Misplaced Pages

Fake timestamp so this doesn't get archived prematurely: 22:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I am getting sick and tired of people edit warring over things like {{POV}} and other cleanup tags. Therefore, for a two week period, all editors are prohibited from adding or removing any tags listed here or those that are related to those tags, broadly construed. This restriction may be bypassed through local article talk consensus. If you feel that an article is not neutral, then either fix it or talk about it on the talk page.

Violation of this sanction will result in first a notification of the existence of this sanction, and then a block if edit warring continues. NW (Talk) 22:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Speaking as someone who's been entirely uninvolved in tagging articles, I have to say I find it annoying when people on both sides fight over tags and waste their time (and that of others) squabbling about it. The sanction is clearly necessary, so thank you for this intervention. However, it's ridiculous that it's got to the point of needing a sanction. A number of editors really need to raise their game. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like common sense to me. Edit warring over something like this is silly. Discussion on the talk page is usually the way to go for putting tags up in an article. If the editors don't agree then the tag gets put up until there is enough editors agreeing that the article is fixed and the tags get removed. Good call here. Good night everyone, --CrohnieGal 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen of the tag warring, it often seems to be a matter of one editor slapping a "badge of shame" on an article against the wishes of the other editors. It's not remotely a productive way to operate. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. The underlying problem remains, of course - that tags are being used for hostabe and revenge, sometimes explicitly - but this is probably a good solution for now William M. Connolley (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Working on the underlying "waring" and battleground behavior would be a better effort. See Misplaced Pages:WAR#How_experienced_editors_avoid_being_dragged_into_edit_wars which recommends applying tags. If there is a tag dispute, then there is a dispute to be peacefully resolved. Tags are less harmful harmless than mean spirited reverters (like WMC, who should be on self imposed zero revert by now). This proposal assumes the status quo is best for Misplaced Pages, which i find difficult to accept. This can be a better place when revert wars are disarmed. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with this unilateral move. Tagging an article as POV is entirely appropriate and the only way to get movement on some articles. I do not condone edit warring, but that is a separate issue from the tags, and can be appropriately addressed in other ways. GregJackP Boomer! 10:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I support it. It gets rid of some of the useless bickering, baiting, and pointiness. Tagging is useful to mark articles where problems otherwise might go unrecognized. Fat chance of that in the climate change articles, where essentially any tag will be followed by a fierce discussion anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Tags are for the benefit of the readership, as well as editors. Disallowing a tag can (not always, but can) do the readership a disservice. Stats show that many readers do not visit article talk space. ++Lar: t/c 11:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes but nobody is disallowing tags. If there is either a consensus or no objection that a tag is needed on the talkpage then one can be added. At the moment tags are being used to fight battles and this needs to stop. Polargeo (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• In general, I would suggest the presence of a tag is far less a problem than the removal of a tag. For POV tags especially, the fact that an editor believes POV exists should be presumed correct - no single editor or editors can decide POV is not a problem in an article. Tags are aimed at alerting readers to problems which might be in an article - they are not just for editors (who, presumably, are aware of article problems without tags.) WP:TAGGING] is useful here. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV is sound advice. Collect (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In general you are spot on. I agree if a significant number of editors feel that an NPOV tag is needed it does not matter if there is complete consensus for it, the tag should be there until the issue is resolved through compromise. That is not the same as an editor slapping an NPOV tag on an article as part of a content battle, which is what is happening in climate change. Polargeo (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar's proposal, by contrast, is junk and would make things worse. Throw it out William M. Connolley (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Lar's solution is better than the original option. GregJackP Boomer! 13:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds like a thoroughly horrible idea, but I see no better way to save people from themselves. People keep getting dragged into edit wars over this. This can lead to enforcement issues or page protection. Neither of these really gets us to a better encyclopaedia. Guettarda (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• @admins, Tags are for the readers benefit and are harmless. How does this proposal help Misplaced Pages? This proposal is becoming another edit waring tool. Just work on the people who are waring, that's the answer here. I see no benefit in any tag restriction proposal unless applied to a specifically abusive editor. A blanket restrictions hurts Misplaced Pages. Abandon these tag restriction proposal. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did it suddenly become a problem?

The WMC faction has been gaming the POV tags for months -- look at Lawrence Solomon for an example. Now all of a sudden it's a huge problem because I tagged one of their heros, Michael E. Mann. I'm suddenly accused of "revenge tagging" (yes, really) because I tagged Mann for not having a single substantive criticism of the hockey stick even while the WMC faction is edit warring to include some guy's private rant in Monckton's BLP. This entire topic area is a parody of what Misplaced Pages should be, with the WMC faction constantly attacking the only two truly neutral admins here (Lar and LHvU) while obvious faction defenders like NW are creating new sanctionable offenses at the behest of the faction.

I would like to know what is inappropriate about adding a tag to an article in which criticism from published books and newspapers like the WSJ have been suppressed for months. Similarly, I would like to know what's wrong with untagging an article which hadn't had a single talk page comment in 3 weeks. Because those were the two things I did which triggered this royal proclamation from NW, and neither is problematic in the slightest. ATren (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could leave you hatred at the door. There is no "WMC faction", and if you think there is, you should have presented evidence of same to Arbcomm. Please try to avoid hijacking every thread with the same tired spam. You're accused of revenge tagging because you've quite blatantly done it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In 10 minutes, I found multiple published criticisms of Mann and his hockey stick, and until yesterday barely a whisper of controversy was in the article. I looked through the history and found your faction consistently deleting that criticism. So I put the tag up. Later I added the material, and predictably, one of your faction whitewashed it, keeping the source but not the details. So I added the tag again. This is how it's supposed to work, but ever since your faction got a stranglehold on this topic area, everything is upside down, and suddenly we have "neutral" admins decreeing that tagging is now an offense -- even though your faction has been gaming the tags on Lawrence Solomon for months. Typical Bizarro World enforcement here, where blatant POV pushing from your faction gets a pass while new transgressions are invented to squelch the editors trying to fix the damage you've done. ATren (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ATren, I'm getting very tired of these constant accusations of "alarmist factions", "whitewashing" and biased admins. I'm obviously not the only one who feels that way. Please tone it down. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SPADE. ATren (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See also WP:TE: "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people." Might be time to drop the stick or file that RFC you were talking about.

ATren found trash by Steve Milloy which he seems to think suitbale for inclusion ni a BLP. Which speaks for itself William M. Connolley (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that it would be just as appropriate as anything from RealClimate. GregJackP Boomer! 14:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• It was the edit war yesterday that made me add this sanction, yes. I also remember this issue coming up on multiple other pages, including Climatic Research Unit email controversy. The reason I added this sanction was not to protect my favorite version of any article (indeed, I did not know which articles had tags and which didn't when I applied it), but more because I felt generally frustrated with how they were being used as battleground ammunition. NW (Talk) 13:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would agree that tag strikes are on the rise. I had a non-climate change article trolled by CC regulars, tag bombed and put to fierce scrutiny by a nomination for deletion deadline. This is after the drive by tagger offered no talk and tagged. The level of malicious intent toward others, is to be a cause for concern. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He means Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ngawang Tenzin Rinpoche and he is effectively calling me a malicious troll, not that I care. Polargeo (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there a recent case here where a warning about the use of statements like "WMC faction" was the resolution? Ravensfire (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: I don't think that NW proposed that that POV tags be disallowed on CC pages without a consensus to do so. In fact, that's against standard practice across Misplaced Pages. Tags should stay unless there's a concensus to remove them, not the other way around. In any case, I believe that NW's proposal is that all editors are prohibited from adding or removing any tags. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Disallowance without a consensus was my read. "This restriction may be bypassed through local article talk consensus"... As I said before, I find that problematic. Adding should be easier than removing. Make adding a bit harder? Sure. But it needs to still be easier. ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Objection to Lar's proposed close

I object to Lar's proposal of a quorem of two, given that both "factions," according to Lar, have readily available sycophants who will gladly support whatever nonsense their cofactioneers propose, without doing any substantive due dilligence. I propose that to add any tag, someone needs to get approval of said tag from a fully distant editor - that means no "uninvolved like lar" admin, but rather some random, saying that said tag is appropriate. Such editors can frequently be found at WP:NPOVN, or WP:BLPN. Hipocrite (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

<comment by GregJackP redacted by GregJackP>note added dave souza, talk 00:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Insulting other editors about their disabilities? Do you kick cripples on weekends? Spit at blind people? Hipocrite (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Also note Lar's invalid moving of comments William M. Connolley (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Half WP:CREEP, and half an attempt to cement factions? Horrible, effectively unpatrolable, and an invitation for honest mistakes to be blown into wikidrama. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Whether Lar is involved or not is beside the point. His idea is a formula for gridlock, and for every single Climate Change article being slapped with an unwarranted NPOV tag forever. That benefits only the most extreme voices on both sides, and is a formula for endless bickering and wikilawyering. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Article Tags

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections.

• I'm not sure there's necessarily consensus for this unilateral imposition among uninvolved admins. I'm not necessarily opposed but I'd like to see that consensus. I do have concerns about disallowing tagging which is a valuable and normally routine thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a good move and I support it. I also think under thr original probation terms this kind of unilateral action by an uninvolved admin was what people had in mind so it is legit. However, I agree since then practice has proven more about consensus. I would be happy providing a post hoc blessing in this case --BozMo talk 11:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• After some thought, I have a compromise proposal to put forward that I think addresses the edit warring aspect without removing the benefit of appropriate placement or removal. It's my view that by default, it should be easier to place a tag than to remove it. It's unfortunately more complicated. Here goes:

For the duration of this sanction, placement of a tag requires that two editors who participate in editing the article support it. (so that it's not just one person's view) Tags placed that do not receive such support are subject to immediate removal by anyone until they do. (thus if I placed a tag, it could be instantly removed, and only after talk page discussion including two editors that did edit would it be restorable without sanction... placing it of course would move me to involved :) ) Tag removal of validly placed tags cannot occur less than 24 hours after placement and cannot occur unless there is a clear and overwhelming consensus that the problem identified has been resolved. Such consensus should be among a quorum of all the editors who have recently (within 2 weeks) edited the article in any way (even vandal reversion or typo fixes). Notification of editors that there is a discussion is permitted but not required. If notification is done, it should be per our standards, neutral, and it should be to all editors eligible to form that quorum, not a subset, excepting only editors already discussing the matter.

Smith away. ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Too subject to wikilawyering and too bureaucratic, in my opinion. I would prefer the temporary blanket ban with exceptions once something has concretely been established to be a problem. The point of my sanction was not to prevent tags from being used at all, but to prevent them from being used as a battleground behavior. This modification I fear would not be able to hold up. NW (Talk) 13:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal makes it exactly as hard to add as to remove. That's wrong. Adding needs to be easier than removing, per long standing practice. Modify your proposal to tilt that way and I'll support it. As written, sorry, but no. Consensus of course may go against me which is fine. ++Lar: t/c 13:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We need to reduce the amount of time spent fighting over tags, since that time would be better spent doing... well, pretty much anything else. NW's proposal, while arbitrary on some level, at least promotes that goal. I'm concerned that adding several layers of bureaucratic criteria for tagging will increase the amount of time spent fighting over tags (since inevitably, people will fall out to arguing about whether criteria 1, subsection c has been satisfied, or the meanings of "quorum" and "consensus"). In that sense, I think this proposal, while well-intentioned, would be counterproductive. MastCell  19:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding needs to be easier than removing. NW's proposal has the fatal flaw of that not being the case. I am open to other suggestions for ways to ensure that, while reducing edit warring but I cannot accept NW's proposal as written, it's counter to how we do things. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I endorse NW's proposal that POV tags be disallowed on CC pages without a consensus to do so. It is not ideal, but then again neither is Misplaced Pages, or Wikipedians. The proposal is a pragmatic approach and is probably necessary at this point. The Wordsmith 15:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning ScienceApologist

User requesting enforcement

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. Adds unsourced contentious WP:BLP material.
2. Adds it again.
3. Indicates intention to keep adding it to the article, "I will not back down".

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warning by A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Block until editor agrees to stop adding unsourced contentious WP:BLP material.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is pretty self-explanatory. ScienceApologist is edit-warring to include unsourced contentious material about a living person. I know I can cite the WP:BLP exception and remove the BLP violation but I'd rather not get into an edit war with him, so I'm escalating this to the next level.

Also, I'd like to point out that ScienceApologist is an experienced editor. He should know better than to a) add unsourced contentious BLP material and b) edit-war to include the contentious BLP material. The fact that he sees nothing wrong with this is very unsettling. Further, since this request, ScienceApologist is now accusing me of defaming Virginia Heffernan, which is quite bizarre since I've only had one edit to this article since July 24th and my edit was to remove ScienceApologist's BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda: I hope those last two sentence weren't about me, because I've only had one edit to this article since July 24th and my edit was to remove ScienceApologist's BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@Lar: Because of SA's threat to keep inserting the material. Granted, I know I have a BLP exception, but I don't want to get into an edit war over BLP issues. And the last time there was an edit war over BLP issues, the editor who removed the BLP violation was the one who got sanctioned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning ScienceApologist

Statement by ScienceApologist

Please read the entire discussion at Talk:Watts Up With That?#Virginia Heffernan. There is a lot of gaming going on here. AQFK is treating this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and is using threats of enforcement as a means of intimidation. He knows that the information is sourced via WP:TWITTER and it is strictly about the opinions of Virginia Heffernan, who is the BLP subject of this matter. Removing the contentious material about an opinion had that Heffernan later verifiably stated she regretted was reverted by a number of editors known to this board. If anyone is violating BLP it is AQFK and friends who seem intent on keeping out the fact that Heffernan stated regret about her recommendation. Apparently, they're only content to include the initial recommendation which she is verified to later regret. This is not how we should write a encyclopedia that relies on verifiable facts.

Enforcement against AQFK should be swift and severe. He is wasting our time with this frivolous complaint against me while ignoring the continuing defaming of Heffernan by other editors including himself.

By the way, the last enforcement here was SUCH A WASTE OF TIME because no one controlled the peanut gallery that I will not be participating much more than this initial statement. I've posted a notice about this to both the Fringe Theories Noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard. Hopefully outsiders will begin to take notice of the lunacy being perpetrated at these articles.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning ScienceApologist

Your source for this on the article's talk page points to a comment posted to a blog. And your position that this violates BLP is rather ludicrous. People do things, then later regret them all the time. If an article points out a Senator voted for a bill, but doesn't state they later "regretted" doing so, that's hardly libeling the subject. Fell Gleaming 20:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Heffernan has distanced herself from that statement. Presenting the statement as if she still stood by it is a misrepresentation, and a clear BLP violation. Removing the clarification is a BLP violation. Wikilawyering to include the embarrassing statement but not the clarification is tendentious editing. I'd say sanction anyone who edit-wars or wikilawyers to preserve a BLP violation. Guettarda (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hefferman has not distanced herself from the statement. See the original source here She replied via email to a blogger, telling him she regretted that the recommendation "seemed idealogical". That's assuming we trust a random blogger as a source at all ... and if we don't, we have no source whatsoever for the claim. In other words, ScienceApologist's insertion was not only inaccurate, but itself a violation of BLP. Incorrectly claiming a journalist regrets her professional work can very well be considered libelous. Fell Gleaming 21:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am in two minds here its true that SA has mis-represented the source to make her 'denile' seem rather stronger then it is. Its also true that material is are being removed that does not make it sound like a riginig endorsement (also a BLP violation). If this statment is included (and it should not be in the lead) we also need her caveat as well.Slatersteven (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with Slatersteven here. This is a pretty marginal case and broad interpretation of BLP issue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a more troubling BLP issue without Hefferman's clarification than with it, although it's problematic in either version. Her statements are verifiable, and the sourcing was discussed long before this report was followed, so there's no legitimate behavioral / sanctions issue, and any content dispute should be resolved elsewhere. The quote shouldn't be there at all - including the statements of a writer who doesn't know the field endorsing something she admittedly doesn't understand, getting castigated for it, then backpeddling, does neither her nor the article any good. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning ScienceApologist

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections.

There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions.

• Why is this here? We have an open request about SA already which after much discussion, went nowhere useful. I see discussion on the talk page seems to be continuing. Why is that not sufficient? ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I am similarly confused. It appears to be a content dispute, not necessarily a clear BLP bio. I move to dismiss the case. The Wordsmith 21:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning William M. Connolley

User requesting enforcement

Fell Gleaming 14:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. Reverted without talk discussion or any edit summary.
2. Same revert a few hours later, again without talk discussion, and with an edit summary that misrepresents the sources.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In the space of a few hours, this user twice changed the phrasing from "some scientists believe" to "some global warming critics believe", and attempted to justify this by claiming the sources didn't support the term scientists. However, there are two sources attached to the claim, one a statement by a geophysicist and Emeritus professor of physics and founding director of the Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska (see ), as well as the same claim by a Ph.D holder in Climatology (see ). WMC reverted two separate editors in this brief span, and in neither case did he first attempt to justify his edits on the article's talk page. I believe this constitutes both disruptive editing and misrepresentation of sources.

More serious is the fact that this is not the negligence of a tyro editor, or even an experienced editor who simply misread a source. MC knows better than any other person here that some scientists believe exactly what the article states. This was a deliberate attempt to distort the factual situation. The edit warring in an article on climate change is likewise a confounding factor.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning William M. Connolley

Statement by William M. Connolley

LS is yet another Scibaby sock. Quite why FG is proxying for him is all too obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted FG again. This is just more tendentious disruption by FG - see Talk:Little_Ice_Age#A_Ph.D. in_climatology_doesn.27t_qualify_a person to_be_called .22a_scientist.22 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley

Response to Jehochman from FellGleaming

While you have claimed that the phrase "some scientists" is imprecise and thus Connelly did no wrong, I point out that the phrase "some global warming critics" is even more imprecise. In any case, such a claim does not excuse edit warring, failure to discuss contentious changes via talk first, or deliberate misrepresentation of sources.

You are also mispresenting this as being a simple edit war by WMC and another editor, presumably me. However, WMC reverted two separate editors here, not one...and did it without any attempt to first discuss via talk. But the more serious issue is the deliberate attempt to obfuscate and distort the article's sources. I also am rather shocked by the veiled threat of action against me for bringing this case here. Other editors can and have received sanctions for smaller infractions than WMC has engaged in here, and without his long-standing pattern and history of similar issues.

To anyone reading Jehochman's comments here, I suggest you look at his comments in a similar case, where WMC and another user (GregJackP) both issued reverts to an article. In this case, Jehochman believed no action was necessary against WMC, but a six month topic ban was necessary for the other user, based on his belief that Greg had misrepresented the source, because WMC, one of the source's three authors says so -- despite GregJackP having two additional sources which cited the original source in the same manner he did, and no reliable source citing WMC's opinion of the source. See here: . Jehochman appears to be giving WMC special status to skirt Misplaced Pages policy, based on his belief in WMC's essential rightness of opinion. Fell Gleaming 15:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway comments

If as Fell Gleaming seems to be saying the chaps in question were merely an emeritus professor and a PhD, perhaps the opinion wasn't very prominently held and didn't really represent a significant opinion held by qualified experts in the field. It would really depend on how much the opinion of the professor (who does sound to be quite eminent) counts for. But even so, if it's just him and the PhD that's a bit sparse. --TS 15:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The opinions in question were already qualified as such. The full original text is: "Some scientists believe that Earth's climate is still recovering from the Little Ice Age and that human activity is not the decisive factor in present temperature trends but this idea is not widely accepted. Mainstream scientific opinion on climate change is that warming over the last 50 years is caused primarily by the increased proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by human activity.".

WMC was not making an undue weight argument but, as his edit summary shows, was attempting to claim the sources didn't state that "scientists" held this belief; that they were simply "global warming critics". Fell Gleaming 15:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that WMC was not modeling good behavior. It's either sanction both of you, or counsel both of you. I'd prefer the second choice. Jehochman 15:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, on what grounds would you sanction me? I did not insert the phrasing "some" or any of the other text you take issue with, I merely corrected the interpretation of the source back to "scientists". Further, unlike WMC, I instituted a talk page discussion to further comment on the issue. When an editor expressed his belief that one of the scientists in question hadn't been cited enough to qualify for the term, I located additional references to address that concern. Are you sure you're looking at this situation as a dispassionate neutral administrator? Fell Gleaming 16:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, but what is the basis for suggesting that Fell Gleaming deserves either sanction or counseling on this issue?--SPhilbrickT 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fell Gleaming is on a final warning concerning matters of sourcing, particularly presentation of sources. Counselling him on how to present the facts is very much within the remit of this probation. --TS 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If the use of "some" requires counseling, there are over 600,000 prior examples. Any bets on how many of those edits has resulted in counseling or possible sanctions?--SPhilbrickT 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How many of the editors who used "some" in this way were on probation for improper handling and presentation of source material? --TS 17:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not use "some" in any manner whatsoever. Have you even looked at the diffs? The word was already in the article. What precisely do you feel I did wrong? It's truly amazing how what even Jehochman admits is poor behavior on the part of WMC is being hijacked into an attempt to accuse me. Fell Gleaming 17:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There's already a guideline on language such as this. The original language "some global warming critics" was badly written, but at least there was some attempt to be specific. Scibaby's change of "global warming critics" to "scientists" made a vague expression even vaguer. So instead of reverting it back in, a better choice would have been to try and make it more specific. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There's an order of magnitude (at least) more global warming critics than there are scientists, so the notion that "global warming critics" is more specific than "scientists" is quite flawed. While the wording could be better, the notion that Fell Gleaming is even considered for sanctions for using the word "some" especially in light of the fact that Fell Gleaming did not use the word "some" is astounding.--SPhilbrickT 18:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There's an order of magnitude more uninformed lay critics than there are scientists. Having looked at the sources as discussed below, the two "skeptical scientists" should be named in the article, and "some" exaggerates how many scientists still hold this fringe view. That Fell Gleaming chose to adopt the change made by an apparent sock means that Fell Gleaming took on responsibility for the phrasing involved. . dave souza, talk 18:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If the skeptical scientists should be named, why did WMC not name them, rather than attempting to hide their standing by substituting "critics" in place of "scientists"? If the word "some" was vague, why did he not remove it, rather than claim the sources didn't support the use of the word scientist? And so far, the only evidence the original editor is "an apparent sock" is because WMC believes him to be. Please answer the charges against WMC, rather than hijacking the thread. Fell Gleaming 19:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman's advice in the "results" section is addressed to both of you. Nobody's arguing about it with Dr. Connolley because he's not arguing the toss in the discussion section. --TS 20:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

<-Here's the sequence (involving Fell Gleaming (FG)):

1. FG changes global warming critics to scientists
2. FG compromises by including both global warming critics and scientists, as well as adding citations
3. FG threatened with sanctions or counseling for undefined violations

Did I miss something? --SPhilbrickT 19:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Prior to your timeline, the edit was made twice by the alleged sock. There were a number of problems with the way the sentence was left by FG's edit (and the sock's previous ones). First scientists don't 'believe' things, they 'have evidence for', 'have shown' or 'have disproved' them, as a few examples. Second, if they have evidence for something so extraordinary, I would expect a reference to a peer-reviewed paper, not one to 'The politics of global warming' in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and another to an op-ed in the Canadian National Post.--Nigelj (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Scientists don't 'believe' things". Did you mean to type this? Scientists have beliefs like anyone else. Fell Gleaming 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The beliefs of scientists don't count as science, as you should know. The beliefs of fringe view promoters may have some political significance, making them attractive to newspapers, and they should be shown as such. . . dave souza, talk 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think accept that "scientists believe" is allowed, please go to Greenland ice sheet, where is says: "Some scientists believe that global warming may be about to push the ice sheet over a threshold where the entire ice sheet will melt in less than a few hundred years." After that, there are 441 other articles with the phrase.--SPhilbrickT 21:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's poor writing, but as you've found, poor writing is common in Misplaced Pages. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

dave souza comments

The first of the two diffs alleged to be edit warring shows a revert of the wittily named Loos stool (talk · contribs) who has been templated by WMC as a suspected sock. User:FellGleaming then chose to adopt Loos stool's edit, with the edit summary rv; whitewash, and was in turn reverted by WMC with the summary rv I don't think that is supported by the sources. Discuss on talk, perhaps. Whitewash is definitely wrong. Given the reasonable supposition that Loos stool is a sock, that's one revert each, over the debated text whether those making the fringe claim are best described as "scientists" or as "global warming critics". The sourcing isn't ideal for a scientific matter, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review from February 10, 2007, reporting on Timothy Ball and the National Post of March 30, 2007, referring to Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu. Given more recent developments in science, the past tense would be more appropriate, and describing two scientists with fringe views as "some scientists" is questionable. FellGleaming then compromised on "Some scientists and global warming critics believe", citing a January 2008 New American Magazine article by Akasofu (same guy) and, rather oddly, a Science article from 29 November 1996: hardly indicative of current "belief". The whole section needs to be reviewed, and better sources used. As for edit warring, neither looks bad to me. Taking the issue here looks like a tendentious waste of time. However, FellGleaming's sourcing is clearly very dubious . . dave souza, talk 16:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist's comments

FellGleaming is a tendentious editor trying to use this enforcement to gain an upper-hand in editorial disputes with WMC and others. He has been practicing a spectacular amount of disruption at Talk:Watts Up With That? where he has been insisting on a parochial and peculiar interpretation of policy and consistently edit wars in his preferred versions. This enforcement request should be summarily dismissed as gaming. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment from WMC about consensus

Discussion resulting from the question in my comment of 04:42 21 Sep 2010. Franamax (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

TW's against-consensus ban of me from FS. Mind you, it got over-overturned later William M. Connolley (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to track that down, once I've decrypted your coding scheme. ;) Franamax (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the expansion is "The Wordsmith" and "Fred Singer". That probably means that I've been following this imbroglio too closely. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't confuse against consensus for without consensus, I know you know better than that. Also, you seem to have forgotten that after being overturned, a modified version of it was affirmed. The Wordsmith 07:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it was against rather than without consensus. And as for Also, you seem to have forgotten that - I don't expect competence from you, but not at this level: did you fail to read Mind you, it got over-overturned later? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Overturned and then reaffirmed. You neglected to mention the part where you were banned for 2 months from editing that page, by a consensus of uninvolved admins. The Wordsmith 16:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it was, which is what I've already said over-overturned later was. Did you, again, not bother read what I wrote? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you're right. I read that as overturned, not over-overturned. You have my apology. The Wordsmith 18:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Thats fine William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning William M. Connolley

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections.

There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions.

No sanctions are required here, but some advice is in order. Phrases like "some scientists", "some people" or "some skeptics" are all equally bad. The formulation "some" should be avoided. It is a classic way for the author to insert their own POV. Instead, specify exactly who says what. "Geophysicist Mark P. Dingdongle, and Climatologist Frederick VonHopperpopper say that..." This is the best practice for complying with WP:NPOV. As for WP:UNDUE, you should avoid highlighting the views of a few obscure people. Instead, try to find out what the most prominent experts in the field are saying. Jehochman 14:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than playing the "ban my content opponent" game, which may result in sanctions against the request filer for WP:BATTLE violations, please focus on improving the article. As I said, both editors in this incipient edit war were editing against Misplaced Pages's content policies. Who did how many reverts is not nearly as important as encouraging the proper development of articles. Jehochman 14:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fell, are you ready to drop the WP:STICK, or do you need something more forceful? WMC's behavior is under review by ArbCom. They are voting on whether or not to sanction him. There is no need for the matter to be addressed here and now. Jehochman 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I see Fell jumping in on an edit war being carried on by a brand new account. That's not good. They are trying to wedge in a mejor claim, which is not good. "Some" depends on the number for one thing, 2 is "some" of 7; but 2 of a million is, well, 2. And why "scientists" instead of, say, "right-handed people"? Jehochman's advice is well-founded. Fell tried to support the wording (which BTW when you restore from another user's edits does indeed become your own responsibility in many csaes) with more sources, which is good - but with lousy sources, which is bad. The first three sources just counted 2 people, including one Fell added. I'm not gonna pay for the 14 year old Science paper, but the abstract certainly doesn't support the text, which is bad. Fell is trying a different tack now to keep the material in, which is not good, they should be sticking to proposals on the talk page. This section barely even supports the "some...critics" claim. I take a dim view of editors jumping onto a change made by a suspected sock, so I'm thinking at least a warning to FellGleaming, including one about jumping on an opportunity to make an RFE claim, watch out for what the result might be. Franamax (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that no sanction against WMC is necessary here. A word of warning to FG may be in order, though. The Wordsmith 02:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No sanction for anyone. This board, as currently construed, is dead since we have unilateral sanctions being imposed by some admins without any discussion here first. Either shift to the model proposed on talk of sanction first then review if requested, or close it down completely and leave it to AN/I and ArbCom. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I quite disagree with you Lar. Adminstrators are alwys free to act unilaterally. That's the thing about adminship, you can do anything you want, so long as you're ready to answer for it. That does not devalue the consensus process pioneered here. Has any decision issued from this board ever been overturned once it was closed and announced? (I honestly don't know the answer to that) Franamax (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on WMC's recent edit warring in the RealClimate article ( ) plus his admitted involvement as one of the founders of that blog (I can provide a link to the announcement email archived at the EastAngliaEmails site upon request; WMC admits to being mentioned there ) and attempts to use the blog as a source for advocacy in Misplaced Pages (), I have formally requested to WMC that he no longer edit the RealClimate article, except its talk page, ever again. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And your standing to make such a request is...what, exactly? Such proclamation s should come via admins, ArbCom, or consensus at the COI noticeboard. Not directly from involved editors. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that such a request will result in a helpful conclusion. I am happy to mediate this sort of thing on the article's talk page if needed. Though you probably know, my POV is 100% with William's on the science, but I do my best to try to be fair. Awickert (talk)

Cla68: This request will go nowhere. You're better off asking ArbCom for a temporary injunction. WMC has been involved in almost every edit war (at least that I'm aware of) during the case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is unlikely to go anywhere, as this is not a request for enforcement, but one editor making a request to another editor. I am reasonably certain it will go nowhere because Cla68 received a "no" answer approx. eight hours before making this disruptive and unnecessary posting here. See It's possible that some kind of administrative action needs to be taken, but it should be taken against Cla68, as this seems to be a classic case of disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

By this logic (that WMC once was a contributor to RC) Cla68 should refrain from editing milhist articles if he once served in the military. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)