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

This has to stop

These quick "article bans", "topic bans", and all that on the anti-AGW crowd, while quickly proposing "Close as no action" on blatant civility violations by WMC. This one-sided enforcement has to stop immediately. UnitAnode 16:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Given what's been done to Gavin Collins, this probation is being shown to be almost entirely one-sided. It has to stop, or we need to take this to the arbitration committee for clarification. UnitAnode 19:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

For someone who pretends to be so keen on civility, you seem to throw the word "troll" around rather carelessly [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously complaining about him removing your comment from his talkspace? I've seen you do that numerous times to myself and others so you could give the appearance that you had the last word in. In fact, that seems to be one of your favorite "counter-arguments."TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks clear to me that WMC is pointing out that "troll" used without reasonable justification is a personal attack. . . dave souza, talk 01:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The word was "trolling", which is a word describing an action, unlike "idiots", "yahoos", "septics" and "fools" which are words labeling editors. I personally don't agree with either, but the latter is worse, especially when it happens as frequently as it does. ATren (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, I'm certain he has called me a troll (and worse) many times in the past. Or, if you like, we have this lovely comment from WMC:

"You're a broken record. Find something of value to say, or better still something of value to contribute to the actual encyclopaedia."

I guess I must be reading something into that to think he is being uncivil - no admin who's seen it finds it rude at all. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Commentary from others

I wonder if people are taking account of the quality of actual article-space contributions. That would explain quite a lot William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Casting aspersions on people's work probably isn't the best plan for you right now. UnitAnode 17:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You must understand that topic bans will always be more likely applied to editors who adopt a non-neutral approach to editing Wikipedia. Editors who do not subscribe to the overwhelming scientific consensus and evidence saying that humanity has played a significant role in recent global warming are adopting a minority (perhaps even fringe) position. Continued attempts to push this minority point of view into articles related to global warming and climate change without respecting the neutral point of view are disruptive. Furthermore, these actions are intensely frustrating to the editors who support the majority (and frankly, neutral) position. The result of these frustrations can be incidents involving incivility. WMC is very familiar with both the subject and the science in this topic, so it is understandable that he would be particularly frustrated by the activities of those pushing the minority agenda. He is, therefore, more easily provoked into making the odd comment that offends. He has been warned about this behavior, and if he doesn't do better to curb this sort of thing he will doubtless have his ass kicked. But the provocation and POV-pushing is a serious problem that must be stopped. Proponents of minority positions that deny science must not be allowed to use Wikipedia as their propaganda tool. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, suggesting that fringe applies to "Editors who do not subscribe to the overwhelming scientific consensus and evidence saying that humanity has played a significant role in recent global warming are adopting a minority ... position" is the type of unreasonable POV that is contributing adversity to these disputes. I suggest you reconsider. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You may think whatever you please, but these are the undeniable facts. There are editors trying to push a fringe view, and this frustrates neutral editors. It is similar to the problem at Barack Obama that was, for a while, the target of Birthers. My feeling is that there would be a lot less incivility and edit warring if Wikipedia didn't have to deal with fringe types. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to highlight this post for whoever it was that claimed that no one had brought the Truthers or Birthers into the discussion. I knew I'd seen people do it before, and here's an immediate example. UnitAnode 18:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hate to break the news to you, Scjessey, but neutral point of view means that Wikipedia doesn't take sides. Saying that Wikipedia should take the side of the scientific consensus means that Wikipedia is no longer neutral. Also, I make a clear distinction between scientific consensus and science. Disagreeing with the "scientific consensus" is not disagreeing with "science" itself. So anyway, what's it going to be? Do you prefer to be pro neutrality, or pro scientific consensus? You can't be both. Macai (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an apt analogy. This topic attracts all sorts of fringe types. Just a few moments ago, a Truther posted on the CRU hacking article, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Minority positions that deny science" is just a blatant mischaracterization of the problem here. And please let one of the administrators who keeps shuffling off the WMC complaints as "no action" respond. I think everyone is well-aware of your position, Scjessey. UnitAnode 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  And what is that supposed to mean? My position is that Wikipedia must remain neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  It means that you are blatantly mischaracterizing your opponents' position. It also means that you've many times jumped into content disputes on the pro-AGW/they're-just-harassing-WMC side of discussions. UnitAnode 18:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Minority positions that deny science is actually the exact problem. I think everyone is well-aware of your position - yes, and you are fairly predicatbale as well William M. Connolley (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  "Predicatbale" only in that I'm very tired of your attacks on good-faith editors, and want to see something done about it. UnitAnode 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  Scjessy, science does not run on consensus, politics does. The evidence of AGW is dubious at best as seen by the code released from CRU. To say that those who deny AGW are in a minority is not even remotely accurate, thousands of scientists say AGW is not real, yes climate changes it always does, weather man has anything to do with it is not proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  LOL is that what you really think? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with Unitanode, the "minority position" discussion belongs elsewhere, not here, and propose to tag or remove if it continues. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you would say that. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on editors. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey on this. I've been around here for a while and have viewed the incessant pushing he speaks of. The so-called s(c/k)eptics have been trying every trick in the book to push their views and distort the reality of anthropogenic global warming and the scientific consensus that has developed. That consensus and the evidence it's based on is even stronger now than when I first hit it five plus years ago. WMC and others have been tirelessly keeping the Wiki articles covering the science of global warming on track and based on the science. Back in Oct. 2004 I made my first Randy in Boise edit to greenhouse gas article, something about water vapor... Anyway, guess who promptly reverted the edit ... yeah him. What was my reaction? As a newby, I first said what??? then backed of and evaluated. I was wrong with my edit due to simply not knowing the details - so I brushed up on the science of global warming and joined WMC and others in debating the fringe view pushers in the climate wars of spring 2005. Quite a switch, considering my background in geology (even worked for an oil company at one time). Now, five years later it's the same old song. Newbies read some blog, listen to a ****-wing radio talk show, read some news reporter's blurb ... and becomes an instant authority pushing the anti-science fringe view. And it gets most tiresome. I can excuse those Randys, but their edits must be corrected. And there is a deeper problem ... that of scibaby and others purposely promoting denialism. Thank you, Vsmith (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. This is not Conservapedia or the Urban Dictionary, people do not have the 'right' to put their ill-informed or badly motivated opinions onto the pages. Stopping them doing so, at the same time as reviewing all the new science and commentary as it comes out, and so keeping the articles up to date, is hard work. People with a one-note drum or a one-string fiddle cannot be given the same 'rights' as those who actually know what they're talking about. --Nigelj (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I see now, some are more equal than others, four legs good and all that nigel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good, perhaps you're beginning to get the idea of WP:WEIGHT – NPOV is not Foxfairandbalanced. . . dave souza, talk 20:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

VSmith, your biased generalizations have little to do with the current situation. Most of the current conflicts are not about the science, but the refusal to document current controversies. The problem is that pro-AGW editors unashamedly push their POV on these pages and refuse to consider even the slightest deviation from the way they wish to see this material presented. The AGW POV pushers currently own these articles, and the content reflects it. ATren (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest considering that we need constructive suggestions here, not just complaints. Even if complaints are valid, they can't be the end-all. So what is the request? I personally believe that 2/0 is making a good effort to be neutral here, which is to say I don't see him leaning in any direction much more than the general consensus (and I think that lean has some basis in WP:ENCYC). I think he's making a good effort to articulate his standards, which already puts him at about 7 out of my possible 10 points. I have no complaint. I am concerned on the other hand that BozMo has shown too much frutstration with one side, too much camraderie with the other, and for that reason may be adding fuel to the fire. So I'm going to register my view that anyone can comment, but I don't think BozMo should be evaluating these disputes as uninvolved. That's my suggestion, perhaps I'm alone, but I think if others want to improve things they should make theirs. Mackan79 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• My main problem is with 2/0's quick "recommend no action" on the on-going civility problems from WMC, while also supporting a draconian 3-month article ban on the other side of the content issue. UnitAnode 22:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the divide and conquer approach will be more effective. I agree (admittedly just my opinion) that the Gavin Collins sanction is too harsh, that something ought to be done to encourage William M. Connolley to cut back on insulting other editors, and that 2/0 appears to have acted inconsistently. However, linking all three of those issues together makes it triply hard to deal with. Concerns of administrator bias, page ownership, etc., are much harder to resolve than individual issues, particularly on the talk pages where they are said to be occurring. My prescription would be to welcome Gavin Collins back here in a few weeks once he's ready to start fresh, to gather thoughts about William M. Connolley in an RfC or some other structured discussion and then ArbCon if necessary (or has that already been tried?), and to assume the best of 2 / 0. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I think, when boiled down, my concern is actually one-fold: this probation is being applied in an entirely one-sided manner. The multiple underlying issues are merely symptoms of this larger problem. UnitAnode 22:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
      • If you have concerns about 2/0's enforcement actions, then you have a number of options. If you honestly believe that he is consistently adminning in a biased and inappropriate fashion, then you could consider a request for comment to solicit some input from outside the echo chamber. You can take the case to ArbCom. Everyone could make a small personal effort to reduce the level of poisonous, snide, venomous combat on these pages, and then maybe more admins would be willing to spend their volunteer time helping 2/0 referee it. There are potentially a number of ways forward. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• I feel there are two major problems within this range of topics, from what I have seen in my brief participation on these pages. The first is to do with content, and the bitter struggles to include/exorcise content that reflects negatively upon the "established" pov that climate change is backed by reliable science; skeptics wish to promote all content that criticise and diminish pro GW arguments, on the basis that such challenges undermines the fundamental argument for climate change - witness the very recent Himalaya Glacier Melt debate (You published that the glaciers would be gone by 2035! Wrong!! Which means your "science" is wrong!!! Which means global warming is wrong!!!! ADMIT IT IS ALL A LIE!!!!! - and nobody noting the vast amount of unchallenged data that points to the conclusion that glacial retreat appears generally correct), and this is acerbated by the refusal of the pro-GW orientated editors to allow such "controversies" or viewpoints any meaningful inclusion in articles relating to global warming - mistaking the purpose of an encyclopedia to that of a scientific publication (encyclopedia's use science to explain the facts, but also record the controversies and pov's that inform the interest within the subject). Not only are the two parties unable to establish a npov, but they immediately seek to place any third party as within one of the two camps and then reject/advance that viewpoint according to their own interests. As such, the subject remains a battleground. The second problem is the attitude of the two groupings - generally they show little or no respect either for "the other side" nor the conventions of the venue (except where they believe it promotes their "cause"). The incivility, gamesmanship, non-observance of guideline and policy, poor conduct, and - ironic to the point of pain - attempts to have sanctioned those of one side for behaviour they themselves commit remains a serious problem. There is, in my view, little or no appetite to change it, either.
  My opinion is that regardless of whether the editor in question is devoted to The Truth or the truth that the majority of interaction on talkpages by content editors is actionable under WP policy. None of the major players in either camp are reflecting well upon the part of the community they believe they represent; there is harassment, personal attacks, copious bad faith, gamesmanship, sock and meatpuppeting, and overall an atmosphere of poisonous distrust of all but fellow travelers. As I noted, there is not one group that can claim (justifiably, since I am sure they will claim it regardless) that they are only the victim of this abhorrent behaviour. The reasons why this probation was placed upon these group of articles remains abundantly clear - the historical contributors are incapable of creating encyclopedic content without them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I find it rather difficult to follow your reasoning here, you don't seem to be giving due weight to due weight. We should properly show the majority expert view, and also show significant minority expert views where appropriate. As for the Himalayan glacier issue, it's been clear for some time that the IPPC paragraph concerned does not reflect the majority expert view, and the way that this occcurred has recently become a bit clearer. This is properly reflected in the article. Please assume good faith. . dave souza, talk 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it isn't properly reflected in the article and if you had participated in the struggle to actually get that included, and WMC's removal of a section that had been in there since 2005 as some sort of "revenge," then you might have a different point of view. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - LessHeard vanU - I have a list of 7 possible editing problems with these articles here, of which my biggest personal concern is "not written to be informative". You may think censorship is the problem, or perhaps you feel that the root of the problem is the rejection of any discussion of "politics". This latter point has suddently become much more significant now we know how very political the IPCC has been and, perhaps as a corollary, how many serious errors there are in the AR4 document. I'd be grateful if you were prepared to add your name and views to my list. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Responses: Due Weight within an encyclopedia article is a tricky concept - you have to look outside the cold statistics and note what is being discussed. Within the science of climate change, skepticism is a minority so small as to regarded as insignificant by most - however, skepticism drives a lot of the mainstream (non-scientific commentary) and thus needs to be discussed within an encyclopedic article. For instance, the article on the Catholic Church does not exclude everything outside of its history, its hierarchy and the current holders of important offices; it also includes its (alleged) sexual scandals, its viewpoints on contraception in relation to expanding populations, its attitude to homosexuality, the rights of women (and their role in the church), etc., etc. even though these concerns do not reflect directly upon the primary focus of the establishment, nor the vast majority of its work. In short, the encyclopedia should reflect the concerns of the general public with the subject - which concern may not be representative of the viewpoint of that community. My view is that one group wishes to emphasise the concerns, and the points that give rise to those concerns, far in excess on their impact upon the scientific and world viewpoint (because they see that as a means of altering the perception of the science?) while the other group wishes to ignore the public debate as far as possible and concentrate on the scientific community values only in an apparent effort to diminish the impact of the public debate and thus its ability to deflect the message of that community. Neither of these editors are inclined to give sufficient ground to the other pov that a neutral article might be. So that is my problem with Due Weight in these articles, neither party is prepared to accept the others determination and neither are they interested in how third parties - no matter how patiently they explain the problem - may suggest a middle way; so determined are they that the others side arguments are minimalised.

(@MalcomMacDonald)I will take a look at the 7 points, and comment if I think I can add anything useful. However, my views on the subject are not as important or useful, I believe, as my efforts to try and enforce good practices and compliancy with policies, guidelines and probations so that the existing editors can produce a group of articles that are accurate, informative, and encompass the entire debate relating to the subject. If the existing editors are incapable of writing those pieces, because they are too entrenched in their WP:BATTLE mindsets, then perhaps there needs to be fresh input from other article writers who should be kept free from being influenced by the "bad old pov warriors". Most of the data is already here, after all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that thoughtful response, LessHeard vanU. I think we're in agreement that when dealing with the science of global warming, due weight is given to the majority view that anthropogenic global warming is occurring to a significant and serious extent. Minority views should also be shown where applicable: the nuances of various positions tend to get lost in the polarised political debate. Thus scientists introducing new views are having to be explicit that these don't overturn the general consensus. In dealing with social and political controversies, we should be clear about the majority scientific view, and really should base the article on third party sources describing these controversies. The difficulties I'm seeing are that most sources are engaging in the debates, and some editors seem to feel strongly that the views in these debates overturn the science. As for dealing with these controversies, there are articles devoted to them, and a concise summary style section is included in the main article about the science. Not dissimilar to, say, evolution. We should certainly cover the concerns of the general public with the subject, presenting the majority and minority scientific views of these concerns proportionately. We should also cover the political and economic influences raising these concerns. What we need is sources, as ever. . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that pretty much sums it up; the science generally holds up the argument that human activity derived climate change is occurring, but the readership comes to the article from many different viewpoints and it is not enough to deny skepticism as anything more than a fringe view - as it does get much more public airing than its premises might suggest - unworthy of consideration within the article. There are as many RS available for the fact that some are skeptical toward the concept as there is a paucity of good science references to evidence that viewpoint; we can source the science, and we can source the counter arguments - it should be easy to find a middle way to encompass both, no? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, but then the pertinent question becomes: Isn't this already done? We have a myriad of articles on climate change, and iirc there isn't a single tiny-minority opinion that isn't described somewhere on the relevant article about that opinion. True fringe views aren't, that is correct. Perhaps they should be, but the question is where and how.

The major problem (imho) is not the lack of description or mention, but rather that some editors insist on putting information into articles where it is completely out of focus, and extremely undue weight. (goes for both "hoxers" and "catastrophists" [note: general description of two extreme outlier views]). A minority view on the carbon cycle, which is an integral part of the basis for the science about climate change, is relevant on the article on the carbon cycle - not on the main Global warming article. A discordant view on mitigation of global warming belongs in the article about Mitigation of global warming not on the main Global warming article etc etc. Global warming is a whole spread of sub-articles of sub-articles, who each get summarized upwards to their respective super-article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

<ec> Easy to find a middle way to encompass both for someone with expertise on the subject, such as WMC, but commonly very difficult to do without synthesis. We can find "skeptic" arguments and put together published science as a counter argument, but publication of such counter arguments tends to be in blogs. While science blogs by expert authors are usable as selfpublished sources, that tends to increase arguments on talk pages. Some editors see such experts as part of the conspiracy to deny denialism, and so untrustworthy. We can hope that more reliable commentary on the issues will be published, but unfortunately much of the press coverage is superficial if not actively misleading. Which, of course, reflects the political dimension of the controversy. . . dave souza, talk 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The science and rationale for the pro GW community is indeed readily available in RS, as compared to the "information" provided by denialists/skeptics - but it appears that there is fairly available sources to the fact there is a vocal minority who criticise the larger community and its interpretation of its science. Noting that, and not commenting upon the imbalance between sourced date on one hand and mostly opinion on the other, seems to me to be a neutral way of evidencing the conflict within the world community - from which links to more specific examples where appropriate. I would be interested in the response of uninvolved third parties to that viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The trouble basically comes from the MSM (unintendedly (i hope)) presenting a False balance picture. When they report on an issue, they will go and find someone who disagrees.. Now that is all fine, as long as we get presented a picture of what the proportional view is for each side (is it 50:50, 80:20, 99:1 ..), but the MSM doesn't present us with such. So the public ends up with an impression that there is a substantial minority viewpoint.[2] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This kind of argument is disruptive, because skepticism is either legitimate or must be treated as legitimate. The UK's chief scientific advisor, professor Beddington just said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. And that's especially relevant to us, writing articles. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>Well Kim, since you like science so much, here is a paper, far newer than the one you just posted, that says the liklihood of publication bias regarding AGW is essentially 100%. Any comments on this? Did you want to add this to the global warming article or shall I? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's written by climate skeptic Patrick Michaels of the conservative Cato Institute, and formerly of the Greening Earth Society that was setup by the coal industry to provide doubt about climate change science. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And the IPCC report was written and promoted by people who stood to make millions from the new carbon credit industry - and the Cato Institute is libertarian. Just sayin'. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you reference that without resorting to blogs and unsubstantiated claims? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course I can, but unlike Scjessey's obvious BLP violation against Patrick Michaels, if I were to name names and provide evidence then I'd be banned for making BLP violations. That double standard again. :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, sorry no BLP violation there. Try reading a bit on Patrick Michaels, everything Scjessey said is verifiable. Note that that isn't an endorsement of him actually saying it, since i normally find it unproductive to go down this particular aisle of debate. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> No, Scjessey said he was a plant from the coal industry to cast doubt on AGW. From what I read he publicly stated that he needed money and an energy company collected donations for him. If he was being paid to be a skeptic then it would've happened before he got the money - causality does not work backwards in my universe. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Three problems Thegoodlocust. First of all that it isn't peer-reviewed (E&E is a social science paper - with a rather bad rep. for PR), and thus isn't a good source for science. Secondly you are misrepresenting what the paper is about, it is not on "pro/contra AGW". Thirdly the article doesn't address the same problem as we see in the MSM. It concerns whether new research has a likelihood of lowering or raising expected projections of global warming (ie. AGW is implicitly assumed). The premise that Michaels says should be the baseline - that papers should have equal likelihood, is faulty, since most scientists actually believe that the IPCC is underestimating projections [3], thus there really should be a higher likelihood for raising projections. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you reference that without resorting to blogs and unsubstantiated claims? TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i can. Perhaps you'd want to notice that Hans von Storch & Bray (the info from Die Klimazwiebel) are publishing their survey results; See Energy and Environment for details on the PR status (specifically Boehmers comment); and of course you'd just have to read the paper you linked to assess the rest of my comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second, you are linking a wikipedia article that you are your friends have essentially controlled since its inception? Umm....really? You knew I'd check right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I did a quick google search, and this says that E&E isn't a social science journal - it says it is interdisciplinary, which does include both social and natural sciences. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

@LHVU: There are as many RS available for the fact that some are skeptical toward the concept as there is a paucity of good science references to evidence that viewpoint; we can source the science, and we can source the counter arguments - it should be easy to find a middle way to encompass both, no? - are you looking for global warming controversy? The reasons why this probation was placed upon these group of articles remains abundantly clear - the historical contributors are incapable of creating encyclopedic content without them. - don't believe you; the content *has* been created without them; the probation has left, e.g., the GW itself quite untouched, because no-one has suggested a way to improve it (and the current unrefactorable state of the talk page guarantees that no agreement is possible). and this is acerbated by the refusal of the pro-GW orientated editors to allow such "controversies" or viewpoints any meaningful inclusion in articles relating to global warming - you've missed criticism of the IPCC AR4 then. Other errors abound William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is perhaps the essence of the difficulty in understanding the encyclopedic nature of article presentation to that of the scientific communities perception of the matter - the controversy is a fork of the main article, yet the main article is where those whose awareness of the subject is informed by the knowledge of there being a controversy will turn to. Should there be an article called The science of global warming, so the scientific communities near unanimous viewpoint may be placed without significant opposing viewpoints? I suggest that the major article(s) within the subject need address the controversy (that is, the claim of suppression or inflation of information tending toward a pro GW slant) in far greater, and neutral, detail than it now does because it reflects the general public's perception of the debate.

I am aware of both the global warming controversy and the criticism of the IPCC articles, since coming to these pages. They serve a purpose in detailing aspects of the skeptic/denialist sentiment specific issues with the subject of climate change - they should not be used as a process by which content contrary to the perceived consensus of the scientific community should be solely presented (even if linked to, under a sentence or two from the main article). The general topic article(s) need address both the science and the counter opinions per WP:Due weight of the public's understanding of the issues.

The inflexibility of some of the editors working within the scientific communities consensus of opinion as regards editing these topics is exampled, it seems, by you, WMC. Your failure to countenance the validity that there is a legitimate place within the main articles to address that there is substantial criticism and denial (under whatever basis, no matter how unsound) because it rejects the near totality of your own peer groups determination of the issues does as much drive problems regarding editing issues as does your intemperate and frequently childish resort to belittling other editors and their viewpoints rather than attempting to engage them. As such your opinion upon my efforts, likely based upon your prejudices and lack of confidence in being able to construct effective counter arguments, is irrelevant to the matter of acknowledging that part of the problem is the efforts of editors including yourself have been working against the ethos of consensual, collegiate and npov editing. You might not be able to comprehend the need to inform the public neutrally upon all major aspects of a subject, generally within the main topic, but you could make the effort in recognising that there are those that do, in good faith. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you summarize the above a little more clearly and concisely? It's clear that you don't like WMC (which is hardly news), but I'm having trouble understanding specifically what you want to see in terms of content. Your opening remarks sound like you want us simply to parrot back to the public what they expect to hear, but I doubt that's what you really mean. At least I hope it isn't. 00:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk • contribs)

I don't know WMC, and I don't therefore have an opinion on them as a person. I understand that their real life background is in climate change research, and recognise they are well informed as regards that aspect of the debate. I find WMC's apparent stance (among others who I know even less about, individually) that because GW denial is based upon poor or non existent science then the lack of credibility disallows noting the fact of skepticism within climate change to be in error, and I have serious reservations regarding WMC in particular and some other "pro GW" ability to conduct themselves in the appropriate manner when interacting with editors with a skeptic viewpoint.

No, we don't parrot back the public's perceptions (sourcing it would be a nightmare, anyway); we address it. All of it. The science, and its acceptances and its mistakes, and the skepticism and its reliance (on inexpert) opinion. Notable achievements (the various Protocols adopted) and major errors (2035 Glacial disappearance) should be note neutrally in the body. Make the article reflect the reasons why the majority would wish to read it, a comprehensive review of the issue - not just the science. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you've read Criticism of the IPCC AR4 I'm sure you'll appreciate that the 2035 typo for glacial disappearance was not about the science, but about the IPCC report wrongly using the WWF and the mainstream press as a source without properly following IPPC rules. If it becomes established as a "major error" then it should be covered in Global warming controversy. How much summary style coverage is appropriate in the article about the science should be discussed at Talk:Global warming, but complaints that this hasn't yet been addressed seem a bit premature. . . dave souza, talk 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

One persistent meme of those who currently control these articles has been "too early", when anything critical comes out. UnitAnode 14:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

One persistent meme I've noticed is a tendency for some editors to assume that the Daily Mail is right when it proclaims that an error in a paragraph of a huge scientific/political report overturns the whole of climate science. Perspective can take a little longer, Wikipedia is not news. . . dave souza, talk 14:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

My Simple Take

Much that's been said above is true, but as has been said, the positions of the editors (and their attitudes) won't change because of this probation. Now, what this probation should be doing, at least in my eyes, is getting rid of those that got us here. If there are diffs provided that show that the editor in question isn't following the probation, topic/page ban. The problem becomes that when certain editors are -not- sanctioned for their behavior, others see this as free reign to act the same way themselves. Particularly those on the 'other side'. The current enforcements are just leading to further escalations, and the eventual arbcom case that this was meant to avoid.

Proposed solution: Handle enforcement requests checkmark style. Example: This diff is either civil/uncivil. If the checks end up on the wrong side of probation, topic/page ban. The only way this can work is if there are a set of standards, which is applied equally. This is not currently happening. Arkon (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The checklist approach is a bit too bureaucratic for my taste. I'd prefer stricter enforcement of the probation. In turn the strictness would be ameliorated by escalating rather than initially severe sanctions: say, stern parental warning -> temporary page ban -> topic ban -> block. In this way every infraction would be addressed but people would get to decide where on the sliding scale of enforcement they're willing to see the light. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The checklist approach would instantly select calling other editors "septic" as being out of order. This would avoid having to ban people for saying "but I'm not skeptical", thereby committing a different and even graver crime, that of expressing an opinion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned this on 2/0's talk page, but one thing I am seeing here that I have not seen in other areas, even very contentious areas, is the pattern where editors are banned for expressing a view too many times. This seems to be the assumption here, that if someone keeps saying something, then we just need to get rid of them. I'd note for one thing that it's quite a broad interpretation of ArbCom's ruling, that editors can be sanctioned "for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith." I suppose "disruptive" can mean anything, but I certainly don't see "persistence" listed. I also notice the advice to "Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article." This is being interpreted to say that editors should avoid making repeated comments even if they are directly related to bettering the article, and even where discussion on related matters continues. In the end, I think it creates perverse incentives, particularly to stone wall as far as possible to show a strong consensus against a particular editor, after which that editor can no longer make the argument without risk of being banned. It gives editors little incentive to compromise. Of course I realize that editors get tired of explaining the same point over and over, but I don't believe that banning should immediately be on the table simply because an editor doesn't immediately have success. Certainly ignoring should come before banning, and only if the editor abuses the silence should any other options then be pursued. It's a matter of respecting dissent, but also of angling people toward productive compromise, rather than toward obstructive and confrontational tactics. Mackan79 (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In the Cold Fusion case Arbcom did indeed topic ban an editor for a year for behavior somewhat resembling what you are talking about. Cardamon (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't follow that case, but I doubt it's the type of thing I'm talking about. If the content is plainly unencyclopedic, or the methods are disruptive, then sanctions are appropriate. It isn't even really a type of behavior I have in mind; I'm simply noting that if you get too far from what can fairly be termed "disruptive" conduct into prohibiting the expression of viewpoints, it can make the process too susceptible to gaming that aims to exacerbate conflicts rather than working, out of necessity, to resolve them. Mackan79 (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the issues in the Cold Fusion case were similar, although I suspect your view of them would differ from mine. One of the issues was whether, if there is substantial consensus among scientists about a scientific subject, Wikipedia should write about that subject from the point of view of that consensus. I believe that it should, and that this follows from the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Significant bodies of opinion that differ from the scientific consensus should be written about too; we can do this because Wikipedia is not short of paper, but they don't have the right to be written about from their own points of view. Some debate can often be helpful or even necessary in deciding what to write in article space. However, such debate is just a means to an end, and Wikipedia is not primarily a platform for expressing viewpoints, not that you said it was. There seems to be a considerable degree of consensus among climate scientists that global warming is occurring now, and is largely caused by human activities, so we need to write from that point of view. There is also a significant amount of dissent, which also needs to be written about; we should do so from the consensus point of view, in a neutral tone, without mockery. Cardamon (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all fine, I'm just not sure it speaks to all or most of the disputes that we're seeing. To say that AGW is accepted fact doesn't tell us how to write a BLP about an AGW skeptic. It doesn't tell us how to write an article on Climate change denial, or even whether there should be an article like Scientific opinion on climate change rather than perhaps an article on the science of climate change, and an article on the debate about climate change that discusses various "opinions" (where does opinion fit into the scientific method anyway?). An editor was just banned for pursuing his view on this latter question, where to say that Wikipedia should not promote skepticism of AGW does not really address the issue. The editor doesn't appear to be an "idiot," which strongly suggests to me that something in the process is going wrong. My point is that the questions are often more complex than whether Wikipedia should be pro or anti-AGW. I don't know that I'm disagreeing with you. Mackan79 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to disagree with an aspect of that conclusion, that WP should write from the consensus scientific view, because Wikipedia does not write to be read by that community, but by the general public and WP:NPOV - a Pillar, not just a policy - notes that we should reference everything dispassionately and allow the reader to follow the sources and form their own opinion. Even if the evidence is overwhelmingly (as it seems) for global warming the risks of appearing to be an authority in the matter rather than a compodium of references is that if mistakes are made (even sourced mistakes) then the encyclopedia's reputation falls with it. Appearing as an authorative source also does not gel with being an open editing environment, since not all editors will agree (in good faith) with that viewpoint and the temptation to use that percieved authority to disseminate other facts (such as a classmate being "teh ghay") becomes greater. The scientific consensus should, I feel, certainly guide us but it would be a mistake to simply adopt it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A practical problem is that there isn't a single minority view that can easily be summarized, but a wide range of views that each are held by tiny minorities: one says temperature changes are due to variations in solar flux, another says they're due to cosmic ray fluctuations, another that they're due to mysterious variations in low clouds, another due to variations in ocean circulations, another that Earth's atmosphere doesn't actually have a greenhouse effect, another this, another that. Each of these are tiny-minority views with the possible exception of "natural variability" of unspecified provenance. How do we summarize each of these tiny-minority views without overwhelming the majority viewpoint? In the main GW article we discuss cosmic rays and solar variation because they're the ones that are taken at least semi-seriously by the scientific community (and in fact we give them far and away more weight than in the literature). But what about the other dozen or so tiny-minority views? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. The scientific consensus is a consensus as a result of over a hundred years of research comprising thousands of papers. Most of the minority views have vanishingly small support in the scientific community, as well as being mutually contradictory. As far as public perception is concerned, it is certainly an important topic, but should not inform an article about the actual theory of global warming. I don't think that this contradicts WP:NPOV. Hal peridol (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That "most of the minority views have vanishingly small support in the scientific community, as well as being mutually contradictory" is quite normal. Science develops both through gradual changes AND radical revisions. In the xase of the first one can expect a consensus, in the case of the second one can expect a fierce debate with the majority defending the status quo. If the consensus/majority position changed into dogma while the alternative views of minority were excluded the science WILL STOP being science! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.189.3 (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that you could expect a fierce scientific debate, rather than a fierce political and ideological debate, were this one of the rare cases of a shift in scientific paradigm. Hal peridol (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If the scientific debate is supressed or constrained and the conclusions have tremendous economic consequences the debate must spill into political arena. General public wants to know what is going on. There is a reason why the court trials allow both sides to speak and that are open to public. The true science benefits from public scrutiny because scientists are corruptible human beings same way as everyone else. They are not superhuman, they are not angels. And do not forget who is paying for the reasearch and salaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.189.3 (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

To SHBH; there is no need to detail every aspect of skepticism/denialism - just note that there is quite a lot of it, and most of it is based on opinion rather than good research.

To Hal peridol; the public's perspective should not inform the article, but it should inform what the article addresses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

LHvU, that sounds good in theory but is out of touch with Wiki-reality. Try saying "most of it is based on opinion rather than good research" and see how far you get. To the contrarians, their hypotheses deserve just as much weight as the scientific findings; e.g., many have explicitly argued against a preference for the peer-reviewed literature and instead to prefer popular-press sources on matters of science. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that Wikipedia needs any special leaning towards science, it deals with science topics quite well within its current policies. As far as scientific opinion of climate change that deals specifically with scientific opinion and as far as climate change consensus is concerned that deals pretty well with the public side. A science only matters leaning would remove the second article and a leaning that said science didn't exist as a valid enterprise only what joe public says would eliminate the first (plus every single maths article except perhaps Monty Hall problem which would now say you shouldn't switch).

As to removing editors for being persistent, I guess I'm one of the people that refers to because of my complaint about someone going on and on and on and on and on and on (I could go on for a few more pages but I think persistence can be disruptive). My complaint is that they did not follow the dispute resolution process. An experienced editor should finally come to the conclusion that they are not getting anywhere on a talk page, preferable a while before they start throwing around allegations like being stonewalled. They should then either accept the consensus or follow the next step in WP:dispute resolution. And when they have exhausted their steps they should stop. Going on and on is disruptive behavior and drives away good editors. If a mediation is set up I will only accept it if it is time limited and the editor agrees to accept the conclusion under pain of sanctions, otherwise it should go to ArbCom. There is no point going through the months of stuff they pointed out they did when someone set up a previous fruitless mediation for them never mind the various RfCs, all of which seems to have been totally ignored. Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at theAfD referenced from a VPP discussion about forking and here just in for example is exactly why I'd want strong assurances that the results of any mediation were adhered to. I wonder where that talk page will be in six months time. Dmcq (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

@LHVU: Your failure to countenance the validity that there is a legitimate place within the main articles to address that there is substantial criticism and denial - you need to take some time off to actually read the articles you're talking about. Global warming is largely about the science. There isn't a lot of skeptic stuff in there, because that is the correct weight (in fact there is somewhat too much skeptic stuff in there, but never mind). If you *had* read the article, you'd know that the lede contains Political and public debate continues regarding global warming, and what actions (if any) to take in response. Put another way: your complaints are baseless, *if* you actually trouble yourself to read the articles. If you read the fantasy version in your own head, well, I've no idea quite what you might come up with William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with you Dr Connolley. Specifically rereading the lede and first part of the article although it says "public debate... continues" there is no clear statement that "many members of the general public remain sceptical of these "basic statements" (listed further up the lede), for a variety of reasons, regardless of the scientific consensus". Maybe this statement is OR, but roughly the reasons LHVU gave are valid ones for including it in the intro if adequate sources is available. Also I think your comments to LHVU are gratituous aggressive; desist please whatever the history between you it spoils the atmosphere. --BozMo talk 13:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But is it correct that "many members of the general puplic remain sceptical of these "basic statements""? And is it notable? Would we state the same in our article on Big Bang, Evolution and other science areas, where the general public is poorly informed? If one looks at scepticism globally, then (afaik) only the US has a political divide on this, and while the US is an important country - it isn't the world. On this particular issue, i'm looking forward to getting Public opinion on climate change summarized somewhere... but important enough in pure WP:WEIGHT to be in the lead of global warming? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is that - just like evolution - it's both a scientific issue and a political controversy. Just like evolution, the basic scientific facts are very firmly established, even if some of the details are still the subject of scientific dispute. Just like evolution, only a minority of scientists dissent from the mainstream view. Just like evolution, political activists play up the minority of scientific dissenters and the disputes over the fine details to cast doubt on the basic science. Just like evolution, political activists see the science as a surrogate for an opposing ideology (atheism or socialism). Just like evolution, political activists systematically misrepresent the science and make false claims about it, using the infamous "Gish Gallop" approach. The challenge that we face is how to represent the science and the political views fairly without the political views displacing or overwhelming the science. The Conservapedia article on global warming is a case study in how not to tackle the issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for those links. The Express 100 reasons why climate change is natural in the Gish Gallop is interesting, I didn't know people in England wanted to be fed that sort of silliness too. The conservapedia article though is a real eye opener. I had a look at their homosexuality and abortion articles too to see how some rednecks would treat them. It's very interesting that they seem to form a group mindset. It's like Dr Strangelove, I get the feeling they'd form common cause with islamic fanatics to kill off all the wishy washy liberals who are polluting their water. By the way, on that theme, you might like to look at the conservapedia article on Water fluoridation Dmcq (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Undoing administrative closes

This is just a general note that when an uninvolved administrator closes a thread, it's closed. Twice now, editors have reverted an admin's closure of an enforcement thread. Even by the abysmal behavioral standards of this page, that is over the line. To the editor's credit in the most recent case, they self-reverted. This is a general warning that if complainants continue to revert administrative closures, I will block them. Regardless of how strongly you feel that you're right, there are some absolute-minimum behavioral standards that need to be in place here. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, stop. The administrators at this enforcement page routinely take your antagonistic attitude toward those who don't fall in line, while kid-gloving WMC's blatant violations. I self-reverted, despite the egregious sweeping-under-the-rug that Prodego's close entailed. Save your outrage for people who deserve it. UnitAnode 18:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Mastcell, the "uninvolved admins" turn this "enforcement page" into a farce, yet your only concern is this action which UA has already self-reverted? ATren (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a valid complaint against an administrator then talk to the administrator or take it to an appropriate forum like WP:ANI or WP:RFC or whereever. Personal attacks against them have no place on talk pages. Dmcq (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, there is a question: how do I build consensus for a position? Option A: Express outrage at every opportunity. Option B: Calmly explain how things could be better. So which should one use where? Just one editor's view, but in my experience expressing outrage only works with others who already agree with you; expressing outrage to people who disagree with you rarely works. On Wikipedia, expressing outrage to people who are ambivalent is almost as bad. So what is the point? Considering that it's useless, that it only entrenches our problems, and that it is not especially civil, I think it should stop. I think there are problems in the area, but I certainly won't support editors who can't control their tempers. If there is a concern, editors should state it civilly and respectfully; if they oppose the process they should take it to ArbCom. I don't think that shouting and incivility should be tolerated here as the standard mode of communication. Mackan79 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mackan, I've done the "civil and respectful" route. A couple of months ago, when WMC and a couple of his friends were removing talkpage posts right and left, I tried to step in (as, at that time, a wholly uninvolved editor), and asked them to stop. Suffice to say, they didn't. The reason normal people become somewhat "radicalized" is because over and over and over again, all enforcement sways in one direction. If a skeptic had done what WMC did in referring to other editors as "idiots" and "yahoos" in the very thread where he was informed that he was restricted from such language, they would have been blocked on the spot, and/or topic-banned. This is going to end up in front of the arbcom again, and it's not going to be pretty. UnitAnode 20:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, so the area has problems, but MastCell still wasn't attacking you, and Atren's comment that this is a farce still doesn't help. The fact that civility doesn't work at first isn't a reason to stop trying. One has to keep focusing on the real problems as they arise. MastCell is right that editors should not be reverting closures, and credited you for reverting yourself. People need to strongly resist the urge to get exorcised about every little thing, find places where they agree along with where they disagree, and work from there. Mackan79 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mackan, I've been involved in the GW articles on and off for over a year, and nothing ever changes. I could probably find a hundred aggressive diffs from WMC over that time, but nothing is ever done. It is a farce. You're right, I probably shouldn't say it even though it is, but after months and months of the same garbage, it gets very tiring. In a year, you'll be saying the same things. ATren (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd hope not. The fact is that where editors are not treated evenly, there are reasons for it, even if you have to search for them. On these articles I believe there is a significant concern that, based purely on behavioral policies, uninformed activists would bait and overwhelm the more scientifically competent editors. Whether that's legitimate we could debate, but I don't think it's outlandish, or a simple issue. Of course some responses to this concern can be less reasonable than others. But, frankly, to go about complaining as if improvements are impossible is to become part of the problem. Mackan79 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem of "uninformed activists" is overblown. Again, this is based on my observation of this debate over the last year. Yes, there is the occasional problem editor, as with any contentious topic. But the "uninformed activist" problem is matched (and likely exceeded) by the "vested contributor ownership" problem. WMC is at the center of this, with his aggressive, uncivil, even attacking style in enforcing the status quo. Without WMC, there would be plenty of editors to step up and protect against uninformed claims, and I myself would be one of them if the skeptical view became too prominent, but the level of discourse would not be so hostile without the combativeness of WMC. Look at the heat that has been generated on these pages, all originating with the actions of one editor. There are no Scibabies on this page -- in fact, I think most of us are not even skeptics -- yet the level of agitation is extreme, because admins continue to mis-identify the root cause of this dispute. ATren (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe but I don't think "all originating with the actions of one editor" is quite fair. "Unformed activist" comes and goes. I think there is also a fair bit of Dunning Kruger editing where a few people (not you) greatly over-estimate their own understanding of complex issues and get extremely upset when all that happens is their lack of understanding is pointed out without great attempt to wrestle with their thoughts. Of course we would rather this was all done in a softer and more civil manner, but also I would rather it was done by someone else not me because it is not an easy thing to point out without violating WP:DICK. --BozMo talk 13:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Shutting down threads (often with further PA) is one of the top 6 things wrong with these articles. I know, because I asked. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Or more accurately I guess one of the main things people have complained to you about. Dmcq (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps more accurately, the complaints or proposals you didn't delete. In my view politely keeping offtopic soapboxing under control is a good way of minimising disruption. New users should of course be introduced to talk page guidelines and invited to make positive proposals backed by sources. . . dave souza, talk 13:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok i`m getting fed up of this anti-scientific denialist views being pasted all over WP. It is not anti-science to be sceptical of AGW. The use of the term Denier has connotations to the holocaust and is used purposefully to conjure up images of bigoted, knuckle dragging right wing lunatics. I believe the use of this term is a violation of WP:CIVIL and i will ask for enforcement action next time i see it used. --mark nutley (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, are you sure you posted this in the right thread? I can't find "denialist" mentioned in this section. . . . dave souza, talk 13:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

didn't delete yes dave i posted in the right thread. mark nutley (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got you now. Among my proposals for action was that "Global warming controversy should include extreme fringe scientific views and anti-scientific denialist views", which in my understanding do exist but are outside the scientific fringe. Perhaps you have a better term? Agree that it's about as bad at framing as "Climategate", and similarly appears to be in use in media reports. . . dave souza, talk 14:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Can`t you just say sceptic? As in those sceptical of AGW, to the best of my knowledge nobody denies that climate changes, it always has done. People however are sceptical of the theory of AGW. Just go with that, i`m quite proud of the fact that i`m sceptical, it`s how science progress`s. mark nutley (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately "sceptic" or "skeptic" is a much misused term, and has other common meanings such as atheist. All scientists are indeed sceptical in broad principle, which is why both anti-globalwarmingists and anti-evolutionists like the term. You may not have noticed my preceding sentence, "the range of views in Scientific opinion on climate change should include those who think it's worse than IPCC reports indicate, as well as various minority views such as AGW existing but not being statistically significant etc." – all of these would fall under a "skeptic" label but not be denialist. There are also those who deny that global warming is occurring from an anti-science perspective, not sure how small a fringe they are. I think we should also ensure that a summary style statement in main global warming science article briefly mentions that there is a range of views, indicating broad outline but not going into any detail. There seems to be too much polarisation of arguments. . . . dave souza, talk 14:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bozmo

I find Bozmo's accusations that Lar is attempting to "filibuster" by introducing KDP to the enforcement extremely problematic. I've outlined very clearly the scope of the edit war, and KDP was a clear participant. The fact that the initial report didn't contain KDP's username is a minor technicality, at worst. I'm beginning to wonder if Bozmo's even looked at the page where I outlined the scope of the edit war? If he has, and still wishes to keep KDP out of the sanctioned group -- and make accusations against Lar -- I feel that this is the final straw as far as demonstrating his clear lack of objectivity. KDP is an SPA that engaged in an edit war. If that's not sanctionable, they should shut this enforcement page down. UnitAnode 13:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How is the above helpful to creating a collegial atmosphere? Hipocrite (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How is Bozmo accusing Lar of a "filibuster", and refusing to sanction KDP based on a technicality "helpful"? How is your one line response, "helpful"? My post is helpful because it sheds light on a situation that needs such light. I'm tired of one-sided enforcement. UnitAnode 13:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your language distracts from your point. Consider rewriting your request. Hipocrite (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What particular portions do you have a problem with? Nothing I posted was untrue, or even all that inflammatory. Bozmo DID make accusations that Lar was simply filibustering. In my view, that DOES demonstrate further his clear lack of objectivity. How is my wording problematic at all? UnitAnode 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to help you with your civility. If I were to write the intitial complaint, I'd say the following:

"I am concerned that Bozmo has not fully researced recent complaints that he has responded to, and is becoming less than objective. For example, I attempted to outline the scope of a recent edit war (User:Unitanode/GW edit war), and I feel my evidence clearly shows that KDP was a participant. While my initial complaint did fail to include KDP, that was little more than a technicality. I'm worried that Bozmo hasn't thoroughly reviewed my evidence before excluding KDP from sanctions. Further, I think that accusing other admins of "filibustering" isn't really conducive to creating a collegial atmosphere."

But that's just me - I mean, I don't think saying "I'm beginning to wonder if Bozmo's even looked" and "If that's not sanctionable, they should shut this enforcement page down," doesn't do much to allow the other side to try to agree with you. There's no compromise that anyone can reach with your position, so why would they even try? Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your condescension ("Sure, I'm happy to help you with your civility.") is noted. UnitAnode 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be condesending. I've striken the phrase you found problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode: I think Hipocrite's version is better. It makes the same points but does so in a more collegial way. He's "written for the enemy" here, as I've been encouraging him to do. Thanks for that, H. ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am curious about your word "accusations". As far as I know a filibuster is not a crime, nor morally dubious, nor forbidden by wikipolicy and indeed is often celebrated by participants? I had read your argument for extending the action to KDP and disagreed with it. As far as I understand it, it is not intended that I get entangled in discussion with you on that kind of judgement but I note 2/0 also presumably dismissed it as well. So Lar stating we cannot close unless KDP is included basically prevents this sanction from closing which is a form of filibuster. I don't have a particular problem with it assuming he has the energy to deal with the situation in another manner and intended this consequence. In terms of uninvolved I refer you to the wording of the probation and invite you to challenge my status as uninvolved if you believe me to be through the proper channels. --BozMo talk 14:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Filibustering is a political tactic, not one that ought to be employed in encyclopedia projects, and use of the term could be considered pejorative. I also don't think it fits the facts. I said I wasn't comfortable closing it without including KDP, not that we can't. We operate on consensus and if all the other admins felt differently, my discomfort stops nothing. ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See - look - no compromise presented, and because he didn't go saying you were not even reading what he wrote and that you should shut the page down he looks far more reasonable than you did. I'm not even sure if you can walk it back now. Hipocrite (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• There have been questions raised as to 2/0's objectivity as well. This issue -- where both of you are, for some reason, protecting KDP from sanction for his edit-warring -- seems to confirm these concerns. This perception of this page is that it has been pretty one-sided since its inception. This incident is doing nothing to allay those fears. UnitAnode 14:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're not presenting an avenue for compromise. You state that they are "protecting KDP from sanction for his edit-warring." At least you give in presenting "perception" of the page, and asking that people allay your fears without actually stating that they are evil bias-monsters, but still, consider writing the kind of thing that people on the "other" side would be willing to accept. Here's an example here

"Some of the editors have complained about 2/0 as well. I think it's important to convince editors who feel this process is biased that we're actually being fair - I know it seems like I'm scalp-hunting by asking for KDP's head here, but please consider that the sanctions requested are minimally intrustive if users are on even good behavior, and the positive benefits that creating the appearance of neutrality would have."

Of course, at this point, I'm not sure what you anyone would actually get out of having KDP put under 1rr except that you they can more easily "win" edit wars (right up untill someone notices youthey are "winning" edit wars). Perhaps gracefully losing would work better, now. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. For someone so concerned with civility, accusing me of only looking to "win edit wars" is way beyond the pale. I don't believe that I've ever even reverted KDP on an article. I could be mistaken about this, but perhaps you may want to think before you click "save" as well. UnitAnode 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wrote something that was so easy to misunderstand. I didn't mean to accuse you of looking to "win" edit wars. I was merely stating that putting Kim on 1rr didn't do anything for anyone, except help them "win" edit wars. I realize looking back that it was unfairly directed at you, and for that I apologize. I've edited my statement appropriately. Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Current wording proposal

The current wording proposed by 2/0 seems even-handed, and alleviates my above concerns. UnitAnode 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Unitanode - we strive for fairness, though not necessarily balance; I know I at least reply directly only rarely, but productive comments in the discussion section are always considered. Thank you as well for preparing the evidence page, that was very helpful. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was wondering if any of the admins had really read it. UnitAnode 18:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well if you mean [4] sure although you excluded two edits of the Good locust, one to introduce the original material and one to add to it. Also the intervals between the edits mattered but I am sure you know all that. --BozMo talk 18:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Those were clearly not simple reversions. It wasn't even close. And initially introducing the material is never considered part of an "edit war." Why the hang-em-high mentality about TGL, Bozmo? UnitAnode 19:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are counting the material I added? And adding/restoring references? If anything you should checkuser the guy who removed all the references and replaced them with "icecap," which, oddly enough, became the battle cry for reversion even after I restored (and added to) the original sources - it definitely looked kind of fishy. Also, on the talk page, most people keep on pointing out the flaws in KDP's "Just Say No" style of discussion. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Negatively characterizing other's styles of discussion is unlikey to foster a collegial atmosphere. Please don't do it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPADE TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hipocrite. ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change

Apologies if I missed something, could someone help me see why are there discussion ongoing here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change which seem like topics for this project? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess that was my fault. I filed a formal request to this project page[5] and notified the editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For Connolley and Hipocrite

Since they seem to think I'm a blind partisan then here are some diffs (as requested) that suggest otherwise [6][7][8][9]

There are a few recent ones, where I'm either defending AGW proponents or agreeing with them at least partially.

Oh, I almost forgot, as you know Connolley, I kindly pointed out that you'd broken 1rr (again) and civility probation instead of reporting you or filing a report. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Only the first one is anything, and that is trivia. The second doesn't count, until it is on the article talk page. The others look meaningless. If that's the best you can do, it isn't any good William M. Connolley (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are just recent ones, I'm not going to pour through my entire history to find something to find dozens of diffs to prove something to you. Also, you've misunderstood my good intentions in the past and so I'm not terribly surprised that you don't recognize how those diffs demonstrate that I'm not some blind partisan. Regardless, I'm quite done with this, anyone with an open mind can see what I'm all about. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You were asked for diffs; you've supplied nothing at all convincing. But your last sentence is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be true that you are not a blind partisan but the fact that you think those contributions show that indicates to me the exact opposite. Why are you worried about such an impression?, everyone writing anything on these articles will be typed one way or the other, even the uninvolved admins have all be accused of being partisan one way or the other. Just do what you think you should for improving the encyclopaedia and let your edits speak for themselves. Dmcq (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I was accused on the article space with the accusation of (something along the lines of) "you would say that because he supports your POV you'll always defend him and not me." I said that was ridiculous could easily show that I wasn't and Connolley asked for diffs on this talk page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, TGL *is* a blind partisan, as his edits show, and his inability to find anything convincing "the other way" William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't the same be said about you? ATren (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Only by someone unfamiliar with my edits. I could point you to numerous substantive article space edits in which I tone down alarmism. The "AJL wars" spring to mind - do you remember that? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Off wiki, but maybe you'll like [10]. Or [11]. So lets seem something of yours even vaguely equivalently bunker-crossing or whatever it is we're calling this William M. Connolley (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

The signal-to-noise ratio on enforcement threads is atrocious. I think this contributes somewhat to the difficulty in satisfactorily addressing complaints raised here. I would suggest one of the following approaches:

• Uninvolved admins proactively remove off-topic argumentation to the talk page
• Active combatants are limited or completely excluded from commenting on requests that do not directly involve them

I'll refrain from listing "active combatants" by name, although it should be relatively easy to determine. I'm not going to act on this myself; I prefer to sharply limit my administrative input here to addressing only the most egregious abuses, but I see essentially no good, and a lot of harm, coming from the fact that every thread is turned into a schoolyard fight. MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree re S/N, and that your solution is worth trying William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Rights for new editors is an obvious candidate section for moving William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes well, the latest accusation that I was bringing up Scjessey out of the blue was patently false since he was not only named in the diffs, but had been making really disruptive edits. I was just explaining the context of Macai's edits since I happen to think context is important. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think your input to that thread improved or worsened the situation? MastCell ^Talk 04:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Let me be the first to withdraw from the battlefield (with honor, or otherwise). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it improved the understanding of the situation. Nobody said truth was an easy thing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not. MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Rights for new editors

off-topic - 2/0 (cont.) 15:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's tiring how many new editors are called scibaby accounts and driven away. Can we stop the lies and let him back?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.168.57.210 (talk • contribs) WP:Standard offer applies. However, the actual number of new editors affected seems to be around 0. And unfortunately we have no control over hir lies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC) how can you know if you block them all?

Content editing restrictions

I just commented here that the content revert restrictions, where editors can be blocked for reverting anything that has been reverted in the last 24 hours, seems like a bad idea. Briefly, the result is that anyone who wants to make an edit has to look through every single edit over the last 24 hours to see if they are undoing any part of an edit that undoes something else... even a straight comparison of all edits in the last 24 hours wouldn't do the trick, since an edit that is then reverted would show as no change. I understand the point is that we don't want people jumping into edit wars, even with one revert, but it seems to me this goes too far. Has all of this been considered? Mackan79 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

On further consideration, setting up too many byzantine rules like that is not a good idea for Wikipedia. Main discussion at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Content restriction. Thank you for your rationations. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has a name

[Note:text below was a response under Request For Restrictions on Article Renaming Discussions and was moved here. It opposes the restrictions on discussing renaming that have been suggested on the main page (where this originally resided).

This page is not for article naming discussions

The article has a name. It is Climategate. It is not the least ambiguous. It is a 'slam dunk'. By chasing people away, bullying, threatening and generally wearing them down, people who wish Climategate did not happen have consistently steered the debate away from its only sensible conclusion. It is a testimony to how badly wrong things have gone on the Climate pages that someone was able to erase Climategate as a page title and is now cheeky enough to suggest the term be rubbed out altogether. Climategate is a subject all by itself and has only a tangential relationship to the thing that is being used to erase it from Wikipedia. There is no doubt that there is a thing called 'Climategate' in the rest of the world. There is little doubt that people have an interest in it. It is clear from all the sound and fury around it that it is notable. From what I can tell from the substance of and the fallout from the scandal it is a big subject and an important one. It is, BTW, a scandal for heavens sake. There are more Google hits right now for "Climategate scandal" than there are for "Watergate scandal" (571K vs 337K). If something is going to lose it's 'gate' suffix it sure as heck should not be Climategate. It seems as though nothing will reach the camp that decided that the salient points of Climategate were that it was an alleged hacking of a server at a 'research unit' and that it was merely an 'incident'. The awkward name of "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" is NOT best under Wikipedia guidelines. Trumping its actual name in current usage (Climategate) is not even allowed from my reading of guidelines. No other entity on earth called Climategate by this name, even after millions of pages had been created. In fact, even though Wikipedia and that embarrassing name was at the top of a Google search for months, less than one hundred pages refer to it by that name. Whatever this thing should be called it is clear that the current title is not it. Nothing should trump its actual name in current usage (Climategate). Wikipedia has very clear guidelines for such a dispute. They are unambiguous and clearly call for the article to take the name Climategate and no other. Here is the relevant section from the Wikipedia guidelines for naming an article (emphasis is mine): Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms - e.g. Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper - are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources. Here is how the examples above stack up in 'googlespace' vs Climategate right now: Name/Hits "Boston Massacre"/310K "Tea Pot Dome scandal"/<2K "Edward the Confessor"/536K "Jack the Ripper" 2,180K "Climategate" 12,100K Google is hardly the arbiter, of course. However, it is pretty clear from the above that if you are to go to major newspapers, networks, any involved institution, congressional records, blogs and other current reference sources you will find this thing and it will be called 'Climategate'. There are six thousand times as many references to Climategate than there are to the least prominent of the examples given in the guideline. Climategate has more than four times the references than all the examples combined. There is no judgement call here. According to Wikipedia guidelines and its customs this article belongs under the name 'Climategate' and WP visitors deserve to see a proper treatment of the subject. There is no reasonable argument for keeping up the charade that Climategate does not exist. Redirecting 'Climategate' to its current ridiculous name is tantamount to claiming 'Climategate' either does not exist or is not called 'Climategate'. Neither are true. It is not going to go away, even if the most likely place anyone would look (Wikipedia) tries to 'disappear' it. The thing to which the term 'Climategate' currently refers misleads the reader into thinking that the term (or even topic) 'Climategate' is entirely promoted by non-neutral sources. It attempts to misdirect attention from the real topic to a supposition about how it started. That supposition is needlessly prejudicial and likely not even correct. Worse, it tries to put that front and center in the title and the leading paragraph. At one point, there was a ridiculous discussion as to whether or not the term 'Climategate' should appear in the lead at all, even though the actual subject is Climategate. It is well beyond ridiculous how long this sore has existed here at Wikipedia. It is a dreadful embarrassment, not just that we get it wrong, but that we seem simply unable to correct the mistake. Worse, as the title of this section implies there exist mechanisms at WP sufficiently poisonous that they might be able to permanently block even any attempts at putting it right. Regardless of how one feels about Climategate, surely anyone with a sense of fair play would agree that the article on Climategate should bear the name of its subject. This has been hashed over, but should be mentioned to be complete. The supposed argument against the moniker 'Climategate' is that it is 'POV'. Setting aside the fact that WP guidelines are clear that in this case it is OK to be POV, the current title is not only much more *POV* it is entirely misleading. It attempts, under the guise of creating a neutral point of view, to prejudice the reader into thinking the salient point is that a computer crime occurred. That is, first off, not the salient point and second, not proven. In my opinion, it is not even correct. It also minimizes what has happened. When this initially broke, the AGW camp (not moi, obviously) tried to say 'nothing to see here, move along'. For while, I think they came within a whisker of pulling it off. Clearly, though, there was quite a bit to see. Using WP:AGF, one might be able to argue that the original name change was a well meaning mistake. As of this point in time, though, this is not just on the radar, there has been serious fallout including discussion by major governments, investigations at Universities, calls for resignations, (finally) the release of information, a promise by the MET to undertake a major review of part of the data, etc. Unlike the 'alleged hacker' and their 'alleged crime', there is now evidence that a real crime *was* committed and it was committed by at least one of the subjects of the revealed information, not the person who (allegedly) released it. This went well beyond the 'incident' stage months ago. Only Climategate is appropriate. I think that elsewhere I chipped in to say I oppose a title change to some other thing intended to substitute for Climategate. If people are not going to call this by its real name, then it is preferable to me that it continue with its current ridiculous name -- name and shame, I say. I am, since I am pretty opinionated on the topic, going to recuse myself from entering material in any of the Climate articles for the foreseeable future. I strongly suggest that anyone with strong opinions do the same. The topic has clearly been dominated by a group of people who are much, much too close to this to speak sensibly to the subject matter. The only honorable thing to do is to stand aside and let cooler heads prevail. In case someone is confused -- if you have made more than two dozen edits to Climate articles you should probably step aside for a while. If any truly neutral editor sees this, I hope you will intervene to at least correct the optics here. Let people who think Climategate is a manufactured smear campaign complain about that on the talk page. Heck, I don't think it would be out of line to have a section on that dissenting opinion in the article even if it turns out to be a minority opinion. However, the current state of affairs is just plain wrong and it is not getting any less wrong as time passes. DeepNorth (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Please see WP:NC#Descriptive titles where -gate names are specifically deprecated as a matter of policy, and WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal, which states specifically that -gate names are not to be used in article titles other than in historical cases supported by reliable historical sources. It's curious how the proponents of POV article naming somehow never seem to acknowledge the fact that policy specifically rejects the use of their -gate names. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Chris: if you re-read the references you have given me you will notice that the text I quote is quite literally 'the last word' from the very items you reference -- WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal. The wording and meaning of that text is crystal clear and points inexorably to naming the article 'Climategate'. If you read the whole works, 'policy' is modified by the text I quote, not the other way around. One is also advised to use common sense and even if you have strong feelings to the contrary, it is pretty clear that a majority opinion calls this 'Climategate'. There is little more to discuss except to simply refer you back to the note above, the section I quote and the comparison of how 'Climategate' (more than) fits the prescription.

It might be interesting

I was thinking that it might be interesting to compare how many editors from one side of this content issue have been sanctioned versus those from the other. It might also be interesting to compare the severity of sanctions for similar offenses. I think that this would speak to the efficacy of the probation, and the fairness of its enforcement. I'm particularly thinking of the kid gloves with which the incivility of WMC is treated, versus the swift and brutal "justice" meted out on some from the other end of the spectrum. Does anyone have any data on this? Is there a central holding area for such sanctions that could be used to compile such data? UnitAnode 22:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think such a survey would be of any value, partly because of how the "sides" are defined. The "skeptical" side of the debate is pushing a largely fringe theory with an emphasis on scandal and controversy, so of course it is more likely that editors of this persuasion fall foul of sanctions related to edit-warring and content disputes. Conversely, the "other" side is more likely to receive sanctions for lack of civility due to their frustration with the former group. In any case, what purpose would such an analysis serve? Are you seeking to embolden those who have been sanctioned, so that we can have yet more drama? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it wouldn't be interesting at all, since all signal would be drowned out by the noise of Scibaby socks. If we could set them aside (difficult, because some of them will end up blocked without a CU), we'd still have to eliminate all the editors who came here angrily riled up by the likes of Solomon and Delingpole. Even if you could somehow leave them out, we'd need to take into account experience. Again, if you look at the "skeptical" side, you'll find that, on average, there are more new editors and fewer established ones. So again, of course, you'd expect newer editors to get into more trouble because, quite simply, they're less acculturated. Simply counting numbers will provide meaningless results. You'd need to carefully weight for experience, for attitude, for interactions between the two (if you talk about "the administrators", you don't get it)... If only we could get Nate Silver involved... Guettarda (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in surveys, another interesting idea would be to look at the ratio of talk page chatter to actual valuable contributions. Or you could look at who does the reverting of anon vandalism on the GW-type articles. Or who welcomes new or anon editors. Or who shamelessly talks about "sides" William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am shocked -- shocked! -- that the above three editors have weighed in against such a statistical analysis. <rolls eyes> UnitAnode 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That comment does an excellent job of encapsulating one of the main problems faced by people trying to write about "controversial" science in Wikipedia (and in the wider public sphere). The problem with the proposal is glaringly obvious to anyone with a passing understanding of hypothesis testing. It should be obvious to anyone familiar with Wikipedia that (a) new editors are much more likely to run afoul of our policies than experienced editors (for a variety of reasons), (b) SPAs are more likely to run afoul of our policies than people who edit a wider range of topics, and (c) people who arrive here with an axe to grind are more likely to run afoul of our policies than people who come here for other reasons. Given the distribution of editors into these two "camps" here, the underlying expectation is that more people from one "camp" are likely to end up as the subject to engage in behaviour that is worthy of sanction here. If you understand hypothesis testing, the very idea of comparing the raw numbers of people sanctioned pointless. We would expect that substantially more new SPAs will run into trouble than experienced editors. Documenting that the pattern which holds for Wikipedia as a whole also holds here is meaningless. Especially since the pattern we're comparing it to is purely anecdotal.

If you edit "controversial" scientific articles, you'll be familiar with this sort of problem. People show up making comparisons like this all the time. "If evolution is true, why don't we see new species evolving all the time?" Well, because the rate of speciation is low enough that we shouldn't expect to see new species in our lifetime. "If global warming is true, why haven't we seen any warming in the last 10 years?" Again, look at the last 50 years and tell me if you see a trend, don't look at the last 15 minutes. Similarly, if you want to look for bias in the way that decisions are handed out here, you either need to come up with a statistical model that takes into account the underlying patterns, or you need to compare like with like (only compare editors with more than xyears and y-thousand edits over z articles). Otherwise you're simply comparing today's temperature with last July's, and trying to see whether there actually is such a thing as global warming. Guettarda (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Eternal problem with trying to introduce facts and nuance into a discussion - I can't be as pithy as Unitanode's snark. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a good snark, though. Not a valid one, but short and witty. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Administrative bias"

It does absolutely no good to constantly whinge about biased, corrupt, unfair admins on this talk page or in various enforcement threads. If you really believe that 2/0, or any other admin, is acting in a sustained and improper fashion, then WP:RFC/U is → that way. If the more unrestrained among you honestly believe your own inflammatory rhetoric about maliciously aiding and abetting disruption and using the administrative tools to push a POV, then you might even want to go straight to ArbCom and make a case for emergency de-sysopping - that's certainly what I would do if I honestly believed an admin was engaging in the sorts of activities that are routinely charged here.

Alternately, you could accept that 2/0 is doing his level best, and that not every difference of opinion over a judgment call is driven by bias or malice. More strategically, you could lower the level of abuse to the point that other admins might actually want to get involved, which would dilute 2/0's impact. Right now, I can tell you that any uninvolved admin who takes a brief glance at the abuse directed at 2/0 is unlikely to want to spend their volunteer time refereeing you guys, which is to the general detriment. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Then there shouldn't be any problem with looking at the stats for how similar complaints brought against each side are handled. UnitAnode 03:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it's a waste of time to try to statistically "prove" bias here, in large part because your starting assumptions are not universally shared. But go ahead if you like. That's not my point. I'm telling you that there is a process in place to address the concerns you and a few others have voiced. If you're serious about your concerns, you should pursue that process. On the other hand, incessant griping and sniping here, without any attempt to productively address the situation, suggests that the goal is simply to make life unpleasant for any enforcing admin whose verdicts are disagreed with, in hopes that they'll be driven off. I hope that's not the case. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

    My only interest is in seeing the probation enforced fairly. As it stands, WMC gets away with calling people "yahoos", "the mob", and "idiots", in the very thread where he's informed of his civility restriction. I won't be starting an RFC/U on 2over0, but I may well take this before Arbcom if this one-sided enforcement for substantially similar breaches continues. UnitAnode 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There's still my outstanding complaint against WMC for edit warring and I'm not a member of the skeptic side so hopefully that adds some legitimacy to it. Per WP:TE, one of the behaviors of problem editors is "in returning from a block, your first action is to head right back to the article and repeat the edit." WMC's first action after the sanction was to head right back into the article and resume his edit war. LessHeard vanU's initial findings were that WMC was, in fact, edit-warring. Let's assume good faith from our beleaguered admins and hope that something more significant will be done in this case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Unitanode should try to get some grip on reality. Any request to ArbCom is likely to be refused: on the other hand he could end up being sanctioned by motion for wasting time. Looking at the bar for bad editing behaviour, it's edits by users like TGL that have hit rock bottom. Why is Unitanode supporting a user whose positive contributions to wikipedia are so hard to name? It's becoming very hard to understand his arguments - are they politically motivated? - no matter how many times they are repeated. Like CoM, he will end up being ignored. Mathsci (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Arbcom wouldn't be sanctioning me for anything, Mathsci. And I'm not "supporting" TGL, I'm opposing an obvious inequality in how enforcement is meted out. UnitAnode 11:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• and I'm not a member of the skeptic side so hopefully that adds some legitimacy to it. - first Lomborg, then ATren, then LHVU, then you: "take me seriously because I'm not a skeptic!". {{cn}} I think. As to your meritless complaints of edit warring: they are meritless William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Nah, I was ensuring you did not look foolish by mislabelling me, as might be expected from your history, given that you were unhappy with my actions in this matter. As ever, you have confounded my best efforts on your behalf. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'm confused. Is LHvU also A Quest for Knowledge? UnitAnode 14:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• WMC, I've been tried to mediate between the two warring faction for 3 months and have to say that both sided have repeated violations of behavior conduct. If it were up to me, I'd topic ban the whole lot of you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sure you would, but fortunately, its not. If that is your idea of "mediation" then... well, the obvious really. You snarking above seems all-too-typical of your style. Perhaps you might care to go and deploy your mediation skills elsewhere? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if it were true that I had a dog in this fight, it pales in comparison to someone who has clearly taken a side, even on-wiki (e.g. repeated references to "septics", the "torygraph", etc.) Why is it OK for you to express such clear partisan sympathies, but anyone who expresses even the slightest sympathies for the so-called "skeptic side" is viewed with suspicion? ATren (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, and just noticed WMC's first action after the sanction was to head right back into the article and resume his edit war - I'm pretty sure that is false. Are you really asserting that my first edit after the sanction was to that article? If so, I'll bother review my edit history. Though if you really believe it, why don't you supply the diffs? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to be so literal. My comment was meant to say that you were sanctioned and immediately the next day, you went in and continued edit-warring. If there are any intermediate actions, I did not look. You violated the spirit of WP:TE, if not the letter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, you were wrong, thanks for admitting it. The edit warring allegations ar also without meritl; it is regrettable that you're still pushing that dead horse William M. Connolley (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

MastCell, I have never suggested 2/0 is acting in bad faith. But whether he intends it or not, his decisions show a tendency to overreact to some while under-reacting (or even defending) others, and the distinction between the former and latter seems to correlate strongly with the perceived ideological stance of the editor. That's bias, and I've tried repeatedly to make 2/0 aware of this tendency without taking formal action because I really do believe his intentions are good, and I would prefer if he would consider stepping back voluntarily. Note: this does not imply complete withdrawal, only to withdraw from making hasty, unilateral decisions like he did with JPat, GoRight and now TGL. BozMo, for example, is more outwardly partisan than 2/0, and I strongly disagree with some of his analysis (particularly JPat), but it's less of a concern to me since BozMo has not been taking such a strong enforcement role.

In any case, I do believe this will require escalation, so I've begun moving in that direction. ATren (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but GoRight's block was after a lenghty ANI thread where many people (including myself) asked for a block or a ban, and he was reinstating a block that other admin had already placed, so I don't think it can be called unilateral.

P.D.: Then again, as Mastcell says, WP:RFC/U is thataway. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)