor(s) he is disagreeing with, i.e. peer reviewed sources.

Cla68 then decides to replace RealClimate by the book "Heaven and Earth" by Ian Pilmer in the main global warming article, although we can't be sure that Cla68 knew that he had been reverted on the "Proxy (climate)" article a few minutes earlier.

We can then no longer WP:AGF in the sense of assuming that Cla68's behavior helps to improve the articles. But I would still assume that Cla68 intents to improve the articles. It is just that his opinions about climate science are very strong, affecting his judgement to such a degree that he cannot contribute constructively to this area. I therefore think that Cla68 should stick to 0RR on CC articles regarding edits relating to scientific statements. Count Iblis (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Both Illusion and Plimer's book are reliable sources according to WP:V. I, and I assume, others, may use them as sources again in the future. In my experience, attacking reliable sources and trying to use unreliable ones in their place, such as a self-published blog, is a sign of agenda-driven editing. Cla68 (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Illusion was used as a source in this academic paper. Cla68 (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is cited as a source in numerous academic papers. I'm not sure that has much bearing on whether we use it as a reliable source in our articles. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Academic Hartwell certainly was, but it does not meet our standards for a reliable source on the science. It's quite wearying to have to explain over and over again that our statements on science are based on formal review summaries of peer reviewed research, not books written by retired accountants. Not even, need I add, position papers compiled by multidisciplinary public policy strategy groups. --TS 22:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• This issue was raised in evidence with particular reference to Cla68 attempting to use both these books as sources for factual statements, in clear violation of the WP:SOURCES policy requirement that the work and its author should also be considered for reliability, and of evidence that the latter promotes fringe views.[166] Illusion has since received a couple of mainstream views, which describe it as showing "glaring inaccuracies",[167] and lacking credibility.[168] As discussed here earlier, the book includes blatant misinformation, for example Chapter 1 makes a great deal of the assertion that the IPCC First Assessment Report of 2001 showed a Medieval warm period warmer than today, and claims that scientists then conspired to pretend that it was only regional, but the report itself states that it may not have been global.p. 199 Despite this, Cla68 has continued to use this book as a source for allegations about living people.[169] . . dave souza, talk 13:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I consider Cla68's campaign to compromise sourcing standards within the topic area to be a pretty serious threat to the integrity of our science articles. He continually shows a pattern of favoring scientifically incompetent sources which have a history of misrepresenting the state of the science and, occasionally, present serious BLP problems. For instance, the Hockey Stick Illusion, written by a retired accountant, falsely presents the conduct of prominent scientists as deceptive and deeply dishonest. --TS 15:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Neither of you are following WP policy with what you're saying above. WP's policy allows, nay encourages, the use of independently published books as sources. If I or someone else uses Illusion as a source in an article and you have a source which says something different, we're supposed to work together on the article talk page to come up with a compromise solution, which usually entails giving both sides of the issue, i.e. what Illusion is saying and what the other book is saying. That's called collaboration, cooperation, and compromise and is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Your attitude is distinctly unhelpful, as you both are basically saying that you will try to prevent the use of sources you personally don't agree with [170] [171]. That is not how the wiki works. Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no shades of gray in Cla68's world. As best I can tell, his view is that the suitability of a source is a strict yes-or-no proposition. So, the New York Times is reliable -- period. Books by major publishing houses are reliable -- period. And so on. I'm sure he means well but unfortunately this violates policy. WP:V is very clear: The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

From reading the above comments, it appears to me that Dave Souza and Tony Sideaway are the ones who are showing no shades of grey. I'm the one saying that we have to work together to figure out how to use the sources in the article if there is a disagreement on the sources' conclusions. Dave and Tony are saying that certain sources cannot be used, no way, no how. See that "cranks" diff I provided above from Tony to see what I mean. They are the ones who are taking a Yes No position on sources. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So, an accountant writing a book about fringe scientific views regarding climate change deserves mention in a Wikipedia scientific article? Wouldn't this likely be providing undue weight to fringe views? Bill Huffman (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Cla68, you appear to have misremembered my position, clearly set out in various discussions, that the sources you've proposed can be used for the opinions of their authors where these opinions are significant to the topic, but as fringe sources lacking a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy can't be used for factual information. WP:SOURCES requires evaluation of sources, which you seem intent on disregarding, and we don't give undue weight to every published minority opinion. . . dave souza, talk 07:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute Dave, McIntyre and McIntrick have had their papers criticizing the hockey stick research published in peer reviewed science journals, their findings have been upheld, in part or in whole, by two independent investigations which presented their findings to a US Congressional committee, Montford's book has been used as a source in two academic papers, including The Hartwell Paper signed by several prestigious climatologists and economists including Mike Hulme, Judith Curry has recommended the book in spite of vicious criticism for doing so from RealClimate (and on WMC's blog), and recently one of the Climategate investigations found that several of the involved paleoclimatologists have been using "sloppy" statistical record keeping and conspired with each other to break the law to keep from giving their data to McIntyre and his colleagues, and you are trying to say that the criticism of the temperature proxy research is fringe? Are you sure that you have a neutral, objective perspective on that topic? Cla68 (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that neither of the sources should be used in the article Proxy. I don't think it's been shown here that this matter rises to the level worthy of being noticed in the ArbCom decision. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

<ec> Come on Cla, you're not still pushing that tendentious nonsense that "every author' of an interdisciplinary paper (a white paper, mind you) is responsible for every trivial little footnote, are you? That's the point of collaborative works, there's a division of labour. That's the point of interdisciplinary works - people bring what they know, and trust that their collaborators also know what they're talking about.

Oh, and by the way, you can't accuse people of "conspir[ing] with each other to break the law". That's a serious accusation. And you can't pretend that just because you haven't named the persons that it's OK. The bloggers from whom these accusations have emanated have named the people they have smeared with claims of criminal behaviour. Making unsubstantiated claims of criminal behaviour against living people is a serious violation of WP:BLP. For someone who claims to take BLP so seriously, you seem very selective in how you apply it. Guettarda (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember, Guettarda, at least one of the investigations found that the CRU scientists had failed to comply with FOIA laws but recommended no action be taken because the statute of limitations had expired. There will be several more books forthcoming on the incident. If they are independently published, then they will meet our definition as reliable sources. I hope that several of the regulars involved in the CC topic will stop trying to block reliable sources simply because the sources say things or draw conclusions that those editors do not agree with. Cla68 (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Cla68, you seem to be evading the clear requirements of WP:SOURCES policy that we consider the reputation for fact checking and accuracy of the writer and the work itself, as well as the publisher. Your misrepresentation of the FOIA findings is beside the point. Misuse of sources is a serious issue, and your actions in trying to misuse sources that clearly make false claims have to stop. . . dave souza, talk 10:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I really probably shouldn't dignify that statement with a response, Dave, but let me say again that the book was used as a source by two academic papers, which is two more than probably hundreds, if not thousands, of other books used as sources in Wikipedia have been. I think we understand that you personally don't agree with the book, but you should know that that's not how Wikipedia works. We use reliable sources and then collaborate, compromise, and cooperate to expand and improve our articles, not look for ways to keep out information we personally disagree with. Cla68 (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You still seem to be pushing, Cla. Many unreliable opinionated publications are cited in academic sources, that doesn't make them suitable for findings of fact. As has been shown by reviewers and by simple examination of "the book", it contains blatant misinformation, and clearly expresses the fringe views of Montford. That rather restricts its uses on Wikipedia. . . dave souza, talk 11:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

the book was used as a source by two academic papers - no, it wasn't. It appears in the reference list, which is enirely different. For example, the dreadful Soon and Baliunas paper [172] has been cited by 115 papers [173], fourth one down but most of those cites in the literature will be from people saying how awful it is. You simply cannot use "has been cited" as a measure fo quality William M. Connolley (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Both Illusion and Plimer's book are reliable sources according to WP:V - this, and a whole load of other edits by Cla, are really him condenming himself out of his own mouth. He really does have no idea about different standards of reliability between trash popular "skeptic" books written for the "skeptic" crows and real reliable sources, such as RC William M. Connolley (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed finding: A Quest For Knowledge's battlefield conduct

A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior,[174][175][176] including edit warring,[177] [178][179] [180][181][182][183] and comments that were incivil[184][185] and reinforced a battleground mentality.[186][187][188]

Viriditas (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the diffs on edit warring occured in one 11-hour period on April 5. The first and second diffs link to the WP:GSCCRE complaint Dave souza filed and NuclearWarfare's 24-hour block in the same incident. So we've got five out of the 12 diffs (and five out of the first six) from one day. The whole thing stems from AQFK's stated belief that he was protecting the article from a BLP violation in the text he was removing. Five minutes after he first removed the information, AQFK suggested that the matter be resolved on the talk page or at the BLP noticeboard. [189] The incivility charge links to edits from December 9 and November 29, 2009. Viriditas, you don't have any more recent incivility than that? One of the three "battleground mentality" diffs is from January 29, the other two are from are from December. The one edit I haven't mentioned yet, the third diff of "disruptive behavior", points to a comment by someone else in a Dec. 5 discussion, and I don't have the time or energy to look into it. So the most recent incident is April 5, when AQFK says he thought he was protecting an article from a BLP violation -- a matter which was discussed at WP:GSCCRE and for which the editor was blocked. Viriditas, what is it about this set of diffs that leads you to believe it's worth asking ArbCom to take action? And what leads you to believe that these incidents point to a risk of future harm to the encyclopedia from AQFK? Do you have anything more recent than this? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I only posted diffs that showed edit warring by AQFK and a resultant block. There are dozens of diffs showing edit warring over a longer period in that same article. Viriditas (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Behavior that's already been addressed by the authorities is background, I think. My questions above stand and they aren't rhetorical. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not background. Disruptive behavior that requires a finding of fact in regards to this specific editor. A closer analysis shows a history of tendentious editing on this topic by AQFK, and his portrayal of the discussion page as a battleground. He calls those who disagree with his edits "minimizers"[190] and threatens to fight the war until he gets the result he wants.[191] To this end, he describes working with editors who disagree with him as "completely pointless".[192] These are not the words and actions of someone interesting in working with others and building an encyclopedia. These are the words and actions of a hardened warrior, who slowly over time, has become a SPA with a singular mission of promoting one POV. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: Edit warring and blanket reversions of two different editors on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming from June 10, added to diffs. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed finding: A Quest For Knowledge and BLP

A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) has not shown good judgment or understanding of BLP and has defended speculation and inclusion of negative BLP content,[193][194][195] going so far as to refer to climate scientists as "criminals" on the talk page[196] and to claim in the article that a crime had been committed.[197]

Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The way I recall it -- am I wrong? -- that final link points to a true statement: A crime was found to have been committed and the six-month statute of limitations had expired. I think AQFK's January 28 edit summary saying the "criminals" got off on a technicality is a minor BLP violation, but it's unlikely to ever be read again, given that it occurred in an edit summary a now-archived discussion page. None of the first three diffs seem to point to BLP violations. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC) corrected my mistake; same point applies a little less strongly -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there were two BLP violation in that set of diffs, and User:KillerChihuahua was forced to modify AQFK's comments on the talk page.[198] The second violation occurred in the article.[199] His rationale for adding BLP attacks on scientists? "As a non-partisan in the war between the two AGW factions, I decided to be bold and make the change."[200] If this wasn't such a serious violation, his self-description as "non-partisan" would be funny. We can see from the discussion and continuing efforts at painting climate scientists as villains, that AQFK is everything but "non-partisan". The behavior needs correcting, and AQFK needs to find a new topic to edit, preferably one he doesn't feel so strongly about. Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I don't even remember that discussion but I don't think that Viriditas is doing his homework very well. Take a closer look. I'm actually suggesting the removal of the possible BLP violation, not it's addition. Also, KillerChihuahua is most likely wrong since the article was citing reliable sources. One of them is now a broken link but the other is still available here.[201] Anyway, since then, I've become much more careful about what I say even when discussing possible BLP violations. See this for evidence.[202][203] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't "recall" that discussion, yet you ask me to do my homework? What a strange thing for you to say! Stranger still, is your incredible, beyond belief excuse: "I'm actually suggesting the removal of the possible BLP violation, not it's addition." Before I show, with diffs, how that excuse is impossible based on the diffs and timestamps immediately prior to and after your comment on the talk page in question, I must ask, could you explain how it could be possible? I've heard some wild excuses in my time, but this one, during an arbcom case no less, really takes the cake. When you're stuck in a hole, it's best to stop digging, not bury yourself alive. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

JWB: A crime was not found to have been committed by anyone - you need to be more careful re BLP too. For such a statement to be true under English law, the person you are speaking about would have to have been found guilty in a court of law. My memory of the facts is that one person from the Information Commissioner's Office wrote that in his opinion there was prima facie evidence of a breach of the law. No one was tried and no one has been convicted of anything, so there are no criminals as far as BLP goes.[204] --Nigelj (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop straining: That a crime has been committed isn't impossible for authorities to determine without having convicted someone. Coroners do it all the time. Let's not distract anyone any further from the subject here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The assumption that a "crime has been committed" is wrong. Prima-facie means that there is suspicion of a violation (not evidence of a violation) ... in other words enough to warrent an investigation, but not enough to convict. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the edit in question does not say that a "crime has been committed" or that anyone has been convicted. Rather it says, "Allegations that UEA violated the Freedom of Information Act were confirmed by the Information Commissioner's Office but the people involved cannot be prosecuted because the complaint was made too late."[205] The cited sources (in the body) have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking as well as editorial oversight:

• BBC News[206]
• The Guardian[207]
• The Telegraph[208]

If there's a BLP violation here, I'd love to hear someone try to explain it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP violation here either; what we have here are very close paraphrases of what top-class sources were saying. --JN466 03:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Please follow the edits closely: The content in the article prior to AQFK's edit said the following in two different sections. First, from the Timeline section:

On 27 January 2010, the ICO released a statement finding that Freedom of Information Act requests to the University had not been "dealt with as they should have been" under section 77 of the Act, but said no legal action could be taken against those involved because the six-month limit for prosecution set by the Act had expired.[209][210][211] The statement said the ICO was collecting evidence from this and similar cases to support a proposal to change the statute of limitations.[212]

Next, the same claim is repeated for a second time in the Content of the documents#E-mails section:

Officials from the Information Commissioner's Office have stated that the e-mails show that requests under the Freedom of Information Act were "not dealt with as they should have been," and that the CRU breached rules by withholding data.[213]

That was the state of the article prior to edits by AQFK. At 18:15, 28 January 2010, on the talk page, AQFK called the scientists "criminals", and referred to a biased article in The Daily Telegraph,[214] a center-right, conservative broadsheet newspaper, hardly considered a "top-class source".[215] AQFK asked editors on the talk page, "Should this be added to the article?" Some minutes later, at 18:55, 28 January, AQFK adds material to the lead section without sources, admitting that he was paraphrasing what was already in the body of the article at that time, and by default, he was relying on a summary of that source. The hidden inline comment in the diff of his edit shows this is what AQFK said, and I reproduce AQFK's edits below with the inline comment intact:

Allegations that UEA violated the Freedom of Information Act were confirmed by the Information Commissioner's Office but the people involved cannot be prosecuted because the complaint was made too late.<!--in accordance with [[WP:LEAD]], this summarises fully cited statements in the body of the article and is supported by these citations. Please discuss any proposed changes first.-->[216]

The body of the article that AQFK claimed to summarize, did not say that the "UEA violated the Freedom of Information Act". As the talk page and subsequent edits showed, AQFK came to the personal conclusion that the scientists were criminals, and decided to use Wikikpedia to push his POV in the lead section, while at the same time, making a false claim in an inline note saying that the material "summarises fully cited statements in the body of the article". Clearly, it did not. Having been here for a while now, I can say that the "trick" AQFK pulled here is a common one with POV pushers. What AQFK managed to do with this edit, is bypass consensus on the talk page and consensus for the content that was already in the article, simply by claiming he was summarizing when he wasn't. Anyone can compare the text above and see that AQFK was not summarizing from the article. It's a beautiful "trick", but at the end of the day, it's disruptive and damages the good faith relationships between editors on the talk page, and overall, the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is, of course, in addition to the BLP violation you linked to from the talk page[217] AQFK wrote "Wow...so the criminals are going to get off on a legal technicality". It's a clear violation of BLP to label identifiable, living persons as "criminals" when (a) no one was charged with an offence, (b) no one was convicted of an offence, and (c) even if someone had been convicted of an offence, it wasn't a criminal offence. Calling someone a "criminal" in a case like this is clearly an egregious violation of the BLP policy. If you can't understand that, then you really shouldn't be editing articles about living people. Guettarda (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is over the top. In the opinion of the ICO, a law was breached, as reported by multiple reliable sources, and while I am not a lawyer, my British English dictionary defines "crime" as "an act or omission prohibited and punished by law", "unlawful acts in general", or "an evil act". Given the circumstances, I think AQFK was well within the bounds of ordinary human discourse, using words in the meaning in which they are commonly understood. --JN466 07:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not every breach of the law is a crime, not every person who breaks a law is a criminal. People exceed the speed limit, people drive cars that fail emission tests...without being criminals; failing to file a bit of paperwork in a reasonable amount of time isn't a criminal offence. Equally importantly, we don't refer to people accused of a crime as "criminals". We can use that term for someone convicted of a crime. But the simple allegation of wrongdoing is not enough to label a person as having committed the act. If you don't understand something that basic, you just don't get the BLP policy. Guettarda (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, Viriditas. The BBC article is titled "Climate e-mails row university 'breached data laws'" and quotes the Deputy Information Commissioner as saying it is an "offence under section 77 of the FoI act 'to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information'" and that "as the case was more than six months old 'the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone' under existing legislation." It quotes the university vice-chancellor referring to "The ICO's opinion that we had breached the terms of Section 77". What AQFK did was paraphrase, and you are complaining about nuances in wording, such as editors disagree and quibble over every day, without being dragged to arbcom. You may not have liked the wording "violated the FoI act", but it could equally well be argued that the above-quoted wording that was in the article before AQFK's edit was a tad watered down compared to what the sources said, for example by saying the university had broken "rules" instead of a "law". And one could, in good faith, entertain the notion that "violating a law" and "breaching a law" are synonyms in some editors' minds.

The Daily Telegraph is a quality UK paper just like the Times or the Guardian, and it is just as ridiculous to dismiss it as a "biased" "center-right, conservative broadsheet newspaper" as it would be ridiculous to dismiss the Guardian as a "centre-left, liberal tabloid". These are the best papers Britain has got, mate. Each paper has its political allegiances. And even so, the Guardian article uses much the same terms as the Telegraph: "flouted Freedom of Information regulations", "not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation", "such a breach of the Act could carry an unlimited fine", "prosecution", "legal sanction", "serious breach", "offence", "recourse in law". It is indeed remarkable how much these three sources are in agreement. --JN466 06:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not true, again. AQFN claimed to summarize the article in his edit. However, nowhere in the article did it state that "allegations that UEA violated the Freedom of Information Act were confirmed". This is something AQFN added to the lead without references, in violation of consensus on the subject. As for the article in The Daily Telegraph that AQFN had just read, it just so happens that The Daily Telegraph is not considered a reliable source on the subject of climate change. Just a small sample of sources pointing out this problematic source:

• "The Daily Telegraph, and their Sunday edition counterparts, have remained the main sources of coverage that has denied the role of human contributions to climate change." - Boyce, Lewis. (2009) Climate Change and the Media. Peter Lang. ISBN 143310460
• ....the Daily Telegraph offered the view that 'to many scientists, the likelihood of man-made global warming is about as credible as stories of goblins and fairies'. -Newell. (2000) Climate for Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521632501
• "...the public perception of health risks from climate change is filtered through media that can often tend to sensationalize stories and amplify disagreements to present polarized positions...For an example of the former, take the following headline from a recent edition of the Daily Telegraph..." -Relman, Hamburg, Choffnes, Mack. . (2008) Global Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events. National Academies Press. ISBN 0309124026)
• "The Daily Telegraph bizarrely used an anonymous leader on the tsunami in Asia to question the value of cutting emissions: "Whether or not this would have the effects claimed by ecologists - and the science is inconclusive - any gain would be insignificant next to the changes in temperature caused by forces outside our control." -Robert May, Baron May of Oxford, "Under-informed, over here", guardian.co.uk

Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a little circular now. Since A Quest for Knowledge is the subject of this proposal, I suggest that he be requested to make a final statement and then we can close the thread. There is enough information here for the arbitrators to make up their minds on the topic. --TS 04:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the main thing I'd like to point out here is that the University of East Anglia is not a person, it's a thing. There were no identifiable living persons mentioned here, just a general reference to the UEA.[218] Beyond that, I think that JN466 and JWB have already done an excellent job refuting these accusations. I cited high-quality news sources (The BBC,[219] Telegraph,[220] and the Guardian[221])(again, in the body of the article) - all of which have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Sure, we can all quible over the exact wording but as JN466 points out, my wording was toned down compared to the wording in the sources. Viriditas did the best job he could under the circumstances, and this was the best he could come up with. There's really not much of substance to discuss here, but I'd be happy to provide a more detailed explanation should ArbCom ask for one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As A Quest For Knowledge has now defended his actions and offered to explain in more detail if arbcom wants, I suggest we close this thread. I know there are many things I would like to say in response to his words, but at this point I think I'd only be repeating what others have already said. We should move on. Enough has been said and there are other matters of concern. --TS 11:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Superseded by actual FoF posted,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed finding: Rd232's battlefield conduct

Rd232 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [222] ,[223],[224] ,[225] ,[226] ,[227], [228],[229],[230],[231], and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality[232],[233], [234],[235].

Minor4th 22:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure you're correct. When I reverted a disputed edit, once, it was called edit warring and a finding was made in this case. I'm confused. But hold your horses because there are more diffs that I forgot to add. Minor4th 06:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

That's interesting because some of the diffs were from the same "revert war" in a finding against me, and Rd232 reverted twice, to my once. Can you please remove those from the finding about me if they are not obviously sanctionable -- alternatively, make a similar finding about Rd232. Oh, and I just remembered another couple of edit wars Rd232 was engaged in. I'll grab those diffs too. Thanks for your help Roger Davies. Minor4th 06:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Yours are evidence of a larger pattern, which is absent in Rd232's case.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Hold that thought, while I present Rd232's larger pattern. Minor4th 06:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Amended proposed finding: Rd232's disruptive conduct (the larger pattern)

Rd232 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring, and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality.

Diane Francis

[236]first revert, [237] second revert [238]third revert, [239]fourth revert, [240] fifth revert, :[241] sixth revert, [242] seventh revert of unrelated material, no BLP claim & Rd232 blocked the editor he was in a content dispute with

Richard North

[243]first revert, [244] second revert, [245] third revert,

Christopher Booker

[246] first revert, [247] second revert, (I would not call this an edit war - I am citing this only because this same episode was cited as disruptive behavior in a finding about me)

Fred Seitz

[248] first revert, [249] second revert, [250] third revert,

Michael Mann

[251] first revert, [252] second revert, [253] third revert [254] added POV tag against CC probation imposed by NW

Incivil comments/battleground mentality

[255] "this is bullshit", [256] "you're wrong. I'm tired of repeating myself."

Minor4th 07:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra diffs. These are almost all BLPs which are a special case. My reactions?

• Diane Francis edit war BLP claim: presumably because of the arguably pointy two children remark.
• Richard North edit war Not really an edit war
• Christopher Booker edit war Moving stuff about is not edit-warring.
• Fred Seitz edit war Not really edit warring
• Michael Mann edit war BLP claim - presumably because of the incomplete nature of the investigation / WP:UNDUE / WP:NOTNEWS
• Incivil comments/battleground mentality Only one even slightly actionable diff there.

Other arbitrators review these pages and might find these allegations actionable. I'm afraid I don't.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not seeing anything much here either. There are appropriate times to revert, the BLP policy being the main example which seems to be much of the case here. "Bullshit" is probably not terribly helpful, but pointing out that circular discussion is wearing and unhelpful isn't what I'd call incivil. Shell ^babelfish 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the Arb findings and lack thereof are "bullshit." Now, 3RR is out the window and edit wars are A-Ok based on Roger's evaluation of content? Wow. Minor4th 16:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like some clarification here from the Arbs -- Roger's comment appears to be saying that reverting 7 times is not edit warring as long as you claim "BLP exemption", even if there's no BLP issue. That cannot possibly be what he means. Please, take a moment and look carefully at the diffs in the context of the article, not just the pop-up.

Note also that Rd232 blocked the other editor to win the content dispute. Then Rd232 continued to "taunt" the blocked editor on his talk page, despite the fact that the editor had asked R to stay off his talk page. (I'm not inclined to dig up the diffs because they do not seem to be taken seriously.) Then R dug up articles the blocked editor had created and tried to speedy delete them under G5 but was reversed -- so he then took them to AfD.

In the middle of a very contentious redirect war, Rd232 disregarded an ongoing merge discussion and redirected the article to user space -- a fully sourced, 54 kb brand new article. (again, no diffs ....).

Those diffs above show edit warring -- a legitimate BLP issue may be appropriate to cross the 3RR threshold, but those diffs do not show a BLP violation for the 7 reverts. Yesterday, Roger said the editing was not actionable because there was no "pattern." I revealed the pattern with a variety of diffs across several articles, and now the pattern is not sanctionable because it's appropriate to revert 3, 5, and 7 times and Roger appears to be citing UNDUE and NOTNEWS as good justification to revert several times.

Do I really want Rd232 to be sanctioned? No, I don't. I was in favor of a clean slate approach with some strict enforcement of policy. But, if you're going to single out editors based on thin, tenuous diffs (look at ATren's finding and Cla's for example), just be consistent -- you all are applying different standards for different editors, and the appearance is it cuts across POV lines. What about Verbal? What about ScienceApologist?

Look again at the diffs used to support the finding against me please. Compare them to the diffs I provided above for Rd2332. This is very unbalanced. Minor4th 17:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: the Diane Francis issue is fairly well described at User talk:Rd232#Freakshownerd, including the BLP issue and the FSN block. On the alleged "taunting" which Minor4th declines to provide diffs for - possibly he is taking Freakshownerd's user talk page claims at face value, which is a mistake (FSN's selective removal and editorialising of my comments there can be seen from the talk page history). Rd232 ^talk 19:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th, I respectfully suggest that Wikipedia editors in general want to do the best for Wikipedia, that includes you. I also suggest that admins in general are more dedicated to the good of Wikipedia than other Wikipedia editors. I suggest that Wikipedia Arbitration Committee members can be counted on to be very dedicated to the good of Wikipedia. When many fellow Wikipedians are all telling you the same thing, especially when they are members of the more elite groups that I mentioned, I suggest that it is extremely important to listen to them. Try to better understand their point of view, their goal is the good of Wikipedia. I assume that is also your goal. I further suggest that if we disagree with what we're being told that it is even more important to try to understand because they are much more experienced than we are and they are likely correct. Bill Huffman (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill Huffman, I agree completely that probably everyone here is motivated for the good of Wiki, including me, Rd232, you, Arb, marknutley and WMC. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't be here trying to figure this all out. We all have different ideas about how to best serve Wiki, however, and we also all have very strong opinions and are not shy about expressing them -- and we all think we are 100% right, 100% of the time. For what it's worth, I have tried to understand -- I have asked for clarification on many issues and have asked for feedback on my behavior, and I have paid very close attention to everything that has been happening in the case because I am trying to learn and become a better editor. Although the elite groups have more experience, I do not think that always translates into having a monopoly on good judgment or critical evaluation -- on those things, reasonable people can and will disagree, irrespective of the status they have attained. I don't have a problem being wrong or having a disagreement over a finding -- but I would really like an explanation about some of these issues I raised because I cannot make sense of them. Minor4th 19:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For a little tough love, Minor4th, I think some of you need to get more effective at both seeing and presenting inappropriate conduct. When I look at the first series of reverts relating to Francis, it's painfully obvious that the material should not have been in the article. Looking at the source, it says nothing about her having two children, and in fact she doesn't even argue that overpopulation is a big issue with regard to climate change. When an arbitrator reads this as supposed evidence of misconduct by Rd232, it suggests the complete opposite: that you simply do not "get" appropriate editing on a BLP, and not only that, but that you are nevertheless making accusations against people do. Basically, you're shooting yourself in the foot, when you'd be much, much better off asking questions, making suggestions, and trying to learn more about how things work. From looking briefly at the dispute on Christopher Booker I notice that in fact the last edit by Rd232 replaces material which directly states that Booker made an accusation "falsely." If you had focused on something like that, perhaps it could have been misconduct. On the other hand, then Rd232 seems to have seen the problem himself and fixed it.[257] Ultimately, he doesn't come across looking bad at all. You come across looking like you don't quite get the issues. It's tough stuff, not simple, and when you pick fights on terrain where you aren't familiar, it's almost inevitable that you will get into trouble. Get some more experience, I say, and hopefully you can learn how to stay out of the fray in the first place. Mackan79 (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mackan -- please look at my revised diffs on Booker and my explanation below. On Diane Francis -- I agreed with the removal of the bit about two children, as you'll see on the talk page. Whether or not it's BLP, it's SYNTH and UNDUE, and I agreed that it should be removed. The problem is Rd232 reverted that same material 6 times -- he removed the whole paragraph though, and not just the controversial part. His 7th revert and block was unrelated to the BLP issue, and he blocked the editor at the same time, even though the editor had not reinserted the content after Rd232's warning. It's the overall behavior taken as a whole that is problematic, and his subsequent taunting the blocked editor on his talk page and then nominating several of the blocked editor's articles for deletion -- just looking at the individual diffs, there's not enough context. Thanks for your advice though and I will consider it carefully. Minor4th 15:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe I've misread something in the diffs, but there seems to be an inconsistency in Roger Davies and Shell rejecting the edit war evidence against Rd232 at the Christopher Booker article when two diffs from Minor4th in the same series of reverts are identified as edit warring on the PD finding [258] (see second and third edit-warring diffs) which both Roger and Shell have voted to support. I assume Shell and Roger Davies forgot that they'd voted to sanction Minor4th for the same thing, but it's nevertheless very troubling. It looks like bias (unconscious bias, I assume). I'm asking Roger and Shell to explain what happened here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to explain, JWB. Minor4th's diffs slightly (and probably unintentionally) misrepresent events by presenting them out of sequence. The actual chronological order is:

1. [259] (Minor4th's 3rd diff)
2. [260] (Minor4th's 1st diff)
3. [261] (Minor4th's 2nd diff)

As there were no intervening edits between edits #1 and #2, that counts as one revert. So we have one revert of the paragraph (but with a reference added) and one positional revert. That really doesn't seem so heinous to me, especially when they're part of a much larger string of edits which are unrelated.

In contrast, Minor4th either moved or removed substantially the same material four times in ten hours:

1. [262]
2. [263]
3. [264]
4. [265]

I hope this helps.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, thanks, but would you please look at those diffs again? In the four you listed, I reverted once. The first diff was my initial edit, removing BLP vio sourced to an article that no longer existed. The second two were part of the same edit, and I was not reverting -- I was moving a paragraph from "Career" to "Criticism". It took two edits to move it because in your diff #2, I accidentally left the paragraph in both sections, so your diff #3 shows me removing the duplicate from the old section. There are no intervening edits between your #2 and #3 diffs. Those were not reverts and they werent removing content. Your fourth diff was my only revert -- after Rd232 came in and reverted me. That was not his only revert, however, but it was my only one. Please take a look again and see if what I'm explaining bears out. See the talk page discussion also. Irrespective of Rd232, those diffs should be removed from my finding. Thanks. Minor4th 14:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger -- you're right that I did inadvertently list the Rd232 diffs out of order, which can be confusing. I will go revise my proposal. And the disregarding Rd232's contiguous diffs, he still reverted twice: The first revert in question: [266], he reverted my attempt to bring the language into NPOV compliance by changing "accused" to "questioned whether" and changing "allegations" to "statements". And he also reverted my paragraph move: [267]. So even if you eliminate Rd232's contiguous edits and don't count one revert because he made some other changes to the content, he still reverted me twice in that time period, and I only reverted once. Taken as a whole, I would not call either of our editing on that article particularly contentious. I think either the Booker diffs should be removed from my finding or they should be added to a finding about Rd232 -- I really don't care which, but either would be fair and consistent. Minor4th 15:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity and trying to be helpful, this is the timeline of the reverts, moves, and deletions noted above:

• [268] ChrisO added the Pachauri material to the article on 26 Aug at 13:58 (all times will be US Central time for my convenience - rather than converting them back to UTC), followed by 2 minor edits for formatting.
• [269] Marknutley removes material, WP:UNDUE / Monbiot blog on 26 Aug at 14:11
• [270] ChrisO reverts, adds a 2nd source (also Monbiot), leaves blog as 1st source on 26 Aug at 16:24
• [271] Marknutley removes ref that does not mention the subject, cites WP:BLP on 26 Aug at 17:07
• [272] Marknutley self-reverts, asks ChrisO to revert on 26 Aug at 17:08
• [273] IP adds POV material on 27 Aug at 07:28, in 2 edits
• [274] Marknutley reverts ChrisO's material and IP's material on 27 Aug at 14:45
• [275] Connolley reverts Marknutley on 27 Aug at 15:02, followed by adding ref to retraction, removing Monbiot's opinion
• [276] Marknutley adds OR & SYNTH in-line tags on 28 Aug at 02:39
• [277] IP adds POV comment back in on 28 Aug at 06:19
• [278] Ocaasi reverts IP on 28 Aug at 06:25
• [279] Marknutley reverts back to his earlier version on 28 Aug 18:02
• [280] IP restored ChrisO's material on 30 Aug at 11:21
• [281] Marknutley reverts, BLP, on 30 Aug at 11:29
• [282] Connolley reverts, states no BLP, on 30 Aug at 14:06
• [283] Active Banana tags for sourcing on 30 Aug at 14:26
• [284] Rd232 restores ChrisO's material, adds Monbiot blog as source, on 30 Aug at 16:05 (1st Rd232 revert)
• [285] Active Banana tags article for refimprove on 30 Aug at 16:07
• [286] Minor4th removes material as marginally connected on 31 Aug at 00:49 (1st M4 revert)
• [287] Rd232 reverts on 31 Aug at 02:07, added ref, moved, etc, series of 11 edits through 07:57 (2nd Rd232 revert)
• [288] Minor4th, minor copy-edits, on 31 Aug at 08:41
• [289] Rd232 reverts on 31 Aug at 08:53 (3rd Rd232 revert)
• [290] Minor4th moves it within article on 31 Aug at 08:56
• [291] Rd232 removes tag, adds separate tag on 31 Aug at 08:57
• [292] Minor4th removes duplicate material that was left from last move, cleanup at 08:56, on 31 Aug at 08:58
• [293] Rd232 reverts move on 31 Aug at 09:03, with 1 additional edit (4th Rd232 revert) and violation of 3RR
• [294] Minor4th reverts on 31 Aug at 09:07 (2nd M4 revert)

Clearly Rd232 reverted 4 times, while Minor4th reverted 2 times. 3RR clearly states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period." Rd232 is an admin and should know this. I missed that Roger Davies said that moving material within an article is not a revert, so M4 only has 2, instead of 3 reverts. Rd232 still has 4. GregJackP Boomer! 22:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not consider my first ever edit on that page [295] which you label my first revert to be a revert, because in restoring the deleted topic it added a source, important details, and made a key correction. That's why I stopped at what you labelled my fourth revert - I considered that my third. All I can say is, if as a matter of policy we insist on seeing such edits as reverts, we encourage the distinction between constructive editing and edit-warry reverting to collapse into meaninglessness, which encourages WP:GAMEing. This lengthy list is an example of placing simplistic rule above substance: Minor4th once deleting and twice moving a paragraph to the wrong section is treated as equivalent to my substantive revisions. Rd232 ^talk 06:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

PS There are substantially misleading inaccuracies in your list. this is no "minor copy-edits", it's a substantial change in meaning incompatible with WP:V, and the deletion of a sourced and highly relevant detail; and without any edit summary I might add. What you label as simply "Rd232 reverts" (supposedly my 3rd) is actually a partial reversion, taking on board part of the changes Minor4th made (shortening the quote), with an explanatory edit summary. This makes a difference not so much for counting reverts, as for the overall point being debated, which is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Rd232 ^talk 10:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Regards. I would hope that you can see this as it was intended, as helpful and meant to clarify the matter. I thought that the isolated diffs did not lay out the matter in a easily understandable way and that this would help. I considered that to be your first revert because the material had been added, deleted, added, modified, etc. previously, and you had come in and reverted the previous deletion. The source that you included had already been in and out of the article also. I counted Minor4th's first edit as a revert also, trying to be fair on how it was laid out. Even if we consider what I labeled as Minor4th's minor copy-edit (and I would hope that you agree that reasonable people can disagree), he just has 3, because as Roger Davies pointed out, internal moves are not considered reverts. I was not intending to start a battle over this, just to lay out the sources. GregJackP Boomer! 13:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'm sure you're trying to be helpful, but there were significant errors; and whilst reasonable people may disagree, a close examination of that edit, especially knowing what the sources say, prohibits "minor copyedit" as an accurate summary. Incidentally, I'm not saying you're definitely wrong about the Monbiot source having been in the article before I got there, but when I came there from BLPN I didn't see it in the history (I still don't, but I may not be looking hard enough). Rd232 ^talk 16:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO posted the blog source on his first post here. GregJackP Boomer! 17:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

GJP, Sorry, I do just not agree with your analysis, in particularly your revert numbering. The context here is everything: Rd232 appears to making a good faith attempt to address various article problems; Minor4th appears focused entirely on one aspect. (I'm still utterly bewildered why the retraction of the Sunday Telegraph's article should justify removing commentary about it. Although it's gone from their website, plenty of mirrors exist and the Sunday Telegraph is a newspaper of record so full archival copies will be available in librairies.)

Just to clarify, any edit can be edit-warring. The reason why moving stuff about didn't count as a revert was because there was no intervening edit. Apologies: I should probably have spelled this out more.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I am not so petty that I think that everyone has to agree with my analysis (although things would be better if I were God, Emperor of Dune). I agree that the fact that the article was removed does not mean it should not be commented on, and my analysis of Minor4th's edits was that it was a question of where it needed to go, and whether Monbiot's blog was an appropriate source. I don't have an issue with a FoF on this for Minor4th based on his actions, but it is based on actions and not intentions, and if there is a finding on him, the actions of Rd232 are identical and call for a similar FoF. When you attempt to judge intentions rather than actions, you are in a position of assuming good faith on one editor and bad faith on the other editor, which can appear to be biased. It is far better to address this evenly, judging actions equitably across the board. JMO. GregJackP Boomer! 15:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm also curious why we allow negative information to be added to a BLP without being impeccably sourced. I have found no source that used the term "falsely accused" and it did not appear in the Sunday Telegraph article, nor anywhere else. Why would removal of that term be considered anything other than good faith editing to improve the article? GregJackP Boomer! 17:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Slightly strange question to ask - the only person who removed that specific term was me [296]. Others were removing the entire paragraph. And whilst the term is technically correct (it was an accusation, it wasn't true), it can be read as implying the accusation was made knowing that it was false. That's why I removed it, as I said in the edit summary. [Thought: is such a detailed post mortem of this one editing issue really necessary for Arbcom?] Rd232 ^talk 17:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) This one looks pretty much as if it's run its course as far s substantive material is concerned. I'll collapse it tonight or tomorrow.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think everything that could possibly be said has been said. Thanks for hearing me out. Minor4th 20:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been able to follow up on Roger's explanation. I haven't had time to check into the edit history and still don't fully understand it, but I don't want to hold this up, either. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Additions (Venezuela)

If evidence of a pattern is needed, some more diffs of personal attacks, edit warring, POV pushing, and failure to AGF can be found at:

• User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles#Rd232.

The personal attacks have diminished since I started keeping diffs, but the tendentious editing and creating of entire articles that overrely on one partisan source continues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh Sandy! Apart from being irrelevant (completely different topic), that genuinely hurts. I've put a lot of effort into trying to make less use of the source you object to, purely because you object to it - not because there's anything wrong with it (as demonstrated by lengthy RSN discussion). Rd232 ^talk 19:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, I did note that the personal attacks have diminished (recently); however, the tendentious editing and failure to AGF continues (which is beyond the scope of this particular case, so I won't add evidence here). I stopped keeping diffs when your behavior improved (and others simultaneously worsened), but I can't deny that I see a pattern, specifically in terms of "collective blocs of editors" trying to use mere numbers to overrule Wiki pillars on the Chavez articles, now that others have presented that here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone familiar with that page, I do not see the problems that SandyGeorgia does. If she believes that better sources are available then she should provide them. I have never seen another editor present the same level of hostility to a subject than she does to Hugo Chavez. TFD (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have presented reliable mainstream sources in spades, but you characterize the OAS, European Parliament, Wall Street Journal, Economist, CNN, the New York Times and UPI.com (and *many* others) as a fringe, TeaParty view that SandyGeorgia is presenting, and say I have never presented mainstream sources and my sources are "opeds" (a charge repeated by unsuspecting new editors who end up blocked)-- hence, the similarities in battleground, and collective blocs of editors using mere numbers to overrule Wiki sourcing policies who are involved in these cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are diffs showing the same kind of behavior on non-CC pages as can be found on CC pages, the diffs would help show a general pattern that I think ArbCom would be very interested in. The behavior Roger Davies has said (elsewhere on this page) that he's interested in seeing editors provide evidence of follows, generally, this pattern on the PD page:

[Editor] has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring [diff], [diff], [diff], [diff], inappropriate use of sources [diff], [diff], [diff], [diff], and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality [diff], [diff], [diff], [diff].

Diffs that fall into these descriptions or others found on the PD page will likely get some careful consideration by several arbs. But it is going to take diffs. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> ... if you insist, but I regret having to spell this out when it's already documented above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rd232 at Venezuela articles

Rd232 furthers a battleground mentality at Venezuela and Hugo Chavez-related articles, where a collective bloc of editors use mere numbers to overrule Wiki's NPOV and sourcing policies, fail to AGF, make personal attacks, cleanse the article of highly reliable sources critical of Chavez, and edit war, which results in a toxic environment that encourages new editors to engage in same, and has maintained the entire suite of articles in a POV state for more than four years. For general problems of collective behavior, see User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles. In Rd232's case, because he is an admin, other editors believe this behavior is acceptable on Wiki, give up and leave (too many to name, but they regularly show up on my talk page pleading for help), or model it across these articles and have been subsequently blocked (see User talk:ValenShephard). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

1. You are a malicious and manipulative editor of the highest order
2. It is sadly ironic that Sandy is pressuring me to either fuck off into retirement or take the semiretirement tag off, given that I largely semi-retired because of her harassment. Unfortunately, she is incredibly good at it. Unsolicited messages and emails of support from people who have had similar issues with her on unrelated topics have made me feel less alone; but also more exposed. People seem scared to take her on - and it's bloody obvious why! (The prolific sockpuppet who followed me to Venezuela articles and apparently e-mailed him is now indeffed.)
3. that's both ludicrous and yet entirely typical of Sandy
4. This alone should tell people who do not know Sandy's dark side that there are shenanigans here.
5. prolonged personal attacks, including: "Sandy's crazy talk discussion I read all about the controversy between you and her. She is really a crazy person ...", "I just wanted to thank you for the constant harassment by SandyGeorgia you put up with ..."

Failure to AGF

1. Sandy's campaign to link VIO with anyone she can, however tenuously. (The reason being that VIO is an agent of a foreign government - a government Sandy clearly detests
2. Given the tenuousness of the links and the gravity of the insinuation, an editor of your experience cannot possibly pretend that you do not know *exactly* what you are doing - which is to seek to discredit anyone writing about Venezuela in a way you don't like.

Battleground

1. I believe it to be true that you are conducting a smear campaign ...
2. you are conducting a concerted campaign
3. Let's get some fire into this witch-hunt already! No-one who does anything Sandy dislikes shall edit unless approved by checkuser!
4. Ah, sweet, innocent Sandy suddenly has no idea why anyone would seek to connect a US person who has written about Venezuela (amongst other Latin American countries) to the Venezuelan government, and in particular to Chavez, a person she considers a dictator and who is a self-professed socialist - a very dirty word in the US. No idea at all. (Note, I would be interested in a diff where I said Chavez was a dictator)
5. you think you should get your way by voicing your opinion loudly enough and frequently enough, and accusing any who disagree of all manner of bad faith. Actually producing evidence to support your arguments is too much like hard work, is it?
6. Snarky edit summary while reverting to install original research
7. Snarky edit summary while removing reliably sourced text (in fact, Mark Weisbrot was co-writer of South of the Border (film)

Other

1. Rollback to revert an edit that is not vandalism or BLP vio: [297], in fact, multiple reliable sources indicate Mark Weisbrot is pro-Chavez, and he was the co-writer of South of the Border (film), a pro-Chavez Oliver Stone film. This is not a BLP issue because of the strength of the sources. Romero, Simon (May 18, 2008). "Chávez Seizes Greater Economic Power". New York Times. Retrieved January 23, 2010. Mark Weisbrot, a Washington-based economist who is broadly supportive of Mr. Chávez's economic policies, ... and "Polls: Support for Chavez government falling". USA Today. March 18, 2008. Retrieved January 26, 2010. ... Weisbrot, who has supported Chavez's policies. and Film's website
2. BLP vio at Manuel Rosales, Chavez opponent forced into exile: [298] [299]

Edit warring

To be continued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that this stuff is uninteresting, but it is going pretty far afield of the current conflict about Climate Change. It seems that Venezuela and Hugo Chavez ought not be discussed here and now. You seem to have voluminous evidence that could be brought to WP:RFC for the community to look at it. Might that resolve the problem? If not, you could start a separate arbitration afterwards. This case is already overloaded with too many parties and issues. It seems unlikely that this stuff is going to get through consideration, nor that Rd232 would have a fair chance to respond in this forum. Keep in mind that voting on the proposed decision is well underway. Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy not to continue (heck, it's a lot of work) ... but Roger mentioned no pattern, I see a pattern, I put up one link to show this has occurred elsewhere, someone asked for specific diffs, so I put up diffs. If arbs want me to continue, I can, otherwise, I've got plenty to do elsewhere. The Chavez problem isn't going to be solved, though, because admins won't touch it in any dispute resolution forum, precisely because it's such a big mess and they don't want to get involved, but TheFourDeuces can always be counted on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Sandy. The difficulty, as John mentions, is that this isn't directly relevant to this case and certainly incivility on this scale hasn't occurred in it. The Committee is usually reluctant to support tangential background findings.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger, and I'm sorry for the excess detail, but someone asked for specific diffs. I'm happy to leave it, since Rd232 is only one piece of a very big problem, and this felt like targeting him, when he has improved. If anyone wants to cap this off, fine with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think the quality of Sandy's evidence can be seen by the fact that (a) she quotes somebody else addressing me on my talk page as if it was a personal attack from me (b) cites what she claimed to be a BLP vio at Manuel Rosales, but is now happy to have in the article. Beyond that, there were specific circumstances in Feb this year (the vast majority of diffs are from 16-18 Feb) relating to what I saw as Sandy's concerted effort, along with some others, to link a couple of people (notably Mark Weisbrot) who present a non-mainstream media view on Venezuela with the Venezuela Information Office (VIO). VIO was a US PR office of the Venezuelan government, and obviously a connection would influence perceptions of the people's credibility (and given the persistence despite weak to no evidence it was hard to avoid feeling this was the intent), in a manner which might affect their livelihood. This got very heated (with OTRS involved), but eventually the debate did manage to reach a conclusion, and Sandy and I even managed to put the thing behind us and be civil and cooperative (notably at Talk:Eva Golinger). I'm extremely disappointed that she brings this up (a) here and (b) now. The degree to which I thought we'd put this behind us (after substantial airing at ANI) is illustrated by my deleting in May of my record of Sandy's behaviour [300]. Very, very disappointing. Rd232 ^talk 10:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)