Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive11

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 Wordsmith^Communicate 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The sanctions log sez the new (now rescinded) version was "Marknutley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from introducing a new source to any biography of a living person or any climate change article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 Wordsmith^Communicate 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 Wordsmith^Communicate 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)

Only if you assume that the folk he asks are pushovers. I wasn't. ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 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 Wordsmith^Communicate 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 Wordsmith^Communicate 16:30, 29 August 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 requesting enforcement

Guettarda (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

1. [1] 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)

1. Not only is he aware that his sanction applies to this material (see [2]), 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

[3]

Discussion concerning 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 Wordsmith^Communicate 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)

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:

Climate Change Exaggeration is the term used to describe the Exaggeration of the effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

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.[4] (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)

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)

• 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.

Article link

1. 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

2. 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"[5]

3. Ref 9: Thatcher, Margaret (2003). Statecraft. HarperCollins

   Respectable publisher, but clearly not a "well-regarded academic press"

4. 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"

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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".

10. 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[6] 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Ref 47: Thomas Gale Moore, Thomas Gale. "Why Global Warming Doesn't Cause Disease". Stanford University

    Apparently unpublished web page

15. Ref 59: Michaels, Patrick J. (1 October 2005). Meltdown: the predictable distortion of global warming by scientists. Cato Institute.

    Yet another Cato publication

16. 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

17. 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

18. Ref 66: Landsea, Chris (17 January 2005). "Resignation Letter of Chris Landsea from IPCC" (in English). www.climatechangefacts.info.

    Apparently a personal website[7]; original letter, here,[8] still wouldn't meet the requirements

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)

Concur with TS. GregJackP Boomer! 20:11, 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 Wordsmith^Communicate 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 Wordsmith^Communicate 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 Wordsmith^Communicate 16:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

I'm closing this request as not likely to result in a sanction against anyone. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning William M. Connolley User requesting enforcement Fell 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 [9] Reverted without talk discussion or any edit summary. [10] Same revert a few hours later, again without talk discussion, and with an edit summary that misrepresents the sources. Additional comments by editor filing complaint In the space of a few hours, this user twice changed the phrasing from "some scientists believe" to "some global warming critics believe", and attempted to justify this by claiming the sources didn't support the term scientists. However, there are two sources attached to the claim, one a statement by a geophysicist and Emeritus professor of physics and founding director of the Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska (see [11]), as well as the same claim by a Ph.D holder in Climatology (see [12]). 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 [13] Discussion concerning William M. Connolley Statement by William M. Connolley LS is yet another Scibaby sock. Quite why FG is proxying for him is all too obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I've reverted FG again. This is just more tendentious disruption by FG - see Talk:Little_Ice_Age#A_Ph.D. in_climatology_doesn.27t_qualify_a person to_be_called .22a_scientist.22 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley Response to Jehochman from FellGleaming While you have claimed that the phrase "some scientists" is imprecise and thus Connelly did no wrong, I point out that the phrase "some global warming critics" is even more imprecise. In any case, such a claim does not excuse edit warring, failure to discuss contentious changes via talk first, or deliberate misrepresentation of sources. You are also mispresenting this as being a simple edit war by WMC and another editor, presumably me. However, WMC reverted two separate editors here, not one...and did it without any attempt to first discuss via talk. But the more serious issue is the deliberate attempt to obfuscate and distort the article's sources. I also am rather shocked by the veiled threat of action against me for bringing this case here. Other editors can and have received sanctions for smaller infractions than WMC has engaged in here, and without his long-standing pattern and history of similar issues. To anyone reading Jehochman's comments here, I suggest you look at his comments in a similar case, where WMC and another user (GregJackP) both issued reverts to an article. In this case, Jehochman believed no action was necessary against WMC, but a six month topic ban was necessary for the other user, based on his belief that Greg had misrepresented the source, because WMC, one of the source's three authors says so -- despite GregJackP having two additional sources which cited the original source in the same manner he did, and no reliable source citing WMC's opinion of the source. See here: [14]. 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. [15] Counselling him on how to present the facts is very much within the remit of this probation. --TS 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC) If the use of "some" requires counseling, there are over 600,000 prior examples. Any bets on how many of those edits has resulted in counseling or possible sanctions?--SPhilbrickT 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC) How many of the editors who used "some" in this way were on probation for improper handling and presentation of source material? --TS 17:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I did not use "some" in any manner whatsoever. Have you even looked at the diffs? The word was already in the article. What precisely do you feel I did wrong? It's truly amazing how what even Jehochman admits is poor behavior on the part of WMC is being hijacked into an attempt to accuse me. Fell Gleamingtalk 17:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC) There's already a guideline on language such as this. The original language "some global warming critics" was badly written, but at least there was some attempt to be specific. Scibaby's change of "global warming critics" to "scientists" made a vague expression even vaguer. So instead of reverting it back in, a better choice would have been to try and make it more specific. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC) There's an order of magnitude (at least) more global warming critics than there are scientists, so the notion that "global warming critics" is more specific than "scientists" is quite flawed. While the wording could be better, the notion that Fell Gleaming is even considered for sanctions for using the word "some" especially in light of the fact that Fell Gleaming did not use the word "some" is astounding.--SPhilbrickT 18:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC) There's an order of magnitude more uninformed lay critics than there are scientists. Having looked at the sources as discussed below, the two "skeptical scientists" should be named in the article, and "some" exaggerates how many scientists still hold this fringe view. That Fell Gleaming chose to adopt the change made by an apparent sock means that Fell Gleaming took on responsibility for the phrasing involved. . dave souza, talk 18:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC) If the skeptical scientists should be named, why did WMC not name them, rather than attempting to hide their standing by substituting "critics" in place of "scientists"? If the word "some" was vague, why did he not remove it, rather than claim the sources didn't support the use of the word scientist? And so far, the only evidence the original editor is "an apparent sock" is because WMC believes him to be. Please answer the charges against WMC, rather than hijacking the thread. Fell Gleamingtalk 19:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Jehochman's advice in the "results" section is addressed to both of you. Nobody's arguing about it with Dr. Connolley because he's not arguing the toss in the discussion section. --TS 20:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC) <-Here's the sequence (involving Fell Gleaming (FG)): FG changes global warming critics to scientists FG compromises by including both global warming critics and scientists, as well as adding citations FG threatened with sanctions or counseling for undefined violations Did I miss something? --SPhilbrickT 19:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Prior to your timeline, the edit was made twice by the alleged sock. There were a number of problems with the way the sentence was left by FG's edit (and the sock's previous ones). First scientists don't 'believe' things, they 'have evidence for', 'have shown' or 'have disproved' them, as a few examples. Second, if they have evidence for something so extraordinary, I would expect a reference to a peer-reviewed paper, not one to 'The politics of global warming' in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and another to an op-ed in the Canadian National Post.--Nigelj (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC) "Scientists don't 'believe' things". Did you mean to type this? Scientists have beliefs like anyone else. Fell Gleamingtalk 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) The beliefs of scientists don't count as science, as you should know. The beliefs of fringe view promoters may have some political significance, making them attractive to newspapers, and they should be shown as such. . . dave souza, talk 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC) If you don't think accept that "scientists believe" is allowed, please go to Greenland ice sheet, where is says: "Some scientists believe that global warming may be about to push the ice sheet over a threshold where the entire ice sheet will melt in less than a few hundred years." After that, there are 441 other articles with the phrase.--SPhilbrickT 21:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC) It's poor writing, but as you've found, poor writing is common in Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC) dave souza comments The first of the two diffs alleged to be edit warring shows a revert of the wittily named Loos stool (talk · contribs) who has been templated by WMC as a suspected sock. User:FellGleaming then chose to adopt Loos stool's edit,[16] 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.[17] 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",[18] citing a January 2008 New American Magazine article by Akasofu (same guy) and, rather oddly, a Science article from 29 November 1996: hardly indicative of current "belief". The whole section needs to be reviewed, and better sources used. As for edit warring, neither looks bad to me. Taking the issue here looks like a tendentious waste of time. However, FellGleaming's sourcing is clearly very dubious . . dave souza, talk 16:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC) ScienceApologist's comments FellGleaming is a tendentious editor trying to use this enforcement to gain an upper-hand in editorial disputes with WMC and others. He has been practicing a spectacular amount of disruption at Talk:Watts Up With That? where he has been insisting on a parochial and peculiar interpretation of policy and consistently edit wars in his preferred versions. This enforcement request should be summarily dismissed as gaming. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Comment from WMC about consensus Discussion resulting from the question in my comment of 04:42 21 Sep 2010. Franamax (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC) TW's against-consensus ban of me from FS. Mind you, it got over-overturned later William M. Connolley (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I'll try to track that down, once I've decrypted your coding scheme. ;) Franamax (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC) I suspect that the expansion is "The Wordsmith" and "Fred Singer". That probably means that I've been following this imbroglio too closely. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Please don't confuse against consensus for without consensus, I know you know better than that. Also, you seem to have forgotten that after being overturned, a modified version of it was affirmed. The WordsmithCommunicate 07:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC) No, it was against rather than without consensus. And as for Also, you seem to have forgotten that - I don't expect competence from you, but not at this level: did you fail to read Mind you, it got over-overturned later? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Overturned and then reaffirmed. You neglected to mention the part where you were banned for 2 months from editing that page, by a consensus of uninvolved admins. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, indeed it was, which is what I've already said over-overturned later was. Did you, again, not bother read what I wrote? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC) It appears that you're right. I read that as overturned, not over-overturned. You have my apology. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Thats fine William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Result concerning William M. Connolley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections. There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions. No sanctions are required here, but some advice is in order. Phrases like "some scientists", "some people" or "some skeptics" are all equally bad. The formulation "some" should be avoided. It is a classic way for the author to insert their own POV. Instead, specify exactly who says what. "Geophysicist Mark P. Dingdongle, and Climatologist Frederick VonHopperpopper say that..." This is the best practice for complying with WP:NPOV. As for WP:UNDUE, you should avoid highlighting the views of a few obscure people. Instead, try to find out what the most prominent experts in the field are saying. Jehochman 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) Fell, are you ready to drop the WP:STICK, or do you need something more forceful? WMC's behavior is under review by ArbCom. They are voting on whether or not to sanction him. There is no need for the matter to be addressed here and now. Jehochman Talk 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I see Fell jumping in on an edit war being carried on by a brand new account. That's not good. They are trying to wedge in a mejor claim, which is not good. "Some" depends on the number for one thing, 2 is "some" of 7; but 2 of a million is, well, 2. And why "scientists" instead of, say, "right-handed people"? Jehochman's advice is well-founded. Fell tried to support the wording (which BTW when you restore from another user's edits does indeed become your own responsibility in many csaes) with more sources, which is good - but with lousy sources, which is bad. The first three sources just counted 2 people, including one Fell added. I'm not gonna pay for the 14 year old Science paper, but the abstract certainly doesn't support the text, which is bad. Fell is trying a different tack now to keep the material in, which is not good, they should be sticking to proposals on the talk page. This section barely even supports the "some...critics" claim. I take a dim view of editors jumping onto a change made by a suspected sock, so I'm thinking at least a warning to FellGleaming, including one about jumping on an opportunity to make an RFE claim, watch out for what the result might be. Franamax (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I agree that no sanction against WMC is necessary here. A word of warning to FG may be in order, though. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC) No sanction for anyone. This board, as currently construed, is dead since we have unilateral sanctions being imposed by some admins without any discussion here first. Either shift to the model proposed on talk of sanction first then review if requested, or close it down completely and leave it to AN/I and ArbCom. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I quite disagree with you Lar. Adminstrators are alwys free to act unilaterally. That's the thing about adminship, you can do anything you want, so long as you're ready to answer for it. That does not devalue the consensus process pioneered here. Has any decision issued from this board ever been overturned once it was closed and announced? (I honestly don't know the answer to that) Franamax (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)