Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:03, 18 February 2010

Historical References

Historical Back Pointers

Rather than create archive pages which use up additional space I have decided to instead keep a list of back pointers to permanent links within the history of this talk page at various points in time.

Blocked (2)

Despite numerous warnings, lengthy detailed discussions with friendly and neutral editors, and formal sanctions, you have chosen not to abandon your apparent determination to be a drain on the volunteer resources of the community rather than an asset to the project. You have been editing in spurts since late 2007, and have amassed nearly five and a half thousand edits. You have a fine mind, a keen eye for detail, and an admirable willingness to stand against the tide. You could have chosen to be a great boon to this project. Instead, you have chosen to devote your efforts to stirring disputes in restraint of collaboration, making unreasonable demands in questionable faith on the time of your fellow volunteers, and grandstanding and tilting at windmills of minutia without evincing a serious interest in the productive creation of content. Serious discussion is one way to contribute to quality articles, but frivolously disputatious bickering is not. Your top-edited articles and talkpages include not a single page that would not serve as a forum for argument for its own sake. Spreading every sliver of contention across as many project pages as will feed the flames of drama shows an unseemly disinclination to contribute to a free high quality encyclopedia, or even let other people get on with building it. I even spent my own social capital in your defense here, but the promised reforms have not materialized.

You usually maintain at least a veneer of courtesy, but far too often you make comments that are snide, sarcastic, condescending, or similarly only superficially polite. The term civility is often hyperlinked to Misplaced Pages:Civility, but it is really not being used as a term of art with some byzantine Misplaced Pages-specific definition unrelated to the societal norm of treating people with basic respect even in the face of serious disagreement. Accusations of collusion, insinuations of bad faith negotiation, and intimidation by intimation are never civil.

There follows a sampling of problematic diffs from the preceding week. Many of these are in context of discussions where other editors are also behaving disruptively, but the behaviour of others is immaterial to this sanction. It is worth noting that your participation in a discussion rarely has the effect of calming an inflamed situation or restoring a productive focus, though it often has rather the opposite effect. Some of my comments below include reference to guidelines or essays rather than policy; this should be taken as shorthand for the points laid out at those pages, not as indication that they are being used to justify this block.

1. accusation of gross misconduct outside of a dispute resolution process
2. accusation of perfidy
3. needlessly inflaming an already passionate discussion
4. sarcasm and accusation of bad faith
5. violation of WP:POINT
6. accusation of partiality and collusion
7. accusation of abuse and bad faith (diff includes edits by other editors to include the mitigating factor that you later struck part of a comment)
8. inflaming an already passionate discussion
9. unproductive sarcasm
10. uncivil insinuation
11. violation of WP:POINT and unevidenced accusation that other editors have failed to show due diligence in reviewing a serious matter.
12. demand that other users expend their time and effort to your satisfaction
13. referring to people as "my good friend" is actually a bit annoying; this is just my personal opinion, not part of the blocking rationale, especially given your explanation here
14. incivility
15. Here you state at 01:17 on the 13th server time that you had dropped the matter of Pcarbonn's topic ban after a neutral administrator closed the discussion. Here an hour earlier is your back-handed acceptance of the clear community consensus. Here at 20:49 on the 12th, however, is another close by an uninvolved administrator, followed by, well, some of the diffs above ... then the close you acknowledged ... then another half dozen edits here. Really, choosing to insert yourself into that discussion at all given your recent block and sanction was particularly ill-advised. Other editors are capable of raising questions of due process (as, indeed, they did).
16. snide incivility
17. accusation of bad faith
18. includes: placing an unreasonable burden of evidence (very few people state that they are here to advance a personal agenda, it must be inferred from their edits); accusations of bad faith (saying AGF is not a shield to then proceed to fail to any more than stating "with all due respect" is a free pass to insult someone); and condescension.
19. accusation that other editors have failed to show due diligence in reviewing a serious matter
20. failure to show due diligence. You could easily have contributed productively here by adding the omitted log entry yourself.

For this wanton disrespect for the time and efforts of others, lack of basic consideration for the norms of constructive discussion, unacceptable focus on using this website as a forum for unduly burdensome and unproductive discussion at the expense of improving content, and following discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#GoRight, I am blocking your access indefinitely. Thank you for your contributions.

Administrators: Please discuss this block with me before modifying or lifting it unless there is a substantial community consensus or the action is otherwise obvious or non-controversial. I prefer open review, but my email is enabled if you would prefer to discuss off site. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to continue working with you here to try to hash out a set of restrictions that would not lead to another block on the same issues. I will check back here daily for your updates, but do please feel free to request that someone drop me a line on my talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me see if I can get it right this time.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I am going to be WP:BOLD, and WP:AGF. I also keep the right to be considered an "uninvolved administrator" in future dealings. At this point, we have an accepted civility parole, and an accepted topic ban by the editor. We also have an effective mentor. I would suggest that transgressions during that period would more likely lead to a more formal ban, rather than a simple indef. I would also suggest that contraventions after the specified period would bring us right back to where we are now. This conditional unblock is not permission to wait a few months and then return to negative patterns of editing. Request handled by: (talk→ BWilkins ←track) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Please hold on, I've contacted the blocking admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Update, the blocking admin is reviewing this. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well made pledges ... I wish you the best in keeping them. Writing is easier than practice. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference, my community has over 30 monastics and many others with various levels of vows. There is at least an annual renewal and other opportunities for confession, repair, healing and forgiving inevitable infractions. What seems to be most important is staying on the right path even as falling astray occurs. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What are the terms under which you will allow me to continue editing?

OK, let's cut to the chase. I have expressed my concerns with your proposed framework below and asked you to consider alternatives for the reasons stated. My arguments either sway you, or they do not. So there seems to be little more to discuss at this point and, indeed, you seem to be busy with other things anyway. If it is your intent for this block to be an indefinite community ban please state so explicitly, otherwise please issue your sanctions and unblock me so that I might find something useful to do for the project. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) NOTE: I reserve the right to appeal any sanctions which are not in line with the doctrine of neutral enforcement.

Discussion of your framework

Let's spend a little time discussing the specifics of your proposed framework.

Civility

"Some form of civility parole, as I view this as the main issue - antagonizing other editors is just not on, even in a toxic editing atmosphere. As I mention above, I do not think that these sorts of provisions have a stellar track record, so the wording here will need to be very clear to avoid frivolous reports of violation while still having teeth that an unfamiliar admin would feel comfortable invoking. I am not at all convinced that you understand my reasoning behind each of the diffs above, but if you are willing to give it a go there is some chance that this condition could be productive."

This is actually an easy one to address and since I do not wish to be viewed as uncivil I will voluntarily suggest something that would actually have a demonstrable impact (unlike some of the other sanctions you have imposed in this area recently). I offer the following:

For a period of 3 months commencing on the date and time of my current block, I hereby grant free license to any editor who believes that I have been uncivil to minimally remove or redact anything I post that they object to on the grounds of civility. I shall be barred from reinstating the material either verbatim or via trivial rewordings which yield substantially the same meanings and shall be blocked for an appropriate time limited duration by any uninvolved and neutral administrator at their sole discretion should I violate this provision. Good faith refactorings and rewordings to remove the incivility shall not be considered violations. Any abuses of these provisions by other editors or blocking administrators may be appealed to WP:AN at my discretion.

--GoRight (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate change topic ban

"Topic ban from climate change related articles for six months. This is not the maximum allowed under the community probation, but rather the minimum I see as likely to be useful to the project. I am sensitive to the concerns of systematic bias you raise in your most recent email, but this does not extend to a tolerance for disruption."

You indicate that it is not your intent to ban my POV, yet the primary effect of this proposal would be to do just that for the period during which it is in effect. I shall note that the subject of a topic ban from climate change articles for me has come up on many occasions thanks to Raul654's attempts to gain just that. In all such cases the community explicitly rejected those attempts. Further, regarding your current block the discussion which ensued also failed to provide a consensus for this block (which amounts to a full community ban at this point since the general sanctions prohibit any other administrator from overturning your block).

I am unclear on what other behavior you are seeking to restrict with this proposal so I am unable to propose a suitable sanction which specifically focuses on that behavior. If you could be more specific I could offer a proposal. I must reject your current proposal, however, as being excessive owing to its unintended consequence of banning my POV from the climate change articles. Please either abandon this aspect of your framework or propose a more suitable sanction which focuses on the problem behavior without banning my POV. --GoRight (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban on participation on community discussions

"Some form of ban from all disputes and noticeboard threads in which you are not a named party or otherwise clearly and directly involved, with the possible the exceptions of ArbCom and RFC/U. This is also easily open to conflicting interpretations, and I would want additional input before settling on clear wording that carries the same meaning both to the two of us and to people unfamiliar with the background to the restriction. I also consider it important not to restrict legitimate pursuit of dispute resolution."

Unless it is your intent to turn me into a second class member of this community, I must reject this current proposal as being excessive because it removes my voice from community discussions of significant import. The fact that I make myself familiar with the details and the facts of the discussions I engage in should be applauded, not punished. Please either abandon this aspect of your framework or propose a more suitable sanction which focuses on the problem behavior without affecting my ability to have a say in community decisions. --GoRight (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for appearing to ignore your case for so long. Every time I try to draft a reply, it just comes out wrong. I am tired of talking past each other - you deserve better than that. I think the time has come to admit that I have reached the limit of my sociocognitive abilities, and move on. Whether I am failing to communicate to you or failing to understand you or however the disjoint is distributed, we always seem to be discussing two entirely different situations.
If, based on a review of the history leading up to and full discussions following this block, another admin would like to establish a framework for lifting this block, I would not object. If, based on a review of the history leading up to and full discussions following this block, no other admin is willing to lift this block, I would not object. I remain free for discussion, but I seem to be doing no good here. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Peanut gallery commentary ...

RE: discussion including Hipocrite.

Oh! Oh! Look, 2/0, look! Hipocrite is talking in thinly veiled terms to antagonize his fellow editors. Surely this will degrade to ability of our little part of the project to attract neutral editors. Please act quickly on this matter so that it remains actionable and please be sure to apply the principles of neutral enforcement regarding editors who antagonize others. --GoRight (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Hipocrite is watching. By way of explanation I remind everyone of the following comments from 2/0:

• wherein he asserted that "antagonizing other editors is just not on, even in a toxic editing atmosphere", and
• wherein he stated that "Insults and acerbic comments directed at your fellow volunteers, no matter how veiled in a shield of indirect insinuation instead of brazen violation of the NPA policy, are detrimental to the project. They deprive us of the good editors who would prefer to spend their time more pleasantly; they set up the hackles of the good editors who stay, provoking dominance games and response in kind; they select for people who find endless argument more rewarding than building an encyclopedia through collaborative discussion.".

I am not the only editor that found his comments to be thinly veiled sarcasm and condescension. Indeed, despite his proclamations to the contrary I remain unconvinced. This appears to be a violation of WP:POINT in any case, something else that 2/0 has accused me of in his diffs. By pointing out H's transgressions in this respect I am seeking to foster a more collegial atmosphere in precisely the same way that 2/0 is. --GoRight (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: by Hipocrite.

"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)"

Excellent advice, H. Please convey this to 2/0 regarding his justification for my current block.

Also, I truly consider imitation ("... is unlikey to foster a collegial atmosphere. Please don't do it.") to be the sincerest form of flattery ("... refactor his comment to remove the obvious invective which is not congruent with promoting a collegial atmosphere."). I'm glad you've decided to follow my example.

--GoRight (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How is this commentary helpful? I don't see sniping at Hipocrite as a good approach. I think, rather, that reaching out to reasonable people is a better approach. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect I agree. I apologize to Hipocrite for making these comments. I mistook Hipocrite's sincere efforts to reach out as being sarcasm which is a failure to WP:AGF on my part based on prior history and the prevailing attitudes in this space. If Hipocrite is sincere in his desire to foster a more collegial atmosphere within the climate change articles I shall endeavor to work with him in that spirit. Let us be the first two to extend our olive branches in good faith and to help lead by example by putting the past behind us and instead looking to the future. --GoRight (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Still blocked?

I wonder if this is how Scibaby was born. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've wondered this too ... However, Scibaby seems to appreciate the technical evasion now and doesn't appear interested in defending bitten newcomers. If Scibaby were to defend the innocent folks charged with socking, then maybe the challenge would be up and Scibaby would have better redeeming qualities. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking conditions

I have been watching this silently since the actual block took place and I have decided that, in accordance with 2/0's request for another admin's intervention, that I'm willing to unblock you... conditionally. The unblock will be contingent upon agreement by both the blocked editor and the blocking admin. I'm not willing to be drawn into this debacle, so there will be no negotiation on the terms, it's either accept it or hope for a better deal from another admin.

Civility

The editor will be placed on a three month civility probation. During this time, any breaches of WP:CIVIL will result in a warning, then a block. The block will be issued only by an uninvolved administrator, and will extend up to and including the length of the original block. This is only for clear and obvious breaches of civility; we all fly off the handle every once in a while, and I find many of the "civility breaches" quoted in the original block to be weak and nit-picky. Suggesting someone is editing in bad faith is not, by itself, a civility issue. Telling someone who disagrees with you to blow it out their ass is. The editor is also instructed to be mindful of disruptive behaviors and abuse of WP:POINT, as that this tends to be the precursor to most of their editing disputes.

Climate Change Topic Ban

For three months, this user will make no edits to any article that is related to the climate change article probation. The user may participate on the talk pages during this time provided they adhere to the civility probation above and are conscious to avoid disruption. Failure to comply with this will result in a warning then a full topic ban for the remainder of the three months as issued by an uninvolved admin.

Moving forward

I didn't address 2/0's wishes that there be language preventing you from taking part in community discussion, as I see that as being unnecessarily punitive. I feel that the civility probation and instructions to avoid disruption are satisfactory in moderating GoRight's behavior in this respect. Should these conditions be adhered to for the three months, I suggest a review and reappraisal of the situation. Should myself or another uninvolved admin decide that the editor has fulfilled these terms, they will be released from editing restrictions. Failure to follow these instructions may result in reapplication of 2/0's original block.

I will unblock if these terms are accepted by both parties. Trusilver 09:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but these are conditions that completely miss the point of the original disruption. GoRight is rarely if ever "obviously" uncivil. See WP:Civil POV pushing. He also, by now, rarely makes problematic edits directly in article space. Instead, he causes significant waste of time and disruption by nit-picking, lawyering, and not getting it on talk pages and in dispute resolution. If you want a meaningful restriction, ban him from climate change talk pages, and from noticeboard discussion and dispute resolution where he is not one of the primary involved parties. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of that ("nit-picking, lawyering, and not getting it") going around in this topic area. Do we apply similar strictures to everyone in the topic area who does that? It's a tempting idea. (I was asked to look at this page via a message on my talk)... that said I don't see Trusilver's suggested terms as unreasonable, and they may well work. If not, we can keep trying. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As I had pointed out, I'm not negotiating terms. After a long, long review of the editor's contributions, this is the compromise I have drawn up. If it's acceptable to both GoRight and 2/0, then we will see how it works. If it's not, it's not, but this isn't RFC and I'm not taking question and answer sessions from the peanut gallery. If he violates the terms, he gets reblocked (period/full stop). I appreciate everyone's opinions, but we have been doing this crap for 10 days, it's time to make a decision... one way or the other. Trusilver 15:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Under your terms, 2/0 is a uninvolved admin, correct? Verbal chat

Considering the history between the editor and 2/0, I would really appreciate if he would defer to another admin as far as this individual goes. But generally speaking, 2/0 is one of the more neutral admins dealing with the climate change articles. Also, since I made this proposal, if it is accepted I will be watching pretty much every edit that that GoRight makes. Trusilver 18:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver: In case it wasn't clear, I was expressing support for your terms and your offer. I'll follow that with thanks for stepping up and making it in the first place, and for the effort you'll expend in "watching pretty much every edit that that GoRight makes" (i htink the "peanut gallery" is allowed to applaud, are they not?) ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Clap clap clap :) mark nutley (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hah, sorry. I wasn't making any insinuation by that comment other than to state that I'm not going to let this turn into a long debate over whether or not the compromise I came up with is acceptable. It either is or it isn't. I'd like to think that ten days of being blocked will make GoRight give some serious consideration to how he interacts with others, that paired with the fact that (looking over the community sentiment toward him) there will very likely not be any more chances after this one. Trusilver 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's been almost 20 days now - he was blocked on 1/16. Not that it changes anything, just clarifying. And I echo Lar's commendation for stepping up here. ATren (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, if so-called "nitpicking and lawyering" is the standard, I can think of at least one other editor who should be banned. This appears to be yet another example of what's good for the proponent isn't good for the skeptic. And, BTW, "Civil POV Pushing" is not policy, and it's not even guideline. It's an essay written by a partisan individual whose idea of balance was to checkuser anyone who disagreed with him. See also this. ATren (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: . This was my understanding so I have no objection to any clarification you wish to make. --GoRight (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as we are dotting i's ... you might wish to clarify this sentence: "The block will be issued only by an uninvolved administrator, and will extend up to and including the length of the original block." I think "the length of the original block" in this context is unclear. Does this mean indefinite? I'm not even quibbling, merely asking for clarification on your meaning. --GoRight (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mean that the block may be restored up to the original term, which was indefinitely. Trusilver 21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, that was my assumption but I wanted to verify rather than assume. Verification is always a good policy in my experience. --GoRight (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone who was blocked and put on ignore for 6 months, I have to say I recommend it for others. A few weeks is not time enough for the issues to sink in. GoRight should go do something right elsewhere and ask again in 6 months per wp:offer. Jack Merridew 21:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why GoRight should be blocked and ignored, he's been left twisting in the wind way too long already. Trusilver has taken a reasoned approach to solving the riddle and I certainly hope 2over0 accepts these terms soon. I take note of Trusilver generous offer to actively monitor the situation which takes one of the best reasons for his continued blockage off the table - namely the amount of volunteer time being expended on one editor. If Trusilver is willing to shoulder that burden, what objection to his unblock remains? JPatterson (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I will repeat my unblock message above: I am going to be WP:BOLD, and WP:AGF. I also keep the right to be considered an "uninvolved administrator" in future dealings. At this point, we have an accepted civility parole, and an accepted topic ban by the editor. We also have an effective mentor. I would suggest that transgressions during that period would more likely lead to a more formal ban, rather than a simple indef. I would also suggest that contraventions after the specified period would bring us right back to where we are now. This conditional unblock is not permission to wait a few months and then return to negative patterns of editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I shall honor the restrictions which have been placed upon me. I shall also endeavor to make good on my pledges as well moving forward, recognizing however that I am only human and may fall short of perfection on rare occasions. I acknowledge your uninvolved status moving forward, which is consistent with the conditions set forth in the climate change probation and, more importantly, because I truly view you as being uninvolved.

I want to also thank Trusilver for his assistance in this matter and his good faith attempts to intervene on my behalf. I believe his suggestions struck a reasonable balance between the needs of the community and the needs of the individual.

To Viridae who unblocked me earlier and likely feels as though I betrayed his trust I wish to offer a sincere apology for having done so. He can rest assured that his efforts will have played as much a role in any transformation of my behavior as this current episode has.

I want to also thank Lar who supported this action in spite of our earlier rocky interactions and I shall endeavor to take his lead and support his efforts to get people to reach across the current chasm of distrust for the betterment of the project.

--GoRight (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

hooray your free :) Quick question, the article i am working on, is it procedure to do an RFC on it? I would like to avoid unpleasantness if i move it straight to main space :) mark nutley (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

The agreed upon editing restrictions have been recorded. They are currently updated as follows:

GoRight, I think you have good intentions, and I look forward to seeing good results from these sanctions. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask me. Trusilver 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with my helping others in their user space?

RE: . Is anyone going to complain if I help other users with CC related works in progress while they are in that user's own user space? Obviously if they ever get moved into article space they immediately become off limits during my probation.

Please speak up now if you have any sort of issue with my helping other editors like Mark.

I guess the more generic question is whether "climate change articles, broadly construed" includes works in progress in an editor's user space? --GoRight (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Trusilver says it`s ok and he`s the guy watching you, i see no problems with helping when asked to do so on a wip mark nutley (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am soliciting input from the community so I specifically invite Tony Sidaway to speak his mind in this section. --GoRight (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's within the spirit of the restrictions - you are allowed to contribute on talk pages, so I don't see why that would be different for contributions in user space, as long as this is not misused. As I've stated above, I also think your restrictions miss the point. I'd really prefer it if you would apply you undoubted intelligence and energy to some very different task for a while (and I don't mean worthy but trivial recent changes patrol), but that is only a suggestion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I will find some other things to do. Helping out at BLP/N (for non-CC BLPs) has been suggested as a possibility. I am considering DYK or something like that. And to answer Tony's now deleted comment, I am taking the restrictions seriously which is why I am asking the question. Mark is asking for my help in his user space. That's not me trying to game anything.

Yes, per the restrictions I could restrict my assistance to comments on the talk page of his work in progress, and maybe that would be the best approach just to avoid controversy, but for the sake of rewording or refactoring something on the article itself this would be very inefficient.

Despite the fact that Trusilver thought that it would be acceptable I anticipated that others might not agree, and so I asked, and obviously it is good that I did. I specifically want to AVOID being pointy. --GoRight (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is reminiscent of the "boundary testing" which has characterized many complaints about your editing before. Banned from editing articles related to a topic, it doesn't seem to make sense to seek another way of contributing content to that topic. I agree with Stephan that a clean break, in another non-trivial content area, would be better. You would show yourself for the asset to Misplaced Pages you truly are, and the hope is that if you returned to the area of climate change you would have acquired good habits that would prevent a resumption of your old, problematic methods.

I would leave the choice up to you, but your interest in science suggests a number of subjects that have no related public controversies. --TS 15:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your input. I agree with the spirit of it and do plan to act on it in some fashion. --GoRight (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Now, in the spirit of helping to build better and more amicable relationships I have a meta request for you: please take a moment to reflect on how a statement like "I think your suggestion is reminiscent of the "boundary testing" which has characterized many complaints about your editing before" is likely to be received under these circumstances and consider whether this was really an important part of the message you wanted to convey and/or whether some alternative phrasing might be more effective in the future.

I agree with Tony about the content issue. BLP/N has been used as a rather crude hammer in content conflicts. I'd rather see you invest into the actual encyclopedic content. As an example, Cosmology might be interesting (and has new stuff coming out regularly). Or go through category:Galaxies and try to dig up stuff on the obscurer ones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephan, that is a good suggestion. --GoRight (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am soliciting input from the community so I specifically invite Tony Sidaway to speak his mind in this section is slightly odd - TS isn't the community. You have, in the past, asserted a strong desire to do more RC patrol. This would be an excellent idea and demonstrate willingness to help the Common Good in a non-controversial fashion William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Check the edit history. I was merely telling Tony, who had commented and then deleted it, that since I was soliciting input from the community, of which he is a part, that I welcomed his input in this section. Clearer now? --GoRight (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that CC partisans like WMC and Schulz should stop commenting here. Trusilver is a true uninvolved and I think he should be allowed to counsel GR without goading input from those he's had past conflicts with. ATren (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is quite convenient. First thing I do is to see what Misters Connoley, Schulz and Kim Petersen recently posted and get the good view of CC controversy. This is how I found your post :) BTW, I admire the persistence of this AGW trio, they fight bravely to the bitter end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.189.3 (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, ATren, but I was seeking the community's input and these are, in fact, the editors that I expected to respond. I don't take their comments a goading, per se, but I did want to get their positions out in the open, hence my request. --GoRight (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Atren, GR doesn't need you to "defend" him, nor are you being helpful: GR: you'll recall your interest in RC patrol; I do hope you keep it up. I think people would trust you somewhat more if you did 2-3 weeks of solid work there *before* heading back into controversial areas William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestion. I was thinking the same thing. While I will do some solid RCP work in that timeframe I agree with both SS and Tony that I should also endeavor to contribute some content in other areas as well ... even beyond the initial 2-3 weeks you mention. In other words I should seek to become less of an SPA overall going forward. This message has not been lost on me. --GoRight (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be a stretch to say editing in a user space is causing a disruption. You should have the users consent of course. Seems like a beneficial opportunity to me. However, folks would like to see you take some further vacation. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that despite GoRight's past issues, he IS being given another chance. It would be helpful if the background noise could be kept down to a bare minimum. I understand everyone's skepticism, but how about we wait until after GoRight violates his editing restrictions before busting out the pitchforks, shall we? There are no unspoken, hidden qualifiers to his restrictions. If he is capable of editing in the climate change talk pages without breaking his restrictions, then fine. If he feels that it would be a good idea to stay away from them for a little while (which is not a bad idea) then that's fine also. This user's continued presence on Misplaced Pages is entirely on his own shoulders now, there's no need to create a good 'ol fashioned WP:ANI-style witch burning before he's even had a chance to screw up. Everyone. Please. Chill. Trusilver 03:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Trusilver. I agree with would be good not to even approach the line drawn in the sanctions for some time. Please note, however, that this section is one small part of my trying to make good on my pledge to try and foster a more collegial atmosphere. The first step is honest and open communications such as we are having here. Letting people speak their minds freely should help to ease any underlying tensions at least to some small degree. --GoRight (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

This is my alternate account which I use from a cellphone. I do appreciate your wish to test likely responses before starting out again. I would do the same in your shoes and I apologise for my hasty and now deleted first response, which was pure kneejerk and precisely the kind of thing I want us all to learn to avoid.

But I do want to see a sign that you recognise that your considerable talents would be appreciated much more in other parts of Misplaced Pages. Climate Change will still be here when you get back. What worries me most is that, like so many of the topic-banned, you could spend the entire period on the fringes, without really considering that others are just waiting for you to demonstrate your versatility and talent, and your ability to move on and reinvent your style of engagement. I know you can do it. I'm counting on it. Again, thanks for asking for input. --Tasty monster 22:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU hacking incident article name

Current Proposal

We the undersigned would like to propose the following name change for the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article:

Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy

This proposal has come about as a result of good-faith discussions by editors who have expressed differing opinions on the subject but have nonetheless come together to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Our reasons are as follows:

1. The constant renaming proposals are unproductive and ultimately a drain on people's time.
2. It is clear that few if any people want the current name.
3. Coming to an amicable compromise is in the best interests of the project, overall.

We believe that this proposal has the following benefits:

1. It avoids the use of "Climategate", which is strongly opposed by many editors, is deprecated by current policies and is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's usual approach to such issues.
2. The redirect from Climategate will still be in place for users searching for that name.
3. It avoids the use of "stolen", "hack" or "data" to which editors objected on various grounds.
4. It follows a well established project convention in the naming of X-gate type articles: namely the X-gate is a redirect to an article which is descriptively named after its subject matter (e.g. Rathergate → Killian documents controversy, Attorneygate → Dismissal of US Attorneys controversy, Whitewatergate → Whitewater controversy etc).
5. It is a middle ground proposal that requires everyone to give a little and noone walks away with everything they wanted (i.e. it really is a compromise).
6. The inclusion of "email" is obviously needed as this is probably the single most noted and discussed aspect of the whole affair.
7. The inclusion of "documents" is still broad enough to cover other materials (even code) which were released and it is well aligned with the FOI request aspects of the affair.
8. It does not depend on the outcome of ongoing investigations, and will remain valid whatever the investigations conclude.
9. And probably most importantly, "controversy" does not bias the article on one direction or another, thereby meeting NPOV requirements.

Signed,

1. GoRight (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
3. ATren (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC) -- though stylistically I'd prefer removing the "and document", which is a little clumsy. But I'd be fine with any wording that termed it a "controversy", which would nicely encompass both the unauthorized distribution of the emails as well as the content concerns. Addendum: I like JohnWBarber's best; simple and to the point. ATren (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
4. JPatterson (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
5. ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

   Hipocrite (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I do not sign proposals being used to allege that "in the early stages, the article was being owned by a vocal faction that attempted to censor any mention of a controversy...until recently, when enough NPOV editors became aware of this article to balance out opinion." Hipocrite (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Arzel (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
7. mark nutley (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Why not shorten in slightly? CRU e-mail and documents controversy?
8. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
9. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Heyitspeter (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Wikispan (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
12. SPhilbrickT 02:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
13. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC) This is fine. It could be shortened even to "Climate Research Unit controvesy" but this proposal will do.
14. Oren0 (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
15. Nsaa (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC) This is fine. It could be shortened even to "Climate Research Unit controvesy" but this proposal will do as JohnWBarber states above.
16. Agree with Nsaa/JohNWBarber on "Climate Research Unit controversy." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Agree with Nasa/JohNWBarber and this if that isn't suitable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Moogwrench (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I will defend "Climatic Research Unit email and documents controversy" or "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" because an email is a type electronic document.
19. WP looks silly continuing to have the article named as if the supposed hack is the controversy and not what was contained in the info thus made available. I am in favour of anything that makes WP look less stupid. This proposal would help. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
20. WVBluefield (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of the proposal

"Climate Research Unit email controversy" has been suggested twice before - originally by jheiv back on December 13th and then again by Cla68 on January 2nd in this thread, which is worth reading. I think it's worth proposing as a compromise; the problem is that I don't think the hardliners are willing to compromise. Cla68 in particular now seems to be determined to ignore policy and push for "Climategate". However, I think it's worth proposing all the same, as it might offer those willing to compromise a position with which they can agree. Do you want to go ahead and propose it? Feel free to mention that we have been discussing it (and please ensure that you flag up the fact that it's a compromise proposal). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so who would you list as the hardliners from each side on this issue, and who is the most influential of them? Roughly speaking, of course. I suggest that we test the waters on the pages of those individuals first. If it looks like a no go then there is no need to disrupt the talk page.

I would also suggest trying to line up support from those OPPOSED to "Climategate" and "scandal" first. If they can be shown to support this as a compromise position in good faith then this will put those pushing FOR "Climategate" and/or "scandal" a bit on the defensive. Failing to accept a good faith compromise position which affords both sides some means of "saving face" (i.e. because we are following a convention used elsewhere in multiple places) would certainly make them look like the uncooperative ones, no? So first let us identify those editors that we should contact initially from both sides. Any suggestions? --GoRight (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'd suggest the following as possibly approachable: OrenO, A Quest For Knowledge, Jpat34721, Hipocrite, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, dave souza, Heyitspeter. The hardliners are currently Nsaa, Cla68, Thepm, Zulu Papa 5, Marknutley. Thegoodlocust was in the hardline camp as well, but since he's been topic-banned he's now irrelevant. I don't suggest approaching Cla68 but when the proposal is made we should point out that he previously proposed "Climate Research Unit email controversy" - it may be possible to dissuade him from voting against his own proposal. What do you think? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that Sphilbrick and Itsmejudith might be supportive as well. Let me know if you want me to reach out to them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of pinging Itsmejudith as well but I don't know Sphilbrick. But if you know them then please do contact them and just point them to the proposal above and this section for discussion. I think it is a reasonable time to try and pull in a few additional people. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with CRU email controversy, but I'm happy to be approached about other alternatives, which I'm also probably fine with. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, great. Weigh in with your preference to the two options below. --GoRight (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, let's decide on what we really want to propose then. I had suggested:

Climate Research Unit email controversy

another suitable alternative might be:

Climate Research Unit email and document controversy

Climate Research Unit email and data controversy

I have not been following that page closely but there seems to be some issue of a potential split because of the email/document schism. What's your guess on how that will play out? Although I guess it doesn't matter too much because whatever we pick can be changed again if the split happens. Thoughts? Oh, and what's the convention for the capitalization in these titles? --GoRight (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Indif/irrelevent to me. I suspect that the discussion will quickly turn to "Climategate is the only acceptable title," brinksmanship, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I still prefer my original suggestion for its simplicity. --GoRight (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S.S. I think I have changed my mind. "Climate Research Unit email and document controversy" offers the broadest appeal, I think. Data was opposed by many. Document is sufficiently broad to cover most other things including the FOI requests. From my perspective the emails and the FOI aspects are the most covered in the media and so the most important to cover in the title. The code, while it is covered, is much less so IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC) (Sign after the fact)

OK, I think I can live with that. It seems a reasonable compromise. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys maybe interested in Scjessey's proposal here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Chris had pointed to that above. --GoRight (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed that. But what I meant was to mention Scjessey by name, that he proposed something very similar. He would be unlikely to vote against his own proposal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a slight misinterpretation of my position. The thread was intended to stimulate discussion, not advocate a specific position. My actual position has evolved somewhat since then anyway. The discussion we had about the lede that eventually brought about a fairly solid consensus evolved because the "Climategate" aspect was redefined as one of the consequences of the incident, rather than the incident itself. It is for this reason that I would have trouble supporting these proposals at this time, because I still see the controversy as a consequence. As an example, consider that the consequence of the 9/11 attacks was the "War on Terror", but nobody would refer to the "War on Terror" as the "9/11 attacks". One avenue that I've been considering is the whole issue of summary style. There's an awful lot of info about this entire incident out there, and so it might be possible to make a good argument for breaking up the article (a process which has been partially begun by the "documents" child article). As long as it was done carefully so as not to create a POV fork, a consequence of moving to summary style would be that an article would necessarily exist that would focus on the email controversy. Anyway, my thoughts on this are very much in the early stages and I'm nowhere near ready to present a formal proposal. In the meantime, I cannot consider support for this proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to misinterpret anything we were merely recognizing that this proposal is in line with something that you had attempted previously. If you have moved on to another approach that is fine. In your estimation does this proposal have no merit? If a large enough number of others sign on would you be willing to support it even if it is not your primary choice just in the interests of downplaying further disruption in this area? In other words, are you adamantly against this or is it an acceptable compromise if you find that you are not able to attain your first choice? --GoRight (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are fair questions, and let me say right now that I am deeply impressed by this commendable effort on your part to try to put past conflict behind you and work in this way. Let me answer each of your questions in turn. First of all, I think any reasonable proposal has merit. This one has been well thought out and proposed in a manner that is least likely to attract conflict; however, I feel that better options are available. Secondly, I am a strong supporter of Misplaced Pages's consensus approach and I won't be standing in the way of it just because I disagree; however, this proposal has zero chance of succeeding unless it is actually put forward on the article talk page and given an independent set of responses (copy and pasting "supports" from here would not be acceptable). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's just see if we can gain some support here first. Obviously any rename proposal has to be vetted on the talk page, I completely agree and the intent was always to do so. The reason for discussing here first is to gauge whether the support is strong enough to to even warrant disrupting the talk page with another proposal. I'm not sure if I agree with the copy/paste comment but even so people who sign are pledging to support and defend the proposal so having them sign again on the talk page should be a formality at best. --GoRight (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think a proposal that takes advantage of WP:SS is going to be more successful though. Child articles on the hacking, the contents of the stolen files, the controversy and perhaps the media coverage would essentially side-step the issue of what to call the main article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I changed to "Climategate" after I started seeing it used in just about every mention on the topic in the media, but I'm willing to accept "Climate Research Unit email controversy" as a compromise. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  If you are willing to accept and defend the above proposal please consider signing it above. Same for AQFK. --GoRight (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As a relatively uninvolved editor (currently at least a very infrequent editor to the climate change related articles, although I have been following some of the recent kerfuffle), I think that this change is a good idea, particularly as a sign of cooperation. Hal peridol (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the invitation, it would be good to resolve this issue; however, I have difficulty supporting a long title, so I will pass on signing for now. Any title should be supported by the word weight of sources on the topic. Heavy source support will garner greater wiki support. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Would you be able to support it if we dropped the "and document" leaving just "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" per ATren's suggestion above? I suspect some others may prefer that as well. We can't change the proposal without getting agreement from the signatories above but this is one option that could be proposed to the group. Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It'd be best to drop "email" and leave "document," actually. Both emails and source code are documents, but source code is not an email, and source code is also at issue. The current title used to mention "emails" and the term was dropped for this reason.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from and that's why I decided to include the document. My first choice was just to use email controversy on the grounds that the emails have, in my totally unscientific estimation, received the majority of the press. We could consider either as you suggest but for now let's proceed with what we have since I think it has the widest appeal even though it may be a bit long. Although it's not really that long considering half of it is the name of the institution. --GoRight (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This was a good initiative since it removes what some think is not WP:NPV and WP:UNDUE (Hack) without introducing other problematic title words like Climategate and scandal. Hopefully this title is something everybody can agree on even through the case for Climategate looks stronger for each day running (per secondary sources Climategate usage). Maybe the case for this title first can get hold for everybody the day one of the big university press publish a book about it, with this title (been historic). Nsaa (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Documents should stay in, the e-mails only account for 5% of all documents leaked. How about CRU Document Controversy?

This is why I opted to include both email and document, some people lean one way and other people lean the other. So for broadest appeal albeit at the expense of conciseness we arrived at the current proposal. --GoRight (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's ok. Not elegant, not consise, but it's an excellent compromise. Last night I was wondering if even CRU is biased to have in the title. This controversy is much broader than CRU. It includes at least Penn State/Michael Mann and others. Nsaa (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What about just "data", or is that considered to be too generic? Tarc (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Several people objected to data in prior conversations so I opted to avoid it. I guess if we really want to shorten it we could try "Climatic Research Unit controversy" but that sounds like the CRU is controversial not what happened. If there was an obvious and well accepted name I suspect that it would already be there.  :) You're welcome to sign too, Tarc, if you find this to be an acceptable compromise and are willing to defend it. --GoRight (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the resistance to using the words "documents" or "data" in between "CRU" and "Controversy"? I don't mean this as a critical remark I'm just curious.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, and this is only a guess on my part, but I suspect the issue is one of focusing on the WP:WEIGHT of the media coverage rather than the distribution of what was released. The emails have simply generated the most media coverage and cover what seem to be the most significant aspects of the release, namely the attitudes of scientists involved (from some people's perspective), possible attempts to game the peer review process (which is contested by some), and the legal aspects of seeking to avoid releasing information based on FOI requests.

The code comments, while not very flattering, encouraging, or professional, are simply comments that could be found in anyone's code where they weren't expecting the code to be released for public consumption. The quality of the code itself may also be an issue but whether it shows any smoking guns, or not, is still controversial. There may be good scientific reasons to justify some of the manipulations we see in the code.

So I don't necessarily see it as resistance to using documents as much as a lack of support relative to email. YMMV. --GoRight (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, GoRight. I'd love to join in, guys, but I just can't. I'm not happy with the proposal - it doesn't have 'hacking' or 'data breach' in it. I wasn't happy when Heyitspeter removed 'e-mail' from the title without discussion, but no one else seemed to care so I let it be. When the inquiries report what really happened, the we can review the whole article and potentially its title. BTW, hacking is now the accepted WP:RS word for it, and doesn't need scare quotes. --Nigelj (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for taking the time to consider it just the same. --GoRight (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Next Steps

OK, I went through and canvassed the remaining people who have voted in the RfC as well as a few additional CC regulars. Let's give them a chance to respond but then we may be ready to take this to the talk page. ChrisO and Hipocrite and any other signatories, what do you think? I think we have a pretty decent showing of support here. There are some signatories that have suggested shortening the title even further, possibly all the way back to "Climatic Research Unit controversy". This would avoid any further arguing over email vs. documents vs. data so it may be workable. Should we canvass the existing signatories about proposing this as an alternative or should we just go with what we have? --GoRight (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit controversy, I like this. It covers everything. mark nutley (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Indifferent. Hipocrite (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the flaring of tempers on the talk page, I'm not sure the timing is right. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right. The current RfC will be inconclusive no matter what so we may actually have to wait until that is closed. Anyway, we can continue to gather support and try one iteration on the naming with those that signed up already while the RfC runs its course. --GoRight (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most people support "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy," as encompassing e-mails but recognizing that other kinds of electronic data were leaked / are in question as well. ScienceApologist alone expressed reservations below, but his concerns appear to have been addressed. EDIT:checked signing board and 5-6 came out in support of the even shorter title you're discussing now. Go for it. I'll propose inclusion of the word "documents" on the relevant talkpage later if appropriate.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"I'll propose inclusion of the word "documents" on the relevant talkpage later if appropriate." - Well, the problem with this is that one of the goals of coming together on this proposal is to reduce these regular challenges to the title. If the title we propose is just going to be challenged again by people from within our little coalition then we have failed at making a difference in that respect. So, am I to understand that if we as a group shortened the proposal to just "Climatic Research Unit controversy" that you would no longer pledge to defend that title but rather might seek to have it changed after the fact? I did notice the "if appropriate" which seems sensible enough depending on what you consider to be an appropriate reason to change. What types of conditions would this entail, have you thought that through? I am only asking so that I can factor such concerns into my thinking moving forward. Alternatively, if we keep the title as currently proposed would you be more willing to defend it rather than seek changes after the fact? --GoRight (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be unclear / less than straightforward. I would defend it either way as better than the current and wouldn't attenuate my endorsement, but would prefer the proposed or "documents" versions to their further shortened counterpart. If the shorter version is used, I do mean "if appropriate" as you notice, and would wait to propose a change until or if it seemed constructive given the atmosphere.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why I object to "and document"

From what I understand the "documents" in question were all attachments to e-mails. The undue emphasis placed on these attachments seems to me to be related to a singular obsession by denialists with the idealization that somehow the attachments were "smoking guns" of data manipulation, fraud, or worse. However, I see no evidence of this in the "documents" in question (which are much less numerous than the e-mails in number if not in bytes). However, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

I guess my question would be, "What is the NPOV rationale for including 'and document' in the proposal?"

I anxiously await anyone's response.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question, and this is just my opinion as I cannot speak for the group as a whole, is that like it or not there is a reasonable amount of media coverage on the documents in addition to just the emails themselves. WP:WEIGHT therefore demands this this additional POV be given appropriate space in the article and the title, regardless of whether we as editors consider that coverage to be true, or not, since the standard on this encyclopedia is laid out by WP:V which clearly states that verifiability, rather than our interpretation of truth, is the gold standard.

We are likely to consider shortening the proposal to simply "Cimatic Research Unit controversy" which has the benefit of avoiding the whole argument over email vs. documents vs. data altogether. If this should come to pass would you be willing to support the proposal then? --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That particular shortening seems ambiguous to me. We need to indicate that it was about internal computer-based communications somehow. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 3,485 documents in 101 folders (149 MB), but only 1,075 emails (7.85 MB). It is not clear which documents (if any) were attachments to the emails. Q Science (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure were you got that from Sa, What makes you think the other doc`s were attachments?

The enumeration of the documents varies from interest group to interest group. The initial reports were that there were something like 78 documents and over 1000 e-mails. I cannot verify that the other "documents" that Q Science is mentioning are the "documents" that most people are referring to. From what I understand, there are only three non-e-mail documents that have generated any interest and really only one that has been extensively commented on (HARRY_README). However, this "document" has been associated with an e-mail exchange that indicates a likely association of the files with the communications. After all, the communications are what people are interested in and have commented on for the most part. At the very least, it is the communication between climate scientists at CRU that has caused interest. The programs and the data files have been essentially ignored by those commenting on this controversy, and so I continue to maintain that it is the e-mails and not the documents that are of primary interest. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall you making this argument on the article talk page, and i posted a great many links which showed the code and data released was also of interest. Did you not see them? mark nutley (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you not see my response? . ScienceApologist (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@All of you - Given the sensitive nature of this topic please take your sniping elsewhere. I prefer to keep this discussion snipe free. I leave to the individual readers to decide which portions above constitute "sniping". Please put your best feet forward here. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@SA - "I continue to maintain that it is the e-mails and not the documents that are of primary interest." And I haven't disagreed. In fact I have similarly argued that the emails have received the most media coverage and therefore are probably the most significant portion of what was released from a WP:WEIGHT perspective. So I think we are agreed on that point. Where we seem to vary is on whether the documents and other materials have received sufficient coverage to warrant mention. I and others have concluded that they do and so we have included them in the proposal. YMMV and apparently does. The question to you is whether it varies sufficiently that you will let it stand in the way of compromise, or not. This is something only you can decide for yourself. --GoRight (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid it is a deal-breaker for me. I see you've amassed what can only be described as a wide-ranging coalition who are able to come to consensus. I applaud you for that but respectfully refrain from endorsing for the reasons I outlined. Best, ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. You are always welcome to reconsider. Thank you for taking the time to make your views and concerns known. --GoRight (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Out

I don't sign proposals being used to bludgeon people who disagree with them, but only if those people disagree from one side. Thus, I'm out. Hipocrite (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your email

The answer to your mail is "I think you should concentrate on the substance of your parole" William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain what happened here?

I note which has been deleted from the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident talk page. Now it seems that Nightmote's talk page has also been deleted. Does anyone know why? --GoRight (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nightmote quit, he said simply f*** the lot i`ve had enough. He asked for his talkpage to be deleted mark nutley (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I didn't know that he had requested it be deleted. You know this for a fact? --GoRight (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well this is in my watch list (Deletion log); 03:42 . . SatyrTN (talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Nightmote" (U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace)

(Deletion log); 03:41 . . SatyrTN (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Nightmote" (U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace) so i reckon he did ask, i think it was 2/0 round robin posting to so many editors which tipped him over mark nutley (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he did request it. It shouldn't have been deleted - per policy, we don't delete user talk pages unless some major privacy issues are are at stake. Been wondering whether I should undelete the talk page, or wait for someone less "involved" to do it. One of those things where you have to balance "undeletion is correct, per policy" with "why deal with grief when I don't really care" (about whether the page stays deleted or not). Guettarda (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that's why I asked. I know the policy states that the talk pages may be retained, although the right to vanish is also sometimes respected. If he wanted it deleted then I don't have a problem with it. I just wanted to verify that was the case. --GoRight (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nightmote's talk page has been restored by SatyrTN, and all of the previous content is still visible in the history. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your good work, little by little

The Arabs and the Spanish have the same saying, it begins in Arabic, Shweya shweya, in Spanish, poco a poco. Little by little, we go far. Maybe the world is like silly putty, certainly Misplaced Pages, with emphasis on "silly." Push hard, it resists strongly, but slow down and push gently, it easily is formed. And together many can form what no individual could form. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for Fun

This might be of interest. JPatterson (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks interesting

See . Hope all is well. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jpat and I decided to check in on you at nearly the same time. Funny that. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)