Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive12

Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets

Following discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Scibaby and enablers, this section is established to list active suspected Scibaby sockpuppets. This list is merely a courtesy to other editors active in this topic area, and does not replace Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. Please remove accounts that have been blocked or were listed in error. Accounts listed here are probably sockpuppets of a banned user, and may be reverted on sight. Any editor in good standing may "adopt" an edit that in his or her considered opinion improves an article, subject to common editing norms. The utmost care should be exercised to avoid listing accounts in error, and any mistakes should be promptly recognized and rectified.

RigidRotor (talk · contribs) – reported by Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Loos stool (talk · contribs) – reported by Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article tags

All editors are prohibited from adding or removing POV, neutrality or factual accuracy (or similar) tags to articles within the topic area of climate change, broadly construed, without first achieving a consensus on the talk page. Any new addition or removal without first having a consensus may be summarily reverted. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Altered by NW (Talk) at 19:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC), per agreement of The Wordsmith.[reply]

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did it suddenly become a problem?

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

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

It would be nice if you could leave you hatred at the door. There is no "WMC faction", and if you think there is, you should have presented evidence of same to Arbcomm. Please try to avoid hijacking every thread with the same tired spam. You're accused of revenge tagging because you've quite blatantly done it [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objection to Lar's proposed close

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

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

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

Agree. Also note Lar's invalid moving of comments [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result concerning Article Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extension

Announcement: This seems to have worked fairly well so far. Therefore, I am extending this to last until the closure of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. NW (Talk) 02:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The way things are going, you might as well extend it until the heat death of the universe. It would probably be a shorter extension. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worked? ... the articles are getting better because of this? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it's working. I wasn't convinced it was a good idea to make it harder to add tags and easier to remove them (relatively speaking, with reference to the status quo ante). I'm also not comfortable with a ~~unilateral~~ imposition or extension outside of consensus. ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I endorse the extension, so it is not unilateral anymore. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected phrasing, struck unilateral, new phrasing italicised. Your endorsement helps but is not yet consensus. It may form, as it did for the initial imposition, and I will go along but I will voice my opposition nevertheless, while supporting consensus if formed. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth anything. Unilateral means "Performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others", so this remains a unilateral act. Without discussion, or community consensus, there is no necessity for anyone to adhere to this unilateral, out-of-process sanction. Weakopedia (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. If this extension achieves consensus among uninvolved admins here, it will be enforced. You go against it at your peril. ++Lar: t/c 10:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. In theory, and as we have seen, in practice. Weakopedia (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call the question. So far I see NW and TW in support, myself opposed. Any more views? ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after I saw this. My, maybe wikilawyering, opinion: This is again a rule which a) does not address the problem, b) is set completely unspecific, c) disables things which are completely normal, and d) disables edits which follow core policy. Just ask yourself one question: what about a {{fact}} tag? I mean, I see what you are getting at, but the way you word the sanction is contrasting our core policies and guidelines, and I can perform edits which strictly follow our core policies and guidelines, and this sanction would make that wrong. This is again plain similar to the do-not-change-others-posts-anywhere-on-wikipedia-rule .. your sanctions result in situations where editors who follow policies and guidelines suddenly violate a sanction, and hence can be sanctioned. And then it does not address the problem. Why do you need this? If editors add and remove tags without discussing or resolving the problems that are perceived, protect it at the wrong version or block an editor for edit-warring, and enforce discussion. You don't need sanctions for that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it two and two and that is no consensus. But the extension has been in place long enough to argue that it's now no consensus to change (change to not extend) rather than no consensus to keep (to keep the extension). ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest close as defacto. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist

No further action is necessary. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:03, 20 September 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 ScienceApologist

User requesting enforcement: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

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

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

[6] Warning by A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block until editor agrees to stop adding unsourced contentious WP:BLP material.

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

Also, I'd like to point out that ScienceApologist is an experienced editor. He should know better than to a) add unsourced contentious BLP material and b) edit-war to include the contentious BLP material. The fact that he sees nothing wrong with this is very unsettling. Further, since this request, ScienceApologist is now accusing me of defaming Virginia Heffernan,[7] which is quite bizarre since I've only had one edit to this article since July 24th[8] and my edit was to remove ScienceApologist's BLP violation.[9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda: I hope those last two sentence weren't about me, because I've only had one edit to this article since July 24th[10] and my edit was to remove ScienceApologist's BLP violation.[11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

Discussion concerning ScienceApologist

Statement by ScienceApologist

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning ScienceApologist

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

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

Hefferman has not distanced herself from the statement. See the original source here [13] She replied via email to a blogger, telling him she regretted that the recommendation "seemed idealogical". That's assuming we trust a random blogger as a source at all ... and if we don't, we have no source whatsoever for the claim. In other words, ScienceApologist's insertion was not only inaccurate, but itself a violation of BLP. Incorrectly claiming a journalist regrets her professional work can very well be considered libelous. Fell Gleaming ^talk 21:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Result concerning ScienceApologist

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

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

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

Notice of formal request to WMC not to edit RealClimate

Cla68, you are free to ask WMC to do anything you like. That does not mean that he has to listen to you, nor does it necessitate a post on this page. If you wish to request enforcement on this matter, please use the standard form at the top of this page to do so. NW (Talk) 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Based on WMC's recent edit warring in the RealClimate article ([14] [15] [16]) plus his admitted involvement as one of the founders of that blog (I can provide a link to the announcement email archived at the EastAngliaEmails site upon request; WMC admits to being mentioned there [17]) and attempts to use the blog as a source for advocacy in Wikipedia ([18]), I have formally requested to WMC that he no longer edit the RealClimate article, except its talk page, ever again. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

It certainly is unlikely to go anywhere, as this is not a request for enforcement, but one editor making a request to another editor. I am reasonably certain it will go nowhere because Cla68 received a "no" answer approx. eight hours before making this disruptive and unnecessary posting here. See [19] It's possible that some kind of administrative action needs to be taken, but it should be taken against Cla68, as this seems to be a classic case of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

William M. Connolley

Filer warned by Bishonen not to "file another frivolous action" or poke William M. Conolley with a stick. Discussions on the larger issue of filing using the RFE board to win disputes and so on should be handled on the talk page. NW (Talk) 11:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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: JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Talk page guidelines; Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Casting aspersions

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

[20] Insertion of non-topical, ad hominem comment into a talk page environment
[21] Re-insertion of same ad hominem after deletion
[22] On my talk page, characterization of a petition for administrative review as "forum shopping"

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): {{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Administrative removal of inappropriate text from Talk:The Gore Effect#Separate articles and admonishment to desist from any further personal attacks in the article talk environment

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:William M. Connolley inserted the following as part of a comment in Talk:The Gore Effect#Separate articles...

There is a greatdeal of OWNership being shown over this by a few editors who are insisting that only "their" meaning of The Gore Effect be allowed in; this is wrong.

That comment is incendiary, non-topical, disruptive to an ongoing discussion and ad hominem. Under the guidance of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and the incorporated direct link to Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, as well as the language in the pending passage of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Casting aspersions, I deleted that comment as...

1. Contrary to the guidance within WP:TPG...

Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.

2. Contrary to the linked policy stated in WP:NPA...

Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

3. Contrary to the ~~near~~ unanimous finding in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Casting aspersions...

6) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Is the comment in question related to the topic or directed at a contributor(s)? I believe the answer to that question is clear, the comment inappropriate and should be administratively deleted with admonishment to User:William M. Connolley.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliam_M._Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=386398761&oldid=386350307

Discussion concerning William M. Connolley

Statement by William M. Connolley

@Closing admins: following precedent (MN was banned from bringing cases here for a while) I think a suitable close, better than a mere warning, would be to bar JiJ from bringing cases here (perhaps only against me?) for a suitable period: perhaps a month or two William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley

Personal attack? That? I don't think JakeInJoisey knows what ad hominem means. He should look it up in some encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You should look it up in a proper reference source, not a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Weakopedia (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more relevant, Wikipedia's guidance (WP:OWN) offers the following......

Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack.

In the context in which it was offered and given the history of the contributor, that perception is not only warranted, but unavoidable. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things can be perceived as personal attacks. Normal practice at Wikipedia is not to WP:PUNISH editors just because another editor perceived some comment to be a personal attack. Evidence of violations of WP:NPA are usually much stronger than the diffs you listed. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No editor is specifically named in the offending diff. A dilettante might even make the claim that WMC could have been referring to himself. (He's not, but since he was sufficiently vague it is completely unclear how the attack can be considered at all "personal".) ScienceApologist (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean if I say that I think half the people contributing to this thread are idiots, but I don't mention which half, that it is not a personal remark? Weakopedia (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are only two people in this thread, I think you might have a problem arguing that point. Plausible deniablity is the name of the game on Wikipedia and in the case of WMC's comment it was certainly vague enough so that there is no real way to know which of the editors he included in the group about which he wrote. This is the way it has to be since we communicate via text, we don't WP:PUNISH, and we give users a lot of leeway in their personal interactions on talkpages. That's why people write vague comments as much as they do. I'm not saying it's ideal, but that's normally how Wikipedia functions. Ask at WP:WQA with this example if you don't believe me. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. So plausible deniability only works if it is impossible to adequately identify the person or persons referred to, but in the case of this request that is possible. Like this thread there are only so many participants, and those participants routinely separate themselves and each other along clear ideological lines, so when "one side" remarks on the other, even without using names, it is clear who they mean. So your initial point, that no names were mentioned so nothing to see here, is now diluted somewhat.

And, as you have mentioned, there are various venues for discussing opinions of "the other side" vs. opinions about article content. That WMCs remark was directed at editors, not content, is undeniable. The best outcome here is if nobody is permitted to discuss editor motivations on CC talkpages, not that we find another similar case that nobody has yet to complain about and use that to justify ongoing comments about editor motivation at the inappropriate venue. Weakopedia (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable leeway given through the various Wikipedia-space pages that I offered that allow editors to comment (albeit broadly) on the general environment and how the discussion with other editors in general is progressing. It would require a considerable sea-change in policy and culture to enforce a strict: NEVER COMMENT ON ANYTHING BUT CONTENT ON ARTICLE TALKPAGES law. You are free to try to make that a rule. I suggest that you ask for it be enshrined at WT:TALK. See if you can get a consensus. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through Talk:The Gore Effect gave me a serious headache. I applaud every editor who has managed to put up with the extensive legalistic obstructionism and maneuvering evident on that page, which is a too-sad-to-be-funny parody of the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. As to the substance of the complaint, I agree with Bishonen that this is hardly a personal attack, much less an actionable one. I'm curious (well, not really) about why this particular comment was singled out - using the same bar, numerous comments on that talk page would be sanctionable "ad hominems". Take, at a glance, "We also have a small minority who, though they admit the problem, don't want to move forward by separating the content", which is essentially the same sort of accusation, but by an editor sympathetic to JakeInJoisey. Summary: this is silly. MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is in no way the "same sort of accusation". Two groups admit there's an issue. One group wants to move forward by separating the content. Another group wants to move forward by retaining the conflicting conflict in the same article. What exactly is that an "accusation" of, other than the bald truth? It is no way, shape, or form an attack, personal or impersonal. Fell Gleaming ^talk 23:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that people admit a problem but "don't want to move forward" is an accusation of obstructionism. I don't think it's actionable, any more than William's comment. I merely chose it from near the bottom of the page, to highlight the absurdity of singling out William's comment as some sort of extraordinary and singular attack. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your point? Is it "They started it! (stamps foot)", or is it "But they're doing it too! (stamps foot)", and why not just use the foot to give them a kick up their collective rears and put a stop to personal remarks, whether they rise to the level of attack or not? Weakopedia (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think MastCell's point is very clear: Stop crying "wolf" in a crowded kindergarten. Hans Adler 14:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that, and also, I think, it also illustrates how the enforcement boards are being gamed to "take out" opponents in content disputes. This is happening during an arbitration case, so I hope the arbiters take notice. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a personal attack. Based on this editors long block log, I think a rather severe form of corrective action should be on the table here. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. But what you do is a bad-faith sneaky underhanded attack. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"But what you do is a bad-faith sneaky underhanded attack." Stephan, what is this? You are not entitled to make comments like that about editors on Wikipedia. Consider this a proposal that you be banned from this forum. Mackan79 (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read M's comment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, the "personal attack" in question was subsequently removed by FellGleaming (after JakeInJoisey's initial removal), and reverted by me. The comment in question is not a personal attack in the slightest. I came across this issue by accident, but the idea that the comment in question is a personal attack is absurd on its face. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC) (I should add, for the sake of full disclosure, JakeInJoisey has accused me of personal attacks in the past as well, on non-climate change related issues. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think this can be a violation, certainly. In my view JakeInJoisey has been pretty difficult in this discussion. See for instance here, where Jake claims "unanimous" consensus for his position simply because people disagree with him for various reasons that he doesn't address.[23] He's done this repeatedly, also closing his own RfC with such a claim.[24] (Note that Jake's "uninvolved admin" did not make a "determination" at all, and that his quoted phrase comes from the template rather than anything the admin said, and that Jake removes his quote from its context without appropriate use of ellipses.) Jake then continues to use this supposed determination when I mention the applicability of WP:BLP.[25] I asked him not to play so fast and loose with his claims, and he likewise accused me of making a personal attack.[26] If Jake doesn't want people complaining about his approach, I think he needs to show a good deal more respect for other editors himself. Mackan79 (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the first two diffs are actionable, but the edit to Jake's talk page is a personal attack, because he insults Jake by saying he is a "careless person." Not a strong insult, but still an insult, and unacceptable. If it was a first offense, then maybe ok to let go. In this case, however... Cla68 (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. A couple of posts above on Jake's page, on the other hand, Jake accuses an editor of "obduracy" and of being unable to retain an idea two paragraphs later.[27] Is he really offended by being called "careless"? That looks to me like simple rules gaming, which I don't think should be encouraged. But I have to say even if it weren't I'm not sure that calling someone careless can ever be considered an attack. Mackan79 (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I would welcome a thorough examination of issues related to "The Gore Effect" article, the ongoing dispute resolution process and/or issues related to individual editor contributions within an appropriate venue, this isn't it. This RfE addresses the Wikipedia propriety of a specific comment posted to the article talk section. Anything else is both irrelevant and obfuscatory. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woooooo careful there: you're accusing M79 of obduracy and irrelevance, which by the standards you pretend to believe in is a PA. Please refactor what you are obliged to consider your insults William M. Connolley (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to discuss here. There are no personal attacks in the diffs. I think that this highlights a problem that I've mentioned previously, which is use of disciplinary boards (this one and the PD discussion page) to target specific editors, especially WMC, with trumped-up charges. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The practice of using this enforcement board for point-scoring against opponents needs to stop. That will not happen until those who file frivolous actions know that they can be disciplined for doing so. (And yes, this applies to both "sides.") Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. This particular complaint was lame. It's embarrassing that we had to spend even five seconds on it. And I apologizing for waiting another five seconds of time - but if we don't take this board seriously, we run into danger of boys getting eaten by wolves.--SPhilbrick T 15:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good analogous situation would be if a bunch of businesspeople were having a business conference, and every so often one of the participants leaves the room to run to the police station to file a complaint against one of the other participants for "harassment." I don't think this analogy is too far off. You'd never accomplish anything if that were to continue to occur. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I don't think any sanction is necessary here. I move to close this case as quickly as possible. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And your thoughts on SBHB's comment? NW (Talk) 17:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think closing and moving on without giving it too much attention is probably the right way forward. The SBHB issue could be raised separately on talk but the outcome of this rfe is speedy close. --BozMo talk 20:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we leave it to the talk page, I doubt we will get anywhere. I'd like to get some resolution now, but I will leave it up to the rest of y'all to decide. NW (Talk) 21:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well basis the above cautioning JiJ would seem to be justifiable and have broad support. But SBHB seems to be asking for a more general review than this of inappropriate requests which does not seem appropriate under this heading. --BozMo talk 21:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin, I have warned JiJ not to file further frivolous actions at this board, nor to keep poking WMC with a stick, on pain of being either pagebanned or banned from interacting with WMC, whichever suits the circumstances. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Request to have sanctions struck

Closed as moot with Mark's retirement. If he wishes to start a new account, he is strongly advised to contact the Arbitration Committee; evading any sanction or restriction through the creation of a new account is grounds for an immediate ban. NW (Talk) 19:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As i no longer edit CC articles and am about to get a topic ban from them anyway i request the current sanctions imposed on me be struck. I am fed up of people rooting through my history and using old sanctions as an excuse to beat me round the head. It is a case of these being struck or me creating a new account to stop people using my history as an excuse to attack me and question my edits mark nutley (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting either way on the request as such, please keep in mind that this would not be a legitimate use of an alternate account. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not boris? I thought editors could quit and start over, a clean start kinda thing mark nutley (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I strongly advise you read WP:CLEANSTART. If you want to move away from areas where you have had conflicts, that might be possible. If you want to edit the same areas you do presently and simply hide your past, that wouldn't be ok. EdChem (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)WP:SCRUTINY. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC on steroids) Yes, you can make a "clean start" as explained here. But it's a lot more complicated than just signing up a new account. The conditions are fairly restrictive. For example you can't make a clean start if you have active blocks or sanctions, and you can't use the new account to return to old topic areas (note this is topic areas, not just articles). In any case you almost certainly should inform Arbcom. Again I just want to make sure you're aware of what the implications are. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EC x 3 I am not going to edit CC articles at all, i will tell arbcom the new ID so they will know i am not cheating, the CC articles are the only ones i have had trouble with, i have not had an sanctions imposed on me outside of them at all. mark nutley (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably worth noting that MN is currently having exactly the same problems with sourcing that he was sanctioned for here: see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Hugo_Ch.C3.A1vez and mroe specifically Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Bar_on_documenting_Chavez.27s_anti-Semitic_statements.3F. So the sanctions imposed here remain relevant William M. Connolley (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting there is nothing wrong with the sources being used [28] Do you have noting better to do with your time than stalk me will? mark nutley (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth nothing that not everyone there agrees with your view on the sources. Ravensfire (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(more detailed)I would have hoped that you'd be able to better discuss with editors why you think the source is RS and persuade them. I'm seeing a lot of what you did in CC articles - dismissing their view, demanding more proof from them and shifting the WP:BURDEN to others, when it more lies on you to convince others that the source you prefer is RS. You've gone from CC to two other fairly hostile editing areas (please note that these were as ugly far, far before marknutley got involved!) and I see at some of the same behavior from you in those articles. Personally, the best way to avoid getting beat on the head about sourcing is to use impeccable sources that, even when touching on controversial topics and issues, are clearly acceptable as used in the proposed edit by all, or nearly all, editors involved. Ravensfire (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting there is nothing wrong with the sources being used - that was always your argument in the past. You were impervious to argument. That is why you ended up with the sanctions. This sounds exactly like you exporting the same bad behaviour to another venue. And please leave out the inappropriate diminutives: you've been warned about that before William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raven have you looked at the sources? For christs sake one of the editors there is demanding peer reviewed sources, and saying that the NYT forbes The washington and these publishers are fringe sources ABC-CLIO John Wiley & Sons Praeger Publishers Sussex Academic Press University of Michigan Press, he is not looking at the sources he is just saying no. Will, you look at the sources instead of just weighing in with the usual mark nutley (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fact that you find yourself arguing about sources yet again suggests that the problem isn't with climate change articles. Guettarda (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, WP:CLEANSTART would preclude your return to any of the topic areas you're active in, not just climate change. And the restrictions here (and any the arbcomm might place on you) would also be a problem. Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well i already said i`ll tell arbcom the new ID so they know i have not snuck back into the CC articles. If not a clean start then strike the restrictions so editors in other areas can`t use old sanctions as a stick to beat me with and to constantly say the sources i use are fringe so the ycan discount me, i am asking all here to look at the link i provided to my sandbox and tell me if any of those sources are fringe or even suspect mark nutley (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mark nutley's example of material he wishes to add to a biography of a living person[29] is a good example of why the sanctions should not be lifted. In it he writes that a subject " has been criticised for what some have called Anti-Semitic remarks". No mention is made of how widespread this view is, and no mention is made that his supporters deny it. The sources mentioned include op-eds from an analyst in Fox News and the editor of the Wall Street Journal. The quote used has been criticized for being a selective edit of the original. The sources do include some high quality sources but are mostly op-eds. Despite the passage being short, there are 18 references given. This is disruptive, because it requires any editor who challenges the passage to spend extensive time finding and reading each of them.

In the last couple of months, mark nutley has moved on to edit at least three articles in which I have been involved: Hugo Chavez, Libertarianism and Mass killings under Communist regimes. Although there were problems there before, there have been no improvements made to those articles, but there have been numerous RfCs, etc.

TFD (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This BTW would be the guy who demands peer reviewed sources saying the ones i had were junk neocon fringe ones. There is no op-ed from Fox it is from the AP and is on the fox site mark nutley (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is getting wildly off-topic. If as Mark says he's due to be topic banned from climate change, I don't see what good could be done by striking lesser sanctions from the log here. They're all part of the record of the probation so it wouldn't really make sense to remove them. --TS 20:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I`m not asking for them to be removed tony, i mean struck, lifted, finished. So editors can`t dig through my history and say well you have a sourcing restriction on CC articles, so your edits are fringe and your source suck mark nutley (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think striking the restrictions would stop people saying your edits are unreliable as to sourcing. It's going to be an ongoing problem that you'll have to deal with, and not cast around to put the blame on somebody else. --TS 20:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I`m not putting the blame on anyone else. You don`t get it obviously. Well fuck it then, i`ll slap a retire not on my talk page and begin afresh as i am entitled to do. mark nutley (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far from striking these sanctions, they should be explicitly extended to all BLPs, which they already appear to cover, based strictly on the wording. It appears that Marknutley is unwilling or unable to edit BLPs in a manner compatible with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:V. I don't know the details of his prior behaviour in the BLP climate change area, but if the resulting sanctions are anything to go by, he is extending exactly the same detrimental behaviour to other topics. Rd232 ^talk 20:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would day that, your involved in the chavez article, this is obviously not going to go anywere due to bias and point scoring, i`m done mark nutley (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's outside the remit of the probation, you should either bring this to the attention of the arbitrators as a proposed finding and remedy on the arbitration, or else propose a BLP ban at WP:ANI. --TS 20:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend against editing with another account, since I think it's quite likely you'll be accused of violating WP:SOCK and even blocked. The real problem, however, if I may suggest, is that you want to go from one controversial area to others where you expect people to be criticizing you. If you want to continue editing in controversial areas, I think you'll have the same problems you had in this area. If editors figure out that you've been in controversies before, and that you've been sanctioned, at least some of these editors will use it against you (loudly, angrily, aggressively). Consider the amount of time and effort going into the current ArbCom case, and perhaps you'll see why people get pushier the second time around. By far the best option, in my view, if you want to keep editing without problems, is to go edit topics where no one will be criticizing you at all (most of Wikipedia is not a battleground). If you do that, then you shouldn't have a problem with your current account. Moving on to other controversial areas won't go well, though, probably no matter what you do. Mackan79 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: nutley has now declared himself retired and told Roger Davies "If i decide to return i shall inform you of a new username so s not to appear to be avoiding the committee`s sanctions". Rd232 ^talk 10:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that normal during arbitration cases? I noticed that Heyitspeter did a similar thing a while back. --Nigelj (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]