Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 5: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:42, 22 September 2010

Revision as of 22:43, 22 September 2010

Line 228:

::::::::No, your right sorry. I`m just pissed off over this whole thing is all. SA sorry for dragging this out so much and sorry for wasting peoples time [[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 21:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::It is ok. Apology accepted. :)--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literature</span><span style="color:red">geek</span>]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Literaturegeek |<span style="color:orange">''T@1k?''</span>]] 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

== COI edit warring at RealClimate ==

Earlier today I added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClimate&action=historysubmit&diff=386016200&oldid=384594862 this information] to the [[RealClimate]] article. WMC proceeded to revert it in its entirety three times [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClimate&action=historysubmit&diff=386064038&oldid=386016200] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClimate&diff=next&oldid=386078827] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClimate&diff=next&oldid=386081315] (and was readded two times by FellGleaming [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClimate&diff=prev&oldid=386078827] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClimate&diff=next&oldid=386079606]). There are several problems with WMC's reverts. First, the information was neutral and sourced correctly. Second, WMC reverted three times, which is edit warring, without trying to find any kind of compromise on the talk page. In fact, he left a nasty note about it there [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RealClimate#Relevance]. Third, WMC is one of the founders of that blog and definitely has an unconcealed, agenda-driven POV when it comes to it, as evidence in this case shows the numerous times that he has tried to use it as a source in articles, including BLPs. I request that the ArbCom do something to correct the behavior. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 14:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:Why is the name change of the website's hosting company significant? This is clearly trivial information, regardless of how it has been sourced. Do you have a reason for wishing to include it? Given the ongoing case, do you not see that this sort of editing is unnecessarily provocative on your part? -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 14:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:: This is clearly not "trivia", and it's not just "a name". It's the organization that provided free web hosting and other services. The RealClimate site purports to be a neutral agency that "puts science first". The site began, though, with the aid of an organization that exists to promote environmental issues however and as a means to this end, provides free hosting to RealClimate and other related sites. It was also founded by a past director of the radical advocacy group ''Environmental Defense Fund.'' That's quite relevant, and not merely "trivia". WMC wishes to not have this fact well know. The conflict is thus quite apparent.

::By the way, this "trivial information" was significant enough to merit a mention by by '''''Science''''' Magazine: [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol306/issue5705/netwatch.dtl] and a disclaimer on RealClimate itself in response: [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/a-disclaimer/]. [[User:FellGleaming|<font color="darkmagenta">Fell Gleaming</font>]]^{[[User talk:FellGleaming|<font color="black">talk</font>]]} 18:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::I am confused. What is so sinister about an organization promoting environmental issues (a laudable goal) giving free hosting to a website ostensibly about climate science? It would seem that this would be a logical arrangement. I know nothing of this "Environmental Defense Fund", but I cannot imagine defending the environment is a Bad Thing™ and I have only your word for it that the organization is "radical" (which means ''what'' exactly?). I would submit that you're jumping at the proverbial shadow here. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 18:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::: The real question is, if this is just "trivia", why did RealClimate feel compelled to post an article clarifying the relationship? Why did Science Magazine cover the issue? [[User:FellGleaming|<font color="darkmagenta">Fell Gleaming</font>]]^{[[User talk:FellGleaming|<font color="black">talk</font>]]} 18:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::No, that's ''not'' the real question. Evidently you ''personally'' feel that there is something significant/sinister/whatever hosting arrangement. The ''real'' question, therefore, is why did you feel the need to edit war over this material? We are only talking about a webhost, for goodness sake. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 19:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:: Cla is blind to his, and his "side"s POV: as FG put it rather revealingly: ''The statement "The site's ___domain was hosted by Environmental Media Services who later changed their name to Science Communications Network" is clearly relevant. It shows the original focus was environmental issues, and was later changed (for reasons the reader can conclude for themselves") to claim "Science" as their raison d'etre.'' This is FG's typical attitude - utterly unjustifed assertions to denigrate cliamte scientists. So I reckon it is time for a FoF against FG - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClimate&diff=386081315&oldid=386079606] will do as a start. As for Cla's COI charge: this has been through the COI notice board. Cla knows this, but for some odd reason has chosen not to mention it - I wonder why? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 14:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:To be honest, Cla68, you are making me laugh. In the morning, you agree on ''The Hockey Stick Illusion'' that this level of detail is not appropriate ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&diff=386060035&oldid=386059880 diff]); by the afternoon, on ''RealClimate'', you have a change of heart, finding "it's information the reader could use." ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RealClimate&diff=386105498&oldid=386099324 diff]). All within the space of a few short hours. If you are going to contaminate the well, you can at least pour the same amount of poison down both waterholes. [[User:Wikispan|Wikispan]] ([[User talk:Wikispan|talk]]) 14:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And in how many articles is Cla68 going to plug the book by Fred Pearce: "The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Climatic_Data_Center&diff=prev&oldid=385724575]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration&diff=prev&oldid=385724290]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Atmospheric_Research&diff=prev&oldid=385723828]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goddard_Institute_for_Space_Studies&diff=prev&oldid=385441231]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit&diff=prev&oldid=385440855]

[[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 14:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:Note that all these insertions are ''after'' [[Talk:Patrick_Michaels#Fellow.3F|this discussion]], which showed at, at least in this case, the book got at least some of the facts wrong. Trivial mistake, yes, but Cla is using the book to source trivial additions. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 14:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue of WMC/COI has been discussed before. As of the middle of May, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&oldid=362341862&diff=prev#Potentially_related_COI.2FN_threads here] are the discussions of which I am aware.<br />[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Cla68|C68-FM-SV]] may be relevant here.<br />As may [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive6#FellGleaming|this discussion]] of FellGleaming's use of sources. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 15:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:Some of those COI discussions are interesting. I liked the argument that WMC never talked to Michael Mann even though they are 2 of 9 contributors/founders of Real Climate. Of course, with the Climategate emails we know for a fact that those two email each other and indeed that WMC has direct contact with other people heavily involved in Climategate (e.g. Phil Jones). The parallels are rather amusing as well; in Climategate the scientists asked each other to delete emails/documents and on wikipedia WMC deletes other people's comments, content and accounts (via the Scibaby mechanism). [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 18:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::May i ask you to either remove this, or in case you do not, ask a Clerk to do so. This has no relevance here, and seems to have only one purpose: ''[[Guilt by association|"To smear WMC by the coincidence that he appears to wear the same color of socks as Robert Mugabe"]]'' (you can remove this comment alongside it) --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 18:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::2over0 pointed out the COI discussions and I critiqued them a bit. Your call to erase that critique is more of the same from your side on every level (e.g. excessive reversion, bannings, direct or by proxy comment deletion) and exactly proves my secondary point. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 18:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::<ec> What is interesting is that Cla68 tried to allege COI against WMC, and received no support for his argument.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Investigating_conflicts_in_Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change] Cla68 has also claimed on the article talk page that Pearce has made allegations about the web hosts, that's not evident from the cited reference and I've asked for a citation.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARealClimate&action=historysubmit&diff=386142594&oldid=386110067] TGL appears to wish to support Scibaby's sockpuppet edits, and makes unsupported allegations which look like BLP violations. As found previously, expertise in the field is not a barrier to contributing to Wikipedia, and stolen emails allegedly showing some correspondence are no basis for establishing COI. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::What I support is not calling everyone a Scibaby sock when you want to get rid of them. COI discussions involving WMC tend to have the same people showing up with misinformed or misinforming arguments being presented that are completely at odds with the facts - a portion of which I was trying to demonstrate. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 19:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::::''COI discussions involving WMC tend to have the same people showing up'' - who are those? If you are going to cast aspersions - then please be speicific (hint: the only overlap that i could find is Arritt, Cla68 and WMC (obviously)). If you do not - then again - i will ask you to remove/strike your statement. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 19:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::Was that the only overlap you could find? You may want to count again because I recall several other editors showing up a few times (hint: look at the admins that show up). I don't really care to get bogged down in the minutia though, especially since I'm not even sure if 2over0's list is a complete set of such discussions involving WMC. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::Try backing your "seem to recall" up with names instead. 2/0 linked to all of the discussions. --[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|Kim D. Petersen]] ([[User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen|talk]]) 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Well I "seem to recall" Bozmo and Stephan Schulz showing up a couple times and a few other minor players as well. Forgive me for being skeptical of your claim that these are all of the conversations when you didn't even notice those two. Are you (or someone else) now going to move the bar some more so we can continue this pointlessly myopic quagmire? [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 19:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

* This is kind of insane, or at least deeply silly. At first glance, I can't see anything particularly controversial about the material added by Cla68, which makes me wonder why William felt the need to revert it aggressively. By the same token, it doesn't seem particularly vital to the article either, which makes me wonder why FellGleaming felt the need to aggressively re-insert it with overheated rhetoric about a [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=RealClimate&action=historysubmit&diff=386081315&oldid=386079606 "whitewash"].<p>Then I read FellGleaming's comments on this thread. His motivation for fighting to include this factoid is evidently that he believes it casts a negative light on RealClimate, as it kicks off a six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon connection to a "radical advocacy group". Of course, no actual ''reliable source'' has suggested or implied anything of the sort. As best I can tell, no reliable source has attached any political significance whatsoever to RealClimate's webhosting arrangements, beyond a bare mention. But because this isolated factoid serves FellGleaming's editorial agenda, it must be edit-warred into the article.<p>Really, William should absolutely ''not'' be edit-warring to remove this material (and I think his behavior will undoubtedly be addressed by the Committee). But nor should we tolerate transparently agenda-driven, combative editing of the sort which FellGleaming is exhibiting here and elsewhere. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]} 19:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::I agree with MastCell and also feel, per my note below, that this entire discussion involved a content dispute and needs to be pinched off, hatted or whatever they call it. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 20:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

: Again Mastcell ignores the forest to complain about a tree. The relationship was significant enough to be mentioned in the book Cla linked. It was significant enough for the The Wall Street Journal to comment on it and Science Magazine as well. It was considered significant enough for RealClimate to partially deny it (see link above). But you're still promoting the "its just trivia!" mantra? [[User:FellGleaming|<font color="darkmagenta">Fell Gleaming</font>]]^{[[User talk:FellGleaming|<font color="black">talk</font>]]} 20:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::It's not mentioned on the page Cla68 cited from Pearce's book, is this misreading of the source? The Wall Street Journal (which has commonly featured fringe claims) hasn't been cited, link? The RealClimate disclaimer is of questionable notability, it links to the Science Magazine article but that's behind a paywall so don't know what it says. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 20:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Fell Gleaming: If you have other sources to support this content, you should cite them (if you haven't already). [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 20:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

*Just to cut to the chase here: this is a content dispute. This, again, is a repetition of what has happened all too often in the CC articles, which is excess use of disciplinary boards (especially the Climate Change enforcement board) to get an edge in content disputes. In this case, the dispute is about as trivial as can be. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 20:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Good point. It's a behavioural issue, with Cla68 making a provocative edit and rushing to this disciplinary board rather then discussing and justifying the proposal with better sources. A pattern I think I've seen from Cla before. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 20:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

{{ec}}

:MastCell, you say, ''Of course, no actual ''reliable source'' has suggested or implied anything of the sort.'' Please see:

:*[http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/michael-duffy/truly-inconvenient-truths-about-climate-change-being-ignored/2008/11/07/1225561134617.html?page=2 Sydney Morning Herald]

:*[http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/letters/climate-doubts-based-on-shortterm-irrelevancies/2008/11/10/1226165474661.html Sydney Morning Herald]

:*[http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&tbs=nws:1,cdr:1,cd_min:1995,cd_max:2010&q=realclimate+%22environmental+media%22+OR+%22science+communication%22+site:docs.newsbank.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= Washington Times]

:*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5705/2167a Science Magazine]

:*[http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/27/whats-nasa-and-team-alarmism-s American Spectator] (Chris Horner, writing on the ''[[American Spectator]]'''s blog)

:*[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OPIq2iv5PokJ:www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/a-disclaimer/+realclimate+%22environmental+media%22+OR+%22science+communication%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk RC disclaimer, referring to coverage in a 2005 Wall Street Journal article I was unable to find online] (note: this link takes long to load)

:*[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1W6dMudInpkC&pg=PA104&dq=realclimate+%22environmental+media%22&hl=en&ei=_RWZTO7eE4vAswaBl7CZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=realclimate%20%22environmental%20media%22&f=false Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception ... By Christopher C. Horner]

:*[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=97Hxfc-MCgsC&pg=PA145&dq=realclimate+%22environmental+media%22&hl=en&ei=_RWZTO7eE4vAswaBl7CZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=realclimate%20%22environmental%20media%22&f=false Science and public policy: the virtuous corruption of virtual environmental ... By Aynsley John Kellow]

:At least some of these sources would qualify as reliably published by WP criteria. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 20:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::At least some don't. The first and the third are opinion pieces, not reporting. The second is a letter to the editor, and does not support the claim, anyways. Please do some due diligence before dumping useless sources on us. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 20:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Jayen, I suppose I should have said that no source ''cited in the edit'' supported the implication that FellGleaming was determined to make. The sources you mention certainly contain such implications, although many appear to be factually incorrect based on [http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/letters/climate-doubts-based-on-shortterm-irrelevancies/2008/11/10/1226165474661.html this]. One wonders whether we should use opinion pieces which contain uncorrected factual errors as sources here. In any case, my point had to do with cherry-picking and extrapolating the ''cited'' sources, but thank you for the legwork. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]} 20:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::: ''"no source ''cited in the edit'' supported the implication that FellGleaming was determined to make."'' Of course it did. Do you think the book mentioned just as an interesting bit of trivia? [[User:FellGleaming|<font color="darkmagenta">Fell Gleaming</font>]]^{[[User talk:FellGleaming|<font color="black">talk</font>]]} 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::Page number? I don't think the book mentioned it, as far as I've found. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::::{{ec}} Okay; but bear in mind that FG's comments were made on the talk page. S/he clearly was aware of that background. At any rate, the sources support that there have been speculation and denials concerning the nature of realclimate's links to EMS. As such, the content Cla68 inserted is not irrelevant. Some of the opinion pieces linked here may qualify as sources for a reception section. This is standard practice in Wikipedia. If you go to RSN and ask uninvolved editors whether the [[Sydney Morning Herald]] or the [[Wall Street Journal]] or [[Edward Elgar Publishing]] are reliable sources for fact or opinion, as the case may be, the answer would be yes, regardless of whether any particular editor ''likes'' that opinion or not. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 21:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::::MastCell, you say, ''One wonders whether we should use opinion pieces which contain uncorrected factual errors as sources here.'' I am not an unmitigated friend of the lead sentence of [[WP:V]], and am all for editors of opposing sides being able to come to a consensus – through reasoned debate on a talk page or noticeboard – that it is better to do without a source of fact that is demonstrably in error, or without an opinion that is clearly misinformed. But absent such consensus building, the following sentence is site ''policy'': {{xt|The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth'''—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.}} By all means, editors should agree to attribute facts and opinions to their sources, and make clear which of the two it is, but we do not just dismiss notable opinions expressed in mainstream sources because an editor thinks they are "wrong". --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm not saying that sources should be disregarded just because editors think they're "wrong". I'm saying that sources which contain demonstrable factual errors, and fail to correct them, do not meet our sourcing bar and should not be used. Moreover, if we step back from rules-based pedantry for a moment, why would we ''want'' to use sources which we know contain factual errors? Using such sources hinders, rather than furthers, the goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]} 23:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::Where there is a clear consensus that a source is mistaken, there is no problem. But you know as well as I do that that is rarely the case, and that there are real-life disputes where each side accuses the other of being wrong, or of producing misleading information, or where you simply get good sources contradicting each other, or indeed talking past each other, as the two sources in the Sydney Morning Herald arguably did. One of the problems of this topic area is that editors have wanted to play arbiters of truth, rather than following WP:NPOV and WP:V, i.e. presenting the full range of significant mainstream opinions, and attributing opinions to the people holding them. Do you see what I mean? --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 00:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The blurb at ''Science'' (''not'' an "article", just news reporting) is:

:::WEB LOGS: Sifting for Truth About Global Warming

:: Frustrated by Web sites claiming to debunk global warming, several scientists this month launched their own blog on the evidence that humans are heating up the planet. Realclimate.org is hosted by a public relations firm called Environmental Media Services, but nine academic and government scientists write the content, says co-organizer Gavin Schmidt of NASA (speaking in a personal capacity). They hope to counter industry-supported sites such as www.CO2science.org and www.junkscience.com, where so-called experts "have a habit of seriously misquoting, distorting, and outright manipulating data," says Schmidt.

:: So far, the site has addressed topics such as why the heat generated by large cities makes only a minuscule contribution to surface warming and the flaws in Michael Crichton's latest novel, State of Fear, which dismisses global warming as hype. Visitors can chime in, but comments are screened before they're posted.

The real significance of this is that Realclimate.org has real scientists writing for it. Though if FG wants to push the significance of any part of this blurb perhaps it ought to be the quote about the other sites that "have a habit of seriously misquoting, distorting, and outright manipulating data". - [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User talk:J. Johnson|talk]]) 21:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:It sounds like something reasonable to put in the article. But that does not justify this being hashed out here. Editors have to stop elevating content disputes to editor-conduct issues. Arbcom needs to take a stance on this kind of behavior, as this is not the first instance of this happening. When editors keep "going to the mat" on every little detail, they add to the battlefield atmosphere. That must stop. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:Just to clarify, I was directing the above remark at the topic-starter. I thank J.Johnson for bringing this RS to our attention. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::What else is an editor like Cla68 supposed to do if another editor reverts the addition of their sourced material three times? You can edit-war with them, and, if you are unlucky like Marknutley, get blocked yourself, while your opponent goes free. Or you can give up. Raising it here seems preferable to either of those. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 21:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Cla68 is supposed to discuss if fully at the article talk page, and not present spurious references as he seems to have done – I'm still waiting for a clarification as to where if anywhere Pearce refers to the hosts of the website. See BRD . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 21:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::::Honestly, I sometimes think that we need a CC noticeboard. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::@Jayen: this was being discussed at the talk page of the article in question, but I see that rather than talk it out there on the merits he rushed here alleging a "COI" to get WMC off the page. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::::I am not sure "this was being discussed" is an apt expression to describe what was happening at [[Talk:RealClimate#Relevance]]. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 21:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::(ec)I agree in the sense that there was no serious effort on the talk page by Cla68 to discuss the merits of his edit. He made just one edit on the talk page on this issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RealClimate&diff=prev&oldid=386105498] before coming here. It's like a baseball player spending all his time in the league office, filing complaints against other players. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::That may be appropriate, depending on what the other players are using their baseball bats for. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::@AQFK, I disagree. This is precisely why the CC noticeboard needs to be abolished. Editors need to discuss content issues on the talk pages of the articles. Here, the merits of the dispute were properly laid out by JJohnson. This appears to have been a "POV push" by Cla68, and when he didn't get his way on the talk page he came here. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 21:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::::I 100% agree with ScottyBerg here. The CC noticeboard has become a place to get your opponents removed by administrative fiat in lieu of actually coming to consensus across article talk pages. The, erm, climate in climate change was not great before, but has worsened since this noticeboard was instituted. [[User:Awickert|Awickert]] ([[User talk:Awickert|talk]]) 22:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::::: Just curious, but why do enforcement actions against any editors WMC butts heads with invariably result in enforcement action, but whenever one is brought against WMC, we wind up with a few admin sayings, "you're right, he did something wrong, but we really shouldn't use enforcement to try to solve the problem". Do you think this is the only edit war WMC has engaged in this week? Or even today? His normal ''modus operandi'' is simply to continually revert with ambiguous edit descriptions such as "unbalanced", "not helpful", "unsalvageable", etc. He won't give specifics, he won't propose alternate or compromise texts; it's a continual pattern of stonewalling and abuse. [[User:FellGleaming|<font color="darkmagenta">Fell Gleaming</font>]]^{[[User talk:FellGleaming|<font color="black">talk</font>]]} 22:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::It boils down to WMC doing the right thing in the wrong way, and the "editors WMC butts heads with" doing the wrong thing in the wrong way. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 00:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

*Because of WMC's personal involvement in the blog, and his disruptive editing in its article, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliam_M._Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=386107715&oldid=386070803 formally] requested to WMC that he no longer edit the article, except the talk page. If he edits the article again, I will report it to the CC enforcement board. I'll post this same notice on the enforcement board page. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 22:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGeneral_sanctions%2FClimate_change_probation%2FRequests_for_enforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=386188719&oldid=385884567 Done]. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 22:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

::I submit Cla's above comment as a prime example of baiting and pointless grandstanding, and a good (or rather bad) example of his tendency to rely on wikilawyering and forum shopping instead of constructive dialogue. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 22:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Anyone can formally ask anyone to do anything. It's just not constructive, as Cla68 already received a "no" answer. This is a distraction from the merits, or lack thereof, of the suggested addition, which, again, is properly discussed ''on the talk page.'' [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 23:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:::I just noticed that Cla68 placed his "formal request" on the CC enforcement page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=386188719] I agree with the comment above that this has degenerated into grandstanding, and is a misuse of the enforcement page. I think we are again seeing an exhibition of the kind of behavior that this arbitration needs to confront head-on. It's just simply disruptive. This arbitration is in the midst of determining whether to separate WMC from the CC pages. Cla68 has every right to raise the issue of a possible COI on this page. But I suggest that he does not have the right to simply import an entire content dispute to this page. I suggest that he is hurting himself, not WMC, by behaving this way.[[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 23:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin noted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=385945508 above] that WMC and other editors' continual obstruction of her attempts to improve the [[Fred Singer]] article forced her to expand it on a page in her userspace. I see the same thing happening with the [[RealClimate]] article. If WMC, Wikispan, and other editors are going to revert war attempts to add more information to the article, then it forces editors to improve the article in their userspace, just like with Singer. Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that a group of editors who force people to use their userspace to expand and improve articles just might be an obstacle to attempts at building an encyclopedia. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 23:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

:Are you expanding [[RealClimate]] in your user space? What I'm seeing here is a content discussion in the PD page, both here and, now, one commencing in the section below and on the CC enforcement page, both directed at WMC, for the ostensible purpose of raising a COI issue. You commenced this as a COI complaint, and now you're kind of changing the subject in your most recent post. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 00:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

::I've been planning on expanding the article and considered doing so in my userspace, but decided to give it a try in the article itself first by beginning with the blog's foundation and ___domain site hosting, which seemed to me to be a logical place to start. The resulting edit war showed me that the [[Fred Singer]] obstruction incident was, unfortunately, not an isolated case. So, unless ArbCom (or any other uninvolved admin) effectively corrects the problem, I guess I'll be starting to expand RealClimate in a page in my userspace. Once completed, I'll ask for feedback and critiques on the article talk page before posting the completed article, like SV did with Singer. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 00:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Expanding the article in userspace would be a good idea, since you surely must have known that your addition would be controversial. It reads, to me, like an effort to taint the founders of the blog. If they are tainted, fine, but that needs to be properly sourced. If it doesn't taint the founders of the blog, then it is trivia. Either way, I think that the way you went about it seems calculated to cause the maximum amount of drama and disruption. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 01:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

::::Baloney, Scotty. I gave both sides in that edit, the way we're supposed to. In fact, I sourced RealClimate's side to RealClimate itself, to make sure their side was accurately given. If mentioning the organization which hosts a blog's site ___domain is controversial enough to justify edit warring over it, then there really is no hope for the CC topic in Wikipedia. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 01:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::Actually, there aren't two sides in that edit. It just gives basic information on where the blog is hosted, using a reliable source (Pearce's book) and RealClimate's clarification of it. I really don't understand why WMC would risk a block or ban by edit warring over it. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 01:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::I don't see how you can possibly claim, after this entire heated discussion (''which does not belong here''), that the ___domain hosting of this website was not highly controversial, and that the validity of your edit was disputed on several grounds. The problem that I have with your behavior is that you short-circuited the process of collaborative editing here, which you ostensibly favor, instead behaving in a maximally disruptive and dramatic fashion. If you have a position on this, argue away ''on the article talk page.'' Stop sallying forth here and to enforcement boards when others object to what you do. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 01:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Let me make sure I understand this, Scotty. You don't have an issue with one of the founders of that blog edit warring to remove reliably sourced information from the article. You don't disagree that the information was reliably sourced. You believe, however, that fault lies with the person who added the information in the first place? If so, it sounds like no one could add anything to that article, because they might risk offending WMC, and this is a bad thing. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 01:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::::What I see, and what I've been seeing, and what I see again in your gratuitous comment "risk offending WMC" is an effort to personalize a content dispute, and to turn it into one of user behavior. Since you feel strongly about the validity of your edit, what's needed is for you to make your case on the article talk page. If you have a specific addition to the PD that you would like to make, this is the place for it. Other uses are wastes of time, clog the page, and are, again, disruptive. I think you need to reevaluate your usage of dispute resolution procedures. [[User:ScottyBerg|ScottyBerg]] ([[User talk:ScottyBerg|talk]]) 01:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::::: WMC reverted this factually correct material three times. Yet you speak of "personalising a content dispute". Is it not allowed to mention the elephant in the room? --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 01:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Scotty, I understand that you might disagree with me doing so, but I was trying to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=381478880 follow directions] here. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)