Dave souza (talk | contribs) →dave souza comments: avoid disamb page |
Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) →Tony Sidaway comments: there are over 600,000 prior examples |
||
Line 718: | Line 718: | ||
:::(ec)Sorry, but what is the basis for suggesting that Fell Gleaming deserves either sanction or counseling on this issue?--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#002868;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#ADD8E6;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</font> 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
:::(ec)Sorry, but what is the basis for suggesting that Fell Gleaming deserves either sanction or counseling on this issue?--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#002868;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#ADD8E6;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</font> 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::: Fell Gleaming is on a final warning concerning matters of sourcing, particularly presentation of sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFellGleaming&action=historysubmit&diff=356719863&oldid=356680879] Counselling him on how to present the facts is very much within the remit of this probation. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
:::: Fell Gleaming is on a final warning concerning matters of sourcing, particularly presentation of sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFellGleaming&action=historysubmit&diff=356719863&oldid=356680879] Counselling him on how to present the facts is very much within the remit of this probation. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::: If the use of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=some&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch&advanced=1&fulltext=Advanced+search "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?--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#002868;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#ADD8E6;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</font> 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
====dave souza comments==== |
====dave souza comments==== |
Revision as of 17:07, 10 September 2010
This board is for users to request enforcement under the terms of the climate change article probation. Requests should take the following format:
{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request | User against whom enforcement is requested = <Username> | Sanction or remedy that this user violated = [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation]] | Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so <!-- When providing several diffs, please use a numbered list as in this example. --> =<p> # [<Diff>] <Explanation> # [<Diff>] <Explanation> # [<Diff>] <Explanation> # ... | Diffs of prior warnings =<p> # [<Diff>] Warning by {{user|<Username>}} # [<Diff>] Warning by {{admin|<Username>}} # ... | Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) = <Your text> | Additional comments = <Your text> }}
This will generate a structure for managing the request including a second level header. Please place requests underneath the following divider, with new requests at the bottom of the page. For instructions on generating diff links, see Help:Diff.
For Requests for refactoring of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines violations only, comments by parties other than the requester, the other party involved, and the reviewing/actioning/archiving editor will be removed.
Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets
Following discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Scibaby and enablers, this section is established to list active suspected Scibaby sockpuppets. This list is merely a courtesy to other editors active in this topic area, and does not replace Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. Please remove accounts that have been blocked or were listed in error. Accounts listed here are probably sockpuppets of a banned user, and may be reverted on sight. Any editor in good standing may "adopt" an edit that in his or her considered opinion improves an article, subject to common editing norms. The utmost care should be exercised to avoid listing accounts in error, and any mistakes should be promptly recognized and rectified.
- RigidRotor (talk · contribs) – reported by Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Loos stool (talk · contribs) – reported by Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Article tags
All editors are prohibited from adding or removing POV, neutrality or factual accuracy (or similar) tags to articles within the topic area of climate change, broadly construed, without first achieving a consensus on the talk page. Any new addition or removal without first having a consensus may be summarily reverted. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
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) DiscussionSpeaking 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)
Working on the underlying "waring" and battleground behavior would be a better effort. See Wikipedia: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
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
@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 Wikipedia. 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)
Objection to Lar's proposed closeI 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)
Result concerning Article Tags
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 Wikipedia, or Wikipedians. The proposal is a pragmatic approach and is probably necessary at this point. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC) |
Extension
- Announcement: This seems to have worked fairly well so far. Therefore, I am extending this to last until the closure of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. NW (Talk) 02:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The way things are going, you might as well extend it until the heat death of the universe. It would probably be a shorter extension. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Worked? ... the articles are getting better because of this? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it's working. I wasn't convinced it was a good idea to make it harder to add tags and easier to remove them (relatively speaking, with reference to the status quo ante). I'm also not comfortable with a unilateral imposition or extension outside of consensus. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- For what its worth, I endorse the extension, so it is not unilateral anymore. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Corrected phrasing, struck unilateral, new phrasing italicised. Your endorsement helps but is not yet consensus. It may form, as it did for the initial imposition, and I will go along but I will voice my opposition nevertheless, while supporting consensus if formed. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's not worth anything. Unilateral means "Performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others", so this remains a unilateral act. Without discussion, or community consensus, there is no necessity for anyone to adhere to this unilateral, out-of-process sanction. Weakopedia (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Call the question. So far I see NW and TW in support, myself opposed. Any more views? ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I came here after I saw this. My, maybe wikilawyering, opinion: This is again a rule which a) does not address the problem, b) is set completely unspecific, c) disables things which are completely normal, and d) disables edits which follow core policy. Just ask yourself one question: what about a {{fact}} tag? I mean, I see what you are getting at, but the way you word the sanction is contrasting our core policies and guidelines, and I can perform edits which strictly follow our core policies and guidelines, and this sanction would make that wrong. This is again plain similar to the do-not-change-others-posts-anywhere-on-wikipedia-rule .. your sanctions result in situations where editors who follow policies and guidelines suddenly violate a sanction, and hence can be sanctioned. And then it does not address the problem. Why do you need this? If editors add and remove tags without discussing or resolving the problems that are perceived, protect it at the wrong version or block an editor for edit-warring, and enforce discussion. You don't need sanctions for that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Suggest close as defacto. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
ScienceApologist
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
- mark nutley (talk) 17:22, 25 August 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
- Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [3] Inserts the pejorative Denier into a BLP claiming the three sources are peer reviewed.
- [4] User:Wenchell changes it to sceptic (note edit summary) and SA reverts Denier back in
- ...
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- He already knows i have pointed out his error multipile times on the article talk page. As have other editors.
- ...
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Either a topic ban from BLP`s of those skeptical of AGW or he has to get someone to check a source before he adds content to a blp to ensure he is not misrepresenting sources
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- The sources used by SA to call Watts a denier are being deliberately misrepresented. None of them call Watts a denier and only one is in a peer reviewed source. One is self published [5] and actually calls watts a sceptic. The second is from [6] it is an opinion piece from a extreme left wing online magazine [7] this source does not call watts a denier it calls his website a denier site. The third source [8] is also not a peer reviewed source and also calls watts a sceptic. This deliberate misrepresentation sources in a blp needs to be stopped now. Please read through this thread [9] were you will see SA not only continues to say the sources are peer reviewed but that he has not misrepresented them. He quite simply does not get it and enforcement seems to me to be the only option.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [10]
Discussion concerning ScienceApologist
Statement by ScienceApologist
Content dispute escalated here by User:Marknutley after using the threat of wiki-litigation as a bludgeon to get his way. More details can be had for the asking, but essentially this is a case of someone being tendetious. Recommend sanctioning the filing party for failing to utilize the proper dispute resolution system. This is the same line being towed as by User:GregJackP and User:Minor4th. It would be nice if we could actually discuss articles without having people threaten to wiki-litigate. Judicious reminders of this principle would be most appreciated.
ScienceApologist (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Petri Krohn
On August 24, 2010 – as a total outsider – I reviewed the two sources linked to on the article talk page. (See Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)#Principle of least astonishment) My conclusion was that both of them describe Anthony Watts as a climate change denialist (as defined in the linked article) and not as a global warming skeptic (as defined in the article Global warming controversy, where the redirect now points to.)
My comment was responded to with what I consider to be a personal attack by mark nutley. I find this behavior unacceptable.
I did not take any position on the reliability of the sources or their relevance, as these issues were not discussed. What seems to be going on at the talk page is a stonewalling operation against what should be a clear case in favor of ScienceApologist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please help me find where Global warming controversy defines "skeptic". It is a very long article and a quick search was not productive. Q Science (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I guess it should do a better job at the definition, as the redirect now points there. The definition I refer to is in the phrase "skeptical scientist", as opposed to pseudo-scientists defined in the "denial" article.
- This discussion is however totally irrelevant, as this page is about enforcement of general sanctions placed by ArbCom. Dispute resolution should happen somewhere else. The mere fact that so much space here is wasted on dispute resolution is a clear indication that the accused, ScienceApologist, acted within policy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. – From this diff I now learn that the underlying dispute is in fact about which of the two articles should be linked to. The exact verbal definition becomes thus irrelevant. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I think that the definitions are still important so that we don't link to the wrong article. I only found the phrase "skeptical scientist" two times, and neither was a definition. I was also only able to find "pseudo-scientists" (actually "pseudoscience") in one article, but it made no connection with "denier". However, since you have used the term "pseudo-scientists", it appears that you are saying that only a degreed scientist can be called a "skeptic". Is that correct? Q Science (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is true the a large part of the media use the word "Skeptic" instead of the word "Denialist". However, here at Wikipedia the article is at Climate change denial. If you think that it should be moved to climate change skepticism you can make a proposal. I guess someone has in fact already made such a proposal and failed. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. – Climate change skepticism redirects to the section Global warming controversy#Changing positions of skeptics. I guess I should have used that expression, as it is now more refined. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Petri, when you say you concluded that the sources describe Watts as a denialist, can we agree that neither uses the term denialist to describe Watts, and what you mean is that the discussion of Watts is consistent with the definition as provided in Climate change denial? I see two problems with this. First, even though you say it is not synthesis, that's exactly what it is. Second, you are relying on a Wikipedia article, which is not a reliable source. This second point is absolutely within policy, but it isn't even a technicality. The WP article is wrong, as the definition they propose isn't supported by the citation. (As an aside, I now understand why so many editors are making the mistake of equating denialism and skepticism—how ironic that the source of the confusion is Wikipedia). I have added that article to my to-do list., but to see the error, go to the source "supporting" the definition. The opening paragraph contains the sentence," And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions." I agree with that as a description of denialism, but it doesn't support the definition used. --SPhilbrickT 13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are making good arguments, unfortunately none of this was present in the original discussion where ScienceApologist was accused of misbehaving. I agree that there is a strong argument for not using the word "denialist" in WP:BLP, except when attributed to someone.
- The discussion was however not about what wording to use in the article, as much as about what article to link to. The Lockwood article only uses the word "denial" three times. The whole article however is explicitly about the kind of denial now described in the Wikipedia article Climate change denial. As has been attested multiple times, the press interchangeable use the word "skepticism" for "denial". I have created the disambiguated redirect Climate change skepticism (denialism) for this kind of cases. (We also have Historical revisionism (negationism).) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning ScienceApologist
- The terms "climate change skepticism" and "climate change denialism" are used synonymously by scholarly sources. Using one or the other primarily an issue of style, although "denialism" avoids the ambiguity of the word "skeptic", since in this context its meaning differs significantly from the usual meaning of the word in English. Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- The term "contrarian" is gaining currency in the outside world as avoiding the baggage carried by both "skeptic" and "denier." We might consider settling on that as a reasonably neutral term for whatever-these-folks-believe. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- There exists a relavent ArbCom amendment request, filed by GregJackP: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Fringe science. However, it looks unlikely that ArbCom will do anything as they see it mostly as a content dispute. NW (Talk) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- A "denier" is not the same as a "skeptic" and the terms are not used interchangeably. The sources cited by SA use the term "Skeptic" but he has revert warred to keep the term "denier." He knows better. Minor4th 18:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I question the wisdom of escalating a content dispute such as whether to label a prominent opponent of climate change science a "skeptic" versus a "denier", particularly on the eve of an Arbcom decision to which the disputants are parties, and that would replace this entire general sanctions mechanism with arbitration enforcement. Please settle this disagreement on the talk page of the article in question. The BLP concern, if it exists at all, is extremely thin. The terms "skeptic" and "denier", whether interchangeable or not, are statements of analysis and opinion characterizing a person's views, without universally agreed fixed definitions. Thus, the place to look for guidance is not peer reviewed science articles, and some amount of reasonable editorial discretion is called for when using them. It's not as if either term is unverifiable. This reliable source,[11] for example, describes him as a denier.(".. deniers like Climate Audit, or Anthony Watts's site...") It would be better if SA hadn't reverted at all. If they or others continue to edit war on this point, I would see a problem, but SA is at one revert on a minor arguable content point, so I just don't see anything here.- Wikidemon (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- On further review, I see two further problems with the bringing of the complaint. First, it is stale. The 1RR revert war began and ended two weeks old at this point. Second, it is a forum fork. There is an open Arbcom motion that covers this very question,[12] something the parties must be aware of.[13] Third and finally, pages are where disputes go when the parties aren't trying to resolve things among themselves and there is future disruption to be prevented, neither of which applies here. A rather heated discussion has been ongoing on the article talk page ever since the initial edits. Although there is a lot of noise in the discussion, the parties do seem to be discussing. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment You see nothing wrong with misrepresentation of sources in a BLP? None of you? This is not a content dispute, it is about an editor deliberately misrepresenting sources in a BLP mark nutley (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're grossly overdramatizing what happened seventeen days ago. I don't see a BLP issue here. "Skeptic" and "denier" are essentially synonymous. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think even you believe the two are synonymous. If they were, there would hardly be continual edit wars over their usage, now would there? Ever seen a edit war over describing a car as "speedy", rather than "fast"? Fell Gleamingtalk 20:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're grossly overdramatizing what happened seventeen days ago. I don't see a BLP issue here. "Skeptic" and "denier" are essentially synonymous. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can you explain what you mean? "Skeptic", "denier", "contrarian", "naysayer", etc., are used interchangeably. Can you explain why you consider it "misrepresentation", given that the terms are used synonymously? Guettarda (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- If they are so interchangeable then why has the Guardian stopped using the term Denier? They are not interchangeable at all as denier is a pejorative. If there is no difference in the terms then why would SA insist on the use of Denier? Even when his sources did not call watts a denier? Why is the fact that an editor who misrepresented sources one of which was self published in a BLP not a cause for concern here? This is what people should be looking at, not spurious allegations of this being an content dispute, look at the article talk page please mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why has the Guardian stopped using "denier"? I didn't know that they have. You have a source that discusses their decision to stop using the term? But this is entirely beside the point - scholarly sources do use the terms interchangeably. The terms are used synonymously. It's certainly appropriate for editors to determine which term is most appropriate in a given context. But that's not your assertion. Your assertion is "misrepresentation". If a source says "African American" and an editor uses "black" in an article, that's not misrepresentation, even if some people consider the latter term un-PC.
I just can't see how this can possibly be considered "misrepresentation". Your answer seems to be entirely a distraction, and in no way answers my question. Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why has the Guardian stopped using "denier"? I didn't know that they have. You have a source that discusses their decision to stop using the term? But this is entirely beside the point - scholarly sources do use the terms interchangeably. The terms are used synonymously. It's certainly appropriate for editors to determine which term is most appropriate in a given context. But that's not your assertion. Your assertion is "misrepresentation". If a source says "African American" and an editor uses "black" in an article, that's not misrepresentation, even if some people consider the latter term un-PC.
- If they are so interchangeable then why has the Guardian stopped using the term Denier? They are not interchangeable at all as denier is a pejorative. If there is no difference in the terms then why would SA insist on the use of Denier? Even when his sources did not call watts a denier? Why is the fact that an editor who misrepresented sources one of which was self published in a BLP not a cause for concern here? This is what people should be looking at, not spurious allegations of this being an content dispute, look at the article talk page please mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can you explain what you mean? "Skeptic", "denier", "contrarian", "naysayer", etc., are used interchangeably. Can you explain why you consider it "misrepresentation", given that the terms are used synonymously? Guettarda (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I question why this case is being filed now, seventeen days after the last questioned edit. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as best as I can tell there is no current dispute. There is no reference to Watts as a skeptic or denier in the lead, which I question as he seems to be notable primarily for his CC work. There are likely to be dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of routine edits and mini-controversies like this in the global warming area. If every single dispute is going to result in a massive fight, there is going to be chaos. In fact, to an extent this case is typical of what we've seen too often. This dispute, if there is still a dispute, should go to the talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is being brought now because SA continues to assert that the sources are peer reviewed and that they call Watts a denier. None of those are true. Please look at the article talk page like i requested in my evidence mark nutley (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Right. A civil discussion, in which SA takes the totally reasonable position that Watts' climate skepticism should be mentioned in the lead. This enforcement case is ridiculous, and something needs to be done to stop wastes of time like this. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is being brought now because SA continues to assert that the sources are peer reviewed and that they call Watts a denier. None of those are true. Please look at the article talk page like i requested in my evidence mark nutley (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- A discussion were he continues to misrepresent sources and claim they are peer reviewed when they are not? This is a BLP and if this had been lets say a sceptic editor i doubt a lot of those posting here would be so forgiving mark nutley (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's your position. SA denies that and I tend to agree with him. I also agree with Wikidemon that this complaint is stale. This kind of needless bickering really has to come to an end. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- A discussion were he continues to misrepresent sources and claim they are peer reviewed when they are not? This is a BLP and if this had been lets say a sceptic editor i doubt a lot of those posting here would be so forgiving mark nutley (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Guettarda claim (without any refs): "Given that the terms are used interchangeably in scholarly sources, ". Ok, does any scholarly sources claim that he is a denier? If not, out with it. We don't make up things on Wikipedia Guettarda. This is ridiculous and bad for our reputation and may be libelous against a living person. We say nothing else than what WP:RS sources say, and even if some extreme left wing magazines calls his website denier, we should be cautious adding it (this was not even the case here, no sources calls him that if I've interpreted the discussion her correctly). That an experienced editor like ScienceApologist repeatedly break a possible WP:BLP just underline how far some of our editors are willing to go to smear their opponents (I assume so). And please, try to read this SA: Denialism and you will probably understand why this may be more problematic to use than Skepticism. Nsaa (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Guettarda claim [sic] (without any refs)... I clearly explained the basis for my argument. Other than you, no one has bothered to ask for sources, simply to make forceful claims, without evidence, that this isn't true. As for "we don't make things up..." - you should direct that comment at Minor4th, Marknutley, QScience and Sphilbrick who are claiming that these terms are not used synonymously, but who, it would appear, are simply expressing their opinions as if they were facts. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Selection of examples from the literature that I happen to have handy; all of these are freely available, full text, to anyone bothering to look for them - Guettarda (talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Denialism seems more accurate than Skepticism, since the latter is used in a misleading manner by climate-change deniers to give their position a false sense of respectability. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- mark is right on this one, and it's curious that anyone is defending SA on misrepresenting sources as being peer reviewed when theyre not and edit warring in the term "denier" over "skeptic" when his sources use the word "skeptic.". By this logic every living person is either a denier or an alarmist. You all know differently. SA knows the terms are not interchangeable or he wouldnt be edit warring in "denier" - if theyre interchangeable then he should have no preference for one over the other. This is a BLP -- why would anyone support the inclusion of a controversial label when it's not sourced? Anthony Watts himself has said he's not a denier. Theres no rationale for SA's deception and manipulation other than POV pushing, even if he remains overtly civil about it. Minor4th 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Conflating "skeptic" and "denier" is abject ignorance (I'm surprised at those who are making this error). That said, SA is perfectly within rights to attempt to make a case. The brief edit warring has ceased, so until and unless SA tries to insert unsourced claims, let the tempest on the talk page continue, it shouldn't escalate here. (Mark is right on the merits of the talk page claim, but I disagree that it belongs here).--SPhilbrickT 20:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Abject ignorance"? Fascinating. Source for your opinion? Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Pascal Diethelm, Martin McKee (2009). "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?" (pdf). European Journal of Public Health. 19 (1): 2–4. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139. PMID 19158101.--SPhilbrickT 22:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Abject ignorance"? Fascinating. Source for your opinion? Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is a "current dispute" and definitely NOT "stale". SA is making false claims on the talk page and trying to push a negative POV not supported by the references. His actions are just as distruptive as an edit war. However, rather than sanctions, I would prefer that more people contribute on the talk page. Q Science (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is an easy way to resolve this. Just add to the lede of the Watts article that Watts is a climate change sceptic or contrarian using those sources. If SA (or Guettarda, based on his comments here) changes it to denier, then bring him here for a BLP violation and ask for a topic ban or some other sanction. That should take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cla - this is exactly what happened and that is why the issue is here. "Skeptic" was used, the cited sources used "skeptic" and SA revet warred change it to "denialist" more than once -- misrepresenting sources and editing against consensus. So I think it's appropriate that SA should be topic banned or at least banned from editing BLPs. Minor4th 04:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I hope the parties can resolve this on the talk page, but the above is a reasonable approach. Some reliable sources call him a climate change / global warming denier, others call him a skeptic, which is a more inclusive and less loaded term. The term skeptic has only gained currency in the last few years so some of the older sources, and newer ones that aren't with the times, use the older language. But all that is a content decision. Why can't each side here take a step back? Is there anything at stake that matters here? How is the reader better or worse informed either way? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cla, I base my arguments on scholarly sources, not blog comments. Not to mention, although I didn't sign it, I'm still abiding by the pledge not to edit climate change articles. Try to focus your argument on facts. And please stop personalising everything. That's not the way we operate here. Guettarda (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is something that people seem strongly about. However, would all of you consider the following compromise? The Watts article uses the "skeptic" term, since that is what sources seem to use. SA gets a warning about BLP and BLP Special Enforcement, to prevent things from happening in the future. Neither SA nor anyone else gets a sanction at this time. Could we all live with that? The WordsmithCommunicate 03:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't warn me any more. I'm tired of being warned about this. How about warning tendentious editors about filing false claims and causing unnecessary drama? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I assume you know about WP:BLPSE. If you don't, this is your notification. Now that that's over with, can we all agree that "skeptic" is a better term? It seems to be what most sources call Watts. Denier may or may not be accurate, but skeptic is probably better to use in the article. If we can agree on that, i'll close this RfE. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't the correct place to discuss what type of wording to include in the article the talk page? Go ahead and close. I agree that we should have a sentence that's properly sourced. Also, you didn't mention what you think about warning tendentious editors who seemed emboldened by manufactured compromise with their evil. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Closing this without action will send a strong enough message. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't the correct place to discuss what type of wording to include in the article the talk page? Go ahead and close. I agree that we should have a sentence that's properly sourced. Also, you didn't mention what you think about warning tendentious editors who seemed emboldened by manufactured compromise with their evil. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I assume you know about WP:BLPSE. If you don't, this is your notification. Now that that's over with, can we all agree that "skeptic" is a better term? It seems to be what most sources call Watts. Denier may or may not be accurate, but skeptic is probably better to use in the article. If we can agree on that, i'll close this RfE. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't warn me any more. I'm tired of being warned about this. How about warning tendentious editors about filing false claims and causing unnecessary drama? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Really? I'd like an explanation on how you can justify this. I've wasted already way too much of my time on this baloney request and others of its ilk. Closing without action to me is just like saying, "It's okay to bring this tendentiousness to this board and bandy about sanction ideas whenever you get into a dispute with the person." What consequences for the filer are there if an enforcement request is closed without action due to the tendentiousness of the filer? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you're tired of being warned, then stop trying to push your POV on the talk page [15]. Calling someone a denialist is a serious charge, since the term strongly implies ulterior motives (see the article if you doubt this), so the sourcing for such a charge needs to be especially strong. Your sourcing is especially weak. The fact that you are pushing this claim even as arbs express strong concerns about BLP sourcing is especially telling. Mark was absolutely right to bring it here. ATren (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- My sourcing was strong enough to show that Anthony Watts is in the camp of climate change denialism. How that is phrased is a different matter and which sources are chosen is something that is best discussed at the talk page. What "arbs" are "expressing" in your opinion is irrelevant to this discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you're tired of being warned, then stop trying to push your POV on the talk page [15]. Calling someone a denialist is a serious charge, since the term strongly implies ulterior motives (see the article if you doubt this), so the sourcing for such a charge needs to be especially strong. Your sourcing is especially weak. The fact that you are pushing this claim even as arbs express strong concerns about BLP sourcing is especially telling. Mark was absolutely right to bring it here. ATren (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
That is your interpretation (OR/SYNTH) and evaluation of what the sources actually say. The sources call him a "skeptic" -- those are the sources you brought to the article. Your very own sources call him a "skeptic" and they do not say he is in the denialist camp. Stop insisting on using a label that is not sourced. It is a BLP violation. This is the proper place for discussion because you will not stop, despite sourcing and despite consensus and despite BLP concerns. Minor4th 04:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- My own sources indicate he is in the climate change denialism camp. That's been fully demonstrated. How that camp is properly described is a matter of style, not of substance. The discussion is only here because certain editors such as yourself have learned that it is better to make a lot of noise about BLP-concerns than it is to actually try to have a reasoned discussion about issues on article talk pages. This is called being a tendentious editor and you can be blocked or banned for engaging in this kind of behavior. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- What is wrong with the word "skeptic"? Is it less accurate? Is it not sourceable? If you and the others agree to use the word that is actually present in the sources, then i'll close the request as moot. If you insist that your word is better, without providing any reasons why it is actually better than the proposed alternative, then you might not be getting the point of BLP. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, even if denier appeared in one of those sources, I would be hesitant to include it in the lede. Denialism is a serious charge and to define this person as a denialist would require significant, independent, secondary sourcing. SA's sourcing appears to be none of that, and, (oh by the way) they don't even label him denialist! This argument by SA is pure tendentiousness and he should be sanctioned for it. ATren (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- He probably will be, if he insists that sources say something that they don't, and trying to include them in the article. Nonetheless, I would rather this be resolved peacefully, without the need for sanctions. That's why i'm offering SA a way out: either accept the term "skeptic" for the article, or make a clear and convincing argument why "denier" is better. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, talk about me in the third person. That's really nice and civil of you. To be clear, I have never insisted that the sources say anything that they don't (despite incorrect protestations to the contrary). I also have been very open to seeing what the different sources we might want to include in the article are. I've offered three, so far I've seen one other source from SciAm mentioned obliquely by marknutley some two weeks ago, but when I asked later about whether we should use it, I got stonewalled. I've asked four separate times now on the article talk page what sources should be used. Hopefully, someone comments soon. Also, this Sophie's Choice you're offering me is not really based on any sourcing your suggesting, as pointed out below. I don't need an "out" in this fashion. I need acknowledgment of proper Wikipedia process and decorum. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK flat out: are you arguing that "denialist" should be used or not? If so, provide multiple, reliable, secondary sources. If not, then we're done here. ATren (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mu. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- And that's exactly why you should be sanctioned. This constant argumentation and obstructionism is the definition of tendentious editing. ATren (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, this is the definition of tendentious editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- And that's exactly why you should be sanctioned. This constant argumentation and obstructionism is the definition of tendentious editing. ATren (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mu. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK flat out: are you arguing that "denialist" should be used or not? If so, provide multiple, reliable, secondary sources. If not, then we're done here. ATren (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, talk about me in the third person. That's really nice and civil of you. To be clear, I have never insisted that the sources say anything that they don't (despite incorrect protestations to the contrary). I also have been very open to seeing what the different sources we might want to include in the article are. I've offered three, so far I've seen one other source from SciAm mentioned obliquely by marknutley some two weeks ago, but when I asked later about whether we should use it, I got stonewalled. I've asked four separate times now on the article talk page what sources should be used. Hopefully, someone comments soon. Also, this Sophie's Choice you're offering me is not really based on any sourcing your suggesting, as pointed out below. I don't need an "out" in this fashion. I need acknowledgment of proper Wikipedia process and decorum. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- He probably will be, if he insists that sources say something that they don't, and trying to include them in the article. Nonetheless, I would rather this be resolved peacefully, without the need for sanctions. That's why i'm offering SA a way out: either accept the term "skeptic" for the article, or make a clear and convincing argument why "denier" is better. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, even if denier appeared in one of those sources, I would be hesitant to include it in the lede. Denialism is a serious charge and to define this person as a denialist would require significant, independent, secondary sourcing. SA's sourcing appears to be none of that, and, (oh by the way) they don't even label him denialist! This argument by SA is pure tendentiousness and he should be sanctioned for it. ATren (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Guettarda, et al -- From Anthony Watts' blog:
As we all know, the debate over global warming is contentious, often vitrolic. Labels are often applied by both sides. One the most distasteful labels is “denier”. I’m pleased to report that the UK paper The Guardian has taken on this issue headfirst.
- Watts cites a Guardian article which says:
We have been discussing such terminology, and some of my colleagues have suggested that Guardian style might be amended to stop referring to "climate change deniers" in favour of, perhaps, "climate sceptics". The editor of our environment website explains: "The former has nasty connotations with Holocaust denial and tends to polarise debate. ... Most if not all of the environment team – who, after all, are the ones at the sharp end – now favour stopping the use of denier or denialist (which is not, in fact, a word) in news stories, if not opinion pieces.
- Guardian article, Watts' article
- (ec) - Well, call me ignorant then. The terms have different meanings, but are sometimes used interchangeably, with some justification. Skeptics are also denying something about climate change, namely the overwhelming scientific consensus that it exists, and the very strong scientific consensus that it is human-caused. However, the article Watts cites is on point, the term "denier" is loaded and unfortunately does evoke Holocaust denial.
- Anyway, a warning here is unwarranted, and only rewards the filing of vexatious enforcement requests. That may be moot; I doubt Arbcom will have as much patience as the community for non-actionable requests. The 2+ week old 1RR event is stale, and too trivial to merit a sanction unless there's something I don't know about BLPSE (there doesn't appear to be a link for that). The ongoing discussion is a valid use of the talk page. We don't sanction people for arguing a content proposal that fails. Arguing "yes, my sources show X", "no your sources don't show X", is what talk pages are all about. There are clearly sources that support SA's position, even if in the end we decide that the sourcing is too weak or doesn't satisfy weight or POV requirements. The only time this becomes a problem is when people tendentiously repeat arguments and don't respect consensus. That's a pretty high standard. A 2-week back and forth good faith argument with plausible arguments and productive editors on both sides shouldn't be chilled by one side by trying to get the other side sanctioned. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're misunderstanding what has happened.Minor4th 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, he's not. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're misunderstanding what has happened.Minor4th 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
(e.c. x 5)The problem is, almost every scientist who studies global warming can be properly called a "skeptic" in that they follow the scientific method. The current article on Wikipedia that describes Watts' position is climate change denialism. Guettarda above has provided sources indicating that "global warming sceptic" and "global warming denier" are roughly synonymous where they have been used in the best sources (PNAS is far better than a lot of the junk being floated around here). I haven't seen any source that indicates that "denier" is pejorative any more than I've seen a source that indicates that "skeptic" is laudatory. I just don't know which term is better and I'm not expecting to be influenced by some admin fiat. Give me a source, Wordsmith, that shows why your word is better. My position is one of agnosticism rather than preference, but I will not simply agree that "skeptic" is a better term just because you think it is. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is better because the sources use it. BLP policy indicates that any material that is challenged (or likely to be challenged) needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources. "Skeptic" is verifiable. "Denier" is not. Therefore, skeptic is what he should be called, and BLP is clear on this. Anything else would be misrepresenting the sources used. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Which sources are you referring to? The Soundings source is explicit. So is the Alex Lockwood source. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your Lockwood source refers to Watts as "sceptic and former weatherman Anthony Watts" -- this is a self-published source.[16]
- Your "Soundings" source is an interview with Monbiot marketing RealClimate, and he says "So these sites were set up partly as a counterweight, in response to other websites established by deniers like Climate Audit, or Anthony Watts’s site,which are used every week by journalists, particularly in Britain and Canada and Australia, who constantly pick up the nonsense promulgated." Not a reliable source and not a peer reviewed journal as you represented -- and it's not even clear whether he's referring to Watts as a denier or if that is just describing Climate Audit. [17]
- Your third source has no reference at all to Watts as a denier or a skeptic. [18]
- Which sources are you referring to? The Soundings source is explicit. So is the Alex Lockwood source. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
“ | These examples are illustrative of the myriad ways in which different forms of new media are
utilized to support climate disinformation. I have specifically chosen mainstream media sites, and their permeation into other forms of media, rather than individual blogs, to move away from the idea that it is only single issue fanatics (SIFs) that propagate climate denial. There is presence, but what of the volume? There is very little research in this area, perhaps because as of February this year there were 112m blogs tracked by Technorati.com, not including the 72.8m in China.xiv In research to be published, Neil Gavin argues that few people are searching out climate change information online, and those that are find “an environment that is more digital jungle than ‘public cyber‐sphere’” (Gavin, forthcoming). However, rather than Googling as Gavin does, turning up 80 million entries for climate change or global warming, another starting point is to look at blog aggregation sites. While this omits traditional media, it is a good measure for extra‐institutional influence. On Wikio, four of the top 20 science blogs are sceptics. The most successful, WattsUpWiththat.com, the US‐based blog of sceptic and former weatherman Anthony Watts, in July this year posted 646,024 page views (2.8m since launch). |
” |
The point here is basically that Alex Lockwood has clearly labeled Watts a "single issue fanatic that propagate[s] climate denial." You can judge for yourself whether this is a fair reading. Also, the peer review issue here is interesting since conference proceedings in the social sciences can sometimes be considered to be peer-reviewed.
- I disagree with your claim about Soundings not being clear that Watts is a denier. The peer-review on this magazine/journal is a bit more interesting, since this is in an interview. Arguably, the article was subject to editorial review but the contents of the interview likely were not vetted. I acknowledge that for this source the BLP matters are a bit dicier (the opinion of others for some reason, when negative, is more BLP-problematic than otherwise).
- The final source, I believe, does square away Watts in the denialist camp.
- Now, whether these sources should be used, or others should be used, is a topic for discussion at the talkpage, me thinks. I'm still waiting for other sources since people seem to dislike these so much. I asked Wordsmith for his opinion, but he's not yet got back to me.
- ScienceApologist (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- SA, please don't take a "my way or the highway" approach to this dispute. Cla68 (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. I won't. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- SA, please don't take a "my way or the highway" approach to this dispute. Cla68 (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- commentators have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views, and for injecting morality into the discussion about climate change
- Several commentators, including Monbiot and Goodman, have also compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial
break
In other words, "skeptical" is the honorable search for truth, and "denier" is used as a personal attack. IMO, pushing for the use of "denier" in this context is nothing more than a smear campaign. Since this is a BLP, and since there is significant opposition to pushing that specific POV, even if reliable sources use the term it should not be used on Wikipedia unless Watts uses it to describe himself. Q Science (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's all very interesting, Q Science, and I'm aware of the connotations as it seems to be a favorite sticking point. However, I'm not sure that a Wikipedia article (itself not a reliable source) should have any influence as to how we should treat a BLP. Just because commentators have criticized the phrase does not mean that Wikipedia must shy away from it unless the person themselves self0-applies the phrase. That's like saying we can't write a BLP about someone being a murderer since the term is pejorative. (And, before you jump to any conclusions, I'm not saying that climate change denial is akin to murder). ScienceApologist (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Q Science, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please stick to reliable sources, not cherry-picked factoids. Guettarda (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it was SA who suggested that source specifically to tar Watts with that label. So, first it is "use this source", and now "that is a bad source"? Q Science (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Suggested reading: p. vii-viii of Bud Ward's Communicating Climate Change: An Essential Resource for Journalists, Scientists and Educators. It's well worth reading the whole 2-page section "A Word About Words". But the key bit is this:
Many scientists refer to those who do not accept the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change as skeptics, but there is also a sense among the scientific community that the term has been misappropriated. To address this confusion, climate scientists have suggested a variety of different terms to describe this small group of people who reject the science of climate change. These terms include “contrarians,” “deniers,” “denialists,” and even “professional skeptics.”
For the purposes of this report, the generally more accurate term “climate change” will be used to refer to the global impacts of human caused shifts in climate. The term “contrarians” will be used here as an alternative to “skeptics,” given the applicability of the former word to the scientific and journalistic communities alike.
Ward is editor of the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media[19] and was named "Climate Change Communicator of the Year".[20] Don't take his word as gospel truth, but I think it's a great starting point (bit late for starting, but say what) for people to think about the issue of how to communicate this phenomenon. Guettarda (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion: I propose we call Watts a heretic, for daring to disagree with the scientific consensus as determined by the experts and conveyed here by the science editors. ATren (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion: How about we label all of those in the scientific consensus as "alarmists" or "AGW fanatics" - doesn't that mean the same thing? GregJackP Boomer! 11:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I don't see cause for action here. Apparently, there is even a solid (if minority?) RS basis for User:ScienceApologist's edit. Seems far more like a case for an RfC at the article or perhaps an issue for the NPOV noticeboard. Seems premature and, perhaps even a bit belligerent, to attempt an RFE. BigK HeX (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Compromise content discussion
To summarize:
- Marknutley was being unhelpful by dredging up a cause for action two and a half weeks after the fact.
- ScienceApologist is being unhelpful by insisting on the "denier" label when "skeptic" is the term that, for better or worse, appears in the preponderance of reliable sources. (I happen to agree with the frustration over hijacking an honorable term for cynical ends, but our personal feelings don't enter into this.)
The most appropriate conclusion to this episode is that both sides get a spanking and are sent to bed without dessert, and they have to promise not to do this again. Then everyone goes off and does something useful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- If they would both agree to drop it, I would accept that. Skeptic is clearly the term that RS use in this case. That is what we use. SA needs to accept that, and MN needs to not put things in the wrong forum. If the talkpage wasn't working, an RFC or BLPN would be better choices. SA's actions are probably more serious, though, since there are the reputations of real people at stake. MN just wasted a few hours of our lives. If SA would back down, and MN would agree to use the appropriate forum, then I would close the case. As it is, though, I think I know what needs to be done (but I would rather not have to do it, so please resolve this without admin intervention). The WordsmithCommunicate 05:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Which specific sources are you referring to, Wordsmith? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- See the above post by Minor4th. He beat me to it as I was double checking the sources. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you disagree with my analysis. If so, why? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. The Lockwood source, clearly calls him a sceptic. To draw any other conclusion from it is original research. The interview isn't at all clear. That could be calling his website a denialist, or it could be referring to the previous example. The third I can't seem to access at the moment, and I don't recall what it says. It is clear that per BLP, he should be called a sceptic. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you disagree with my analysis. If so, why? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- See the above post by Minor4th. He beat me to it as I was double checking the sources. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Which specific sources are you referring to, Wordsmith? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I still don't understand why we're having this conversation here, but at least it's happening finally! Anyway, I'm unclear why you think that the Lockwood source could be referring to the previous example, which are all the mainstream media sources explicitly (and Watts is clearly a blog). Are we of the opinion now that parsing a difference between a website that presents the views of a person and the person are different? Is Anthony Watts assumed to be lying when he publishes simply because this is a BLP? I'm also unsure why you think the interview isn't clear. Can you elaborate? Monibot is pretty clear about what he thinks, IMHO. But, is it right to source to his opinion? Furthermore, do you think these sources are adequate for sourcing that he is a climate change skeptic in those particular words to be found in the lead or is some other wording better? Are these the only sources that are good, or should we find others? What is the distinction between climate change skeptic and climate change denial according to reliable sources (not Wikipedia as below) anyway? Which part of BLP are you most concerned with? Is it the implied defamation or something else? So many questions, so little time. I'd like to keep discussing this, but I'm wondering if this is the appropriate venue. Is it? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Those are all content points (both Wordsmith's and SA's), and this is a behavioral enforcement board. SA's position has reliable sources to back it, something any editor here can easily check out in two minutes on google with a healthy sense of WP:BEFORE. One is free to argue the weaker position, that's how we find the winning position to begin with. Even if you disagree that SA has even a credible argument, again: absent bad faith we don't silence or sanction editors for being on the losing side of a legitimate content dispute unless they repeatedly challenge consensus to the point of tendentiousness. In fact, people are arguing with a straight face, and presenting sources here, to say that "denier" is the right word to use, not "skeptic". Will we warn and sanction them too? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is this the appropriate venue? Absolutely not. However, it is finally being discussed here, so i'm hesitant to move it when we could solve this issue amicably right now.
- My issue with Monibot is more grammatical ambiguity than anything else. When he says "So these sites were set up partly as a counterweight, in response to other websites established by deniers like Climate Audit, or Anthony Watts’s site" the placement of the comma makes it uncertain if he is calling Watts's site denier or just Climate Audit. Either interpretation is plausible, so I don't think that counts as convincing evidence either way.
- As far as other sources, I don't know of any other ones, since I am not an experienced editor in this field. I have never even seen Watts' website. Having more sources would be a good thing though, so if you have more then it would be a good idea to provide them. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- The other issue with Monibot is that if "denier" is as pejorative as we are all saying, then this may need to be attributed to him directly. However, the parsing you provide seems weird to me. I'm pretty sure that the correct way to parse it is to group Watts' site with Climate Audit rather than the "other sites" which act as "counterweights". I really don't think it is plausible that Monibot is grouping Watts' site with things that are opposed to deniers. Why do you? I think that more sources might be fine too, but people haven't been discussing this all that much on the talkpage when I ask for them. I offered three sources which I believe make a pretty strong case that Watts is in the denialist camp (again, whether that term specifically should be used I'm agnostic on), but others have subsequently been trying with different degrees of success to convince me that these sources may not be the best for that. I really like the Lockwood source, but people don't like that it wasn't published by a third party outside of conference proceedings. I think Monibot via Soundings is a fine source, but others don't like the interview and the magazine. The final source is just one that seems to place Watts firmly in the camp of people who have been "denigrated as denialists" as it were (it's a collection from a pro-denialist POV). However, the question remains whether that source is good enough. Mark Nutley provided a Scientific American source which I think could be promising, but is also a bit confusing. [21]. Here is a source which calls him "different from your garden variety denier". We could just use these two and be done with it, but when I asked if that was a good idea I was met with a confusing amount of silence. So what do you say to "His blogging and advocacy are generally from the position of disbelieving the climate science community's conclusions about global warming." with the newsreview.com and sciam.com sources? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- The wording is a bit clunky, but that is certainly a start. What do you think about "His blogging and advocacy generally disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming."? I think something like this is a phrasing that all parties could agree to. Hopefully we can solve this one quickly. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd prefer: "His blogging and advocacy generally dispute the scientific consensus on global warming." It's a bit more descriptive. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think we've got an acceptable compromise. I'm going to go down into the uninvolved admins section now and say that we don't need to make any sanctions, and we'll wait a day or so before closing to see if everyone can live with this solution. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- No we do not. That's not a compromise, it still links to the denial article which is loaded with allegations of ulterior motives. This is clearly unacceptable without solid sourcing. ATren (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you know of a better place to link to? The WordsmithCommunicate 07:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- How about nothing? The denial page is clearly not appropriate. There may be another page that would work, but absent of another we should link to nothing at all. ATren (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. ScienceApologist, what do you think of not having a wikilink on that word? The WordsmithCommunicate 07:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- How about nothing? The denial page is clearly not appropriate. There may be another page that would work, but absent of another we should link to nothing at all. ATren (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you know of a better place to link to? The WordsmithCommunicate 07:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- No we do not. That's not a compromise, it still links to the denial article which is loaded with allegations of ulterior motives. This is clearly unacceptable without solid sourcing. ATren (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think we've got an acceptable compromise. I'm going to go down into the uninvolved admins section now and say that we don't need to make any sanctions, and we'll wait a day or so before closing to see if everyone can live with this solution. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd prefer: "His blogging and advocacy generally dispute the scientific consensus on global warming." It's a bit more descriptive. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- The wording is a bit clunky, but that is certainly a start. What do you think about "His blogging and advocacy generally disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming."? I think something like this is a phrasing that all parties could agree to. Hopefully we can solve this one quickly. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- The other issue with Monibot is that if "denier" is as pejorative as we are all saying, then this may need to be attributed to him directly. However, the parsing you provide seems weird to me. I'm pretty sure that the correct way to parse it is to group Watts' site with Climate Audit rather than the "other sites" which act as "counterweights". I really don't think it is plausible that Monibot is grouping Watts' site with things that are opposed to deniers. Why do you? I think that more sources might be fine too, but people haven't been discussing this all that much on the talkpage when I ask for them. I offered three sources which I believe make a pretty strong case that Watts is in the denialist camp (again, whether that term specifically should be used I'm agnostic on), but others have subsequently been trying with different degrees of success to convince me that these sources may not be the best for that. I really like the Lockwood source, but people don't like that it wasn't published by a third party outside of conference proceedings. I think Monibot via Soundings is a fine source, but others don't like the interview and the magazine. The final source is just one that seems to place Watts firmly in the camp of people who have been "denigrated as denialists" as it were (it's a collection from a pro-denialist POV). However, the question remains whether that source is good enough. Mark Nutley provided a Scientific American source which I think could be promising, but is also a bit confusing. [21]. Here is a source which calls him "different from your garden variety denier". We could just use these two and be done with it, but when I asked if that was a good idea I was met with a confusing amount of silence. So what do you say to "His blogging and advocacy are generally from the position of disbelieving the climate science community's conclusions about global warming." with the newsreview.com and sciam.com sources? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we need a link so that people generally know what sorts of disputes he has with the consensus. The first question a reader will ask is "How does he dispute the consensus?" The answer is contained in the sources which show that he disputes it not in the alarmist way but in the denialist way. The easiest way to address this while avoiding the "skeptic" vs. "denier" argument is to simply link to an appropriate article that describes the general position of the deniers. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why not link to climate change skepticism, and let that link resolve where it may? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Works for me. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Rather favour Boris's proposals on this, in particular the term "contrarian" which appears to be generally more acceptable to these opponents of mainstream science, and can be sourced here. Perhaps a new article is needed as a linking explanation? However, if the current proposition is acceptable all round, I'm happy with that. . . dave souza, talk 08:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Or, we could link to Global warming controversy, which explains the scientific and political positions of both the consensus view and the dissention. The WordsmithCommunicate 08:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Works for me. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- oh for crying out loud - now we cant use the word "skeptic" when thats what the sources use- because one tendentious editor refuses and holds the article hostage and because the admins enforcing in this area are too reluctant to actually impose sanctions when theyre clearly warranted??
Pathetic andunacceptable. Goes to show that wikilawyering and tendentious editing pay off. Minor4th 11:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)- I'd rather not sanction people if we can avoid it. I don't appreciate articles being held hostage any more than you do. And I think it's pretty bad that only the threat of a sanction gets a compromise from SA, but I'd rather have a term everyone agrees to than more war. If SA repeats this behavior of violating BLP via OR/SYNTH yet again, stronger measures are needed. But I'd rather not sanction people if we can avoid it. Calling for people's heads doesn't always help. ++Lar: t/c 12:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- No Minor4th - we can use whatever term we want. Any of the terms - "skeptic", "contrarian", "denialist" - is widely used, and they're all synonyms. And there are pros and cons to each term. But it's primarily a style issue. And stylistic differences should be worked out by involved editors in a civil manner where truth is respected. Instead we have a barrage of false claims, a spurious RFE, and a deluge of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Of course, the reality is that selecting an appropriate label is the least part of the issue. Once jargon is clearly explained, it's rarely a problem. If jargon isn't explained, the regardless of what word is used, the average reader probably isn't going to come away with a clear picture of what's going on. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you can't contribute constructively, you need to step away completely. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is not very helpful. If you're going to warn people , I would advise Minor4th against throwing around terms like "tendentious editor", "holds the article hostage", "
pathetic andunacceptable", and lobbying for sanctions on a matter that is clearly unsanctionable, particularly as a discussion winds down. Or are you agreeing with the content position that calling the subject a "denier" is SYNTH and too poorly sourced? There's a sound argument to the contrary, and the job of weighing arguments is a content matter. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- That is not very helpful. If you're going to warn people , I would advise Minor4th against throwing around terms like "tendentious editor", "holds the article hostage", "
- If you can't contribute constructively, you need to step away completely. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- No Minor4th - we can use whatever term we want. Any of the terms - "skeptic", "contrarian", "denialist" - is widely used, and they're all synonyms. And there are pros and cons to each term. But it's primarily a style issue. And stylistic differences should be worked out by involved editors in a civil manner where truth is respected. Instead we have a barrage of false claims, a spurious RFE, and a deluge of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Of course, the reality is that selecting an appropriate label is the least part of the issue. Once jargon is clearly explained, it's rarely a problem. If jargon isn't explained, the regardless of what word is used, the average reader probably isn't going to come away with a clear picture of what's going on. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- So I take it, it is concluded that we're using the term "skeptic" since that is what SA's sources use and since it has been established that "denier" carries very negative connotations, not appropriate for a BLP. Minor4th 16:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- It would be a shame if this was the case, since "skeptic" is really a misuse of the term. A scientific skeptic changes his or her mind when empirical evidence is presented to support whatever they are skeptical about. We're talking about people who reject the empirical evidence because it doesn't fit their ideology/belief, and that's basically denial. To relabel "denial" as "skepticism" in order not to hurt the feelings of these people does not seem very encyclopedic to me. That being said, we must follow the convention employed by the preponderance of reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The compromise offered by SA and those that agree with him is that Watts's blogging/advocacy generally disputes the scientific consensus on global warming. There were two sources (one of which I believe was presented by mark nutley) that support that fact. Can the opposing editors please just agree that that would be a good compromise? If SA et al are willing to give a little ground, you need to do the same here. We can resolve this peacefully. Otherwise, users whining about tendentious editing while not being willing to negotiate may find themselves under civility parole. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's not a compromise -- it's a refusal to use the term that is used in the sources because he doesn't like the term. That's unacceptable.Minor4th 17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Let's keep in mind this is a BLP we're talking about and remember your warning you gave yesterday about WP:BLPSE Minor4th 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any valid behavior warning here. Nevertheless, as a content resolution if it's a choice between "skeptic" and "denier", although both have reliable sources to back them up we should choose the broader, more neutral, and (currently) more often used term "skeptic". As several editors point out, the term "skeptic" as used with respect to climate change differs somewhat from the common meaning of the term, so we should link that the the closest approximation we can find to a neutral Wikipedia article that explains the climate change skeptic movement. Best not to coin new terms or adopt less frequently used terms like "contrarian" just because they're more neutral. We're in the business of reporting the world as people describe it, not advocating our own descriptions, even if those descriptions are better. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Let's keep in mind this is a BLP we're talking about and remember your warning you gave yesterday about WP:BLPSE Minor4th 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is this a joke? Not only has SA inserted a self published source into a BLP and misrepresented it, not only has he on the article talk page and now here continued to claim the source is good but peer reviewed. If this is the wrong board for this sort of thing then i consider my sanction against adding sources to CC articles null and void as this is the exact same thing whic hi got sanctioned for, using a SPS in a BLP mark nutley (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're missing the part where we're discussing it now, and we've got some new sources (and better ones, I think) [22] [23]. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your sources call him a "skeptic" also. Scientific American -- "Internet readers pounced, sending e-mails to the center and also to skeptical bloggers such as meteorologist Anthony Watts."; newsreview --"Chico meteorologist Anthony Watts has been hailed a hero by Republicans and dubbed a climate-change ‘denier’ by environmentalists" --note the scare quotes and the fact that it's only one ideological bent that calls him a "denier." The source also says, "Watts’ skepticism flies in the face of the international scientific community..." . What exactly are you proposing these sources for? Minor4th 21:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're missing the part where we're discussing it now, and we've got some new sources (and better ones, I think) [22] [23]. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I`m not missing anything. There was another source for my edit as well the WSJ but i was sanctioned for using a self published source instead. If this as you say is the wrong forum for obtaining a sanction against an editor who has misrepresented sources and used a SPS in a BLP then it was also the wrong forum for you TWS to sanction me. If SA is allowed to use a SPS in a BLP and also deliberately misrepresent three sources then as i said, my sanction is null and void, happy editing mark nutley (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your sanctions stands. Violate it at your own peril. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- No it does not, if it is ok for SA to do it then it must have been ok for me, i did`nt see you trying to reach a compromise when i was brought here, you called for my head. Either all are treated equally or you and your sanction can take a hike. I have created plenty of articles since my sanction and none of the refs have been problematic yet the sanction is still in place, so bollocks to it. mark nutley (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mark, cool it. You should not talk of violating your sanction just because you feel someone else is doing something incorrectly. That way lies further sanction. You should instead be demonstrating that you can work well with others. Try to be easier to work with than those you are in contention with. In fact, that applies to everyone. Could everyone please cool it. Let's try to reduce the heat a bit please. Let's have a niceness contest instead of a pissing contest. Because if one breaks out, people will be sanctioned or blocked. ++Lar: t/c 18:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I`m not missing anything. There was another source for my edit as well the WSJ but i was sanctioned for using a self published source instead. If this as you say is the wrong forum for obtaining a sanction against an editor who has misrepresented sources and used a SPS in a BLP then it was also the wrong forum for you TWS to sanction me. If SA is allowed to use a SPS in a BLP and also deliberately misrepresent three sources then as i said, my sanction is null and void, happy editing mark nutley (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Mark has every reason to be pissed off. When Mark has demonstrated that he can work well with others, it has done him no good. On the other hand SA has demonstrated if you're stubborn as hell and refuse to give in, eventually you'll get your way. Or does that only apply to one faction whose buddies show up to overwhelm enforcement discussions?
Arbitrary section break
So here's a recap of events leading to this enforcement -- SA revert warred the term "denier" into the Watts article, removing the word "skeptic". SA has continually maintained that the sources are peer reviewed, but they're not. The three sources that SA cited describe the BLP as a "skeptic" but SA for weeks has refused to use the word "skeptic" and insists on "denier." This discussion has conclusively shown that "denier" is a negative term with negative connotations, used by opponents of "skeptics". This discussion has also conclusively shown that Watts himself is disgusted by the term "denier" and calls himself a skeptic. This is a BLP that requires impeccable sourcing - yet, SA throws in self published sources and interview quotes from Watts' idealogical opponents. Wordsmith earlier in the discussion recognized that SA's actions were tendentious and were violative of BLP, enough so that he warned him with WP:BLPSE. In response, SA continued to refuse to use the term that the sources use and continued to misrepresent the sources, relying on a Wikipedia article for the definition of "denier." Alternatively SA and pals chastised others for relying on Wikipedia articles for definitions. Now, Wordsmith has semi hinted at imposing a civility parole on me and sanctions against mark have been threatened. What was it that ATren used to call this place, BizzaroPedia? Minor4th 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion has conclusively shown that the so-called "skeptics" don't like being called "deniers", but that's all. "Denier" is still the most accurate term. "Birthers" don't like being called "birthers", but that's what everyone calls them because that is what they are. "Birthers" deny the existence of empirical evidence that proves Obama is an American, just as "deniers" deny the existence of empirical evidence that overwhelmingly shows that humanity plays a significant role in climate change. Worse than that, many deniers are paid by big energy industry companies to spread their disinformation, whereas most "birthers" are just ignorant. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- You've not rebutted anything important though. The important issues here are the insertion and removal of terms, whether that is being done in contravention to BLP policy or not, and whether there are editors (SA? Others? Both sides) being tendentious. Not whether "big oil" paid for things or whatever. That's smoke. As I said, focus on the issues around the article. Agree or rebut what Minor4th said, please. And stop casting aspersions. That's not a "provocative comment", it's something you need to take on board. ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I must disagree with your entire comment. I made my rebuttal with an analogy, and it is not my problem if you don't agree with it; furthermore, it is not up to you to tell me how to respond to the comment of another editor. Moreover, I object to your claim that I am casting aspersions. I do not understand why you persist in trying to escalate this disagreement. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- You've not rebutted anything important though. The important issues here are the insertion and removal of terms, whether that is being done in contravention to BLP policy or not, and whether there are editors (SA? Others? Both sides) being tendentious. Not whether "big oil" paid for things or whatever. That's smoke. As I said, focus on the issues around the article. Agree or rebut what Minor4th said, please. And stop casting aspersions. That's not a "provocative comment", it's something you need to take on board. ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, if you're here in an administrative capacity perhaps you could encourage Minor4th to heed your comment regarding toning things down instead of endorsing the editor's side of the argument and criticizing those who dispute their statements. Minor4th's content argument makes sense but their summary of events is one-sided and not wholly accurate, they continue to advocate for sanctions against SA that are not going to happen unless someone loses their temper, and their use of terms like "tendentious editors", "
pathetic andunacceptable","...and pals"[stricken in response to Minor4th's toning down earlier comments - Thanks!] would tend to widen disagreements over behavior rather than narrowing things towards a content resolution. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)- Rebut the summary then. I've already cautioned Minor4th and Scjessey, and now I'll caution you too, focus on the issues here instead of casting aspersions. ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Minor4th has made a very thoughtful gesture,[24] thanks! So I'll do the same. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding the summary: "SA revert warred..." is too strong a description for reaching 1RR on both sides, and omits the salient point that this happened more than two weeks ago. "'Denier' [is]...used by opponents of skeptics..." is an incomplete description, because plenty of neutral reliable sources have used the term as well. "SA throws in self published sources..." refers to talk page discussions, where the validity and strength of sourcing is fair game for discussion. "SA's actions were tendentious" is a minority opinion on one side of a behavioral dispute, not a summary of events. "warned him with WP:BLPSE" - that's neither the outcome here, supported by policy, nor is it generally accepted as legitimate. "In response, SA continued to refuse to use the term that the sources use and continued to misrepresent the sources" - this incorrectly suggests that arguing for a weak or non-consensus content position is tendentious behavior. It is only tendentious if it continues past the closing of a discussion and establishment of consensus. However, I don't think any of this really matters, if people are willing to accept that they disagree somewhat, that sanctions and sanctions enforcement just aren't going to happen here, and that consensus is to use the word "skeptic". We'll get there faster if everyone puts down the stick and accepts that this outcome is more or less a done deal. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- He added "denier" [25] with edit summary: (he's one of the foremost internet gw denialists according to three peer-reviewed articles.) sourced to a SPS, an interview from an opponent, and a journal -- all three called Watts "skeptic", not denier. Another editor changed it to "skeptic" per the sources. SA reverted[26] with edit summary (Reverted to revision 377767893 by ScienceApologist; not according to the sources, it isn't!. (TW)) -- flat-out misrepresentation. It wasn't just that he reverted in a BLP violation, it's also that he flat out misrepresented what the sources said and also misrepresented the quality and reliability of the sources. SA is not a new editor -- he knows these policies backwards and forwards, it can not reasonably be presumed an innocent mistake ... like some of mark nutley's earlier edits. Yes, WP:BLPSE does apply and it is supported by policy, and is generally accepted and legitimate. Remember that editors cannot agree to ignore policy even by consensus. I'd say his actions on the article and his steadfast refusal to accept the term that the sources use is tendentious according to WP:TE : "Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." We don't compromise on BLP's. We must get it right -- that is policy, and it's not negotiable. That means impeccable and multiple reliable sources. No self published sources, no derogatory terms that the BLP himself has expressed disgust over. This is not an area for compromise or bridge building because it is a BLP and strict adherence to policy is not just desirable, it is required. Minor4th 01:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Local consensus cannot ignore content policy, but it can interpret whether a particular piece of content does or does not conform to the policy. Your points about BLP are well taken, and apply to the article page revert. If SA was tendentious on the article page he was tendentious for several minutes a couple weeks ago, far too old an issue to bring up now. If he got the sources wrong or needs better sourcing, that's what talk pages are for. "Denier" is verifiable to many sources, and I don't see any support for an assumption that SA was acting bad faith by arguing that it should apply - if so, half a dozen editors here should be sanctioned for having the nerve to think the term is apt. Even granting you that SA's argument in favor of the term is weak, again, there's no prohibition on being on the losing side of a sourcing or BLP disagreement on article talk pages. That's what talk pages are for. One editor says "my sources support X", and another editor says "no they don't". How else are editors supposed to sort these things out, by filing enforcement actions against each other? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- While "Denier" may be verifiable to sources, none has been cited. Sources cited say "Sceptic". To reword this as "Denier" is either WP:SYN or WP:OR. And claiming that an interview is a peer-reviewed source in an edit summary is misrepresentation and can only be incompetence or bad faith. Either integrity is expected from editors, or it isn't. It's a binary value.Slowjoe17 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- You left out the third option - beyond SYN and OR there is simply weak sourcing. I would treat this as a weak sourcing issue. I've cited sources that say "denier" for purposes of showing they exist, but at the same time, the weight of the sourcing supports "skeptic" in my opinion. That's why the whole thing looks like a simple content dispute where the parties should just enact the consensus they've reached, those on the losing side should respect that, and everyone can move on. I'll take your word for the source being incorrectly represented as peer-reviewed, although I consider peer review a canard when dealing with science journal articles assigning academics to political camps. If I had to choose between a mistake (incompetence is a little harsh, don't you think) and dishonesty, I would give people credit for making mistakes, and say the talk page is where that gets sorted out. Why does this need to get any more contentious than that? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- While "Denier" may be verifiable to sources, none has been cited. Sources cited say "Sceptic". To reword this as "Denier" is either WP:SYN or WP:OR. And claiming that an interview is a peer-reviewed source in an edit summary is misrepresentation and can only be incompetence or bad faith. Either integrity is expected from editors, or it isn't. It's a binary value.Slowjoe17 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Local consensus cannot ignore content policy, but it can interpret whether a particular piece of content does or does not conform to the policy. Your points about BLP are well taken, and apply to the article page revert. If SA was tendentious on the article page he was tendentious for several minutes a couple weeks ago, far too old an issue to bring up now. If he got the sources wrong or needs better sourcing, that's what talk pages are for. "Denier" is verifiable to many sources, and I don't see any support for an assumption that SA was acting bad faith by arguing that it should apply - if so, half a dozen editors here should be sanctioned for having the nerve to think the term is apt. Even granting you that SA's argument in favor of the term is weak, again, there's no prohibition on being on the losing side of a sourcing or BLP disagreement on article talk pages. That's what talk pages are for. One editor says "my sources support X", and another editor says "no they don't". How else are editors supposed to sort these things out, by filing enforcement actions against each other? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- He added "denier" [25] with edit summary: (he's one of the foremost internet gw denialists according to three peer-reviewed articles.) sourced to a SPS, an interview from an opponent, and a journal -- all three called Watts "skeptic", not denier. Another editor changed it to "skeptic" per the sources. SA reverted[26] with edit summary (Reverted to revision 377767893 by ScienceApologist; not according to the sources, it isn't!. (TW)) -- flat-out misrepresentation. It wasn't just that he reverted in a BLP violation, it's also that he flat out misrepresented what the sources said and also misrepresented the quality and reliability of the sources. SA is not a new editor -- he knows these policies backwards and forwards, it can not reasonably be presumed an innocent mistake ... like some of mark nutley's earlier edits. Yes, WP:BLPSE does apply and it is supported by policy, and is generally accepted and legitimate. Remember that editors cannot agree to ignore policy even by consensus. I'd say his actions on the article and his steadfast refusal to accept the term that the sources use is tendentious according to WP:TE : "Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors." We don't compromise on BLP's. We must get it right -- that is policy, and it's not negotiable. That means impeccable and multiple reliable sources. No self published sources, no derogatory terms that the BLP himself has expressed disgust over. This is not an area for compromise or bridge building because it is a BLP and strict adherence to policy is not just desirable, it is required. Minor4th 01:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding the summary: "SA revert warred..." is too strong a description for reaching 1RR on both sides, and omits the salient point that this happened more than two weeks ago. "'Denier' [is]...used by opponents of skeptics..." is an incomplete description, because plenty of neutral reliable sources have used the term as well. "SA throws in self published sources..." refers to talk page discussions, where the validity and strength of sourcing is fair game for discussion. "SA's actions were tendentious" is a minority opinion on one side of a behavioral dispute, not a summary of events. "warned him with WP:BLPSE" - that's neither the outcome here, supported by policy, nor is it generally accepted as legitimate. "In response, SA continued to refuse to use the term that the sources use and continued to misrepresent the sources" - this incorrectly suggests that arguing for a weak or non-consensus content position is tendentious behavior. It is only tendentious if it continues past the closing of a discussion and establishment of consensus. However, I don't think any of this really matters, if people are willing to accept that they disagree somewhat, that sanctions and sanctions enforcement just aren't going to happen here, and that consensus is to use the word "skeptic". We'll get there faster if everyone puts down the stick and accepts that this outcome is more or less a done deal. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Minor4th has made a very thoughtful gesture,[24] thanks! So I'll do the same. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Rebut the summary then. I've already cautioned Minor4th and Scjessey, and now I'll caution you too, focus on the issues here instead of casting aspersions. ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, if you're here in an administrative capacity perhaps you could encourage Minor4th to heed your comment regarding toning things down instead of endorsing the editor's side of the argument and criticizing those who dispute their statements. Minor4th's content argument makes sense but their summary of events is one-sided and not wholly accurate, they continue to advocate for sanctions against SA that are not going to happen unless someone loses their temper, and their use of terms like "tendentious editors", "
- Sort of. But I'm pretty sure we use the more polite and formal term, "conspiracy theorists" rather than "birthers". Also, one place where the analogy breaks down is that there are supposedly two different incarnations of opposition to climate change science conclusions, the (mostly older) deniers who simply said the climate isn't changing, and the (newer) skeptics who say that while the climate may be changing, either it isn't serious, the cause is not human, the case isn't proven, etc. They may be holdovers from the same movement, and may have similar motivations and approaches, but the wording has changed. If a distinct wing of Obama conspiracy theory emerged, with one camp admitting the circumstances of his birth but advancing a constitutional argument why he's ineligible for office, and if that camp became widely identified under a different name, we might have this same discussion over that too. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. If I find material in an article that is contained in a peer reviewed journal, it is good to go in a Wiki article? Especially if I can provide other sources that support it? Do I understand this correctly? I'm asking for an admin to answer the questions here, so I can understand if the peer-reviewed journal article I found is good for use as a source. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 23:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, as long as you follow the wording and intent of all of these policies. The question you ask is meaningless without specifics. NW (Talk) 23:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- (non-admin opinion)...and it still needs consensus that it belongs. We don't repeat everything that's sourceable and that otherwise complies with content policies and guidelines. If we did Wikipedia would be as big as the Library of Congress. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Fuel for Thought, Energy and Environment, 2010, Vol. 21, Iss. 3, pp. 334-335, states that William Connolley erased the Little Ice Age, rewrote 5,428 articles, deleted over 500 articles, and barred over 2,000 editors... It is an article in a peer reviewed journal (based on the standard used by SA), so can we say that WMC controlled and manipulated content to promote the AGW activist cause? What is good for the goose (skeptic) is good for the gander (alarmist). Same journal, same column, different issue. GregJackP Boomer! 00:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- (non-admin opinion)...and it still needs consensus that it belongs. We don't repeat everything that's sourceable and that otherwise complies with content policies and guidelines. If we did Wikipedia would be as big as the Library of Congress. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Since the claim has already been reviewed and rejected on Wikipedia, this is an instance when it cannot be regarded as anything other than a falsehood. Knowingly adding a falsehood to a BLP is not likely to be looked upon kindly. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Chris, please read WP:V. Verifiability, not truth, is the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is, as ScienceApologist stated, a peer-reviewed journal. Isn't that the standard for the SPOV used in articles on science and scientists? There are plenty of other, major media sources that support the article in the peer-reviewed journal. Wikipedia is not claiming it is true, it is reporting what the sources said. Are you claiming that a peer reviewed source is not reliable? Or that the column that SA got his information from is not reliable? If the source is good enough for one BLP, it is good enough for the other. There is no middle ground there - it is good or it is not. Which is it Chris? GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
This is being used to game
Marknutley is clearly using this enforcement board to game itself. I agreed above to a compromise with TWS, but the continued sabotage of any sort of compromise seems plainly clear to me by a few editors who seem bent on assailing my motives and actions at every turn with varying degrees of evidence.
Here's some comments on Lar's "result"
- There is no reason to use any term that we don't all agree with be it "denier", "denialism", "sceptic", or "scepticism". There are reasons to avoid all of them and we've explored them throughout these threads. A compromise whereby we use none of those words is acceptable to me, is it acceptable to anyone else?
- I've never "pushed denier in". In fact, I don't like the term "denier". I like the term "denialism" or "denialist" but don't particularly care if we use a synonym. I don't think that it is okay to whitewash just for the sake of whitewashing. Explanation should be offered (this is why I 1RR the replacement of "denialist" with "skeptic" since I viewed them as synonymous as did Wikipedia and a number of the best sources available including those from PNAS).
- I do not engage in OR/SYNTH and consider Lar's accusation of such to be groundless without analyzed diffs.
- I take extreme umbrage to the claim that I "currently lack" a willingness to work with others unless Lar can provide diffs. In fact, I take this phrasing to be a personal attack and ask Lar to rewrite it or strike it since a "willingness to work with others" is something I consider a private character trait.
- I have already accepted the compromise of TWS.
- I reject Lar's insinuation that the discussion isn't over. It looks to me that he jumped in without reading the whole thing.
I am willing to consider Lar an editor, am willing to continue discussing matters with him, but until he exhibits the competence to actually describe and analyze what occurred in this exchange, I will not be accepting his advice or guidance as an administrator from here on out. Any attempt for Lar to use his tools against me in this action will be appealed directly to arbcom and a reversal or removal of his tools will be requested. I have already drafted the relevant e-mail to arbcom about this and have had it vetted by three independent administrators, former administrators, and former arbcom members for maximal impact.
In any case, TWS is acting like an administrator and does seem to be paying attention to the situation. I'm willing to deal with him.
That's the last you will hear from me on this page. Subsequent discussion of this matter will continue on the Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger) page. I will no longer be feeding the trolling and tendentiousness of this matter. Please contact me privately for more.
ScienceApologist (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- There you go, instead of saying sorry i misrepresented sources he says he has not, he responds with threats and uncivil attacks by calling people trolls, i know this is going to be closed as stale (as usual) but something needs to be done about an editor who point blank refuses to admit he is wrong and intends to continue on the same course mark nutley (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are the most personal, incivil, and argumentative wikipedia editor I have come across in a long while, Mark. That you are still active on Wikipedia without being blocked/banned is nothing short of amazing to me. Something needs to be done about you. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mark, as you see above I reached the very same conclusion as ScienceApologist after analyzing the sources. Are you saying that I too am misrepresenting the sources? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- You obviously are, none of the sources call watts the internets foremost global warming denier, or a denier, nor are they peer reviewed, and one is self published mark nutley (talk) 07:28, 31 August 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.
- The issue is being discussed, so I don't think we need to sanction anybody. Mark really needs to learn the appropriate forum for things, though. This wasn't it. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with TWS about forums. Another warning for those bringing this to multiple places. But since we're here... If SA agrees to the compromise put forward by TWS and others, and accepts skeptic, and stops pushing denier in, stops with the OR/SYNTH and in general shows signs of some compromise and willingness to work with others that are currently lacking, close with a warning to SA as outlined above. IF SA rejects compromise, I think stronger sanction is warranted. We're not to the end of discussion yet, so it could go either way, but that's my view as of now. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the filing of this request may have carried a content dispute into the realm of "please ban my opponent so I can gain editorial supremacy". We ought not encourage or reward that sort of WP:BATTLE type behavior. The fact that there is a request below against the same party is very worrisome. Either the party is editing noxiously, or somebody is headhunting, or both. We are all weary of this dispute. Before drawing any sort of conclusion, I would like a completely uninvolved party to review the evidence of this request, and the one below, and generate a concise summary, sans all the argumentation and rhetoric. Do we have any page lurkers who'd like to volunteer for that assignment? You do not need to be an administrator. Jehochman Talk 21:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Second the request for a lurker, preferably one completely uninvolved, to put together a precis. I would note that SA's belligerence is not at all helpful, though. He is not exactly the model of a collegiate editor when he says things like
- "Any attempt for Lar to use his tools against me in this action will be appealed directly to arbcom and a reversal or removal of his tools will be requested. I have already drafted the relevant e-mail to arbcom about this and have had it vetted by three independent administrators, former administrators, and former arbcom members for maximal impact."
- Second the request for a lurker, preferably one completely uninvolved, to put together a precis. I would note that SA's belligerence is not at all helpful, though. He is not exactly the model of a collegiate editor when he says things like
Marknutley appeal
Just dropping a note here that Marknutley has appealed his sourcing restriction to me. Since I was the administrator who imposed the second (tighter) restriction, WP:GS/CC and WP:BLPSE explicitly empower me to overturn it. After seeing his rationale, and readong a sampling of the articles he has created or contributed to since it was tightened, I conclude that while keeping some restriction in place is necessary, we should be willing to see if he truly has learned. Therefore, I have reduced his restriction to the original terms (which I am not empowered to override, as I read it). I'm posting here as notification and for purposes of reviewing my decision.
Marknutley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. He is also prohibited from reverting the removal of sources that he added to an article without first gathering talk page consensus. Marknutley is encouraged to find a mentor who can assist in checking the reliability of sources and with more properly educating him on the reliable sources policy.
- The WordsmithCommunicate 18:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can you please explain what the difference is? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- The sanctions log sez the new (now rescinded) version was "Marknutley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from introducing a new source to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing." It's noteworthy that the original (now current) version is actually stricter than the second sanction since the original says he can't re-insert a source without talk page discussion, so why Marknutley wanted to go back to the original sanction is a mystery. With the new sanction all he had to do was get a friend to give him an OK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This was the original sanction. It was later tightened into him not being able to add or remove sources at all to BLPs or CC articles. This one allows him a certain degree of freedom to use sources that we generally agree are good ones. If he hasn't learned, we'll find out quickly and can re-tighten the restriction. If he has, then this is a first step into bringing him back into good standing. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Where is the version where "it was later tightened into him not being able to add or remove sources at all to BLPs or CC articles"? It doesn't appear in the sanctions log. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I meant the one that you pasted above. I also meant to say "not being able to add sources without clearing them first". The WordsmithCommunicate 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, that clarifies it. The "without clearing them first" qualifier is critical, as it greatly weakens the sanction. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I meant the one that you pasted above. I also meant to say "not being able to add sources without clearing them first". The WordsmithCommunicate 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Where is the version where "it was later tightened into him not being able to add or remove sources at all to BLPs or CC articles"? It doesn't appear in the sanctions log. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a travesty that MN is still sanctioned while SA, ChrisO, WMC and others are not, given the sourcing they've pushed into BLPs recently. And that's not an argument for MN's sanction to be lifted, I'm just wondering why he's singled out. ATren (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- You and I both know why he's singled out. But you're right, it's a travesty. GregJackP Boomer!
- WMC will likely be topic banned soon, at the very least. Mark appealed his restriction, and made a good case. I wasn't empowered to completely lift it (nor do I think that would be a good idea right now), but I considered his argument and relaxed it as much as I reasonably could to give him a chance. This has nothing to do with ScienceApologist or anyone else. Mark made a convincing argument and I granted his appeal. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- TWS, my comment was not meant to be directed at any one admin, although I can name several that it would apply to. The way I got over here is that I mentioned WMC in an article, cited multiple reliable sources, and the AGW supporting admins made sure I got blocked and sent to an SPI. SA can claim that an article is peer reviewed - it is not, can claim it contains the pejorative "denier" or "denialist" - it doesn't, and can pretty much do as he wants, with no consequences, because he is on the AGW side. Mark on the other hand will get hammered for pointing out problems and hypocritical behavior. So will I and anyone else who mentions it. Please don't insult my intelligence by pretending everyone is treated equally. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think TWS is well aware of how things work around here. I don't think he's making any such pretense. All of us being human, it may be good not to alienate TWS as he has been pretty sound throughout. Let's not drive him away. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Lar, but fear not. I'm not going anywhere, my skin is a bit thicker than that. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think TWS is well aware of how things work around here. I don't think he's making any such pretense. All of us being human, it may be good not to alienate TWS as he has been pretty sound throughout. Let's not drive him away. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- TWS, my comment was not meant to be directed at any one admin, although I can name several that it would apply to. The way I got over here is that I mentioned WMC in an article, cited multiple reliable sources, and the AGW supporting admins made sure I got blocked and sent to an SPI. SA can claim that an article is peer reviewed - it is not, can claim it contains the pejorative "denier" or "denialist" - it doesn't, and can pretty much do as he wants, with no consequences, because he is on the AGW side. Mark on the other hand will get hammered for pointing out problems and hypocritical behavior. So will I and anyone else who mentions it. Please don't insult my intelligence by pretending everyone is treated equally. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 23:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
ScienceApologist
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
- Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [30] 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,[31] which is quite bizarre since I've only had one edit to this article since July 24th[32] and my edit was to remove ScienceApologist's BLP violation.[33] 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[34] and my edit was to remove ScienceApologist's BLP violation.[35] 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 Gleamingtalk 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 [37] 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 Gleamingtalk 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)
- 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 WordsmithCommunicate 21:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Marknutley
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Marknutley
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation; specifically he is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. He is also prohibited from reverting the removal of sources that he added to an article without first gathering talk page consensus. Marknutley is encouraged to find a mentor who can assist in checking the reliability of sources and with more properly educating him on the reliable sources policy
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [38] Creates article despite the fact that he has not, apparently, gained approval. Edit summary also suggests disruptive intent: may as well move this to mainspace and let them fight it out among themselves
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Not only is he aware that his sanction applies to this material (see [39]), he also has an appeal to modify his sanction open on this very page.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Not only is MN aware that the sanction applies to this material, he has also received feedback on the unsuitability of much of the content. See User_talk:Marknutley/Archive_7#re:_Request and Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Climate_Change_Exaggeration for other comments on the content and its suitability (or lack thereof). Guettarda (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [40]
Discussion concerning Marknutley
Statement by Marknutley
Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley
I agree that this is a technical violation. He may have thought the requirement applied to existing articles, and he wasn't editing an existing article, he was creating a new one. I mention this, not to argue that it wasn't a violation, but to argue it wasn't a deliberate violation. He appears to under the impression that he can start his suspension at an time (I don’t believe that is the case) and once it starts he is not allowed to have anything CC related in user space (again, I don't believe that to be the case). However, these mistaken assumptions lead him to the conclusion that he had to post his work in progress or it would be lost. I think his assumptions are flawed, but his intent wasn't malicious.--SPhilbrickT 14:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- If that were the case and he didn't think he needed approval, then why did he ask for it in the past? Please see the diffs provided. (In addition, he always asked for approval when he posted new articles in the past; I can find diffs if you need, but I'm running short on time right now.) The issue about the voluntary suspension may explain why he chose to post the article when he did, but that is not a reason to violate his restrictions. If anything, it looks like gaming the system, doing whatever he wants, since he has nothing to lose. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
What is wrong with the sources he used? I haven't given them more than a cursory glance just yet, but I do see mainly newspapers and respected academic journals, such as The Lancet and Science. These sources are explicitly allowed. It is important to determining whether this is or is not a violation to see if any of the sources used actually need approval. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with TWS - what exactly are the problems with the sources? The Guardian, the NYT, Washington Post, etc.? They are all RS, and the sources match what is cited. It's actually fairly good work. I don't see a violation here, and in that I disagree (slightly) with Sphilbrick, but he's right too. There was no malicious intent. I don't see any need for sanctions on this. GregJackP Boomer! 17:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Under the sanction regime Marknutley is under as of this moment, he is restricted to mainstream media sources, essentially. He does not require preapproval, but cannot deviate from those. Which sources used are not mainstream media? Guettarda needs to supply that info or the Marknutley part of this request should be closed no action with an admonishment to Guettarda. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is the [articlealley] reference considered MSM? Ravensfire (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Under the sanction regime Marknutley is under as of this moment, he is restricted to mainstream media sources, essentially. He does not require preapproval, but cannot deviate from those. Which sources used are not mainstream media? Guettarda needs to supply that info or the Marknutley part of this request should be closed no action with an admonishment to Guettarda. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see a violation of those specific sanctions here. Some editors are clearly concerned with the appropriateness of the subject and content of the article, but if the sanction were intended to mean that he cannot create new articles without approval they would include that provision. It's probably best if not required that Marknutley try to gauge the reaction in advance to creating this kind of article, and likewise, that anyone who objects try a few other things first before rushing to request sanctions enforcement. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that this represents a loophole to, "specifically he is prohibited from introducing a new source". In this case he begins an article without any source:
The article is then built upon this unsourced statement. My Google news search failed to find any use of the term "Climate Change Exaggeration" this year.[41] (Disclaimer: I am not an expert on using this search engine.) I could not find any common usage for it through original research either. I suggest we add to the probation terms that unsourced text should not be added either. TFD (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Climate Change Exaggeration is the term used to describe the Exaggeration of the effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
- This article was started when MN was on a complete (or nearly so) probation on sourcing, so some of these have been reviewed. However, this was never done in an organized manner, and rarely done in an obvious manner. I did some early reviews for this article, and was generally okay with the work to that point after some rework. MN has said that he's "done with CC articles", so combined with the arbitration, this is probably a moot exercise that really only serves to publicly castigate MN, if he's truly done editing the area. Ravensfire (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have just asked that Marknutley be given a formal WP:DIGWUREN warning, see here. This has nothing to do with climate change, except perhaps the larger "coke and tea" political context. The indication however is that the same problem behavior is likely to extend to other areas of Wikipedia, if it has not done so already. Any proposed topic ban on CC will only increase the conflict elsewhere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that this represents a loophole to, "specifically he is prohibited from introducing a new source". In this case he begins an article without any source:
- I think his creating this article was disruptive, but that this needs to be taken up by Arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that roughly half of the sources (38) he added violate the prohibition. The below list is intended to address whether or not each of the sources he introduced are included in the set of "articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media". Here's my count of sources that do not appear meet the stated requirements for an exception to his prohibition:
1. Not a newspaper article (Appears to be a blog post; link is to the "Comment is free" section of the Guardian, which that per their own description includes "a collective group web-only blog with contributions from a wide range of commentators from many walks of life."
4. See #1.
6. Cato institute is not an academic press.
7. Not a journal, book, or newspaper article (Article Alley identifies itself as "Free Content for your website or blog")
8. Not a newspaper article (link to the "Andrew Bolt Blog" page, no indication that this material was published in the Newspaper.)
9. HarperCollins is not an academic press.
12. Not a journal, book, or newspaper article. (BBC News)
13. see 12.
18. see 12.
21. Not a newspaper article (link to "Environment Blog" section of website)
22. Institute of Economic Affairs is not an academic press.
24. Not a journal, book, or newspaper article. (World Growth Institute)
25. Not a journal, book, or newspaper article. (Commodity Online)
26. Not a journal, book, or newspaper article. (Farmers Guardian)
27. see 12.
28. Not a newspaper article (link is to a blog article hosted by the NYT web site)
29. See 28.
31. Tate Publishing & Enterprises is not an academic press.
32. Not a journal, book, or newspaper article. (blog hosted by a Magazine's web site)
33. see 12.
34. see 12.
36. Not a journal, book, or newspaper article. (Fox News)
38. National Geographic News is not a peer-reviewed journal, a book, or a newspaper article.
39. see 38.
40. "North Ohio Association of Herpetologists online" is not a peer-reviewed journal, a book, or a newspaper article.
41. Not a journal, book, or newspaper article. Online database.
42. Not a peer-reviewed journal, book, or newspaper article. (appears to be a press release)
44. see 38.
45. see 6.
47. Not a peer-reviewed journal, book, or newspaper article. (appears to be a press release)
50. Not a journal, book, or newspaper article. (link is to the "Guardian Environment Network" section of the Guardian website, this particular article is from www.carboncommentary.com)
53. see 12.
55. see 38.
59. see 6.
61. Not a journal, book, or newspaper article. (Gallup)
62. see 61.
64. Not a journal, book, or newspaper article. (Magazine)
66. Not a journal, book, or newspaper article. (website)
I include reliable sources that are not excluded by his prohibition, such as BBC news - again, the question I hope to address is not the question of reliable sourcing. On the other hand, I omitted sources that are formally excluded from the formal prohibition even if they are arguably reliable (e.g., reference 35 to the Daily Mail))
--Noren (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get back here sooner - I know, I shouldn't let work get in the way of what's really important. It seemed to me that the problem was self-evident - one need only scan down as far as the 6th citation to see something that is not peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media.
- Ref 6: Michaels, Patrick J. (1 October 2005). Meltdown: the predictable distortion of global warming by scientists. Cato Institute.
- Cato Institute is a think-tank; not peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media
- Ref 7: Palmer, Robert (22 March 2010). "A Climate of Fear on Palm Oil and Deforestation". Article Alley
- Not even kinda close. "Free content for your website or blog"? See their "About"[42]
- Ref 9: Thatcher, Margaret (2003). Statecraft. HarperCollins
- Respectable publisher, but clearly not a "well-regarded academic press"
- Ref 11: Kellow, Aynsley John (26 October 2007). Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science. Edward Elgar Publishing
- Edward Elgar Publishing - uncertain, never heard of them before, not enough information on their site to determine much about them, but they don't appear to be a "well-regarded academic press"
- Ref 22: Ridley, Matt (19 Feb 1995). Down to earth: a contrarian view of environmental problems. Institute of Economic Affairs
- Institute of Economic Affairs is a think tank; not peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media
- Ref 24: "Caught Red Handed: The Myths, Exaggerations and Distortions of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Rainforest Action Network". World Growth Institute.
- World Growth Institute is a think tank; not peer-reviewed journal, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media
- Red 25: "Are palm oil plantations a threat to Orang-utans?". Commodity Online
- Unknown source, lacks an "About" page. Nothing to suggest that it even meets the basic requirements of being a reliable source, far less the restrictions placed on MN
- Ref 30: Ladle, Richard J.; Paul Jepson, Miguel B. Araújo, Robert J. Whittaker. Crying wolf on climate change and extinction. Biodiversity Research Group, School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University, UK
- While this is authored by respected academics, and while it appears to be an expanded version of a short Letter to the Editor published in Nature, this is an unpublished report, not peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media
- Ref 31: Sondergard, Steven E. (3 November 2009). Climate Balance: A Balanced and Realistic View of Climate Change (1st ed.). Tate Publishing & Enterprises
- Tate Publishing & Enterprises is a POD/vanity press, not a "well-regarded academic press".
- Ref 40: Neville, Jennifer J. "The Case of the Golden Toad: Weather Patterns Lead to Decline". North Ohio Association of Herpetologists online. URL accessed July 27, 2006.
- The North Ohio Association of Herpetologists a hobbyist club, not an academic society[43] and the link is dead, so the content is unverifiable. More importantly, if you look at the access date, you'll notice that it says "July 27, 2006". Google turns up the Golden toad article, and you'll note that the text is copied, verbatim, from that article, without attribution.
- Ref 41: Pounds & Savage (2004). Bufo periglenes. 2006. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN 2006. www.iucnredlist.org. Retrieved on 11 May 2006. Database entry includes a range map and a brief justification of why this species is listed as extinct.
- Again, a respectable source, but not one that meets the requirements of the sourcing probation. Like the previous ref, it comes from a block of text, copied without attribution, from the Golden toad article.
- Ref 42: "El Niño and a Pathogen Killed Costa Rican Toad, Study Finds".
- Sourced to a press release. Similarly part of text copied verbatim from Golden toad.
- Ref 45: Moore, Thomas Gale (25 April, 1998). Climate of fear: Why we should`nt worry about global warming. Cato Institute
- Another Cato Institute publication.
- Ref 47: Thomas Gale Moore, Thomas Gale. "Why Global Warming Doesn't Cause Disease". Stanford University
- Apparently unpublished web page
- Ref 59: Michaels, Patrick J. (1 October 2005). Meltdown: the predictable distortion of global warming by scientists. Cato Institute.
- Yet another Cato publication
- Ref 61: Saad, Lydia (March 11, 2009). "Increased Number Think Global Warming Is “Exaggerated”" (in English). Gallup
- Not peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media
- Ref 62: Newport, Frank (March 11, 2010). "Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop" (in English). Gallup
- Not peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media
- Ref 66: Landsea, Chris (17 January 2005). "Resignation Letter of Chris Landsea from IPCC" (in English). www.climatechangefacts.info.
Quite a few of the other sources strike me as iffy, but I didn't look into them in any depth - for example, Revkin's blog was cited as "New York Times". I have no idea if other blogs are hiding among the newspaper cites. Ref 26 (Davies, Jack (29 October 2009). "NFU hits out at 'alarmist' climate change report") comes from the Farmers Guardian, a weekly newspaper which may or may not qualify as "mainstream media". In addition, there are numerous cites to popular science sources like National Geographic News and New Scientist. While these are respectable sources, they are not peer reviewed, though they may be considered "mainstream media". Guettarda (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC) [Looks like I wasn't the only one doing this, per above, which I ec'd with. Guettarda (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)]
(edit conflict):HarperCollins, who have been publishing since 1819, isn't a respected publishing house? Preposterous. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- No need to give that man such a drubbing, he's made of straw. Nobody has denied that HarperCollins is a respected publishing house. Please respond to what has been said, not what has not been said. --TS 02:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please read the terms of the sanction, which specifies "well-regarded academic press." HarperCollins isn't an academic press. One can make a credible case that Thatcher's book is reliable at least for Thatcher's own opinion, but that's a different question from whether it fits the sanction as worded. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Reviewing this request, I note that Mark Nutley has announced his intention to quit the climate change area before the arbitration sanctions are passed and the case closes. In the circumstances, wouldn't it make more sense to set this instance aside and wait to see if he continues to engage? If he's stopped engaging in the topic area then this community sanctions regime has no powers to sanction him and no reason to do so. --TS 18:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Marknutley
- 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.
- I'm not sure this request is titled correctly, there seems to be bad behavior around this article from multiple parties... assumptions of bad faith, edit warring, protection while involved, and other things that might raise some eyebrows. Do we want to have several requests around this incident or bundle it all into one and deal independently or ? ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Recent events seem to indicate that one large omnibus case probably won't solve the issues adequately. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably right. Suggest close no action, with admonishment to Guettarda to in future consider talk page engagement, and more careful research before initiating an enforcement request, without prejudice to others bringing forth other requests about other aspects of this should they feel that is warranted. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest that we wait to see if Guettarda actually makes a convincing case that MN has violated his sanction, before we hand out admonishments. There is no harm in taking some time to breathe and carefully consider the issue, and without an in-depth analysis of the sources I don't actually know if any of them would have required approval. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see a much more thorough analysis of sources now than was present before. It merits review. Since the restriction terms apparently changed mid article construction, Mark should present information about those sources that were (prior to the change) approved in advance (who and when, diffs to discussion would be useful) so that we can winnow down the lists given above. Some of the sources that are not mainstream may have been approved. If some remain that were not, then the complaint has merit. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed it does. Let's wait for Mark to present his side, and which sources were approved. We may have to tighten the sanction again. Or, maybe they were all approved. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see a much more thorough analysis of sources now than was present before. It merits review. Since the restriction terms apparently changed mid article construction, Mark should present information about those sources that were (prior to the change) approved in advance (who and when, diffs to discussion would be useful) so that we can winnow down the lists given above. Some of the sources that are not mainstream may have been approved. If some remain that were not, then the complaint has merit. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest that we wait to see if Guettarda actually makes a convincing case that MN has violated his sanction, before we hand out admonishments. There is no harm in taking some time to breathe and carefully consider the issue, and without an in-depth analysis of the sources I don't actually know if any of them would have required approval. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably right. Suggest close no action, with admonishment to Guettarda to in future consider talk page engagement, and more careful research before initiating an enforcement request, without prejudice to others bringing forth other requests about other aspects of this should they feel that is warranted. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Recent events seem to indicate that one large omnibus case probably won't solve the issues adequately. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley
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 Gleamingtalk 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
- Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 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 [48]), as well as the same claim by a Ph.D holder in Climatology (see [49]). 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
- [50]
Discussion concerning William M. Connolley
Statement by William M. Connolley
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: [51]. Jehochman appears to be giving WMC special status to skirt Wikipedia policy, based on his belief in WMC's essential rightness of opinion. Fell Gleamingtalk 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 Gleamingtalk 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 Talk 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 Gleamingtalk 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. [52] 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)
- Fell Gleaming is on a final warning concerning matters of sourcing, particularly presentation of sources. [52] Counselling him on how to present the facts is very much within the remit of this probation. --TS 16:45, 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 Talk 15:55, 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,[53] 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.[54] 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",[55] 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)
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 Talk 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 Wikipedia's content policies. Who did how many reverts is not nearly as important as encouraging the proper development of articles. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)