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

Refactoring of other editors talkpage comments per previous discussions

Following the discussion to be found at User talk:LessHeard vanU#Comment refactoring, I propose that the requests for an uninvolved editor or admin to remove/collapse/etc. personal attacks and other issues covered by the initial discussion (linked at my talkpage discussion above) be made at the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and that further comments may only be made by the party whose comments are the subject of the request. Any uninvolved editor/admin may then action the request and note it accordingly on the page. If a request is not actioned within 72 hours, then the report is archived as unactioned.
Generally, as envisioned, this should be an area where requests are expedited by means of the first account believing that the request is actionable being permitted to take the necessary action - and therefore any report not actioned within a short time frame is archived. Any comments? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, and appropriately worded to avoid prolonged "peanut gallery" comments. I would suggest, though, that 24 hours would be a more sensible limit. Anything problematic that was left around for 72 hours, or even 48, would either have led to more serious actionable problems, and if not then the sooner any associated reference is removed the better (whether because the request was erroneous or because we dodged a bullet and the fewer potential triggers the better). --TS 21:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the timescale point is good, but perhaps 24 hours is a little too short - one day for something to be reviewed by editors in differing timezones around the world? 36 hours? If the comments are particularly strong then they will likely be actioned by the 1st reviewer anyway (or even taken to a different venue for actioning?) so the outer limit is only for more marginal cases. 36 hours? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This touches on something that I find incredibly frustrating.

At the most basic administrative level, in responding to request from another editor to protect an article or block a disruptive editor, no review period is required. I ask an admin to do something, he agrees with me and he does it.

The whole idea of the probation is to give administrators more power to act, but at every turn the administrators seem to be hobbling themselves, or one another, with unnecessary requirements to "review" prior to taking action.

Here we have a situation where even the most basic editing conventions have broken down and, accordingly, the administrators have been explicitly permitted to take action against previously warned editors. And yet here you are all pissing around making excuses to avoid taking the most basic and timely action to lessen damage. I even think it has become more difficult to block a disruptive editor under this probation than it have been if the probation had not been enacted.

What this topic needs is some strong and uncompromising assertions of order. We've all agreed to this. Do it. Stop mucking about. --TS 23:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I am not sure I follow the nuances being discussed above in terms of who does what and when. Can I ask that we simply take the previously agreed description and refactor it to include the updated nuances and post them here? I think everyone would benefit from having a clean articulation of the procedures that we can reference. If doing so opens some procedural can of worms please ignore this request. --GoRight (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I did that, when I was first asked to look into adminning this section; I got seven shades of shit for briefly blocking two content editors who were removing other peoples comments from talkpages (which is, you know, sort of against policy/guideline) on the basis that they were uninterested in explaining themselves again. I could of gone nuclear when I saw the reaction, but instead thought of working by agreement with the existing admins (the ones who had a bit of a reputation of placing more credence on the representations of the pro AGW editors, although I have found them to be interested only in applying policy) so that actions and reactions were moderated. I think it worked - the two parties, although fundamentally distrusting of each other, no longer blind revert each other, and personal attacks have diminished. Since they are no longer able to swear at each other and metaphorically kick each other in the shins, they have had to explain there actions to each other... Now, I am likely wrong, but I think I see instances in CC articles where once a position is explained then the other side comes along with either a counter argument or proposal which is then rebutted or countered - but creating just a tiny opportunity to finding a common ground.

Simply, if the reaction of admins were to be reactionary warnings and sanctions then the dispute that is within the writing of the articles would simply expand into the sysoping realm. There would have been no example on how consensual actions diminish the potential for accusations of bias (not that that is not prevalent - witness comments about my and Lar's willingness to enforce the sanctions upon editors who are supportive of AGW, and previously some complaints by sceptics that the existing adminship were not so inclined) and incitement of further incidents. Wikipedia is no longer the creature of a few years back, when a cadre of admins enforced their interpretation of "right" without reference - this model needs to be adminned in the manner in which it is expected that editors will interact; consensually, carefully, and respectfully.

However, and in keeping with my desire to achieve agreement, if you think 24 hours is the max and that the main principle is that the first editor in good standing who believes the material should be removed may do so without further reference, then fine; I will agree. Anything that is passed over by the first few reviewers is likely not that contentious (or is too contentious for simple removal). If I can get another admin in agreement, then we can hunt down the wording and amend it accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sensitive to the criticism that we've hobbled ourselves. TS has a point there. And yet I think it's better this way... Sanctions aren't imposed until there's a consensus, or at least a rough one, and there's a chance for reasoned discussion. I find that better than unilateral imposition followed by possible wheel warring over things. In this contentious area, having a bit of process or even due process seems a good thing, it's not as simple as random vandalism. But on the matter of removing comments, which is smaller import than a topic ban, I think 24 or 36 hours is plenty and would support either of those figures, whichever has more support from others. I applaud LHvU for, again, coming up with something novel that will hopefully help continue the move in the right direction. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To LessHeard vanU I would say that as an administrator you're supposed to get seven shades of shit for everything you do, and if that isn't happening yet you haven't even begun to fathom what adminning is about (I've been call "old school" for saying this in the past, and I take that as a compliment).

To Lar, I'd say that the notion of wheel wars has been used to cow administrators who are, or have remained, illiterate as to what is a wheel war. An action taken and then reverted is not a wheel war. An action repeatedly reverted is a wheel war.

Bold action is the signature of timely adminship so don't creep around agonising as if the bit were a curse you couldn't shrug off in a moment. Do what seems best for Wikipedia, and if it should turn out not to be, don't repeat it.

I think 24 hours is okay, and I hope LessHeard vanU (do you have an actual name we could call you? this is getting tiresome) can agree with that too. --TS 23:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not understanding, but does this just have to do with requests that a personal attack be removed? It seems like a decent process, if so, although I suppose I'm wondering if it isn't a bit specific for editors to keep track of. Is there a way to funnel editors toward this process, just for this type of request? Mackan79 (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Done and noted at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#added extension to Probation to cover talkpage refactoring by uninvolved editors and admins. Now to meddle with the enforcement request page itself... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Header amended; please review/correct as necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony's comment on Mark Nutley

Commenting here for technical reasons--please refactor to the project page, particularly if you want to reply. What is annoying most people, I think, is Mark's determination to remove the characterization conservative from instances that are either well sourced, or as in the case of The Spectator, unimpeachably and (with good cause) proudly conservative. The polarization of responses to the book, with ideological conservatives treading a path quite distinct from the mainstream including most scientists, had been remarked upon by commentators and was made all the more remarkable in the context of the vehemence of the scientific response to the book.

Mark was trying it on and treating informed comments with contempt. And edit warring. If he's been warned about this kind of behavior in the past he should be told to stop trying it on. I've no doubt that he will now stop if told to do so firmly enough. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved it for you mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark's response is "bull", which I assume is a euphemism for bullshit. Well, perhaps Mark simply doesn't know that The Spectator is the proudest and most celebrated organ of political conservatism in the UK. I sometimes think that this is the tragedy of Wikipedia: that here we are not constrained by the bounds of our ignorance, but are free to comment endlessly on the areas in which our intellectual laziness makes us a liability. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Would you care to refactor your calling me ignorant, intellectually lazy and a liability? And yes it is bull, we report what the sources say and let the reader decide, to add tags to sources saying they are "conservative" and "right wing" is not wp:npov. And to be honest i am surprised you would actually back the use of labels on sources mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Technically, Tony was commenting on Wikipedia in general. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I checked the article and I only saw one source being cited for "conservative press". The disputed content may be legit or might be an example of cherry-picking, I'm not sure. Given the contentious nature of the neverending content dispute on CC-related articles, it could be either one, take your pick. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually several hands had been stretched out to Mark on the talk-page. For instance, i've asked him twice now if he could somehow cast doubt on the reference given for "conservative" (for instance find a counter-example, showing that the reference isn't accurate) - but that has been ignored.

No kim it has not, i asked how one ref from two weeks after the book was published can lead to the labeling of sources as conservative and right wing. A question you have yet to respond to. mark nutley (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark, the reference makes, what we already know, verifiable. It doesn't really matter how old it is ... unless... you can show us that there is reason to doubt what the reference states (which frankly i do not think there is), then there would be something to address. This is now the 3rd time that i'm answering this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Mark makes an interesting point. If a source is out of date, then it is no longer reliable. (Again, boldfacing the "If" that begins so many of my sentences since so many people seem to miss them.) The classic example I always bring up is an article published on June 28, 1945 by New York Times blaming Germany (not the Soviet Union) for Katyn massacre - something that is now known to be false. Of course, with the Katyn massacre, there are plenty of reliable sources disputing the original account. This doesn't seem to be the case here. I guess you can bring this up at the WP:RSN but it seems like a pretty trivial thing to be editing warring over - for both sides. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That is what i'm fishing for AQfK.... If Mark can find anything that reasonably shows that the reference is off now, then the reference should certainly be reconsidered. But as far as i've been able to determine, the reference was and is spot on the mark. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually no you are not, you are sidestepping my question. Which i will repost here for you.

• 1 the conservative broadsheet[39] The Australian
• 2 conservative commentator[40] Miranda Devine
• 3 Paul Sheehan, a conservative commentator[42]
• 4 right-wing columnist [43] Andrew Alexander
• 5 The Spectator, a conservative British magazine

How exactly does one ref from the age manage to cover all of the above? How can one ref allow the breach of wp:npov by refering to sources as right wing and conservative? It quite simply does not, the use of labels on sources is pushing a wp:pov into an article, which you must agree is entirely wrong mark nutley (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

MN has a point, the allegiances of each source needs to be referenced (1,2 & 3 are easy, since they are used in the WP articles - 3 not, and 4 does not seem to have an article) and why. Although much of CC skepticism has a right wing origin, not all right wingers are skeptic. Rather than referencing the general political leanings of the sources, it seems to me that the CC skeptic outlook of each needs to be noted and referenced to comply with NPOV. (Please move this to the article talkpage if more appropriate). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved it to the article talk page, mark nutley (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I would like to propose a moratorium on requests for enforcement by partisans against other partisans. There seems to be a lot of tit-for-tat going on. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That's one idea. The other idea is to have them bring it here so that something can be done about it. However, one interesting thing about this area is that everyone is considered a partisan, as of some time right before their first edit. Mackan79 (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of the sanctions if editors can't use them to win content disputes against their opponents? In all seriousness, I propose a 1-year topic ban on all disruptive editors from both warring factions. The might sound extreme but please read the following post from Jimbo and ask yourself, "Does this situation sound familiar?"[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That is quite an interesting opinion. Of course, even more than Scientology, Climate Change is forever finding new supporters for both sides of the debate; it would be interesting that if a few of the more entrenched participants of either sets of opinion were removed from the area whether there would be the successful recruiting of adversarial minded editors. Perhaps it is the type of subject that attracts overly resolute contributors? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Climate Change is forever finding new supporters for both sides of the debate" I don't see how it would be any worse than it is now. In fact, this seems to have slowed down quite a bit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I propose a 1-year topic ban on all disruptive editors from both warring factions. Interesting idea. AQFN, what would be your response to those who say this should include you? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This may not be the answer that you were expecting, but I can say this with complete honesty: I don't believe that I've ever made a single edit that was against WP:NPOV (or at least my understanding of it at the time). I try to write for multiple viewpoints (including the opponent) with weight expressed in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. When you see edits which only express√ one POV, it's only because the other POV was already included in the article and I was trying to balance out the neutrality. My biggest mistake so far (that I am aware of) in terms of WP:NPOV was when I cited WP:AVOID to argue against "Climategate" as article title. I now believe that I was wrong because WP:NPOV is a policy and WP:AVOID is a guideline and you can't use a guideline to override a policy. Any other mistakes are probably minor and accidental. I'd welcome any disinterested and neutral party to examine my edits and I doubt they would find much wrong with them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"I don't believe that I've ever made a single edit that was against WP:NPOV." I honestly don't know how to respond to that. It's rare that I'm at a loss for words, so mark the date. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I told you that it might not be the answer that you were expecting. I suggest that you read the rest of my answer so you understand what I mean. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I do understand. That's what bothers me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's Jimbo's reply to my suggestion that CC be handled in a manner similar to Scientology.[2]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I figured he'd eventually get payback for that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possibly because he's strong on the science side and his head tends to explode when interacting with those less scientifically literate? I believe one of the edits in question was whether or not to label some sources "conservative". "glowing reviews" or "positive endorsements" was the proper wording for some book reviews. [4] Scientific literacy had nothing to do with that explosion. We need editors who don't only approach CC as a social science. Does that sentence indicate that you treat William M. Connolley with kid gloves that you wouldn't treat other editors with because there's one standard of behavior for editors you value as scientifically literate? Personally, I haven't found the more scientifically literate editors any more valuable than other editors on CC articles that are not primarily about the science of climate change. Other than helping with some background material, there is no advantage. But if scientifically literate editors believe they can get away with behavioral violations that other editors will be sanctioned for (because admins feel we need editors who don't only approach CC as a social science), then there's a distinct disadvantage -- for Wikipedia. I assume you didn't mean to imply you've got one behavioral standard for the scientifically literate and another for anyone else. I hope you'll make that clear. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)correction -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Remember that you can always acquire the requisite knwoledge of science, history, geography or literature so that you can stand as an equal, it's a volunteer site after all. Just what do you know about what "requisite knowledge" my professional or academic or avocational background gives me in this or any other area of the encyclopedia? And who are you to characterize it? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets"

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

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

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