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.

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.

• BanVan (talk · contribs)Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thoop33 (talk · contribs) Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ben Peltier (talk · contribs) Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning marknutley & Nsaa

User requesting enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nsaa (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

mark uses a blog as a source NSAA approves a blog as a source marknutley defends a blog as a source

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

Both editors fully involved here

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

marknutley's sourcing provisions modified such that all sources must be passed through an en administrator or experienced editor with prior-approval from this board. Failing that, the creation of a running list of individuals banned from providing source blessings for MN.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

He's not going to stop using blogs as sources unless you stop him.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14], [15]

Discussion concerning marknutley & Nsaa

Statement by marknutley & Nsaa

Ok Nsaa checked the ref`s. And was concerned about the use of Watts Up With That so he checked the reliable sources archives and found a discussion which clearly says that the use of Watts up is fine for Anthony Watts opinion [16] And as such he ok`d it. As you can see from this diff of hipocrites removal [17] the content was attributed to Watts opinion on the spoof video Hide the Decline, there has been no breach of either my parole or of WP policy here mark nutley (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nsaa

I was concerned by the use of Watts Up With That source (Must see video – Climategate spoof from Minnesotans for Global Warming) to support this sentence "Anthony Watts on his website Watts Up With That said of the video, "I’m still wiping the tears from my eyes. This is hilarious and extremely well produced". In the following I considered DeSmogBlog and Watts Up With That as the same kind of references per WP:RS: After reading DesmogBlog Is not wp:rs it looked like all the parties agreed on that on WP:RSN on the following: "As for Watts - IMO, his blog is a reliable source for his opinion, as well. Obviously. Guettarda (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)" and the final "I agree that it is a POV-pushing (i.e. advocacy) source, but I think evidence has been presented that it may be used, with attribution, as a source of opinion. […] * "According to Jim Hoggan in his DeSmogBlog..." Cla68 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)". Maybe I've misinterpreted this, but as far as I see we have no reason to believe that Anthony Watts has not said this on the Watts Up With That web site. I also did a external link search and noticed that it already was used in four mainspace articles: Indur M. Goklany, Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project, Anthony Watts (blogger), Watts Up With That and DeSmogBlog has been used in eleven articles[18]:John Lefebvre, DeSmogBlog, Global warming controversy, Koch Industries, Ross Gelbspan, Immigration to Australia, Climate change consensus, The Great Global Warming Swindle, Icecap (blog), Ira Basen, (User:Marknutley/Bishop Hill) and William Kininmonth (meteorologist). The last one should go out per WP:SPS that says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.". I will be away for the next week, so I can not follow up on this in one week. Nsaa (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning marknutley & Nsaa

I would say that the far worse example of sourcing in that article was a press-release, which was being used in the lead as a reference for factual information. Please see the discusssion here[19]. The ref in questions was this[20] and the version of the article where i tagged it as unreliable is here[21] (ref #1). Mark removed the tag immediately claiming that this was a reliable source[22] (somehow conflating it with the usage of the name climategate - which wasn't the information that i tagged it for). I'm still uncertain as to whether Mark has recognized that this is a press-release or not, and that the reference wasn't reliable to the information given. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking advice from someone like Nsaa - an editor involved in this topic area, with a POV sympathetic to Marknutley's (and therefore with an ideological blind spot) - strikes me as counter-productive. I suggest that Marknutley's sourcing restrictions be modified to require him to obtain a review from an editor who is uninvolved in this topic area. Otherwise we will just find Marknutley laundering bad sources through his friends, rather than getting an independent review. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish, i have recently asked five people to ok the refs in an article. It is still to be done a week later. Trying to restrict who can ok the sources will simply mean i can never do any edits at all mark nutley (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your case, that would not be a bad thing. But what is needed here is to get independent reviews of sources, not just nod-throughs from ideological allies. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from uninvolved admin section): Would you recommend I file an enforcement action against NSAA seeking to have them prohibited from advising MN on sources? Hipocrite (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very wary of anyone attempting to limit who is an "editor in good standing" on an ideological basis - and all the more so when someone is in opposition to that stance. If anyone wishes to question the good standing of a contributor on the basis of their disciplinary record, editing in mainspace, etc. then it could be a matter for review. Otherwise, per AGF, we simply look at the edit and attempt to resolve issues through normal dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why, despite the fact that I am ideologically opposed to him, I would insist that Cla68 be included on the pre-approved list. I would oppose including problematic editors on both ideological sides - for instance, there is no need to include Ratel on the list of approved reviewers. Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the "editor is good standing" condition requires us to determine who is not in good standing by evidencing persistent poor editing or inappropriate behaviour. Should this probation be retained, or another method of overview adopted, it would add to the burden in having to draw up lists of approved editors - with various interests advocating or opposing choices for their own reasons and possibly disinclining editors from accepting that role. Also, as noted earlier, WP:AGF requires us to consider long standing editors as being in good standing unless proven otherwise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest people do, outside of attempting to have marknutley banned from the entire topic area, to stop these endless blogsourced disasters from him? Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest closing this as it is a content dispute. Whether or not Anthony Watts posting on his site Watts Up With That can be used or not i am not the only editor here who is saying it can be now am i mark nutley (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you and your ideological cadre all agree that anytime anyone says anything you agree with it's reliable and should be put in every article without question or second thought. I wish you'd stop with the blogs, already. I've asked you over and over - I didn't even decide on deletion of the article until it became clear that it was just another venue to translate blogsourced nonsense to the public. The level of trouble you have getting your articles approved is directly proportional to the times you use denialist blogs to source things you want to be true. Consider just not using them, ever. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you think an article should be deleted because you disagree with one of the sources? And calling an identifiable living person a denialist is a blp breach, please remove it. Can you explain why desmogblog is ok as a source but not watts up for the opinions of their authors? Why are you not running around removing all desmogblog references? Or realclimate? mark nutley (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've evaluated desmogblog. I've certainly never actively supported it as a source. If you pay for my time, I'll get right on your assignment. Until then, however, I'll merely support wikipedia policies and my own "side" in this dispute. Every previously attempt I made to compromise was met with me giving an inch and the other "side," which is frequently you, giving nothing and taking a mile. Perhaps if you were to try taking the first step you might see that I don't operate nearly as adversarialy as you do. I reject your statement that calling someone a denialist is any more a blp violation than calling someone pro-choice. Hipocrite (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placing limitations on specific editors for specific, multiple misapplication of policy is a sound use of enforcement policy. Targeting a collection of editors, based upon some assumption of their personal POV strikes me as quite out of line. Let's not.--SPhilbrickT 16:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested doing that. Please review carefully. I suggested preventing NSAA and others who would approve blogsourced garbage from further approving anything. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show that Nsaa is committing the same type of error, bring an enforcement request. I read the dif, looks like Nsaa made a good faith attempt to confirm that the source was used appropriately. Maybe others will differ, but suggesting that legitimate content disputes should be turned into enforcement actions is over reaction.--SPhilbrickT 16:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This RfE seems to stem from a misunderstanding on Hipocrite's part regarding our policy on WP:V. Blogs are absolutely reliable for the opinions of their authors, per WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be useful for Hipocrite to reread the policy. I see a fair amount of heat, possibly GF comments arising from a mistaken understanding of policy. --SPhilbrickT 16:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Find one uninvolved respected user with more than 1 year of active editing and no entrenched climatechange position who agrees with your use of the opinion of blogowners and I'll retracted. Until then, this is more evidence that your "side" of this dispute doesn't care a whit about policy when it gets in the way of the "truth." Hipocrite (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was out of line.--SPhilbrickT 16:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prove me wrong by inserting the Dr. Connolley post into the article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves (WP:SELFPUB). Now, there are some conditions that go along with that, they are on the policy page, but it is difficult to look at that and see 'no blogs, not ever, and a block if you try'. Hipocrite has once again not shown a lot of good faith or even great manners while commenting on these enforcement pages, a good close would be a restriction placed on his ability to bring any more fruitless actions for a while. Weakopedia (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:SPS, "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Mark was citing Watts for his views on the production quality and humour of an online video. Is there any evidence at all that Watts is an established expert on videos who has published in this field? If not, Hipocrite's assessment of the unsuitability of this source is correct. Also note that SPS requires caution when using such sources, and while the source is being used for video quality rather than directly as a BLP comment, there are evident BLP issues with the video attacking the reputation of a scientist. "Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." . . dave souza, talk 07:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is apparent that there is a legitimate dispute over the correct use of a blog; however, the enforcement request is based upon Mn not referring the issue to someone in good standing. I do not believe that it has been proven that he didn't, because I see no rationale based in policy, guideline or practice that precludes Nsaa from that description. Even if Nsaa is wrong in their interpretation, it does not disqualify them from being in good standing. If there is evidence of a pattern of incorrect interpretations of policy indicating a bias, they have not been made here despite requests. The argument over the disputed use of the blog does not serve any purpose here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Marknutley's restriction on sourcing be lifted, as it has proven ineffective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It is quite apparent that Hipocrite has misinterpreted our policy on WP:V. What does Hipocrite's error have to do with Marknutley? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way has Hipocrite has misinterpreted our policy on WP:V? As set out above, this edit makes use of a blog in a way that fails WP:SPS. Have you some other exemption for blogs in mind? . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's wrong in the way that I've already explained above.[23] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why is the opinion of this author significant? Is he recognised as having published expert opinion on video production or humour? Caution doesn't mean just putting unqualified opinions into articles. . . dave souza, talk 22:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. This author's opinion is relevant because it is a notable voice in the global warming controversy and the Climategate scandal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mark Nutley

Not surprisingly I`m with what boris has said above, however let`s be fair about this and try to keep everyone happy. My ban on adding new sources to articles should be lifted, but if i add a source which i have not double checked with another user which let`s say user:Hipocrite deems unfit for wikipedia then i get a 24hr block. If that does not make me careful then nothing will :) I think this will satisfy all concerned and would also allow me to continue to create articles mark nutley (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The press-release item that i showed above, is rather clear indications that you haven't learned it yet. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The ban should be extended to removing and tagging sources William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well two other editors said it was ok and a primary source is usable if published in independent third party sources right?. And why are you not demanding WMC get`s put under the same restriction as me? At least i have never used my blog as a source in an article or a BLP have i [24] [25] [26] mark nutley (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark - no one agreed on the press-release. They missed it. And once it was pointed out, everyone agreed that it wasn't an appropriate reference. You on the other hand, continued, and still seem to think that it is a good reference - and that is worrying - and the reason that i'm opposed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was the one who discovered the press release.[27] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - i apparently did it independent of you :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

WP:PRIMARY Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. It was covered by a WP:RS and had supporting secondary sources to back it. Perhaps this would be more suited to the RS noticeboard? Given the caveat in my proposal of a 24hr block if hipocrite finds a source which may be suspect and i have not cleared i do not actually see what you are opposing to be honest mark nutley (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, it is silly to keep defending a reference that everyone agreed was inappropriate for the information given(do please note what i underlined), all it does is to enforce the view that you are incapable of doing source vetting. Sorry. Nothing is black&white, and especially not sourcings - i've said it before - no source is ever 100% reliable and sources are rarely completely unreliable - everything depends on context. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning marknutley & Nsaa

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 have checked the wording of the restrictions relating to Marknutley in regard to sourcing overview [28], and note that the requirement is for an editor "...in good standing." There is no wording that indicates that the reviewing editor needs to be vetted. However I would note that Nsaa, whose userlinks I have included in the relevant section, has been editing since 2005 and has a clean block record; I should think they therefore qualify per the wording. A review of Nsaa's contributions also indicates that this matter is being discussed by them on the article talkpage, so I am inclined to regard this as a content dispute (per the concerns noted by KDP) and suggest closing this request - especially since Nsaa has not yet been advised that they are a party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest that something be read into the result that addresses the concerns raised about Hipocrite's misinterpretation of policy (about when blogs can be used as sources) as well as something reminding Hipocrite not to post in the uninvolved admin section since he is not uninvolved and not an admin and in this case two nots do not make one not naughty. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]