Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive5

ChrisO

ChrisO (talk · contribs) by JohnWBarber (talk · contribs)

Closed, no action, filing user is notified not to use this page for retaliation

User requesting enforcement JohnWBarber (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, specifically "Interact civilly with other editors;" Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so [1] This was the first edit (at 20:35, 3 March) in which ChrisO assumed bad faith, stating that the nomination of this AfD was (a) "Bad faith, tendentious nomination" and (b) "The nominator's disruptive WP:POINT-scoring is a significant violation of the article probation regime in this topic area, but that's best dealt with elsewhere" To be a WP:POINT nomination, I would have had to have no adequate reason for the AfD. But I stated a perfectly adequate, policy-compliant reason at the very top of the AfD page, [2] which Chris saw (and later referred to in his complaint above). [3]] ChrisO assumed bad faith, a violation of WP:CIV#Assume good faith ("Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.") There was no strong evidence whatever, therefore, he also violated WP:CIV#Identifying incivility, 1(c) by making "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" A single, or even a few violations of WP:CIVIL wouldn't be worth bringing up here, I don't think. But as I show, this happened repeatedly. [4]At 21:27 3 March, ChrisO filed his claim against me here. By this point, he not only had my initial statement at the AfD to show him that there was sufficient reason not to believe the AfD had been filed as a WP:POINT, he also had additional comments I had made by that point, showing detailed reasons for thinking that the article violates WP:POVFORK policy ([5] [6]). Normal AfDs where the nominator states reasoning and doesn't otherwise violate any policies or commit acts that in themselves cause disruption, cannot be WP:POINT violations unless there is some overwhelming reason outside the AfD that definitely proves it. For this, ChrisO cites a comment I made at another AfD (my earliest comment in this) [7] Since there is no evidence whatever that it was the sole or even principal reason for my filing the second AfD, ChrisO is completely without proof. He must assume bad faith for the nomination in order to make the accusation here. Filing this complaint was the second time he's violated WP:AGF and therefore violated WP:CIV (which has a section on AGF). It is also a violation of WP:CIVIL to be "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them." (this section [8]; see 2(d)). It is also a violation of WP:CIVIL to be making "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" (see 1(c), same section). Since ChrisO was without evidence, this was a frivolous, nuisance complaint, therefore a violation of WP:DISRUPTION. [9] In filing this, ChrisO stated: He has offered only a minimal justification for deletion and no new arguments ChrisO's statement is factually false, as he had every reason to know. He can't possibly have missed the long comments I had made by that point in the AfD (the two additional comments I mentioned in the previous paragraph: [10] [11]) Each of these diffs prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that ChrisO's statement that I had "only minimal justification" is untruthful: It is impossible for ChrisO not to have known about those diffs and impossible for him to call them "minimal justification". Yet well after I made each of them (19:47 3 March and 20:15, same day) ChrisO filed the complaint here (21:27 -- he had edited the AfD page twice after my later long comment -- at 20:35 [12] and 21:05 [13]). It is another violation of WP:CIVIL 2(d) to be "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them." [14] When multiple editors told him he was wrong, ChrisO continued to repeat the same evidence-ignoring allegation, insisting "His lack of serious intent is clearly visible in his very brief deletion rationale," as if a brief deletion rationale (something common in AfDs) was the same as the lack of a deletion rationale. He then stated, "Yes, he advanced further arguments later in the discussion, but only after people had pointed out the WP:POINTyness of his actions", as if that somehow proved that filing the AfD was a POINT violation to begin with. I had the policy reason for the AfD from the start, as proven by the first line. I had the arguments on the page shortly thereafter. There is no way that anyone could believe that this proves that my motives were in bad faith and that the AfD was meant to prove a point and cause disruption. The reasons for the AfD are evident on the page. ChrisO saw it, recognized it and mentioned it here. And it didn't matter to him. This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. [15] Despite having it pointed out to him by numerous editors on this page and despite being presented with the facts in my response to his complaint, ChrisO repeated the same, exact WP:POINTy accusation over at WP:ANI at 15:04 5 March, as if nothing had been said here. His statement at ANI included the sentence: He then posted the deletion nomination for Climate change denial - the article's fourth AfD nomination - with the following rationale, in its entirety: The implication here was that this was the only argument I had made at the AfD ("the following rationale, in its entirety", saying nothing else). He wrote this despite it having been pointed out to him that I had made other comments which reinforced the proof that I had made the nomination in good faith (he was responding to that point here [16] earlier, at 08:49 4 March). It is a violation of WP:CIVIL to be "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them." (this section [17]; see 2(d)), and of course, more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. Diffs of prior warnings [18] notice of climate change probation by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Prohibition from filing any further frivilous nuisance complaints, participating in deletion discussions of articles in the climate change topic area, topic ban on all climate change-related articles. Additional comments ChrisO never had a reason to make the accusation that I'd violated WP:POINT from the moment he saw my policy-related reason at the top of the AfD page. If he had any doubts, he could have asked me. Personally, I thought the article's violation of WP:POVFORK was so obvious that everyone would see my reason right away. I immediately gave more detailed reasoning in the AfD. The existence of another comment, elsewhere, about a possible AfD does not prove that that other comment is the sole or even main reason for later starting the AfD when proper reasons are evident, and they were evident. And yet, repeatedly, ChrisO pretended that the single earliest comment was the sole motivating factor for an AfD that was filed normally. He did this: (a) First at the AfD, when he already had seen I had referred to WP:POVFORK policy at the top of that page; (b) Second, here, when he had already seen substantial arguments at the AfD (and acted as if they weren't there); (c) Third, here in his response to his complaint, after other editors told him there was no WP:POINT violation; (d) Fourth, at WP:ANI where he forum shopped the same, tired allegation, inserting it into a discussion that had nothing to do with the topic of whether or not the AfD should have been given a WP:SNOW close. In addition to the other WP:CIV and other violations I've detailed above, ChrisO also violated WP:CIV#Identifying incivility 2(a) "Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility" because his repeatedly bringing up an accusation, first at the AfD, then here, then at ANI -- always while not having any reason for it -- is an act of taunting. Discussion concerning ChrisO Statement by ChrisO This is really blatant retaliation - JohnWBarber should be ashamed of himself. As I said in my earlier comments, I thought that JWB's AfD of an article that's already been AfD'd three times, in pursuit of an apparent WP:POINT, was irresponsible point-scoring, Many others have said so too on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination), often in much stronger terms than anything I've said: User:PhGustaf: "Nothing has changed since last three Keeps; nomination is apparent retaliation for an apparent drama fork from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration" User:KimDabelsteinPetersen: "nothing has changed from the last AfD's, and this nomination seems to have a WP:IDONTLIKEIT character, as well as a (poorly thought out) WP:POINT to stall the AfD at CCE." User:StuartH: "Article has survived three previous WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations, and the nomination appears to be a WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nomination from the Climate change exaggeration deletion nomination, as suggested by the nominator's above request and comments on the other nomination page." User:Stephan Schulz: "pointy and pointless nomination" User:ScienceApologist: "Bad faith nomination due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration" User:DroEsperanto: "First, frivolous nomination. Nominating an article for AFD so you can gather evidence to accuse people of hypocrisy is WP:POINT to the max. (And no, I'm violating WP:AGF, since (1) this was the nominator's stated intention (see diff), and (2) he/she already asked people how their votes here compare to their votes there.) Second, this is an article that has already been here (three times) and this AFD presents absolutely no new evidence to support its deletion." User:Verbal: "Nomination gives no reasoning, and is clearly disruptive" User:Oren0: "Keep as a bad faith nomination, per this" User:Beyond My Ken: "WP:POINTy nom" User:Plumbago: "A pointy nomination of a well-sourced topic seemingly in response to the parallel nomination of a badly-sourced, POV-fork neologism" User:Nigelj: "WP:POINTy nom, discussed mostly by our current crop of people who do things like this." User:William M. Connolley: "bad faith nom" User:Unit 5: "Move to delete seems to be self-serving and has nothing to do with the good of the encyclopedia." User:Dave souza: "this looks like a tendentious nomination of an article" User:Tanthelas39: "Funny that JWB accuses people multiple times of 'wikilawyering', when that's all I see him doing." I have done no more than express the concerns of many people, including multiple admins and numerous uninvolved users. Instead of addressing those concerns, JWB seems to be doubling down. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC) @Cla68: Fifteen other editors, at least half of them uninvolved, including several admins, have expressed the same concerns. WP:GS/CC provides that "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits." Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is clearly a form of disruptive editing. I brought those concerns to this enforcement page for review in good faith. Where is the fault in this? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning ChrisO Despite my attempts to bear with John, this is a stretch too far. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Please stay on topic and make substantive comments. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC) This looks very much like retaliation for the enforcement request that ChrisO filed against JohnWBarber immediately preceding. How about if everybody involved dials it back a notch and we use the enforcement board for clear and obvious violations, not as a continuation of the feud? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) If it's only retaliation, then it's a friviolous, nuisance complaint. If there's something to it, it's not. This general sanctions regime was created for a purpose and to fill a need. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I would have a hard time endorsing a sanction against someone who is right. I think it's clear that your deletion nomination of climate change denial was tit-for-tat for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration. You practically said so yourself. It's true that there are valid problems with the climate change denial article but it doesn't appear that you had those primarily in mind when making the nomination. I don't see anything wrong with pointing that out. Generally, I have found ChrisO to be quite reasonable and your repeated actions of jumping on people who disagree with you to be unproductive. Oren0 (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Minor detail: I think you're missing a tat. [19] Kinda knocks a hole clear through what you're pointing out. Oh, and look what I found. I'd forgotten all about it. I was objecting to ChrisO's behavior well before any of this. [20] Odd. I was criticizing him for something completely different from disagreeing with me. Here's another break in the pattern: TonySidaway and William Connolley try to shut down the discussion and I didn't exactly jump on either of them, did I? [21] [22] [23] (I did say the actions were disruptive,[24] and I did object to Tony's attempt to close the AN/I thread,[25] but I think you'd be hard pressed to call it "jumping on"). So perhaps I might not be making out-of-control accusations here, although that's really best judged by looking what I said above. What I'm saying might actually be worth looking at with an open mind. Oh, and another thing about that "tit-for-tat" business: That comment that I made just before the AfD I filed -- it wasn't directed at only one side. [26] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC) It's true that there are valid problems with the climate change denial article but it doesn't appear that you had those primarily in mind when making the nomination. Answered in my complaint, above -- in granular detail -- and in my response to ChrisO's complaint. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC) @SBHB: there's no feud - the concerns I expressed about about JWB's conduct were shared - and previously expressed - by many other people, including multiple admins. Bringing here concerns about conduct perceived as many as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is the right thing to do. On the other hand, using this process as retaliation is categorically wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I thought ChrisO's request was just as tendentious as this one. Why not topic ban both of them? That should take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Feel free to explain how this report is "tendentious." -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by ChyranandChloe This is retaliatory. I think JohnWBarber feels insecure as he willfully ignores that this section is "Comments by others" in order to frame, disparage in some cases, what others have to say about the request. If replies were wanted, they'd be written as a question. The finding of fact and the ultimate sanction isn't decided by us, although we do shape its outcome, it's decided by the administrators. Therefore I propose a rule that: (1) we present our view and our evidence addressed to the administrator, they have a critical reading capacity, let's not treat them as incapable; (2) other can, of course, write their replies in their own sections (similar to arbcom cases), or in the sections belonging to others if requested. Otherwise this back and forth seems to be a competition for the last word that increase rather than decrease drama and contentions. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Re. Franamax: As far as I can see, John does not edit Climate Change articles apart from the AfD and surrounding noise. So a topic ban would not be much of a sanction. On the other hand, it might help to keep an otherwise good editor out of an area where he may have problems to keep his cool. So, on the "not punitive but preventative" principle, I'd support a topic ban, possibly somewhat longer (not much of a hardship because the editor barely edits the topic anyways). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC) JohnWBarber (formerly Noroton) has a long, long history of this sort of disruptive behavior, most of which has been built around promoting a certain agenda. I understand that changing his username was an attempt to put that sordid past behind him, but the "new improved" version has simply returned to the same old behavior. This retaliation is part of the typical Noroton modus operandi, and it was preceded by what was obviously a bad faith AfD nomination (see previous level 2 section). A topic ban of not less than a month is appropriate, but a review of this editor's block log indicates a block should also be considered. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Scjessey and I have an extended history in which I occasionally point out Scjessey's behavior violations and Sjessey attacks me. Here's a good summary [27] from the last time we interacted. I had previously done some editing at the CRU incident article. I withdrew in large part because Scjessey's comments like this one [28] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I only wish WP:PLAXICO were still a valid redirect. Thanks awfully for drawing attention to previous bad conduct on your part so that I don't have to. Much obliged. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I am glad it is not still a valid redirect, the very existence of it was a bit of a BLP violation. I think maybe we should stop mentioning it and let it die away over time. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Looks tendentious and bad faith. I think this should lead to sanctions no JWB William M. Connolley (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Questions for JHochman JeHochman made the following statment, none of it backed up with evidence: The filed a very pointy AfD, There is nothing pointy about an AfD in which it is credibly alleged that its existence violates WP policy. If you're going to make that statement, prove it. followed it up with an abuse of process, What are you talking about? a tit-for-tat frivolous sanctions request, You've given no reason to show that this was frivolous. ChrisO obviously violated the general sanctions multiple times. and continued to battle when challenged on this very thread. This very thread is a discussion of an editor's actions. When criticized, I defended myself. Show "battle"-like behavior. The editor has received sufficient feedback from uninvolved editors already, To do what? Withdraw the AfD? Not doing so is some kind of behavioral violation? What change of my behavior was supposed to be the result of this "feedback"? Maybe I don't understand what you're saying here. yet they continue to engage in the inappropriate behavior. Provide diffs. Moreover, the editor has not been improving the articles. They are merely engaging in talk and project space disputes. I've been trying to find time to look more closely at the Climate change denial article to show in some detail what it's faults are regarding POV treatment of the topics within it and bad sourcing. I've mentioned this at the AfD, and mentioned making edits to improve the article. [29] The problem with WP:DISRUPTION is that it causes Wikipedians, like me, to get moved away from addressing improvements to the encyclopedia and instead deal with distractions and misbehavior (by, say, ChrisO). Several editors on both the Keep and Delete sides of the AfD have agreed that there are problems with the article. The encyclopedia is benefited if either the article is deleted or if its problems are improved. Either way, my criticisms of it are what encyclopedia building is all about. Continuing to ignore the now acknowledged POV and other problems of the article -- which was done through much of its history, isn't a benefit to the encyclopedia. That there are editors here who want discussion shut down is a great cost to the encyclopedia. I hate to do this, but you brought up a lack of content work (even though nearly all of my comments at the AfD are about article content). I've actually been looking very actively at possible changes to the article, and to prove that, look at this one content issue that I've been examining, both to show the POVFORK nature of the article and, if it survives AfD, to improve it: [30] The second paragraph here is mostly about Dr. Frederick Seitz, and it goes on and on about his work doing research related to the tobacco industry. The idea that a whole section devoted to industry denialists associations with the tobacco industry is a WP:UNDUE issue related to POV. That a whole paragraph would relate to one man's research financed by an industry, none of which has to do with climate change, is a second UNDUE problem. The kicker is that the source is an opinionated magazine piece, raising WP:RS issues. But it gets worse: The original opinion piece at least had the decency to quote Seitz defending himself: ("We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent.") [31] It was a BLP issue to use an opinion-piece source to attack a living person on Wikipedia, particularly while omiting that BLP's defense of his own actions. The only reason why it hasn't remained a BLP violation is because Seitz died -- but up until that moment, the BLP violation remainded. This is important both for improving the article and/or for illustrating the WP:POVFORK nature of it: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Now, this is one passage among many. I expect, before the AfD is done, to post a summary list there of the sourcing and POV problems. One problem I have with contributing to the article right now is that the title "Climate change denial" seems to conflict with the current focus of the lead: "Other writers reserve the term for those they allege attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial or other sectional interests. This article uses this second more restrictive sense of the term." I note that no other editor on Wikipedia has addressed the problem with the particular passage I've cited. The AfD gives several examples of other areas of concern, some of which have led to article changes by other editors. To say that I haven't already had an effect on the content is false. To say that I never will is premature. If you want me to focus on the article, deal with editors like ChrisO who have focused on personalities and so that I won't be so distracted and can focus on content. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Questions for JeHochman and Franamax One further point: I saw none of these kinds of comments from JeHochman or Franamax when ChrisO's frivolous, nuisance complaint was made, and yet I've shown with evidence that ChrisO was violating behavioral policy. If my civil, on-topic discussion in the AfD, none of which is disruptive, is sanctionable, then what is the point of having a discussion on a divisive issue? If even OrenO, just above, is admitting that the article has serious problems (and I've identified many of them at the AfD, as you would expect in an AfD for WP:POVFORK reasons on a long article), that tends to indicate that a WP:POVFORK discussion is justified. If it's justified, it can't be WP:POINT (or we're simply engaged in censoring opinions here). Franamax, JeHochman -- please address these pionts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)added last comment to JeHochman -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC); added to comment about my editing the content -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC) To LessHeardVanU If there's a clear way you can show me that my complaint here is frivolous, I'm certainly willing to listen. It's hard to guess what is or isn't a complaint likely to succeed when I'm basing it on repeated behavior that the climate-change general sanctions page says is sanctionable. I wouldn't have filed this if there were only one or two examples, but ChrisO's violations just went on and on. I'm willing to abide by whatever rules everybody else is expected to abide by. I thought I was doing just that. No one has shown how ChrisO's actions don't violate WP:CIV, etc., or how that isn't a violation of the general sanctions. There's nothing vague at all in my accusations. You may say it's nit-picky even if they're all true, but it isn't a small matter to me, since I've had to spend time defending myself from behavior clearly against policy instead of address AfD/content issues. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC) More Statements I've always been on the side of not sparing the rod - I would suggest both JeHochman and LessHeardVanU's proposals to both be implemented. Ignignot (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC) ChrisO's list & JeHochman's comment In an AfD related to a hot political topic that gets a lot of participation, there will be these kinds of attacks on the nominator for nominating in bad faith. The response of the nominator should be to justify the AfD and show that it wasn't a bad-faith nomination in the only way possible to prove it: by showing actual policy problems with the article that are related to reasons for deletion. That was my response, and I've done exactly that. By doing that, I've shown the AfD was not disruptive. Unlike those other editors that ChrisO lists above, ChrisO kept on repeating his accusations, on page after page, well after it had been shown to him that the nomination was within policy and had good motivations. His actions, after a while, became disruptive. That was why this complaint was filed. As the top of the complaint makes clear. There is a reason why WP:DGFA#Rough consensus tells closing admins to discount some comments: They are often incredibly wrongheaded and against policy. If deletion policy itself recognizes the unreliable nature of AfD comments made briefly by editors whose depth of understanding of the subject is unknown, they shouldn't be relied on here, especially after I've proved otherwise. I guess this is the source of one of JeHochman's objections. If so, he's giving in to a mob mentality. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see anything retaliatory here. I saw the AfD on Climate change denial and certainly did not perceive it to be a WP:POINT. One would have to presume that JWB does not believe the article should be deleted, and I think that's extremely unlikely. Many editors have expressed doubts on the talk page of that article about whether it should exist. I also saw ChrisO's comment on the AfD accusing Barber of bad faith, and considered it an unsupported personal attack. But then a lot more editors did the same, so I guess that's how it goes. To close as no action is one thing (I would close as no action), but much of the rest of this strikes me as utterly failing to consider the possibility that an editor was acting in good faith, and was personally attacked, and thus does not believe that he should have been. I would say that is much more likely than some nefarious scheme to get ChrisO. Mackan79 (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, the reverse is more likely true. If you familiar with Barber's history, which Jehochman and I have both referred to, you would see that the "nefarious scheme" you describe is by far the more likely scenario. Barber has become quite adept at playing the game, and a retaliatory filing like this is simply standard operating procedure. If you look at this behavior in isolation, it doesn't seem like much of a big deal; however, when viewed in the context of past transgressions it is amazing how much this guy gets away with. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Barber did also vote to delete the "Climate change exaggeration" article, right? If he voted to delete that one and everyone agreed, and then nominated the denial article also, that would seem to me a strong position. The problem, usually, is when editors take and try to apply a decision they didn't like. Mackan79 (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Mackan, I appreciate your comments and thanks for taking the time, but you're wasting it: Jehochman simply isn't listening and isn't interested in listening. I've made all these points. But it goes further: He not only has no reason to consider the AfD nomination WP:POINTy, he already knows, for a fact, that POV problems have long been one of my animating concerns. Franamax, who also appears to be ignoring my comments, probably doesn't know this, but I discussed POV editing less than six months ago with Jehochman both on his talk page [32] and mine. [33] and at ANI [34] and at ArbCom [35], so the idea that I would have any other motivation than wanting to delete a WP:POVFORK-violating article is ridiculous. LHVU can confirm that I get very animated on the subject based on discussions I've had with him in the past. Jehochman knows this about me and ignores it. It's also obvious that ChrisO violated WP:CIVIL in various ways that I've laid out in detail. It's also obvious that WP:CIVIL is on the general sanctions page. There's no doubt about any of that. It's also obvious from this complaint and my response to his complaint that I was hurt by what ChrisO said in his repeated incivility. And it's obvious as hell that that's why I filed the complaint. An accusation that I was being "retaliatory" or "tit for tat" doesn't account for the obvious reason I filed the complaint -- I felt and feel I was wronged. All of this (except the links above about my longstanding concern about POV editing) is already staring everybody in the face. It's also obvious that Jehochman has no interest in anything less than a long block. It's also obvious that Jehochman and Franamax, neither of them, have detailed why they think I was being pointy or retaliatory. It's also obvious that a collaborative atmosphere is not encouraged this way -- the ostensible purpose of the sanctions, after all. I'm sick of this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning ChrisO This stronglt appears like a retaliatory filing. Gaming of this board must be discouraged. This request is therefore rejected, and I will leave it to the next admin to sanction or warn the filer as appropriate. Jehochman Brrr 07:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC) That was my feeling too on first look a while ago, though I'm still mulling. Is a CC topic ban of 2-4 weeks duration a reasonable sanction? Franamax (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC) The subsequent comments on this thread seal the deal. I was thinking one to three months. How about one month? Jehochman Brrr 12:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see where there is dispensation to topic ban someone from CC related editing for filing enforcement requests, even if an allegation of bad faith is upheld. There is, as I noted in the request brought by ChrisO against JohnWBarber, no determination that the AfD was made in an abuse of process - there are allegations, but no decision. Also, there is no pattern of similar disruption to the present request, and some of the most recent requests are pretty much of the same type - generalised complaints of one or more editors conducting themselves in a way that does not meet with the approval of other editors, and all split down a line that defines GW advocates and sceptic/denialists. If we are to sanction on the first instance of an alleged frivolous complaint here, then a few of the requests above (and archived) need reviewing. If it is felt that action needs to be taken to reduce the number of "unlikely to succeed" requests, then I suggest a strong warning to JWB specifically and all other editors generally that further instances of irresponsible requests may result in the filer being sanctioned. When adopting a new stance it is an imperative that notice is provided before topic bans or blocks are enacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC) The relevant policy is WP:POINT. This editor's name is on the log as having been notified that disruptive behavior in this area will not be tolerated. How is it that they haven't been notified? The filed a very pointy AfD, followed it up with an abuse of process, a tit-for-tat frivolous sanctions request, and continued to battle when challenged on this very thread. The frivolous request alone is not enough to sanction, but as a continuation of the pattern of abuse, it is. The editor has received sufficient feedback from uninvolved editors already, yet they continue to engage in the inappropriate behavior. Moreover, the editor has not been improving the articles. They are merely engaging in talk and project space disputes. The cost to Wikipedia of banning them is virtually zero, and the benefit is substantial. Prior account of the filing party: Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note the block log includes entries for disruptive and tendentious editing. In light of this accounts past history of bad behavior, culminating in a three week block for disruption, and a one week block for sock puppetry, I think we could justify a one month block for disruptive editing here, not a mere topic ban. I'd rather place a topic ban because the account seems to make a substantial number of non-controversial and productive edits in other fields. Jehochman Brrr 14:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I checked the CC probation log for JWB, and found only reference to this. I am familiar with JWB/Noroton's history, being a participant is some of it, but in these matters I do not tend to hold an editors past "difficulties" in other area's against them. I would comment that JWB's sanction record falls within specific area's of the encyclopedia and in others he is regarded as a useful contributor. In the area of CC editing he has only received the general notice of probation and has not been previously warned regarding his conduct - at least no logged warnings, and I saw only a passing note by WMC re 3RR on JWB's talkpage - and (AFAIK) the request regarding the AfD is the first time he has been brought to this page. Under the circumstances, and per practice as I have understood it, previous history either elsewhere or time expired such as blocks or desysoppings should not over influence our considerations upon requests on this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I thought filing tendentious enforcement requests (if demonstrated) gets you a ban on filing enforcement requests for a while, not an outright topic ban. I think a topic ban may be a bit much. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Please address my comment in full. You appear to have failed to read my analysis. Specifically, address the issue that the filing party created a pointy AFD immediately prior (a retaliatory one), and had an extensive block log including disruption and sock puppetry. I think those circumstances are aggravating factors that justify a sanction. There is clearly disruption going on here. This is not one frivolous request out of the blue, which would be excusable. No, it is not that situation. Jehochman Brrr 04:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I did read your analysis, I thought fairly thoroughly. I just didn't agree with your assessment of the level of disruption, although we are none of us perfect. On reflection I am going to recuse from further consideration of this matter (and the other one related to JWB), as JWB previously initiated an ArbCom case against me, so I think there is a possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I would make two points. Firstly, you may have been persuaded by the allegations that the AfD was pointy but that is not (yet) the consensus. You are then proceeding to a decision based on your own view of the pointyness of the preceding request. Perhaps you may wish to include the viewpoints of those who differ in their findings? Secondly, and this is a meme I find disturbing, it seems to have become accepted that the only way to "usefully contribute" to CC related articles is to edit to the status quo - that to attempt to incorporate viewpoints, sources, etc. that does not meet with the existing order (or editors) is perceived as disruptive. I disagree. It is the manner in which the articles are edited, regardless of viewpoint, that determines whether it is disruptive. That is how Wikipedia works - or should do, even if probations are required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Editing to different points of view is fine and should be encouraged. Engaging in endless talk page, noticeboard, and AFD disputes without ever adding anything to an article is problematic. Please show me a few diffs where this editor has attempted to make constructive edits to articles in this area. I have not seen any yet. All I see is battle. What do you think about the block log? Do you consider that the editor might be returning to former patterns of negative behavior? Jehochman Brrr 14:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I am closing this as we aren't going to get any more done here than the following: the filing user is on notice not to use this page for retaliation. Jehochman Talk 20:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) #14 by ATren (talk · contribs)

Result was WMC blocked 48 hrs.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley User requesting enforcement ATren (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [36] - PA; edit summary "clueless", directed at Mark Nutley. Text: "Face it, you really don't know what is going on here but are determined to push your POV anyway" [37] - incivility, directed at MN: "you should find an arera to edit that you understand" [38] - removal of MN's comment on enforcement page. MN was actually supporting WMC in a thread. Full text of removed comment: "Nor would i boris, i have asked Oiler to remove that post. My advice to Scjessey is to ignore this." (agreeing with Boris' condemnation of Oiler) Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) From the sanctions log page: "User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done. Exceptions are made for archiving discussions that have received no comments for at least one week, and for whole removal of comments from his own talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)" - violated in third diff (see my rationale below) "User:William M. Connolley warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, and to promptly refactor any unintentional typos." - violated in first diff ("clueless") Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I suggest a month-long topic ban for repeated refusal to adhere to this probation. Additional comments by editor filing complaint This is, what, the ninth request against WMC? I'm at least the 6th to raise a request (CoM, HiP, MN, AQFK, Cla68 have all filed before me - all editors in good standing). The three diffs I supplied are from today, so this is continuing behavior. @WMC: WMC has claimed below that the RFE page is not a talk page, therefore the sanction was not violated when he removed MN's comment there. But this RFE is a discussion venue, so WMC certainly violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the sanction. In addition, there was nothing whatsoever offensive or abusive in MN's comment, which was part of a larger thread involving 2 other editors. Such a comment removal would be suspect in any context, let alone on a probation enforcement page, let alone from an editor who has already been sanctioned for similar removals. ATren (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC) @WMC: what about the "clueless" diff? Perhaps you can claim a technicality on the the comment removal (dubious, IMO), but you still haven't said a word on calling another editor clueless. Do you concede that violation? ATren (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC) @Jehochman, do you have evidence of which member of this so called "viscous campaign by right wing bloggers" hijacked WMC's account and posted those offending diffs? We all put up with unfounded accusations (both on and off wiki), but that's no excuse to lash out at others. If editors can't be held responsible for their own actions, they shouldn't be editing. If an editor can't participate in a debate without insulting other editors, he should be banned. An example: my contribution history and motives have been repeatedly attacked on this page. The accusations are completely unsupported (and unsupportable). Does that make me a victim of a "vicious campaign", and by virtue of that, can I start calling people clueless and removing their comments? Where does it end? Do my "victims" then get a free pass, ad infinitum? It has to stop. Mark Nutley may not agree with WMC, he may even be wrong, but once WMC starts belittling him and hurling insults, it becomes WMC's problem regardless what disagreement started it. WMC must learn to be less disruptive even in the face of what he believes are hostile elements. It's his responsibility alone to control his behavior. ATren (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [39] Discussion concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley Statement by User:William M. Connolley I'm baffled by #3. But apparently retrospective re-interpretation of the rules forbids this, so I've restored it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC) As to 1, 2: there is a distressing lack of connection to reality about all this. No-one, it seems, cares that MN has got this completely wrong; that his timeline is simply incorrect; that he has been indulging in blatant OR and SYN. Face it, MN isn't listening to rational argument. But then again, neither are the admins here, sigh. So, lets go through it. MN wanted to say Pachauri defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035 based on [40]. Well, you can read that for yourself - it says no such thing. Moreover, it *can't* say any such thing, because of the timeline. 2009/11/09. RKP calls an Indian glacio report junk [41] At the start of December 2009. J. Graham Cogley notices that there is a problem with the 2035 date in AR4 WG II Criticism of the IPCC AR4#Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers. So there you are. MN is well aware of the Dec '09 date, as he has spent plenty of time edit warring over that bit. Which is why I suggested he was clueless. Because he didn't even know the dates of events he himself has been edit warring over. MN is *still* refusing to learn, and obsinacy at this level really is clueless: as his latest "evidence" says itself [42] Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”. The Indian "voodoo" report has *nothing at all* to do with the 2035 claim; MN is so blinded by his POV that he is unable to recognise this William M. Connolley (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Statement by ZP5 This diff history showing a disruptive pattern is here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC) WMC Request for Enforcement History showing disruptive and egregious behavior. This must demonstrate a pattern of disruptive and egregious behavior in the Enforcement Project for WMC. Request concerning William M. Connolley [43] William M. Connolley [44] William M. Connolley: on refactoring comments and civility [45] William M. Connolley [46] William M. Connolley [47] TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC [48] More incivility from William [49] William M. Connolley [50] William M. Connolley [51] William M. Connolley [52] William M. Connolley [53] Tentative disruptive request [54] @Admins, In the past before the probation, I examined a 20 day diff history sample of WMC's "no", "not" language with other negative comments about others contribution. The result was 34 findings, which average to 1.7 negative comments per day. So with regards to a 90/10 ratio, the projected results imply a greater impact than "snarks". The editor is a highly significant negator of others contributions (including snarks as an "I No" editor). Do this imply that "know" means "no" ... well the reference to the sources should decided. My faith in others says "no" and "know" are different. My opinion is that excessive negation creates a overheated environment rolling over to this RFE. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Clearly, there are other ways of interpreting this data. A viewpoint exists that the articles are generally reasonably high quality and fairly NPOV, but that a number of not very well informed POV editors are seeking to shift the arrticles away from NPOV by inclusion of less well sourced material with UNDUE weight. In the context of such a vewipoint diligent refusal of proposed content might well be a sign of a knowledgable and well intentioned editor who has been driven to the occasion curt remark by the continuation of this. As to which viewpoint is correct, I think the edit histories speak for themselves to people who take trouble to do some research. --BozMo talk 08:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I suggest interpreting as if negation is occurring, then it should be extra civil and self-aware of its impact, so as to avoid a creating negative environment. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley This idea of ATren (talk · contribs) [55] was much more reasonable than the current request. This is needless escalation. That ATren is trying to precipitate a month long topic-ban is not particularly surprising. Mathsci (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC) "That ATren is trying to precipitate a month long topic-ban is not particularly surprising." - I am unclear on your meaning here. Could you please clarify what you mean by this statement? Specifically, why do you feel it is not particularly surprising? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I had specifically requested that MathSci explain his comment above to make his meaning plain. It was a simple and polite request. This was his response. I can only assume that if his meaning was constructive that he would have been more than willing to come and make it more clear here. His bald dismissal of my request suggests, IMHO of course, the opposite. If I am wrong on that point I welcome MathSci to come and correct the record. --GoRight (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC) It was lucky that I was asleep so that I could ignore what appears to have been WP:BAITing and your own extraordinarily rude interpretation of my sleeping. Your message in a headline on my talk page, with its split infinitive, did not seem "simple and polite". Are you contesting my right to remove that message or are you claiming that my edit summary contravened certain wikipedia rules? At present you seem to be repeating the disruptive behaviour which resulted in an indefinite block before, lifted subject to assurances from you. Have you ever thought of trying to improve your article edit count, GoRight? That would be more helpful for this encyclopedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I have provided a reference to my request above for others to conveniently judge for themselves. If my request offended you in some way, I apologize. I choose to ignore this most current attack but if you (MathSci) would take this opportunity to clarify your meaning it would be most helpful in clearing this matter up. If my analysis above is incorrect I will gladly retract it once you have clarified your actual meaning. I don't believe that simply asking for clarification on what you meant by "not particularly surprising" is uncivil or baiting or even assuming bad faith. I would simply like to understand what you had in mind when you wrote that statement specifically so that I DON'T make any assumptions either way. Clear communications is important to avoiding misunderstandings and unwarranted animus, and reducing either of these should help to improve the editing environment here which is, of course, my goal. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Comment I did in fact ask WMC to self revert after he removed my comment, as he obviously did not then i believe he has in fact broken his parole mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Comment Given the fact that WMC has a long history of misconduct dating back at least five years.[56], a one month topic ban seems too lenient to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I vote we chain him to a fence and throw rotten cabbages at him. That's no less an absurd suggestion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Again, might I suggest a remedy here? I propose topic bans of increasing duration. If LHVU wants to start out at 72 hours or whatever, that's fine. I suggest, however, that the lengths of any future bans for this editor, if they occur, increase drastically in duration, from 3 days to one week, followed by one month, followed by two months, and so on until the behavior in question has been corrected. Obviously, the behavior is in need of correction. Note the vindictive motion by WMC in response below for an indication of his desire to self-correct. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Comment from clueless over here, WMC is once again wrong, please note the following Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen, and was asked about it in november He already knew the 2035 date was rubbish but stuck with it. mark nutley (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Sigh, you are playing word games WMC, Again please note the following, Ramesh recalled how IPCC chief R K Pachauri had scornfully dismissed doubts raised by a government agency about the veracity of the UN body's sensational projection about melting of glaciers. "In fact, we had issued a report by scientist V K Raina that the glaciers have not retreated abnormally. At the time, we were dismissed, saying it was based on voodoo science. But the new report has clearly vindicated our position I want a personal apology from the IPCC chairperson R.K. Pachauri who had described my research as voodoo science,” Mr. Raina told The Hindu over phone from Panchkula. “Forget IPCC, Dr. Pachauri has not even expressed regret over what he said after my report -- Himalayan Glaciers: a state-of-art review of glacial studies, glacial retreat and climate change -- was released in November last year So he knew in november the ipcc had cocked up, and still he called this guys work voodoo science, were exactly is this wrong in your eyes? mark nutley (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC) @Jehochman, how do you manage to post a paragraph in a remedy section about WMC, and only mention the diffs provided of his behavior as "a mountain out of a molehill". You consistently fail to apply the probation as it exists, which has served only to enable this to continue. After your previous GBCW [57] to this page, I doubt your impartiality. If you have complaints about other editors on those pages, open a request like everyone else. Arkon (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC) @SS ... Your question's premise is based upon the assumption that WMC owns (as sole editor) Wikipedia's POV and content, which is the primary issue here causing a disruption. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC) (moving from section below, per notice at head of section)Wikipedia functions very well outside of the Utopian ideal and always did on climate change. Unfortunately these sanctions have been given support without any real advertisement of the debate (so are certainly not consensus) and with a few misguided editors thinking they were a good thing and no proper general debate. This is such a different area from the other areas where similar sanctions have been imposed. Oh well! Let's all be "bend over backwards" civil to the talkpage POV warriors who time and time again don't even bother to read previous posts and bring up argument after argument. I even think WMC thought the sanctions might be a good idea which makes me seriously wonder about issues of judgement. Polargeo (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I am certainly minded to add "clueless" and similar to the banned expressions list for WMC, including in edit summaries. It is hard to see how this can lead to constructive dialogue. As for what's a talk page etc someone involved in the last lot is going have to answer that. And is it time for a "come off it and behave like and ordinary mortal" type action... hmm. Probably not from this diff list. --BozMo talk 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I feel we cannot allow the refactoring of another editors talkpage comments to pass unsanctioned, since it was not under one of the exceptions noted in WMC's restriction - and the argument that Enforcement pages do not fall under the ambit of the probation is simple Wikilawyering; personal attacks, and the like, would not be permitted either. However, I am not minded to remove WMC from editing for any extended period because I believe that such silencing of one of the major contributors would become (more) of the intended purpose of requests on the page than trying to return to a collegiate editing environment. My suggestion would be, following the 24 hour sanction previously, of a tariff of not less than 48 hours and not more than 96. It must be made clear to WMC and all those who are not willing to work within the terms of the probation toward a good working environment that they are the architects of their own sanctions - and thus they should be incremental but not punitive. There needs to be the probability of a return to editing within the near future. Frankly, 1 month blocks would be counter productive since some accounts may decide that they will attempt to destroy what little co-operation currently exists if they cannot be part of the editing team. Everyone should be, and is, welcome to edit here in good faith. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Calling a person clueless makes an assessment of their mental state and should not be done, especially in edit summaries which cannot be retracted. Describing on-wiki behaviour as lacking in WP:CLUE is different, but if you are involved in the dispute you shouldn't need to do it anyway, other editors who do have clue will be able to spot clueless behaviour without you having to put it on a banner for them. The usage in this case seems to be aimed at the person, so yeah, add "clueless" and whatever variants to the no-type list. Suggesting that an editor find a different topic area where they are more knowledgable can be OK at times, but needs to be done with care. For one thing, it's like saying you're the toughest guy in the bar - you never know who will come in the door next. For another, a currently banned editor made a habit of telling other people they didn't know enough to edit "his" areas and this became part of the evidence. In this case, the suggestion seems not unreasonable. MN always has the option to acquire the requisite knowledge. Removing someone else's post from a discussion page, whatever the prefix, when you are in a dispute should not be done unless it's something egregious. Uninvolved observers are perfectly capable of evaluating and if necessary removing posts. Since WMC is currently under a restriction on removing posts at all, let's just clarify that it applies to all discussion-style pages (generally anywhere where you end your post with tildes) and move on. Does that about cover it? Franamax (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Does that about cover it>> I think so. I think maximum clarity is lowest stress for us and whether what LHVU says was deliberate wikilawyer was in fact congenital pedantry is perhaps a benefit of doubt thing --BozMo talk 21:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, could you run that last bit past me again? :~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC) I think it means that if there's a choice between deliberate rules-lawyering on whether the page starts with Talk: or not, or confusion on exactly what the sanction meant, then we go with confusion and make things more clear. Some words may have got lost in the inter-tubes there, or actually just the "ing" is missing from "wikilawyer". As a congenital pedant myself, I always like to get the benefit of the doubt. ;) Franamax (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC) If folk are saying, "Let's make things clear" then I agree. If folk are saying, "Let's make things clear only" then I demur. WMC removed a comment by someone they are in dispute with, generally, over CC - and they are under notice that they may not do so. Comment removal, and the chosen adjectives, appear to violate the restriction placed upon WMC the last time he indulged in such practices. Let us make things clear, and enact a sanction under the restrictions noted for the reasons given. 48 hours only, since there might have been some confusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC) To the extent that WMC is relying on the "but I'm right" defence, which everyone knows is not wikpedish at all even if you are right, and also know is not well-expressed with "you're an idiot"-style edit summaries, I'm forced to agree with you. The regime also seems to be designed with escalating sanctions in mind. I would easily accept a 24-hours-plus-one-minute or 31 on this, though I quail at a double-up given the ambiguities involved. Franamax (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Mostly I agree with you, (your summary, above, was very helpful and spot on) but if the last block was 24 hours, I think 24 hours plus 1 minute, or even 31, sends the wrong message. Either it is sanctionable, or it isn't, and if it is, escalation is appropriate, because there have been a fair number of warnings. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) How would you feel about an RFC/U instead? Rather than nipping at the edges of a problem, why not deal with it completely? Jehochman Brrr 04:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I don't think they work. I've seen a fair number that blunder on for a month or so, during which much heat is generated, and at the end the user blithely ignores the findings (the fact that some dissenting views are generated appears to enable them to ignore the larger consensus that they have a problem that needs addressing) and continues with the disruptive pattern of behavior. For example, this one. I suspect that an RfC/U on WMC would be worse. We have an enforcement regime here and I think it is actually doing some good. Slowly, but it is. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The account filing this request does not appear to have engaged in any worthwhile article building in the area. Their contributions appear to be more properly characterized as disruptive. The request itself is overblown--making a mountain out of a molehill. Therefore, I oppose any sanction, as this would encourage further rules lawyering, and baiting. WMC's contributions in the area, while not perfect have been substantial and serious. Wikipedia:Content matters. Please discuss rather than imposing a sanction that is not supported by a consensus. Jehochman Brrr 02:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't that comprise a separate request then? (Like the one just below?) This system seems designed to consider individuals and individual articles, one-by-one, to get the mess sorted. WMC is a big boy, he can withstand a sanction or two in the process of getting his stuff together to the point where he's not crossing lines in dealing with what he deals with. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Franamax (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The one below is being rejected. It does not make sense to sanction the one expert who knows the most about the subject while giving a variety of tendentious accounts a free pass, and encouraging them to further their attacks against WMC. He's the target of a viscous campaign by right wing bloggers. We should not condone that. A warning should suffice here, then we need to turn to the primary sources of disruption and drop the hammer. Jehochman Brrr 03:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The lone expert is smart enough to be capable of cleaning up his act. Given that, targeting the gunsights becomes much easier. Consider that it takes some serious skiing to even get to where you can aim the rifle. (Sorry for the biathlon analogy, I could see one of the venues from my front door - what I mean is that it takes a whole lot of reading to get a handle on all this. :) No-one gets a free pass, this is just the first request where I chose to weigh in. My assessment was a warning result too, but if LHvU sees need for a sanction, I'll defer as noted above. One miscreant at a time. I've observed the serial provocation and I'm not unaware of the possibility of off-site exhortations, though when you say it's "viscous" I do have to ask what the Reynolds number is. :) Franamax (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Clarify that the little riff on "viscous" was much more a comment on my own obession with detail and interest in opportunities for wry, dark, or downright sick humour than it was with Jehochman's single typo/grammo. Franamax (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Okay, I really WP:DGAF. You guys do what you must. I personally dislike using short blocks on established contributors. People should be treated as adults. An RFC would be more likely to change WMC's behavior for the better. A short block is unlikely to do much except stir up drama. As I said, do what you must. Jehochman Brrr 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Franamax: Yes. WMC needs to tone down the abrasiveness. I know he can do it if he wants to. So far I don't think he's been motivated enough to want to. Jehochman: Escalating blocks will eventually get through. Or they will be escalated to the point that the disruption will cease. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The best way to get out of a death spiral is not to go into one. Escalating blocks often lead to a self-reinforcing trend that is bad for Wikipedia. Jehochman Brrr 14:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Usually. but sometimes it's best for the project and the editor that there is a parting of the ways if the editor cannot edit within our norms. What else do you suggest, given that there seems to be a persistent problem here? Please make a concrete and implementable suggestion for improvement of WMC's behavior. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I have enacted a 48 hour block on WMC's account, with regard to this request, per the above discussion. As ever, I welcome review and I will not oppose any admins good faith variance or lifting of the sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Personally I do not see the above discussion supporting this action. As far as I can see B, F & J were against the sanction and L and L in favour of it. Could someone recount for me? --BozMo talk 15:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see Franamax as opposed to a block entirely, my read was that Franamax was advocating 24h+1min or 31h rather than 48. That shifts things. Also, you didn't opine clearly, so I don't think I knew where you stood until just now. But I'll reiterate, I think we should propose the sanction and seek consensus, not just implement it first. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Agreed that next time LHvU please seek consensus if we are going to bother having discussion, including amongst people who may be in bed at different times of day to you. I think there was not very good listening between uninvolved admins on this one, and am concerned per J that all we have done is made a major move toward worsening things. On F, like J and I, I read F as saying "am prepared to defer to consensus"> but it gets a bit odd if three people prepared to "defer" to consensus have consensus declared against them by a smaller number. Not that I could not have been talked around but there are certainly other things to fix at the same time. Also we did not even get to topic ban versus editing ban. I am not proud of our performance here.--BozMo talk 19:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Well, I obviously was under the impression that we were discussing whether WMC had violated his restriction regarding refactoring other peoples comments and also his use of intemperate discriptions of others and their agenda's. I read that there was consensus that he had. On that basis I moved to enact the agreed sanctions, those that were detailed in those restrictions, after first requesting what sort of time scale we should impose. Having read the discussion I went to 48 hours since it seemed a sufficient increase upon the previous block, not as short as the last block + 1 hour suggested, and not the 96 which I had suggested as the upper end (I considered all the "requests" for 1 week/1 month to be punative, and did not factor them in my considerations). If anyone did have reservations about the potential block, I wish that they had clarified that and the basis of the reservations. As I said previously, I am not wedded to my sanctions and will not "refuse" a variation or lifting of the block - but I would be concerned how we are supposed to police these articles if we impose restrictions which we then apply to some editors and not others, sometimes, depending on the prevailing opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I share your concern. I just think we may possibly need to get crisper on "I propose this enforcement action" "I concur" "I disagree because" kind of phrasing so we can avoid this sort of confusion going forward. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Without imposing yet another layer of bullrocracy (my invention, please note when using in future) on these processes, the case of Mark nutley was closed with a proposed wording not enacted because there were too few responses to indicate consensus. We - me included - do need to sharpen up our act to be both transparent and clear in our opinions. And prompt. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I am certainly not minded to lift the block (although I would if enough people turned up and said so). In this particular case I think that we are in danger both of making ourselves look foolish and of escalating things. There is also a general problem of trolling on these articles lately: WMC has rightly pointed out the presence of a number of editors who have never made an original contribution to a single article in the topic except perhaps a revert, who are filling up talk pages with low quality comment. If we are to avoid looking stupid we need to show we are capable of addressing that issue rather than shooting the messenger when this is (undoubtedly uncivilly) pointed out. In general though my view on violations is that we should be probably more decisive and live with the knowledge we will make bad calls. If we are trying to work with consensus here though we should, as Lar said, be explicit. In this case LHvU you were not making a consensus block based on the discussion here, you were forming your own judgement and acting on it. I can live with that (especially for dismissing frivolous complaints which I personally think should be single uninvolved admin with one seconder). I can also live with the idea that no one admin should be involved in every decision here, and I don't like reopening things. But I have a problem with agreeing one process and living by another. --BozMo talk 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Is anybody here thinking that all the editors that filed enforcement requests against WMC, individually or collectively, can write a better article on global warming than WMC? If not there is a systemic failure in this probation if it leads to a result that sanctions productive expert editors of favor of less productive and less expert editors. If yes, I'd like to see any evidence... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Anything but stunned silence here? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Sometimes it's best to leave rhetorical questions unanswered. I think we already know your answer at any rate. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that someone or another opined as follows: while the "Science Team" (or WMC alone, as you specify) might do a better job (in terms of sourcing and clarity of writing, at least) on the areas that are purely scientific, it is just possible that the entire panoply of participating editors would do far better at fairly and harmoniously including all points of view, to the appropriate relative weights, in those parts of this topic that are not purely scientific ... what exactly would that accomplish in the context of this particular discussion? Nothing. So perhaps no one has articulated that view even if they themselves believed it. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Yep, given what else people seem prepared to believe, that there are those glibly believing what Lar put as a strawman is not impossible, but it is never going to convince someone who considers carefully what it might involve. Sure WMC knows his stuff and provides a good basis for almost every argument he gets into (and wins most of them). But to the point on system failure, WMC is his own worst enemy. A clone of WMC who didn't rub other people's noses in it (and there are a few others) would never have run foul of these sanctions. But given the time the community is prepared to spend on people who are 90% troll 10% contributor and probably only half way through puberty it is strange we cannot engage more productively with someone who is 90% contributer 10% snark and has a serious knowledge base. --BozMo talk 14:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I want to comment here very breifly, just as a concerned editor, and only to say that I applaud your efforts in this area. "Civility" has to be more than an empty word. Wikipedia is truly meant to function with an atmosphere of collegiality, courtesy, and respect, both in tone and in conduct. only then can we truly get the mixture of views and ideas which is one great strength here. thanks! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I'm going to second that. BozMo, I think in general you've been trying very hard to be even handed here and you're doing a good job. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) This has been up for a week since the executive action, closing now. Franamax (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

JohnWBarber

JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) by ChrisO (talk · contribs)

All editors warned that the tolerance for WP:BATTLE and general gaming of enforcement requests is approaching zero.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) User requesting enforcement ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested JohnWBarber (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 [58] On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration , denounces Climate change denial as an "AGW-related op ed piece masquarading as an encyclopedia article... it would have been a wise move to put that one up for deletion at the same time to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other. It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold." [59] Nomination of Climate change denial with comment "A screen shot of this article should be used to illustrate Wikipedia policy on POV forks." Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [60] Notification of article probation by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Prohibition from any filing any further deletion nominations or participating in deletion discussions of articles in the climate change topic area. Additional comments by editor filing complaint As many have observed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination), this is a bad faith nomination explicitly meant to prove a point - namely that it would produce an "exercise in hypocrisy", to quote JohnWBarber. The article has already been through three AfDs which have produced substantial majorities in favour of keeping the article. JohnWBarber is clearly aware of this. He has offered only a minimal justification for deletion and no new arguments, so he clearly does not expect the nomination to succeed (and indeed it is failing overwhelmingly). This is a classic example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point - he has deliberately started an unneeded controversy which has so far sucked in 19 editors and counting, for no better reason than an apparent desire to score points. This topic area has more than enough unneeded drama and tension; self-indulgent posturing and point-scoring of this kind should be discouraged, as should abuses of AfD. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. Discussion concerning JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) Statement by JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) I'll have more to say later, when I have time. But I can address this immediately: He has offered only a minimal justification for deletion and no new arguments, An editor with a collaborative attitude, instead of a WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude, would take these two edits, to give just two examples, as airtight proof to the contrary. [61] [62] ChrisO can read English. Perhaps he can find where these two arguments, based on facts, reasoning, policy and common sense, have been brought up before. I'd like to see the diffs. so he clearly does not expect the nomination to succeed (and indeed it is failing overwhelmingly). Not only can ChrisO read English, but I strongly suspect he can tell time. It hasn't been even a day since the AfD started, they normally run a full week, and the vast majority of editors in the continental U.S. would either have been asleep or at work for all this time. The other AfD ran for seven days and received quite a few votes on either side. Why would I expect this one to fail? For these reasons, ChrisO's complaint strongly appears to lack good faith. I think filing frivolous, nuisance complaints here is or should be something admins should deal with. If I need to file my own complaint against ChrisO in order to have that (and his other conduct) examined, I'm prepared to do that. I'm also prepared to cite chapter and verse from WP:CIVIL on a multitude of comments by editors on that page directed at me personally (in ChrisO's case, specifically ill-considered accusations of impropriety [this complaint] and lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information [see #1, above]). Has ChrisO engaged in this conduct before? Shouldn't editors be told to avoid harassing other editors with frivolous complaints? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Well, looks like I've got a moment now to address some more of this. In the two diffs ChrisO cites, I don't understand what part of the general sanctions I'm supposed to have violated. Would ChrisO please point that out to me? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Franamax, thanks for taking the time to look at this. This is a curious statement: further behaviour which links the two disparate issues ("we must have one of: both denial and exaggeration articles; or none at all") - sanctionable. It's my opinion that editors who can't offer a good explanation for wanting one article and not the other are acting hypocritically. I thought it was adequately on-topic and useful to mention once in each AfD page. To continue an off-topic discussion on an AfD page, or any page with a hot controversy, could be potentially disruptive, if only because distracting (or perhaps if it riled up people unnecessarily). If that's what you meant, I have no problem with it. As I recently said on the newer AfD page, it might be worthwhile asking an individual editor why he or she voted one way on one page and another way on the other -- because the explanation could be very useful to the closing admin. I'm not sure I want to get into that now (I've made the AfD longer than I expected), but if I did, it would be very much on-topic, it wouldn't be disruptive, and there is no policy I know of for an admin to enforce. I appreciate the time all the admins have taken to look into this, whether or not I end up disagreeing about it (or worse). SPhilbrick, I think there's precedent for including AfDs in sanctions involving individual editors, so I don't see much difference with a general sanctions regime which the community imposed -- it's supposed to include pages related to the subject. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC) ChrisO's comments are worth thinking about (emphasis added): Specifically disruptive editing. I'm not assuming anything; the intent is very clear. In the first diff, JWB talks about nominating Climate change denial for deletion "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other". He talks about what he thinks that would show: "It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold." Then he nominates the article for deletion to prove his point that "editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other". His lack of serious intent is clearly visible in his very brief deletion rationale, which is basically the same as the failed rationales of the previous three AfDs. Yes, he advanced further arguments later in the discussion, but only after people had pointed out the WP:POINTyness of his actions. ChrisO sounds disappointed that I didn't live down to his initial expectations. If, as he thinks, I at one point had bad motivations, I should be punished for that. The idea that disliking hypocrisy is "unserious" is bizarre. Chris really should think more about hypocrisy, as I show below. The problem with all of this is that AfD is an inherently disruptive tool and should only be used with caution, especially where it concerns contentious articles. If AfD is "an inherently disruptive tool", it sounds like Wikipedia has a big problem on its hands, because we have AfDs all the time, at the drop of a pin. Does Chris think he and his ilk own the article and others can't mess with it? What else could his comment mean? It isn't as if Chris has some overly scrupulous attitude toward sharp debate: [63] [64] The idea that AfD "should only be used with caution", especially a contentious one, must be imported from some alternate universe, because nowhere is there any such advice to be found anywhere on Wikipedia. Nor is it common sense. In fact, in a collaborative environment, we're free to run ideas up the flagpole. Chris strains to find bad faith in my motivations, perhaps because he thinks my first comment about hypocrisy was directed at him and his POV allies. Of course, my statement was directed at POV pushers of any side and very broadly (hypocrisy is the other side of the same coin that POV pushing is on -- you can't POV push without being a hypocrite). No one was named, bad behavior was the target, and it was prospective, not pointing fingers at past actions. It was meant to get real POV pushers to stop in their tracks and think about what they're doing to themselves and to the encyclopedia -- something useful for this project. It should never be used to prove a point. Nominating an article "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other" is categorically point-scoring. Using AfD this way is an abuse, and does nothing to lower the temperature on CC-related articles. Given the tone of ChrisO's comments and the nature of his actions, ChrisO is not the most credible person to be worshipping at the temple of lower article temperatures. When I looked at the article's history, I found it had been a good long while before the last AfD. I also had a serious rationale for the AfD that I put in my opening statement. If there's any good reason to have an AfD, then it can't be sanctionable as a WP:POINT action. If admins had to figure out motivations for people who put up AfDs, how could they possibly weigh good and bad motivations together? If there's any good motivation, and it's obvious, the admin needs to assume good faith. Otherwise editors would be blocked for good-faith nominations because admins aren't mind readers. I had a perfectly acceptable good-faith reason for that AfD from the start, which I stated clearly at the top of the AfD. I would not have started it if I didn't. It should never be used to prove a point. No action on Wikipedia should be done only to prove a point or even primarily to prove a point. That my serious rationale was later demonstrated even more clearly a little later in the AfD discussion should have been a reason for ChrisO to be satisfied -- that ChrisO filed the complaint anyway shows bad motivations. ChrisO's eagerness to jump in my head to rummage around for a bad motivation is matched only by his ham-handedness in doing so. His eagerness to shut down debate and villify someone he disagrees with is inimical to Wikipedia, which depends on a collaborative atmosphere. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I'd forgotten about this complaint while concentrating on the one below, which Jehochman turned into a discussion about me. No one has a single reason for thinking I filed a WP:POINTy nomination, other than the comment on the other AfD, because (a) my comment at the prior AfD did not prove that that was the sole or major reason for filing the AfD; nor was it even inconsistent with the proper reason for the AfD -- concern about a WP:POVFORK violation; it isn't as if I can't have believed it was a FORK vio and also made that comment; (b) I gave the reason for the AfD in the first line of the AfD. That the reason is an acceptable, non-disruptive reason for an AfD is obvious on its face, whether or not you agree with it, and it gained support in the AfD itself; (c) I spent hours going over the reasons for the AfD, doing research, quoting specific parts of policies and reasoning -- it would be a bit much for a WP:POINTy act; (d) I have always been very concerned about POV in articles, something which LHVU knows first-hand from an argument I had with him on another website some time ago; (e) Jehochman himself knows for a fact how concerned I have been with POV problems I discussed POV editing less than six months ago with Jehochman both on his talk page [65] and mine. [66] and at ANI [67] and at ArbCom [68]. It is hard to understand how all of that can be disregarded, and if it is all going to be discounted, there needs to be a reason why. I have asked Jehochman and Franamax to explain their reasons for discounting all this. The impression I'm getting is that they have no reason that they can point to other than that they want to believe it. That's an assumption of bad faith. Other editors have raised some of the same points, and their comments have also been ignored. Now I see Jehochman is bringing up points he made in the discussion on my complaint against ChrisO, so it's as if that discussion hasn't really closed. I was about to post much of the following there before that discussion was closed, posted as the close took place, and so I'll repost part of it here, as it applies here: Jehochman wants to block me because I haven't edited mainspace articles enough on this subject. Please reread that last sentence. Even if that were a valid reason, an AfD discussion is a mainspace content matter just as surely as -- in fact, more surely than -- an edit deleting material in an article. I guess Jehochman assumes that this was somehow WP:POINTy because I don't seem to have had any interest in AGW-related articles. That's false. I have linked in the other discussion (in my response to Scjessey) to one of the talk page discussions I engaged in at the CRU hacking article talk page, a time when I was involved there. I'd made some other edits to that article, both in article space and on the talk page. Before the point was brought up here, I'd said in the AfD that I wanted to edit the Climate change denial article. Discussions like this one keep me from having the time or energy to do that, as I've stated before. I don't think, based simply on the research I showed I'd done in the current AfD, that Jehochman can claim I somehow have no interest in the subject or interest in an NPOV treatment of the subject, since I've evidently spent many hours on it and cited various sources on it. I've been reluctant to edit the articles themselves because I prefer discussion first. I view that as more productive than the inevitable edits and reverts. Quite frankly, if I had to do this over again, I would not have made the comment over at the "Climate change exaggeration" AfD that raised so many hackles. The comment wasn't personal or even specific to one side or even more off-topic than many of the other comments on that page, nor was it even disruptive, but it was simply more distracting than I realized at the time (I made it before I decided to nominate the other AfD). It was meant to provoke thought and do it in a light, humorous way, but instead it provoked anger from a group of people who are more sensitive than I realized (I'm assuming good faith of people who refuse to extend it to me). No one has objected to it on those grounds (the only objection is that I supposedly started the AfD because of it on WP:POINT grounds), but I now see it as counterproductive, in the same way as the comments of some other people on that page and this one. If there is any concern of Jehochman's and Franamax's or anyone else's that I haven't taken pains to address, why not just bring it up with me? You've already kept me from further analyzing and bringing up evidence about the awful Climate change denial article, but if there's anything else, bring it up. There's nothing inherently disruptive or WP:BATTLE-like in participating in and opening AfDs. It is part of what we are supposed to do here, and long discussions are inevitable on controversial topics. The complaint against ChrisO was made in good faith after looking at the general sanctions page and identifying conduct that that page says is particularly wrong on climate-change related articles. A frivolous, nuisance complaint is one that has no basis in fact. My complaint obviously did have basis in fact, and no one disputed that. If there is some other reason why that complaint should not have been filed, it isn't pointed out at any general-sanctions page (not that I've seen), and I had no way of knowing it was wrong to do so. There is no reason to block me for that. If the complaint is "retaliatory" simply because it was filed after ChrisO filed his, then filing a complaint first would immunize an editor from complaints. If it is so obvious that I shouldn't have filed that complaint, why has there been no explanation of that from any of the admins here? I have seen nothing but assertions. Jehochman talks about WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior, but when admin comes here and starts demanding blocks and making statements that could easily have been cleared up by asking me questions, and when admins don't respond to questions meant to better help me understand their reasoning, that's also contrary to a collaborative atmosphere. On the one hand, Jehochman complains that I just don't understand what I've done wrong (follow up comments by the subject that lack any sort of introspective qualities). On the other, he won't answer my questions and doesn't ask me any. If I don't understand why he's making certain statements and I'm asking him questions about that but not getting responses, how am I lacking "introspective qualities"? Who is it that's being uncooperative here? Jehochman, if you want me to understand your critique of my behavior, you're going to have to go beyond vague charges and actually explain where my behavior diverges from the explanations I've given for it. I think I've shown I'm very open to reasonable explanations and I'm willing to reconsider, but you haven't reacted to what I've said with enough discussion to help me understand you better. WP:BATTLE states, Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Have Franamax and Jehochman approached me in a "spirit of cooperation"? Have they "engage[d] [me] in polite discussion"? Why wouldn't that apply in this situation? I'm certainly trying to engage in polite discussion. The general sanctions page states, the editor in question [...], where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Discussion is the first step in that. Discussion implies interaction -- actually addressing the points I make and me listening and addressing your points. So far, it's been a one-way street. Any of my statements here do not preclude my changing my mind if you can show me where I'm wrong. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Franamax states, I don't see how responding to one AFD nom by nominating another article can be anything other than a POINT violation. See above and please respond to it. This looks like an assumption of bad faith, and an inadequate reason to impose a sanction. Apparently JWB doesn't even edit in the area. You're relying on Jehochman's unresearched comment for that. As I note above, my response to Scjessey in the ChrisO discussion thread points to the period when I was editing the CRU hacking article. This gives me the impression that you're simply ignoring my comments. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC) JWB I am carefully reading your comments (and those of others). If I choose to address any of them directly here on this page, it will be because they satisfy all of being: addressed to an issue which I believe has substance; framed in a way where I can respond without getting into a forest of debate; and in a spot where I think my comment could be useful. I'm not going to decorate the Result section with responses to your specific requests and I don't want to edit up here too much, I suppose you will have to trust that I've read and considered them all. Franamax (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Franamax, you have never yet stated a reason why my statement at the first AfD should be considered proof positive that the second AfD was a WP:POINT action. Given how certain you are, it shouldn't be that difficult to explain. In fact, no one anywhere has explained why. The closer of the AfD, even if that person says it was WP:POINTy, would not be able to prove it. It doesn't take a "forest of debate" to state your reason. When you say "framed in a way where I can respond without getting into a forest of debate" it sounds like you don't want any discussion with me at all. "I suppose you will have to trust that I've read and considered them all". But I've just made the point that you're making statements that indicate you haven't. For examples of my editing in the topic, look at Nov 24-25 here [69], Nov 27 here [70] and here [71] So you should be satisfied that I have been editing in the area. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC) If the research posted here and [[|User:JohnWBarber/Climate change denial|here]] is a WP:POINT violation, then anything is a WP:POINT violation. If filing a complaint which accurately cites behavioral violations and accurately conforms to the Probation description here is "retaliatory", then no one can complain about someone who complained about them, because no further reasons have been given for saying it's "retaliatory". If admins assumptions of bad faith are causes for sanctions -- and we have nothing else to go on here -- then the whim of administrators is all that matters here. I'd like to think this isn't the case. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Franamax, if I recall correctly, the total objections to my behavior are (1) the comment at the first AfD followed by filing the second one; (2) filing a complaint against ChrisO after he filed one against me. With your latest comment you continue to refuse to state why you believe the AfD was a WP:POINT violation. You refuse to state why filing a complaint about behavior that clearly violated the general sanctions had no merit. Simply stating your conclusion is inadequate. Especially after I asked for it. It's not just me you're not responding to, it's everybody who's stated they disagree. You've also left me with absolutely no guidance about when filing a complaint here is proper or improper. Am I prohibited from filing a complaint against anyone who filed a complaint against me? Or was there something else about the complaint against ChrisO that was wrong? I've asked you fair questions, repeatedly, and received no answers. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC) @Franamax (17:07, 12 March) -- A "warning" sounds light, but combined with the lack of any justification whatever between the edits you object to and the policies you point to, it means I can't know what it is that I'm doing wrong. If I'm particularly to be singled out for any WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior, without any justification for it, you (and Jehochman) are simply setting me up for a future block or other sanction. If you state specifically that I have done something wrong, especially in your official capacity here, you must state why. If you do not state why when it isn't obvious, that is a violation of WP:NPA (Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. If the diffs alone don't clarify, an explanation is needed). If you refuse to provide me with specific guidance about not repeating a past mistake, you're not helping me or anyone else to avoid behavior that you're identifying as beyond the pale. Seriously, is your suggested sanction/warning supposed to simply keep me from filing another AfD on the topic (or filing one where a WP:POINT violation might -- somehow -- be alleged) or stop me from filing a complaint on this page against anyone who files one against me (or within a certain time afterward)? Really, how am I possibly to understand this? The impression I'm getting is that you and Jehochman make proposals to sanction me and do sanction me (in the ChrisO case) for reasons that you will not explain, therefore anything at all that I do could fall beyond the pale. This is not only inconsistent with good practice, it gives me every indication that you will treat me unfairly in the future, and this complaint from ChrisO suggests that an unfair complaint encouraging you to do this could be filed. Without you clarifying your unclear concerns, even a warning creates an unacceptable editing environment. Chris now suggests that "the request be closed without action, but JWB could perhaps be reminded to consider how others may interpret his comments and actions, and to act accordingly." As long as that is considered a "reminder" to a good-faith editor, and not a warning for violating policy or CC sanctions, it's consistent with my previous statement that I wouldn't have made the original comment that set this off (not that anyone has said the original comment by itself was disruptive). So a reminder would be just fine. But not a statement that I violated policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC) @Hipocrite: Was I being WP:POINTy by taking part in the discussions at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident or at Talk:Climate change denial recently? Was I being "retaliatory"? You might as well accuse me of that since you don't have any more evidence of it than that I was pointy in starting the AfD or retaliatory for filing the complaint. On the other hand, I can show in each case that I had plenty of reasons for doing what I did. It requires an assumption of bad faith to think so when you don't have proof. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) @LHvU - I don't think that it is appropriate for the admins to go looking for offenses that haven't been alleged after the fact as you comment seems to suggest. I don't believe that the probation enforcement requests are intended be a venue where ill-specified charges can be brought up in the hopes that something might be made of them. The requester's should be asked to make specific charges to be investigated, IMHO, but I guess the admins get to decide what is appropriate and what is not in that respect. This page is meant to facilitate the resolution of specific identified grievances not to serve as the launching point for fishing expeditions. --GoRight (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC) As I see it, the request is to topic ban JohnWBarber from AfD's relating to CC related articles - with regard to the ongoing AfD's noted. I am only saying that admins should not preempt those processes by taking a view on their appropriateness before the discussions are closed. Only when they have been closed, and the closing statements will likely influence any decision here, should they be reviewed. My comments upon PA's and the like is commenting that there is nothing like them that requires immediate action from admins here - we can afford to wait. I trust I have made myself clearer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Hmm. OK I think I understand your fundamental point better but something still seems out of kilter here. I agree that not preempting or prejudging the other processes is a good point. So I see your point about needing to wait for the outcomes. On the other hand, doesn't it seem odd to be accepting and discussing enforcement requests which are dependent on the outcome of future events? We seem to have run into some sort of time paradox here. We better be careful to get this right or the universe may suddenly implode or something!  :) Given this, the question becomes whether you and the other admins prefer to leave this request lying about on the off chance that actionable allegations materialize, or you close this request as no action and instruct that it be resubmitted at the appropriate time should conditions at that time warrant further investigation? --GoRight (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I think probably the latter approach is better. But I'm not yet sure. ++Lar: t/c 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC) @LHVY: I don't see your point at all. By that argument, you should bring edit warring to WP:3RRN to wait if the community decides it really is edit warring, and civility breaches to WP:WQA to see if the community thinks an alleged civility breach really is one. The potentially disruptive act - the pointy AfD nomination - has been done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC) @ChrisO - What portion(s) of the current probation are you alleging have been violated and how specifically are the diffs you provide supporting those allegation(s)? Also, you appear to be making bad faith assumptions about intent here. Do you have any specific evidence to support that? --GoRight (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Question for admins - Do admins have the authority to carry out the requested remedy? I don't doubt that ArbCom has this authority, but it isn't obvious to me that admins can do this. The article probation terms allow admins to place restriction on edits to climate change articles, but I think of AfD as a Wikipedia process page, and the fact that an Afd discussion may be about a climate change article doesn't make the AfD a climate article any more than an MfD of a Template makes the deletion discussion a Template. Yes, I realize the phrase "broadly construed" is included, but I assumed that was to make sure the umbrella cast widely over articles, so, for example, if there's a problem with an article about sea level, no one can say that sea level isn't technically climate. It also picks up talk pages, but I wouldn't assume it applies to any process page. If someone felt the need to file an ArbCom request, could they be prohibited from doing so if the subject matter had anything to do with climate? I don't think so.--SPhilbrickT 01:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I would personally say that the mandate applies in whatever project spaces disruption may be occurring. The obvious exceptions are the sub-spaces specifically devoted to discussing disruption, so the AN's and RFAR's are open to anyone if they really want to go there. WQA and possibly even 3RR are largely subsumed by this process. 3O is probably still OK. The key is whether the work is tendentious or not, and once or repeating over time. As I recall, the original set-up discussion was about "articles" but then I could counter with "broadly construed". The intent though, I think was to end disruptive editing on CC in general. Franamax (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC) It was previously claimed that climate-change related disruption on user talk pages is covered, so I don't see why AfDs shouldn't. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Without commenting on the merits of this complaint, I think it's clear that the admins here would have the authority to enact such a sanction if they wanted to. Oren0 (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see this activity as clearly disruptive enough (if it is disruptive at all) to merit any action. One of JWBarber's arguments was that recent apparent changes in public opinion appeared to be unrelated to denialism, and so it was worth checking to see if consensus had changed as to the significance of denialism. This appears to me to be a legitimate question. --TS 08:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC) @GoRight - Specifically disruptive editing. I'm not assuming anything; the intent is very clear. In the first diff, JWB talks about nominating Climate change denial for deletion "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other". He talks about what he thinks that would show: "It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold." Then he nominates the article for deletion to prove his point that "editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other". His lack of serious intent is clearly visible in his very brief deletion rationale, which is basically the same as the failed rationales of the previous three AfDs. Yes, he advanced further arguments later in the discussion, but only after people had pointed out the WP:POINTyness of his actions. The problem with all of this is that AfD is an inherently disruptive tool and should only be used with caution, especially where it concerns contentious articles. It should never be used to prove a point. Nominating an article "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other" is categorically point-scoring. Using AfD this way is an abuse, and does nothing to lower the temperature on CC-related articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC) To Franamax, it isn't a point violation if he believed that both articles should be deleted. A point violation would be if he voted to delete an article just because another article he wanted to keep was deleted. Voting to delete two articles that are thought to be similar is what one would expect. JWB's comments from start to finish also suggest that he does indeed think the articles should both be deleted. Ultimately I do not see any reason why people are assuming bad faith. Mackan79 (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC) @LHvU: JWB essentially dropped himself in this mess by making comments which suggested to many people - including numerous uninvolved editors and admins - that he was engaged in point-scoring. Obviously, he insists that he was not. There is clearly no consensus on the matter and the AfD he started has now closed. There is therefore really not much point in pursuing this any further, as there is nothing useful that could be achieved by doing so. I suggest that the request be closed without action, but JWB could perhaps be reminded to consider how others may interpret his comments and actions, and to act accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC) True, his use of irony in the nomination was not a great call. The question I have is whether this reflects an underlying attempt to start a fire, or simply a bit of humor to keep things light. I agree with the advice in full. Mackan79 (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Reading JWB's last statement, it is clear that he dosen't understand that making retaliatory AFD's and RFE's is problematic. It leaves admins with only the option to indefinetly topic ban him from this area - indefinite, as in untill he understands that WP:POINT doesn't take ignorance and civil verbosity as an excuse. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Except that it wasn't retaliatory or disruptive in any rational sense. Retaliation is raising unrelated matters against someone, and cannot possibly refer to when you say that in fact the person currently complaining about your actions was the one misbehaving in that situation. "Point scoring" is not even what WP:POINT is about, while only someone with a seriously misplaced confidence in their own perceptions could seriously conclude that JWB could not have believed this was an appropriate time to consider the deletion of this article -- so much that he must admit his own guilt. Seriously? This strikes me as much more overzealous than anything JWB has proposed, by a long shot. Mackan79 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC) With all due respect, how long is this going to carry on? The initiator has proposed above that it should be closed without action. I cannot see how we would still be doing something here. The involved editor does not deserve this; please let's move on. Mackan79 (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I think that unless there are examples of vandalism, personal attacks, and the like - none, it must be noted, which have been alleged - I cannot see how admins can act until the AfD is concluded. We will likely then need to review the AfD findings, determine if there is a cause under the probation to act upon, and then decide what if any sanctions to enforce. This is also not to say that this is not a good request, but one that likely needs the other process to complete before it can be properly reviewed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC) "I cannot see how admins can act until the AfD is concluded" ... agreed. And perhaps not even then, the request seems to be taking things rather far afield. But perhaps. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I am saying that I wasn't minded to look at it in any detail, since the AfD process will evaluate whether it was a legitimate request or not - no need to re-invent the wheel. However, if there are others who are willing to review before it is closed then fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC) I see no cause for sanction here (recognizing that I'm a little new at formally evaluating this stuff). There is no pattern established and no egregious single violation. The first diff which "denounces Climate change denial as..." I consider kinda like a userbox - thanks for letting us know where you're coming from on each and every manifestation of the core problem you perceive. The AFD nomination is fairly POINTy, although if the editor truly believes there is an injustice of some kind, a nomination 17 months after the last one is not unreasonable - for the very fact that if it is unreasonable, it will be crushed. If there is further evidence forthcoming where the two incidents are further linked, such as "symmetry" arguments in both places, I would reconsider a sanction. Summarizing, always good to know where someone stands; don't need to wait for outcomes of the AFDs to decide here; further behaviour which links the two disparate issues ("we must have one of: both denial and exaggeration articles; or none at all") - sanctionable. Franamax (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC) This has sat for a few days with no further comment. That's starting to feel like a close no action to me... let the AfDs run to completion (if they haven't already, I neglected to go check first). Perhaps a caution about the matter Franamax analyses regarding linkages? ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Wait for the closing admins comments - the presumption that this is a pointy filing has already effected the request below. I wish to see what an uninvolved sysop concludes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I think the filing below is transparent retaliation for this one. Had there been no subsequent retaliation (violating what Wikipedia is not, a battlezone), I would have supported closing no action. However, the combination of a pointy AFD with apparent retaliation, and follow up comments by the subject that lack any sort of introspective qualities make me feel that something should be done. JWB is just blaming everybody else, and not taking responsibility for his bad behavior. This topic area is under probation for a reason. Either we enforce the probation, or else it means nothing. Jehochman Brrr 14:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with Jehochman, but. The closing admin might just comment on the merits of the specific AFD, so I'm not sure what waiting will achieve. I don't see how responding to one AFD nom by nominating another article can be anything other than a POINT violation. The little party below, now closed, confirms it. But what sanction is appropriate here? Apparently JWB doesn't even edit in the area. A prohibition on involvement in CC project areas? Trout? Franamax (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC) The AfD has closed- as keep, unsurprisingly - with the closing admin specifically refusing to pass judgement on whether it was a valid nomination or not, just noting that there were such allegations and also some reasoned discussion that issues require addressing. So, what to do here..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Can we sanction the AFD closer for not passing judgement? :) Taking the two complaints together, we have an AFD nomination replied to with an AFD nomination, and a CCE request met with a CCE request. This really looks to me like battleground behaviour of exactly the type that should be strongly discouraged. I recognize JWB feels this determination is unjustified. None of the admins commenting in the thread below felt the request had any validity, as I read it. The discussion was over what remedy to apply. My opinion in this request was no sanction unless "symmetry" arises and indeed, it did so, in the form of a spurious CCE request. No other admin has given an opinion on this request that I can see. I'm now in the position of sanction on both threads, and J seems to feel the same. In the thread below, the proposed sanction was a CC topic ban of 1 week to 3 months, and the latest bid was one month. I'll take that or two weeks. The alternative is to close this with a warning to JWB that engaging in further WP:BATTLE behaviour in CC-related areas can result in a block by an uninvolved administrator. Franamax (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) If you are proposing a symmetrical CC topic ban on both editors, then I demur - on recent editing habits this will effect ChrisO substantially greater than JWB. Again, if the CC topic ban is to JWB only then I wonder what effect, taking the recent editing history outside of the AfD's, this will have. I would much prefer a general warning that the tolerance for WP:BATTLE and general gaming of enforcement requests is approaching zero, to all editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Symmetrical sanctions hand the advantage to the numerically superior camp, so I don't like them in general. In this case, the sanction would be to JWB only. It may not substantially change their editing, but it would forestall problematic behaviour that may arise and it would convey what "tolerance...approaching zero" will look like in practice. I'm good either way, sanction or warning. Franamax (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Why symmetrical? ChrisO didn't take any pointy or retaliatory actions, did he? Jehochman Talk 19:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I think it's just me not having been clear enough in my wording. No proposals are in the air at all for sanctioning ChrisO. Franamax (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC) (Shrugs) I think that was the basis of JWB's enforcement request against ChrisO, although the discussion was so quickly focussed upon JWB's supposed reasoning for listing it that it was never discussed. Whatever, it seems that Franamx didn't intend it and I didn't think it was on if it were. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC) For my own part, the quick focus on JWB's behaviour below was based on my initial assessment and confirmed by more detailed analysis. I still have the notes from the analysis but I threw away all the links after the thread was closed. I believe that ChrisO was acting well in filing this request and I see no reason to sanction ChrisO in the request below. (Permalinked because a 'bot will inevitably change what "below" means) Is this all because I'm not a god spieller? :) Back to the question at hand then. Franamax (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC) This has run out of steam, so I'm closing it with LHvU's suggested: All editors are warned that the tolerance for WP:BATTLE and general gaming of enforcement requests is approaching zero. Franamax (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby and enablers

Scibaby (talk · contribs) by Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs)

Section for reporting created. Reporting process described. Editors asked to assist in reporting, in reverting edits by Scibaby socks, and in adopting edits that seem "good" as their own, as appropriate (dating so this is archived by bot) 03:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved  – Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets created. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Scibaby and enablers User requesting enforcement Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Scibaby (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 [72] POV-pushing against consensus by sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby Latest CU report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive CU Archive Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby 592 (and counting) confirmed socks [73] Scibaby enabler comparing concerned editors to pigs and dictators via literary allusion. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) N/A, already blocked sock master. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Adequate range blocks and active patrolling by neutral admins, checkusers, and all well-meaning editors. Strong warnings against editors who support obvious Scibaby socks in discussions. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Scibaby (and/or related sockmasters) have disrupted the climate change articles for a long time. Undoing the damage has been left to a small group of editors supported only through cumbersome processes. In particular, apparently no "sceptic" editor has ever found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption "sceptic" editors have rarely if ever found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption (one case of a borderline sceptic editor has been found). As a result, a small group is left with both the effort and the risk of dealing with this sockmaster (or group of sockmasters). In particular, they alone carry the risk if an action is misinterpreted or in honest error. This is not acceptable. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [74] Discussion concerning Scibaby and enablers Statement by Scibaby and enablers Comments by others about the request concerning Scibaby and enablers I don't think this is remotely actionable. We're a volunteer project and we cannot order anybody to do anything. Handling scibaby stuff is something I do from time to time, but it isn't an important feature of editing the climate change articles. --TS 23:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC) More aggressive range blocks are certainly possible, although we need to take collateral damage into account. More semi-protection is possible. Creating a more streamlined process for dealing with mass sockpuppeteers is possible. Coming to an explicit a-priori understanding that good-faith reverting of plausible Scibaby edits will not be interpreted as edit-warring is possible. Granting more leeway to admins to block likely socks is possible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Why is this here? WP has well-entrenched rules to deal with socks. I see nothing proposed here that would enhance the ability of anyone to directly address the socks themselves. What I do see is a proposal to issue warnings to anyone who supports an obvious sock. It has been said many times that Scibaby socks are easy to spot. That may be true to some people, but not to me. If there are definitive signs, I don't know what they are. If I see someone new proposing something I think is positive, I intend to support. If it turns out to be a sock, I strongly object to the notion I deserve a warning. This sounds like a backdoor proposal to create an entirely inappropriate policy. I propose that this entire section be struck. To the extent it is sensible, it is redundant. To the extent it is not redundant, it is anathema.--SPhilbrickT 23:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC) WP's rules have not been designed for narrow-focus POV-pushing mass sock-puppeteers and do not work particularly well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC) What exactly does Scibaby do besides readding paragraphs about bovine emissions? The diff you provided above shows an apparently problematic edit, but doesn't seem to be a huge problem, such as blanking or mass moving of article pages like Willy on Wheels used to do. Willy on Wheels was a huge problem for awhile but eventually gave up. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC) One point about Scibaby is that it's an extremely tedious and obsessive sock. It's also incredibly predictable. Elsewhere today I suggested that we might perhaps consider more frequent semi-protection of talk pages on some of his target articles, simply to stop his timewasting. --TS 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I don't think semi-prot of talk pages is unreasonable. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Per TS... maybe edit filters are an approach to combat the bovine emission insertion problem and other well known areas of interest. ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC) It has been quite a bit of time since scibaby focused primarily on bovine emissions. Take a look at the "contribution" history of the latest 20 or so socks. Hir is still recognizable/predictable - but also still capable of surprises. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Semi-protection of talk pages would be the best way forward, if the community agrees that the problem should be addressed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I am worried in principle that with the talk pages and articles protected, there will be no place at all for IP editors to make a contribution. In practice I doubt this has much effect. I'm certainly not saying that if you semi a bunch of talk pages that, "the terrists have won." Ignignot (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC) This matter has been resolved. Stephan, consistent with [75] consider this your "polite note" that I believe your comments regarding skeptics and what you see as their level of dedication to the integrity of the project seem to unnecessarily attack a number of editors in good standing and, therefore, the "refactoring or removal" of that part of your comment "would be appreciated". Let's all try to promote a more collegial environment moving forward. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. --GoRight (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Show me an example where a "sceptical" editor has ever disagreed with a Scibaby sock, or reverted it, or reported it at SPI, and I will refactor accordingly. Until then, my comment stands. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Let's not focus on the "enablers" portion. We may have a chance here of getting consensus on more sensible handling of Scibaby, and I'd not want to mess up that chance. --TS 00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC) @Stephan - I was unaware that reverting Scibaby was somehow an official litmus test for caring about the integrity of the project. Since Scibaby tends to promote a skeptical perspective on the issues it should not be surprising that the AGW proponents would be more active in trying to keep his edits out. However, it is Scibaby the user that is banned and NOT their POV so your comment is clearly inappropriate and an attack. It is a sad state of affairs when we can't even get the administrators to adhere to the civility restrictions which have just recently been proposed for these pages. Consistent with [76], the above notification, and Stephan's refusal to refactor his incivility I would ask that an uninvolved administrator refactor it for him. Specifically, the portion of his statement that I think is objectionable would be "In particular, apparently no "sceptic" editor has ever found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community." --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Agree with GoRight. Stephan should replace the words "maintaining the integrity of our community" with "reporting or reverting Scibaby sockpuppets." Keeping in mind that it's now wee hours of the morning in Germany, we should give Stephan a reasonable time to repond. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC) A perfectly acceptable suggestion and given the time I perfectly agree with giving him time to respond and am more than willing to accept that the time may have been a contributing factor. I have certainly been in the same situation myself. --GoRight (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Clarified. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Collapsed per Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Comment_refactoring How many socks are you requesting enforcement against exactly? 57? 205? Heyitspeter (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I'm requesting action against the sock master(s). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I repeat. 57? 205? The one you list has already been blocked indefinitely [77].--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Broken record? As I said, I'm looking for action that is effective against the sock master(s). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I suppose we're both spinning in circles, so in that sense the metaphor holds. I asked you a question twice and you haven't answered twice.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Let me explain. Sock master: A real human being. Sock puppet: A disposable Wikipedia account created by the sock master (see there). I'm looking for sactions that are effective against the sock master (see there) and as a consequence reduce the disruption caused by the sock puppets (see there). Some examples of possible actions are listed above (see there), I'm sure this groups of brilliant brains can come up with more than I can after 5 minutes of thinking. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC) My problem is that your enforcement request shows examples from one sock master, Scibaby, who has been blocked, whereas you use the plural. You also appear to be requesting sanctions against "scibaby enablers." Who?--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC) My complaint allows for the case that Scibaby is several cooperating sock masters. The convention with the (s) is short hand for "sock master or sock masters, as appropriate" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC) In the interest of WP:SPADE, I suppose I should make myself more clear. This is what McCarthyism is. Please close this request and warn the filing editor.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I strongly object to this comparison. Please refactor or strike per Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Comment_refactoring. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC) The comparison is unambiguously apt. I honestly can't find any feature of McCarthyism that doesn't directly apply to what you are here attempting. Please bring any such incongruity to my attention.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC) We cannot put people into prison for contempt, we cannot force them to witness against other, we are not even asking them to witness. How is it like McCarthyism in any way? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC) You are attempting to instill in the community a diffuse fear of a faceless enemy (a "Scibaby [or] several cooperating sock masters"), are brandishing an as yet unrevealed list of names of people who sympathise with this faceless enemy whom you intend to penalize on that basis, and you are trying to take this unspecified opponent and unspecified list of names as a justification for the removal of restrictions on controls of said community. That is what McCarthyism is.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC) No. No. No. No. The last is debatable but irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC) "In particular, apparently no "sceptic" editor has ever found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption." - Now that I think about this in the light of day hasn't User:Oren0 assisted with the Scibaby situation? I seem to recall him complaining about Raul's lack of attention at some point and that became a part of his rationale for RfA. Am I remembering incorrectly? --GoRight (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC) [78]. Seems I remembered the RfA part correctly. Now I seem to remember Oren0 self-describing as a skeptic. Am I wrong on that point? --GoRight (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC) [79]. See the fifth user box on the right. He considers himself a skeptic. So have I demonstrated that there has been at least one skeptic who has assisted "in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption"? I'll stop there. Perhaps you could refactor that bit just a tad more in light of this? But no matter how you refactor this it will still have a sharp elbow feel to it. Just something to think about. --GoRight (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC) He certainly stood for RFA pledging to take up the slack on the Scibaby front after the main admin dealing with it was hounded off of the subject. Of course, actions speak louder than words - his entire log of blocked users is located at [80], of that, the only Scibaby sock appears to be Phaert Kut, who was tagged but not blocked by Raul, and while he reported one Scibaby sock right around his RFA, I see no other SSP or RFCU reports. Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I can't speak definitively on his entire effort with respect to Scibaby and I won't bother to dig through his contribs for diffs. My recollection, which has been pretty good thus far, is that Oren0 was helping with Scibaby since long before the RfA came up, and that RfA was well before Raul resigned his CU tools. So the timeline is important for context. I don't think that this is a huge point to argue over other than it illustrates that rash(ish) accusations can sometimes contribute to the level of animus and discontent, regardless of whether that was the intent of the author, or not. I am willing to assume that was not the intent but this makes it even more important to point out so as to simply raise awareness of potentially inadvertent slights. I would not be doing anyone any favors to let these things pile up to the point where they actually DO become a big deal. It is actually unfair of me to go away mildly annoyed or disgruntled over these types of statements without saying anything because doing so deprives the good faith editors of the opportunity to at least correct any inadvertent slights in real time. --GoRight (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I do recall reporting Scibaby socks. Some examples: [81] [82]. I have also blocked at least one. Quite frankly I haven't done anything with him lately because I haven't really seen many of them around and I've been editing much less. Oren0 (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Micropoint granted. Please take the above to read "in particular, only a single "sceptic" editor has, since time immemorial, found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption." I'll have to admit that I consider Oren0 sceptic (if wrong), but not "sceptic". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC) What of this? Are you going to keep your word or not? I think the distinction between sceptic and "sceptic" is lost on most. And it's worth noting that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: I would lay a wager that others have at least reverted those socks, if not reported them. But going through the contribs seems pretty pointless. Oren0 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Done. A sceptic is someone who does not take claims at face value, but rather insists on evidence. A "sceptic", on the other hand, can roughly be characterized as someone who applies the sceptic principle, in extremis, to positions they don't like (effectively demanding that things that typically require an advanced scientific degree to understand are explained to them at 3rd grade level), but blindly repeat all kinds of nonsense from cooky blogs, self-published websites and unqualified politicians and lawnmowers if it supports positions they do like. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Will you delete the added sentence or at least refactor to take out "borderline." Oren0's userpage has an infobox reading, "this user is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming."--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Comment Actually i am a sceptic and i do believe i have reverted a vandal attack, dunno if it was sci baby though [83] so do i get a prize? mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Current disruption To illustrate the problem: User:Frendinius is certainly not a new user. He is quite likely a Scibaby sock. He is currently pushing POV edits (some more subtle, some less) on a number of articles. In particular, he is pushing for the inclusion of two recent Scarfetta & West papers of limited applicability and essentially no weight into global warming. Can the neutral (and "neutral") admins here indicate if simple reversion of this obvious sock will be considered edit warring? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC) My advice would be to try to engage this one in case it's a false positive. When this one is blocked, however, treat its successor with considerably less indulgence. The signs are unlikely to show with such great frequency in innocent edits (not least because the style is disruptive in itself). Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 09:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC) That may or may not be true. It's a bit moot now, since the sock has been blocked. But that does not answer my question. I want a clear statement if the level of certainty for socking was sufficient to trigger the exception to edit warring (assuming we still have the exception that allows socks to be reverted on sight). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Actually the innocent edits are rather clear indications of scibaby, and a reversion to old established patterns. Of course i could be wrong, which is always possible, but from prior experience, i'd say that this one is scibaby with around 98% certainty. False positives are always possible of course, but the trouble is the amount of disruption that can be generated within the time it takes for a SPI case to run ... where upon of course a new socket gets generated, if it is not already maturing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Wow, that is painfully obvious. Minor "fix up" type edits to get around the autoconfirm barrier are hardly unique to scibaby, but once the sock "matured" it slotted into the patterns smoothly. For my part, I would say that reverting an obvious if unconfirmed sockpuppet falls under the vandalism exception. Questionable cases should be given the benefit of a doubt and engaged (though anything that makes this game more fun for scibaby should be avoided), and if an edit is taken up by an editor in good standing normal WP:BRD rules come into play as though that editor had made the original edit. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC) It feels as though such a policy is so open for abuse, and so inherently in tension with WP:BITE, that it would be better not to implement it. Something to think about.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC) You can take up the problems on the sock puppet policy page. It's what we do. The socks are all either identified by the classic duck test or, if the socking is more subtle, submitted to a sock puppet investigation. Feel free to express your opinion of the individual cases, and to gather evidence of any abuses. But for those of us who do care about the integrity of Wikipedia (and I include all reading these words in that group) the constant socking on the global warming articles is something real and any consistent opposition to the standard containment policy currently in effect would need very good grounds. As far as I'm concerned the only discussion on this page about dealing with socking, so far, seems to have been advice. 2over0's advice is well within standard policy. The fact that some editors don't take steps to deal with these malicious sabotage attempts is, to me, rather shocking. What are you waiting for? Why are you objecting to people taking steps to enforce Wikipedia policy? --TS 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC) What is shocking is that the bar has been moved once again. So-called "skeptics" have long had to defend accusations that they were socks of Scibaby; then when they obviously weren't Scibaby socks, they had to defend any edit made resembling Scibaby edits; now we've arrived at the point where even non-action against Scibaby socks is viewed as some sort of transgression. This is yet another example of how skewed this debate has become, when you have an enforcement request specifically trying to sanction editors for doing nothing. ATren (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC) (ec)I'd appreciate it if you started over and removed your current comment (and I suppose this one as well) for its several inappropriate insinuations and general argument structure. Then if you still want to we can talk about policy, which, contrary to your enthusiastic claims, neither supports nor precludes 2over0's proposal.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC) I don't seem to have made my meaning plain. I'll try again, this time in more terse and precise language. Firstly, 2over0's advice is well within standard policy. Secondly (my personal opinion) the suggestion that there is a problem with employing standard sock puppet policy on the climate change articles is rather shocking. Please disregard the prior comment, which appears to have given the impression that I was saying something else, possibly something rather nasty and inappropriate. I apologise for being less than precise in the prior comment. --TS 16:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC) My position on Scibaby: First and foremost Scibaby and his sockpuppets are in violation of policy and to the extent that policy allows his edits to be reverted on sight (preferably AFTER being confirmed a Scibaby sockpuppet to avoid WP:BITEing newcomers) I have no problem with that and if he is making edits that I do not agree with I will even help with the reverting, where I see it in the normal course of my activities. I do not plan to make pursuing Scibaby some sort of obsessive compulsive activity on my part. Not all of Scibaby's edits are bad edits, though. And so, where he makes a good edit even if it is properly reverted per policy any other editor is free to come along and should they believe the edit has merit, PER POLICY, they are free to adopt the edit as their own and defend it as such WITHOUT being labeled a meat puppet of Scibaby. As someone who has had to defend himself against such ludicrous accusations I strongly object to that characterization. I also object to the apparent insinuations that anyone who sees merit in the occasional Scibaby edit should also be labeled as not caring about the integrity of the project. This contention is obviously unhelpful and I would kindly ask that others refrain from trying to make such claims. I could make the equally valid, or fallacious as the case may be, claim that to the extent those in pursuit of Scibaby are reverting otherwise good edits, which they are allowed to do per policy related to sockpuppets and banned users, they are likewise undermining the integrity of the project. The argument can be made in both directions, but making these types of argument in either direction is unhelpful in improving the editing environment, IMHO, and so they should be avoided. --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC) And yes, I just made such an argument but only to illustrate that they CAN be made and for the purpose of highlighting that they are, in and of themselves, unhelpful and counterproductive. That's a common attitude, but since Scibaby typically trolls and edit wars in favor of giving undue weight to extreme minority positions on the science, it's worrying that we encounter that kind of ambivalence so often. Editors who typically oppose the scientific consensus on global warming, and there are many such, have to ask themselves whether they're truly editing Wikipedia in order to properly reflect the science, or simply to push their own minority points of view into the article--either themselves or by sitting on their hands and criticising those who are taking steps to stop a banned editor who performs sabotage of a kind that--quite openly in apologias such as the above--they support. If the latter, then they do no service to Wikipedia. To the extent that there are editors who push this "well he's doing no harm" attitude into Wikipedia in these particular circumstances, they are enablers of the banned troll, and quite openly so. --TS 17:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC) "To the extent that there are editors who push this "well he's doing no harm" attitude into Wikipedia in these particular circumstances, they are enablers of the banned troll, and quite openly so." - This is a rather strong statement. What part of my post suggests that I am pushing a "well he's doing no harm" attitude? Let me refer you back to: "I have no problem with that and if he is making edits that I do not agree with I will even help with the reverting, where I see it in the normal course of my activities." Do you actually have a problem with this position? If so, why? Policy does not require that all such edits be reverted, although it does allow that they can be, nor does policy prevent such edits from being reinserted by other editors who agree to take personal responsibility for them. If my statement quoted above is suggesting any sort of attitude, I submit that it is a properly focused attitude which both accepts and endorses the enforcement of policy while avoiding hysterically throwing the baby out with the bath water. Good content is good content no matter who first draws the community's attention to it. I fundamentally reject your premise that all Scibaby edits are prima facie bad edits. This statement in no way supports Scibaby, BTW. Scibaby unequivocally is violating policy and should not be making any edits at all, but once they are made that doesn't automatically suggest that the content in question is forever verboten anywhere on the project. Such a position is logically flawed, not in line with either the content or the banning policies, and as such it does NOTHING to protect the integrity of the project as is being asserted. Rather, it does quite the opposite IMHO. We evaluate content in its merits, not on who made the initial posting thereof. --GoRight (talk) By way of constructive feedback, personally I find the tone and the insinuations in your comment to not be in line with promoting a more friendly and collaborative editing environment. I'm not aware of a single substantial Scibaby edit that, after careful analysis, turned out to be justified. Some look good on the surface, but if looked at more carefully, they all have extreme weight problems, misrepresent sources, or use unreliable sources. If you find an edit that really is good, there is nothing wrong with assuming it. But given the history of bad edits by Scibaby, I think the onus is on the reinstating editor to carefully check the edit with a proper sceptical (to the edit) approach. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC) "I'm not aware of a single substantial Scibaby edit that, after careful analysis, turned out to be justified ..." - With you being an AGW proponent I am not surprised by this statement, however others are certainly allowed to hold a differing opinion, I assume. "the onus is on the reinstating editor to carefully check the edit with a proper sceptical (to the edit) approach." - I don't believe that anything I have said is in conflict with this, so we seem to be in agreement. --GoRight (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC) This is it. The vast majority of all Scibaby's edits are facially trolling. There is a small minority that might be mistaken for good faith but poorly thought out edits, but they all push the same minority point of view, which isn't what we do at Wikipedia. The current stance of so many editors is not defensible. To the extent that they adopt this "well he does no real harm" stance, those editors are enablers. I apologise that I did not really think this through earlier, and so was rather lukewarm about the problems that stem not directly from Scibaby's edits, but from problematic behavior by those enablers in relation to those edits. We're here to write articles that correctly reflect climate science. not the warped propaganda of Scibaby. --TS 23:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Ditto the above to Stephan. "The vast majority of all Scibaby's edits are facially trolling." - I don't believe that anything I said contradicts this. "The current stance of so many editors is not defensible." - I am unaware of any monolithic block of editors who hold or advocate pro-Scibaby views. Do you have some examples of such common opinions being shared by "so many editors"? Lacking such evidence this would appear to be a straw man argument. "To the extent that they adopt this "well he does no real harm" stance, those editors are enablers." - Can you show me some examples where editors are claiming that Scibaby does no harm? Lacking such evidence this would appear to be a straw man argument. "We're here to write articles that correctly reflect climate science." - This statement is incomplete and misleading. Where we describe the science it is true that we wish to properly reflect that, but of course this perspective only accounts for a small portion of the WP:RS with the majority comprising the social and political aspects of the topic, per WP:WEIGHT. --GoRight (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Let's make this concrete. The last thirteen confirmed socks of Scibaby are as follows: Waylon O. (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Terminizer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Trensor (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Lunar Golf (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Xsten78 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Wellpoint32 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) JesseSimplex (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Wilson and Two (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Fred Gharria (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Clarke Simpson (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Moral Equivalent (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Titulartitle (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) AnodeRays (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) His sock Waylon O. recycles a long-dead zombie argument renaming an article and falsely characterizes a Guardian news article as "idle comment." The Terminizer and Lunar Golf socks are used to attempt to edit-war the following summary statement out of the "Criticism" section of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: "Others regard the IPCC as too conservative in its estimates of potential harm from climate change." The stated grounds; "No source supporting this claim," handily ignoring the extensive and authoritative discussion of IPCC's poor treatment of Arctic Sea Ice extent. The Trensor sock removed the summary of Hell and High Water (book) as "Improper, poorly worded summary" without any further attempt to explain this removal. He used the Xsten78 sock to make three disruptive edits: remove the entire section on global warming from Precipitation (meteorology), edit war to restore a section from James Hansen that has long been excluded on grounds of due weight. Wilson and Two and Wellpoint32 were used to troll various canards about the science onto talk:Global warming. JesseSimplex restored a bit of nonsense sourced to some blog or other and changed "reduce global warming" to "reduce the potential effects of global warming" in climate change mitigation. Fred Gharria and AnodeRays were used to dispute the hacking of the CRU against the reporting of all reliable sources. Clarke Simpson and Titulartitle were used to push minority science views and promote a political agenda at talk:Global warming. I seem to recall noticing that Moral Equivalent accidentally made a valuable edit, but only because the quote attributed to Schwarzenegger was probably not made when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was signed into law but a year or two earlier. Moral Equivalent's stated reason was nonsensical, however. So the argument that there is a legitimate political and social dimension which SciBaby is somehow fighting to restore is not supported by a view of this editor's actual edits. He's a disruptive troll, nothing more. His presence, abetted by some editors, is a detriment to balance and discredits any legitimate criticism of our coverage of the social and political issues related to global warming. --TS 13:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC) (1) Thank you for your perspective on how to frame Scibaby's edits. While it is instructive I shall again simply refer you back to my previous statement which remains true: "The vast majority of all Scibaby's edits are facially trolling." - I don't believe that anything I said contradicts this. (2) "His presence, abetted by some editors ..." - Since you are repeating your claim I shall repeat my request for examples of editors who are abetting Scibaby. Lacking such examples this would still appear to be a straw man argument. (3) "So the argument that there is a legitimate political and social dimension which SciBaby is somehow fighting to restore is not supported by a view of this editor's actual edits." - Another straw man argument. No one ever claimed that Scibaby had a "legitimate political and social dimension". This is your creation, not mine. My reference to social and political was within the context of the relative WP:WEIGHT of various WP:RS when compared to the scientific aspects of the topic which are represented by peer-reviewed sources. None of that has anything to do with Scibaby, although given the context of the discussion I can understand your confusion. I apologize for not communicating more clearly and I hope that this comment clarifies my earlier meaning. (4) I suggest that we take this to your talk page if you wish to continue to hash through this. I think everyone agrees that Scibaby is violating the policies against abusive socking. Until you can demonstrate some widespread abetting for Scibaby I decline to accept your premise that such support even exists, much less that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Regarding Jehochman's proposal below: Unlimited reverts of suspected Scibaby socks is not a good idea and is a surefire way to drive new editors away from Wikipedia entirely. Do you really think it would have been acceptable to remove all of Chad Howard's comments to Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident? The accusation was stressful enough [84]. --Heyitspeter (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I'd like this policy decision to take the form of an RfC if possible. That, or can someone direct me to a place of appeal in the event that it 'passes' in this forum.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC) TICK TOCK. Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC) On the clock, but the party don't stop. Pretty obvious Scibaby puppets are being reverted into articles now. Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Reverted IN or reverted out? Is it being found and dealt with? If not, something does need doing, somehow. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC) My impression is that H refers to an edit by Biltmowre (talk · contribs) which was reverted as Out-of-context cherry-picking then reverted back in (by an editor who later explained his or her reasoning here), reverted out by H, reverted back in by Biltmowre, reverted out by H, reverted back in by IP 173.116.120.246, and reverted out by H after which the protection level of the article was changed and the IP blocked. The article content issue has been resolved, I have no idea if anything else needs doing. . . dave souza, talk 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC) plot thickened 19:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Scibaby and enablers This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I am not sure about the forum for this but having a more serious look at how we handle socks and trolls is needed at some point. --BozMo talk 07:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Scibaby is banned and any sock found should be blocked on sight. Describing anyone who subscribes to views expressed by Scibaby as "enablers" is unhelpful, unless there is evidence of collusion, since it should be AGF'ed as an individual expressing their viewpoint. Trolling, in any form, is a different matter and I agree that finding a way of minimising the disruption caused by such individuals does need review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC) It's probably out of scope of this enforcement area to implement truly effective measures against socking itself (although I am taken with the novelty of using this EA as a pretext to implement such, and I in fact have outlined measures that I guarantee would be effective, I think I'll pass) Suggest this be closed no action, although I concur with LHvU that if specific trolling activities are raised, they should be dealt with if possible. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Seems the points above regarding talk page semi-protection are worth considering. Scibaby disruption/trolling of talk pages is a problem and within the scope here. Seems such action should be considered and either be supported by or rejected as unworkable by admins watching here. I see it as a partial solution. Vsmith (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not opposed to that. But it is a step I would take very reluctantly. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Scibaby has been an ongoing problem. I think we can implement the following steps: Create a permanent section on this page where suspected Scibaby socks can be listed and resolved in an expedited fashion. We can email the functionaries list and get a couple of checkusers to watch the page. There should be no need to re-explain and go through the extended paperwork at WP:SPI each time. Scibaby can generate new accounts rapidly; we need a response that is equally rapid. As a rule, any accounts listed as suspected Scibaby socks may be reverted without limitation, and without fear of sanction. It is not edit warring to revert a banned editor. If such an account is later found not to be Scibaby, the removed material should be restored or kept out per normal editorial processes. Editors who have an unacceptably high error rate when listing accounts as Scibaby socks may be ask to desist from that activity. Editors may adopt any good edit as their own. If Scibaby starts making good edits as a form of disruption, these could be left in place, and the account(s) blocked. Jehochman Brrr 15:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Jehochman, re #4, why not just unblock the Scibaby primary account then and instead just revert the bad edits? I could drive a freight train through the notion of "good edits". Franamax (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Makes sense to me. I'm a bit queasy about point 2, absent a process to undo mistaken reversionss if the ID in question is found not likely to be scibaby, but some collateral damage is an unfortunate side effect of our overall policies. Endorse. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Endorse. If Scibaby starts gaming point 4 then we can review - although a policy of only adopting "really good" edits might suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Placeholder to forestall archiving, I may try to close this tomorrow or of course anyone else can do so anytime. Franamax (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Close it as LHvU suggested, as I think we are as far as we are going to get. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC) More than a week has went by with no further action. I will close this shortly, with wording as LHvU suggested, absent a suggestion from any uninvolved admin to do differently. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

Closed with no action. No action requested, discussion is continuing on article talk. (dating so this is archived by bot) 15:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've listed this article for temporary protection on WP:RFPP because of what looks like it could turn into a lame edit war over the tag. Perhaps starting a discussion here (not on the merits, but on conduct) might help to thwart the warring (which is, of necessity on an article under 1RR, by multiple parties). --TS 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I see a couple of reverts, but no more than 1 per party (please correct me if I am blind). Discussion is occuring on the talk page. If we are looking at conduct and not the merits, I see no breaches of the probation (yet). Arkon (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Not clear what the problem is. Would there be a problem if there *was* an edit war over the tag? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC) One edit followed by three reverts in less than six hours is far beyond my comfort zone in normal editing. On a 1RR article, in a probation, it rings alarm bells. Yes, I think edit warring over a tag is (as I said above) lame, and we should discuss this for a bit without the distraction of unproductive jostling and pushing. . --TS 23:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC) A tag war confirms a dispute exists on face value and the tag should stay, it's harmless. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Oh yes, in that case lets just tag *everything* with the least hint of controversy; what an excellent idea; pointlessly wasting page space is obviously harmless William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC) No an ugly tag at the top of a page is not "harmless". Let's focus on our general readership, we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia for readers - not just to push a pov or play a game. Therefor when I observed an apparent consensus on talk to remove said "ugly and distracting tag", I removed it. It appears a bit prematurely perhaps. So, do we have a legitimate dispute, or a pov pushing battle? If it is a legit. dispute among neutral editors then resolve it. If it is simply pov pushing by spas then nix it and get on with legitimate editing. Vsmith (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Let's focus on our general readership That's why the tag is there. To let outside readers know that this article in in a different status than one without the tag. It provides useful information to the reader.--SPhilbrickT 20:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Two points; Firstly, this is not formatted per the template at the top of the page and may therefore be dismissed (I am going to wait to see if there are any more comments regarding that) and, secondly, the aesthetic ramifications of a page being tagged is more suitable for a meta discussion and if such (discussions regarding the) removals of templates from CC related articles were intended to highlight that argument then I shall be looking to see if there are any sanctions that might be enforced regarding abuse of WP:POINT - and if there are any indications that the "aesthetic argument" was a smokescreen to simply remove a template some editors didn't want there then I shall be seeking extended sanctions on all parties responsible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, will you be seeking extended sanctions if there are any indiciations that the "NPOV dispute" argument was a smokescreen to simply keep a badge of shame on an article that complied with all of our policies? Just wondering. Hipocrite (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see how that would work - someone is proposing that placing the template upon the page improves the aesthetic appeal..? My understanding is that it was suggested that the template was removed as aesthetically unpleasing, which I advere is not an appropriate reason for the action. The aesthetics or other issues with placing a template on a page should be discussed on the templates talkpage, or indeed the related policy/guideline page in respect of placing such templates on pages, but never on the effected page itself. My comments is that WP:POINTy actions on a page covered by a probation run a greater risk of sanctions even if the action does not relate to the probation subject - and if it is in fact done with regard to the probation subject, but camouflaged as a POINTy action, then even more severe sanctions might ensue (if proven). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC) No, sir, someone is suggesting there is an NPOV dispute when there is actualy not an NPOV dispute. If you determine that their POINTy argument that there is an NPOV dispute is designed to put a POINTy NPOV badge-of-shame on a page, will you be sanctioning them? Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Broadly editorial notices on main page articles are always a bad thing and we should not have NPOV tags simply because some editors have other POVs. NPOV tags in particular should never endure long term: consensus defines the NPOV of the article. Calling the notices distracting is right, and detrimental to the project but sometimes needed whilst a process is underway to sort a recognised problem. There is a recognised problem with the conduct of the talk pages in Climate Change but not with POV. "Ugly" is irrelevant and for template talk. And this thread should be close as it was not a proper request for enforcement. --BozMo talk 14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC) "consensus defines the NPOV of the article" No, it does not. Only reliable sources can define what neutral is. We as Wikipedia editors are simply supposed to repeat the bias of reliable sources. "There is a recognised problem with the conduct of the talk pages in Climate Change but not with POV" I find this comment very disturbing. Of course, there's a legit POV issue here and if you can't see recognize this, then I'm not sure it's a good idea for you to be involved in this probation. Even Jimbo agrees that there's POV issue here and goes even further than I do:[85] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC) No, I rather feel this comment is a misunderstanding on both counts. Consensus is what establishes the subjective application of policy to an article, and hence NPOV. There is nothing I can see in Jimbos particular comment to suggest that the article is not NPOV. And as for my involved I am an uninvolved Admin in the terms of the probation and don't have the time to get involved in the content issues. --BozMo talk 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Jimbo is seeing the current version of the article which I agree is WP:NPOV. There is no indication that he read through the revision history or talk archives to see all the POV pushing from both warring factions. In any case, you said, "There is a recognised problem with the conduct of the talk pages in Climate Change but not with POV " It seems to me that you just commented on a content issue and took sides with one of the warring factions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Good luck with that. I commented on whether a problem was recognised not whether one existed. I have not read the article, but AFAICT there is no general recognition of a POV problem, just some individuals who claim such exists. I wonder that this is unclear to you. --BozMo talk 17:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I don't understand what LessHeard vanU means. This thread informed ScJessey about the circumstances of an edit he had just made and he asked the protecting admin to revert that edit. That is a very good result and I consider this thread to have served its purpose in restraining sharp-elbowed editing on a particularly sensitive article. A Quest for Knowledge has often said he spent a lot of time on the neutral point of view noticeboard. In view of that, I don't understand quite how he got the idea that the pivotal, "non-negotiable" neutral point of view policy was in any way subject to the quite ignorable and superfluous reliable sources guideline (hint: it's intended for people who don't quite understand the meaniing of the word "verifiability", which is also a key policy). So many newbies, so little time, and so we end up arguing the meaning of policies that we ourselves created and expanded, increment by increment, with people who have failed to digest them and think they know everything. --TS 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC) No specific enforcement action is requested here and Tony indicates he is satisfied with the result, so this should now be closed. If there is specific behaviour that needs looked at (edit-warring that skirts 1RR) a properly formed request can be made. To stray to the merits of the tag, it should at least clarify whether it is title or content that is disputed. Franamax (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I was responding to the comments by Vsmith about consensus for 'removing "ugly and distracting tag"'. Never mind, the intent seems to have been missed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC) My 10¢ here: The tag has ended up being a "hostage tag" rather than a helpful tag. As i see it, i doubt there will ever be a resolution of it. If you were to ask the editors: "Should the tag be removed" - you get "no concensus". Were you to ask: "Should the tag remain" - you would get "no consensus". Not very useful at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, of course. It tags an 'NPOV dispute', not an 'NPOV dispute consensus'. --Heyitspeter (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC) So let me be more specific: I doubt if that particular NPOV dispute is ever going to be resolved. Thus the tag has no meaning whatsover. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I'm sure there are plenty of creationists who would like to slap an "NPOV dispute" tag on Evolution. For that matter, there are any number of people who dispute the content of Global warming, a featured article. But those are unresolvable disputes arising from fundamental(ist) ideological positions. This particular dispute is very much the same. It is clear that anti-science editors are not going to agree with pro-science editors any time soon. That being so, what is the point of the tag? To tell the reader that "someone doesn't like this article"? That surely can't be a viable basis for tagging it; would we accept the same people tagging Global warming, which I'm sure they'd like to do? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Of course, any issues with Evolution have nothing to do with the Climategate article which is not an article about science, but an article about a political and scientific conduct controversy. It would be more helpful if you came up with an analogy that fits the situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with having NPOV tags on articles. That's the nature of a wiki. Cla68 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC) You are correct. There is nothing wrong with having NPOV tags on articles. But there is something wrong in having NPOV tags permanently on articles, especially so on articles which have a large amount of editors. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC) So topic ban editors from both warring factions and let neutral editors work on the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Anyone can tag an article; no one may remove the tag until the dispute is resolved, but there have to be some checks and balances. The tagging editor has to come up with well-sourced suggestions as to why the current article is not verifiably accurate or neutral. Then we reach consensus, fix the article, and remove the tag. Trouble here is that we have no concrete suggestions within WP policy and guidelines, we only get asked to look at speculation and propaganda from uninformed sources far from the events, and there is no consensus that anti-science viewpoints should be given equal weight to established science. --Nigelj (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Well, that's not true. Whenever there's a violation of WP:NPOV, I always base my arguments on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and cite reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC) (To Kim) No, the nature of a wiki is that a few can NPOV tag the many. If we don't like it, we can find another website to mess with, including me. Cla68 (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Well, allow me to disagree. NPOV tags are not there to be used as pressure items - but to be used as a help in recruiting editors to resolve a particular issue. The easiest resolution here, should be to have a timelimit on such tags, for instance a month, if consensus cannot be gathered for or against a solution to the perceived problem within that timelimit - then some other dispute resolution should be tried. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC) There is a strong argument for saying that a tag, like any other article space content, should either be supported by consensus or removed. Certainly the existence of a minority of people who do not think an article is NPOV is not sufficient to imply a tag is needed. And the subjective application of Wikipedia policy, where the application is in doubt, has to be ruled by consensus (since consensus determines policy in the first place). But as I say, I have not read the article and do not know whether in fact lack of NPOV is agreed.--BozMo talk 20:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I tend to disagree in principle. I think the tag should remain unless there is consensus that it's wrong. If there is consensus that it was wrong, it shouldn't be readded unless a different issue is brought up. For this specific instance, although I think the tag is inappropriate until such time as the FAQ is corrected to note the error in the answer to Q5, I don't actually see consensus against it at any time. I could be wrong, as I haven't spent my life that much time editing this article, like some of the editors here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Agree that if the same process covers the tag as covers the content, then you may as well get rid of the tags. The tag is for readers, and indicates that there is not a clear consensus regarding the content of an article. Readers should be aware of this if it is the case, and at least in my view there should be a presumption in favor of alerting the reader. If the same process that got the current version of an article in place can also go directly to removing the tag, then it removes the last bit of incentive that the tag provides to really try to iron out the problems so that there are not significant complaints. But above that, the reader should know. Mackan79 (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC) When I last looked there seemed to be neither strong consensus for or against the NPOV tag. I'm not sure where that leaves us. There have been many attempts to change the title of the article, and so far they have not been successful. The basic article content has been stable for some time, subject to added content as the various inquiries progress. There appears to be a sizable minority of editors who consistently describe the article content as lacking in neutrality, but despite extensive discussion they have not been successful in gaining consensus on what needs to be done to resolve the problem. There is a quite diverse set of editors involved. Over the past month, excepting wikignome work, the following people have edited the article: Hipocrite, Arthur Rubin, Tony Sidaway, Heyitspeter, William M. Connolley, ChrisO, CurtisSwain, Cla68, Thparkth, A Quest for Knowledge, Dave souza, Moogwrench, ScJessey, Vsmith, Pytom, Enescot, Guettarda, J. Sketter, Nsaa, Nigelj, ScienceApologist, Rumping, Stephan Schulz, Jpat34721, Mikenorton, John Hyams, 86.7.19.159, Unitanode, Arzel, Grundle2600, Haeb, In addition the following editors have each made at least one significant comment to the talk page: Stuarth, 91.153.115.15, JohnWBarber, Q Science, 99.142.1.101, Sphilbrick, AMR, Wikidemon, Oiler99, 130.232.214.10, Thepm, Tarc, Macai, 130.232.214.10, Collect, Arkon, Splette, The Four Deuces, Bill the Cat 7, DeepNorth, NickCT, Ignignot, Jonathan A Jones, KimdDabelsteinPetersen, 72.192.46.9, 24.11.186.64, GoRight, Tilman, Junder1234, 95.103.140.64, Spoonkymonkey, 99.141.252.167, 173.9.22.85, Marknutley, David Crabtree, TMLutas, 128.243.253.112, Masudako, 94.193.96.114, Ronnotel, 64.244.99.100, Sirwells, Ucacha, K10wnsta, Psb777, Labattblueboy, 138.162.8.58, 86.7.19.159, 88.110.2.122, Farsight001 , HideTheDecline, 88.110.16.230, Itsmejudith, 69.201.160.76, Weaponbb7, Pontificalibus, 207.237.162.147, Evensong, JCBergman, Gerardw, 125.2.117.51, Jarhed, Oren0, Nil Einne, Robofish, 74.248.53.52, Lumos3, Jeni, Isonomia, ATren, Kittybrewster, 99.141.243.97, Greenbough, Plain jack, Smallman12q, Xanthoxyl, Weakopedia, Cardamon, 24.11.186.64, Textmatters, TenOfAllTrades, On2u2. This is a quite impressive number of page watchers, commenters and editors, and they represent a similarly broad range of opinions and biases. My first thoughts are that, if there are significant POV problems remaining, then there should be a strong enough consensus to drown out any opposition, resulting in steady improvement of the article. This steady improvement seems to be what is happening, but at the same time there is no consensus that the tag should remain. Perhaps it should not remain in the circumstances, but I don't know. Possibly a content RFC is the best way to take this. But I don't think there are any significant conduct issues involved, outside the recent mini edit war which prompted this thread. --TS 21:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) LHvU has opined that this malformed request may be closed and I concur. I believe it is beyond the scope of this noticeboard to consider appropriateness of NPOV tags, although inappropriate conduct of individual (or groups of) editors within the dispute may be considered. No such conduct has been presented here that is specific to the CC dispute. Placement of tags should be discussed either on the specific article talk page, WP:NPOVN, or in a more broad discussion. Thus, closing as no action requested, not actionable, no action. Franamax (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

TMLutas

TMLutas (talk · contribs) by ChyranandChloe (talk · contribs)

TMLutas is requested to avoid soapboxing on talk pages, and to be careful that sources are accurately summarized or paraphrased. TMLutas is admonished to be especially mindful of Wikipedia:Civility and to be careful that full intent and context are conveyed when paraphrasing comments from others. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning TMLutas User requesting enforcement ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested TMLutas (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 Either me for WP:GAMING as you've laid out above or you for your accusation of bad faith. I've been trying to avoid sanctions... admits himself and TonySidaway to WP:GAME. The relevant section is 2.1, 4th bullet point which explicitly disallows calculating impact. WP:GAME, begins a discussion to changes the guideline WP:RS#Scholarship that he could then apply to Talk:Global warming/FAQ 22 Since you, yourself took part on the losing side of the relevant discussion, (your last post was Feb 4 and you failed to respond to my Feb 7 response) WP:FORUM, engages in circular discussion to exhaust the editors to consensus Let me repeat my position from last time. WP:FORUM, and repeats, explicitly Yes, yes, only your side is entitled to those, and we've always been at war with Eastasia. Are you finished baiting me or are you going for the 2+2=5 when the party says so full treatment? ... So get on with the beclowning by all means Battleground mentality (WP:BATTLE) with personal attack Paraphrase of the text to this point "Hee hee, americans sure are dumb. Let us mock them." WP:FORUM, provokes discussion Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Probation notice by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) Edit summaries in reverts by William M. Connolley Edit warring by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Other sanction Additional comments by editor filing complaint TMLutas (1) changes a guideline, (2) applies the guideline with the clause he added, and (3) engages in circular discussion using this change where he exhausts the editors to consensus. The consensus for the guideline was reach by exhaustion and subtly, which is now challenged (see here). The guideline ("sets of best practices that are supported by consensus" WP:GUIDES not end all pillars) are applied beyond their scope (see here). The application only barely reflects the guidelines. And together I believe this wikilayering and gaming is unneeded. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [86] ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning TMLutas Statement by TMLutas The true story starts in global cooling in this edit on December 22, 2009. To start the discussion of what is going on in March is grossly incomplete and should void this proceeding. I have made continuing references as to the history of this issue and its long nature. ChyranandChloe should have been aware of this and the extensive efforts I've made to patiently clarify existing rules so that the local majority on climate science pages ceases to use WP:RS to exclude peer reviewed papers entirely from Wikipedia due to some historically less than clear language in bullet point 4 of section 2.1. I will give a point by point. Please bear with me because this is the short version. 1. I am supposed to have "admits himself and TonySidaway to WP:GAME". TonySidaway later clarified that he was not actually questioning my good faith with his statement "You don't get to make an end run around the neutral point of view by fiddling with the wording of guidelines". I accepted that and just let it drop. I responded strongly at the time as I viewed that statement as a set up statement in any attempt to go after me via sanctions. 2. The FAQ had been labeled as under discussion since February 3, 2010 (not by me) and had come to a conclusion on February 20, 2010. No matter what, Q22 needed to be modified. Either the discussion tag needed to be removed in case the discussion supported the current wording or larger edits needed to be made to realign Q22 with the WP:IRS 2.1(4). I sincerely had hoped that somebody else would have made the effort since the February 20th close. The result of the discussion was that individual papers published in reliable source journals were, absent special cases, to be considered reliable without a waiting period to assemble a citation index score (ie the impact or impact factor standard). Nobody had adjusted things at the global warming FAQ by the time that somebody, once again, used FAQ Q22 to justify blocking one of my edits on another page so I dove in to start a conversation to fix Q22. Somebody had to do it and nobody else was volunteering. This was no game, at least on my part. 3. TS said "I agree with the above. I think this is more a matter of due weight." in the relevant discussion and essentially ceded that the FAQ Q22 that he wrote that depends on WP:IRS instead of WP:WEIGHT was incorrect. Yet he doesn't go and correct his own Q22 work and comes back the next month and throws Q22/WP:IRS as a valid reason to exclude a published peer reviewed article that appeared in a journal that was itself reliable again relying on Q22. Somebody is trying to exhaust somebody else to consensus but it certainly wasn't me. TS has today shifted Q22 to a WP:WEIGHT justification and I'm perfectly happy with his edit and have gone in and removed the under discussion tag. Bravo to him. Or is this part of my sinister plot to exhaust TS? You be the judge. 4. A fuller quote makes it obvious that I am being accommodating here "Let me repeat my position from last time. I'm open to some sort of FAQ point on excluding new papers so long as there's some sort of rule or guideline that actually supports the exclusion mechanism." This is after going several rounds of asserted reasons why something was true that, after actually reading the rule/policy/guideline/essay, were not supported by the cited rule/policy/guideline/essay. A few rounds of objections that don't pan out as real objections and one does tend to repeat. It's unavoidable. 5. This is interesting because my own talk page is being cited as a page under the climate change probation rules. That's just strange and I think inappropriate. But let me explain anyway since I'm doing point by point. TS in a prior edit in that thread attempted to define global cooling as exclusively a specific type of global cooling, an end to the interglacial and a new ice age instead of a more general definition of global cooling as, well, a planet that is cooling overall irrespective of mechanism. Cutting an argument's legs out from under it by changing the dictionary is the definition of Orwellian. It also upset me because that sort of action makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. I was not saying that TS was beclowning himself as a personal attack, rather that by adopting that definitional jujitsu he was beclowning Wikipedia. In the heat of the moment, the 1984 references popped out. Had I not been on my talk page, I probably would have toned it down a bit. I view this point as evidence that what's happening with this sanctions attempt is a 'kitchen sink' approach, an attempt to stack up as many accusations as possible in the hope that something will stick and some sanction will be assessed. Kitchen sink approaches are, by definition, an attempt at psychological manipulation. 6. The subject of the thread was the recent Gallup polling on global warming. The four prior contributors (that I could see at the time anyway) to the thread suggested that an appropriate response to the gallup figures were to A. improve the "Simple-Wikipedia" version of the global warming page, B. a suggestion that the stupid people would ignore this due to the Dunning–Kruger effect C. a straw man that climate change skeptics are advocating "teach the controversy" something I've never heard elsewhere and D. A me too agreement that it was indeed a situation where the skeptics were engaging in "teach the controversy". I guess I could have opened sanctions threads on them all but that seemed a bit excessive. Instead I let them know that they were not in a safe space where everybody agreed with them and they could let their hair down and say what they really think about those they disagree with. In fairness if they are sanctioned for this, I would admit that I should be too. To date, none of the preceding 4 user accounts have any sort of notice for their pending sanctions threads. Selective prosecution or more kitchen sink? It's both. Regarding the notices, I did take the 2/0 warning seriously, calmed down, took a wikibreak and got a great deal more patient. No, I'm not perfect. That's usually not sanctionable, not even, I suspect, on probation pages. It's hard to take seriously WMC's warning on my commentary reverting his reversion. He was reverting a section stub, calling it "reckless". I had been polling on talk for two weeks prior seeking anybody who would admit that they didn't want a section at all. Everybody insisted that they actually had specific objections to this or that proposed text but nobody claimed they were against a 2000s section to go along with the 1990s section (and prior). So I stubbed it and got told "rv: be bold, don't be reckless. Read the policy" which was not quite helpful. Until I visited this page today I was unaware that WMC has been repeatedly sanctioned for doing this sort of thing. It's unclear why this is included at all except as part of a kitchen sink approach. As for the first notice. I took it as an entry into the club. All the cool kids were getting them. As the first notice says, you could get that notice without doing anything wrong. I'll stipulate that yes, I did know that this probation existed. On to the additional comments: 1) guilty of changing a guideline (after 6 weeks of talking it out on the appropriate talk page), not sanctionable in my opinion. 2) guilty of applying the guideline with the clause I added (after waiting a couple of weeks to see if anybody would protest or revert in case I got it wrong), not sanctionable in my opinion. 3) not guilty of using circular discussion. There is a clear beginning (why do we need to wait to include studies?), middle (oh, WP:RS 2.1(4) looks a bit strange, let's talk it out in WP:IRS there and then go back and apply the results to get better process at global cooling and incidentally global warming), and end (you can no longer use WP:RS 2.1(4) because the result of the discussion does not support your POV. If you disagree, work it out in talk over @ WP:IRS). The accusation that I exhausted my dozen or so conversation partners is very flattering, if untrue. I have not achieved consensus except on WP:IRS and if you look carefully you will note that the statements of regulars there are quite influential for 'my' win. In truth the win is theirs. The challenge to the consensus started off as a direct edit to 2.1(4) that substantially changes the meaning of my addition without any talk at all. I reverted once and said to take it to talk. Hipocrite has started an edit war which I declined to follow, leaving his version up for now (see, I can learn). So far his challenge to consensus here and here do not seem to be going well for him. It's early days though. I do need to correct myself as Q22 has now been revised to rely on WEIGHT and not on IRS so I guess that worked out as I hoped it would as well. As soon as I can finish with this business I will no longer have to refer to Q22 anymore as the problematic language is now only relevant to the current accusations. The problematic version of Q22 referred to the WP:IRS guideline, substantially quoting it. Of course any change to the guideline Q22 was trying to implement would have an impact on Q22. I finally and most strenuously disagree that walking down this multi-month path was unnecessary (not to mention that the characterization of the journey as wikilawyering and gaming is tendentious and untrue). There is a real issue of confusion with honest editors having divergent opinions of what 2.1(4) really means and the confusion seems to be centered on what the word source means. In hot topics like global warming these divergent opinions lead to much heat and very little light. That needs fixing and no matter which way it breaks, a significant number of editors are going to be uncomfortable with the result. Thank you for your patience. If anybody wants more detail, please ask and let me know where I should put it. TMLutas (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning TMLutas TL:DR? TMLutas really needs to summarise his response. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC) He's exhausted me already. --Nigelj (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC) My apologies, I'm not quite sure how to make it shorter when I have going on three months of conduct pulled in and called to account. The substance of this very long fight boils down to one word's definition in WP:IRS (the word "source") and the ripple effects of how papers are excluded in articles like global warming. Shall they be excluded entirely or shall they shift over to specialty pages that are much shorter where such papers can be included with appropriate balancing text as per WP:WEIGHT. The AGW majority has been incredibly resistant to the second option. I view the dispute as a key pivot point to reducing the temperature around climate issues so that skeptics feel they're given a fair shake. The name of much of the climate fight game is exhaust the minority so they give up in frustration. If someone doesn't give up, put them up on charges of trying to exhaust the majority. But anybody can say that. If you care enough to chase the links down, I'm demonstrating it. I don't think it's conscious on the vast majority of the participants. This is not an accusation of conspiracy. I think it's custom and habit because just throwing a forest of rules along with quick reverts at a poorly prepared skeptic works well as tactics. As strategy it gets you bad mainstream press and scibaby. TMLutas (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Just to clarify an oft-repeated error, Scibaby did not start sockpuppeting in response to being blocked over global warming edits. He had been sockpuppeting with (at least) three accounts for over a year before he even made his first edit to a climate related article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not a scibaby expert. This is new information for me. My mistake. The successful tactic is strategically getting Wikipedia bad press about how biased it is, to the project's detriment. TMLutas (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I guess there is an interesting point here, and you seem to be soliciting advice so I will give some. Bad press is not per sae to the projects detriment. If the bad press is for the right reasons it could well be to the projects long term benefit, and there will certainly be a gain in respect from some spectators if we don't follow trends in the popular press. The question of whether or not bad press is for the right reasons is probably the question of whether or not the scientific position taken by Wikipedia is correct. Wikipedia takes a "consensus of scientific experts" approach which will inevitably fail sometimes because a consensus of the scientific community is sometimes wrong (a long list would be easy to produce of scientific consensus being wrong). However I think scientific consensus is probably the lowest risk route for WP since the alternative of Original Research is certainly also going to be wrong, very likely more often as is the alternative of journalist "science". Therefore my own view is to ignore the bad press same as for allegations of pro-USA bias, pro-Israel bias and all the rest and keep the discussion on representing informed opinion. For me, the advice is your point would get more attention if you stuck to the claim that we are not representing consensus well because there is too much peer reviewed material to include all and we are introducing selection bias; rather than looking (by refering to a world which is motivating you) like you are on a mission against a majority because you have been convinced by press reports or blogs or similar. --BozMo talk 20:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Statement by A Quest For Knowledge Honestly, I have no idea of what's going on with WP:RS. However, if WP:RS is being altered to WP:GAME the results of the ongoing AGW dispute, this is an extremely troubling event. Changes to policies and guidelines potentially effect the entire project - over 3 million articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC) This is why I've been very verbose about what I am doing, how the effects would play out given each major choice branch, and spent 6 weeks gently moving the conversation along until I did my edit. I fully realize the potential for cosmic foul up in doing a hurried edit. In contrast, Hipocrite's recent edit on the topic came without any discussion whatsoever. I've left his version up as he now belatedly is on talk and seeking to re-test my asserted consensus. It's playing out exactly as I would have predicted it would and I expect my position to be reaffirmed. TMLutas (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I said I wouldn't comment here, but I suppose I'll make this metacomment referring to my response to LessHeard vanU's request. I don't think there is a conduct issue here. Although I would not subscribe in detail to TMLutas' characterization of the dispute, that's a minor quibble. --TS 13:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I disagree somewhat with Tony. The tome that TMLutas presents here exemplifies the problem with his approach: go an at such length, and with such persistence, that your fellow editors lose the will to live. While I broadly agree with TMLutas on the substance of the issue at hand,[87][88] his approach is not optimal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC) "The tome that TMLutas presents here exemplifies the problem with his approach" - It's hardly a "tome". He is defending himself against an accusation that could lead to sanctions. Six specific points were brought against him; he has responded to each of them. What else should he have done? Please tell me "you defended yourself in too much detail on the requests for enforcement page" isn't now going to be an actionable fault. Thparkth (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC) SBHB - Other then effectively sitting down and shutting up, how could I have carried my points in the face of the energetic and numerically superior opposition I faced? That's the burden that a well thought through decision to sanction me should carry. I've been experimenting with different approaches for years. The stuff that I've done that works to gain consensus with hard left wingers on subjects like Alger Hiss simply don't work on climate science pages. This, aside from being brought up on this charge, actually does seem to lead eventually to consensus. So give me something methodologically better and I'll go off and use it. TMLutas (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Statement by Sphilbrick I read the first diff (Gaming), then read the whole section leading up to it. Yes, it's long, it's tedious, and it's argumentative. But it's also illuminating. I read an honest attempt by multiple parties (notably TMLutas and Awickert) to explore exactly what should happen when there are more reliable sources than can reasonably be included in an article. A real problem, without an obvious answer, and they made excellent progress. Then TS said something to which TMLutas took offense—I'd say over-reaction a bit with my detached perspective, but easy to understand in the heat of the moment. Even without reflecting the passion, the response wasn't out of line nor did it fail civility rules, and both parties moved on. Most certainly, it was not an admission of Gaming, which is the sole reason for the inclusion of the diff. I haven't read any of the other diffs, but based on the first one, I'd say we ought to be handing out awards for successful resolution of a thorny issue, not talking about sanctions.--SPhilbrickT 14:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Comment @Franamax - with respect to the cosmic ray paper, if you read the full discussion you'll see that the paper (which was a pre-pub) did not actually say what s/he insisted it said. And even after direct quotes were supplied to her/him, s/he continued to argue for the inclusion of the paper. Guettarda (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning TMLutas This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. '"...more detail"? - May the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster preserve us! I think some comments by Tony Sidaway regarding the alleged dispute may be beneficial, so I shall go ask him if he is prepared to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Looks completely guilty (only on the basis of above diffs) on both being argumentative for the sake of it (including paraphrasing opponents in an argument in a less civil way than they used) and raising the temperature. However, these are common offences to some degree and whether this is "more than everybody else" to the point of being sanctionable would take quite a lot of reading threads to make a judgement, certainly at least a warning. On the policy versus here certainly I don't like the changing a policy to win an ongoing argument and it is a bit moot when more people are active here than on the policy threads but on a first look perhaps we should assume good faith that he thought that was a proper process. --BozMo talk 13:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Given TS's comments I guess we should limit this to a warning about the specific issue of not paraphrasing other people's comments in a more inflammatory and less civil way than the comments themselves. --BozMo talk 14:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Good for me, but I would also think that the verbose among us ("hello, mirror") should be advised that over long discourses might be mistaken by others as attempts to WP:Exhaust the opposition and that such claims should be dealt with in good faith and an acknowledgement that shorter generalities would allow discussions to flow more easily and detailed responses to specific points may then be given if required. (Look how many bytes it took me to say that!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC) The whole IRS/FAQ22 thing looks to me like a pretty reasonable attempt by TMLutas to clarify an aspect of RS guidelines i.e. when to exclude a source/how to fit them in. There was perhaps faulty reading of consensus to change the IRS clause, but no-one complained after the edit and TML acquiesced when it was eventuaally reverted. After the wording has been there a few weeks, it also seems reasonable to begin applying it and TML accepted someone else's revised wording on the FAQ. The argument to include the cosmic ray paper on Global cooling was reasonable too, I confess I'm a little sympathetic to relaxing standards for individual papers on offshoot and smaller articles, provided the presentation is properly balanced. Diff #5 is from a somewhat testy talk page discussion where TMLautas loses it a bit, but it's their own talk page and in January. Diff #6, that's not good, that's definite soapboxing. What about those of us who evade taxes, can't we be upset too? ;) So concluding, I believe the enforcement request was made in good faith but its substance seems to be lacking. TMLautas seems to be concentrating on CC articles since resuming editing, but they're being reasonable and engaging in discussion. I would concur with a warning based around that diff #6 though, do not soapbox on article talk pages within the probation scope as it can be easily seen as a provocative tactic. Franamax (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Could we get a proposed close to do an up or down endorse/not on? I think I agree with Franamax and LHvU both. And yet, TML's point by point defense rang true for me. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Proposed close: User:TMLutas is warned to avoid soapboxing on talk pages, and to be careful that sources are accurately summarized or paraphrased. I do not think we need anything about arguing tendentiously, as the question of whether a particular paper needs to be included in an accurate and well-weighted summary of the spectrum of opinion is a genuinely complex problem and it would not do to discourage such discussion. Changing a guideline to support one's own position in a content dispute could be done highly disruptively, but I think that TMLutas acted appropriately here. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I would suggest changing "warned" to "requested", since it appears that there is no finding he violated anything, but would accept as written. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Prefer LHvU's reformulation (warned -> requested) but am willing to accept as written if that will help reach consensus. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Per my remarks above I would prefer to include paraphrasing other people's comments as sources (paraphrasing opponents in an argument in a less civil way than they used) but am happy with requested. Also happy if no one else agrees to drop this point. --BozMo talk 19:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC) That seems a reasonable admonishment to include to me. As long as we don't get stuck in After you, Alphonse mode :) I'm fine with that. ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC0) Looks good to me - closing. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ratel

Ratel (talk · contribs) by Mackan79 (talk · contribs)

Ratel is directed toward WP:AGF and warned regarding making further assumptions of bad faith within articles covered by the probation. (dating so this can be archived by bot) 15:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ratel User requesting enforcement Mackan79 (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Ratel (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 [89] Reverts to remove statement that "Climate change denial" is generally used as a pejorative [90] Reverts same and other material less than a day later against another editor [91] Again reduces lead of article, removing all criticism of the term and other material summarizing the article [92] First comments that "pejorative" should not be used, because that is how deniers want the term to be seen [93] Adds a template the next day, saying that discussion is stuck and so editors should move on [94] Strikes my comment when I say that his comments are obstructive [95] Adds a new section in his next comment saying that consensus has been established and the discussion is over [96] States agreement with User:Nigelj who has commented that climate change deniers are simply wrong [97] Responds to detailed post on why the article needs to clarify that this is generally a pejorative by commenting that the "crux" of the matter is that CCD is simply "a deliberate, organized and concerted effort to derail science, for ideological, or, more usually, commercial reasons." [98] Reverts an editor who responds to Ratel's soapboxing with soapboxing of their own [99] Starts section saying that the majority of the lead should be removed [100] Receives detailed response about why the lead includes the material that it does [101] Notes that he has removed the lead, including all criticism and other information besides a definition which does not mention that this is a pejorative, without providing any response or explanation Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [102] Warning by Mackan79 (talk · contribs) [103] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (same) [104] Warning by Mackan79 (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I am requesting either a 0 revert restriction or a page ban. Additional comments by editor filing complaint The problems are not just with Ratel's editing here, but those are the most significant. The statement that the term is generally a pejorative has been in the article since at least December.[105] In early January I posted several references for this point,[106] because someone added a tag.[107] Other sources have been posted here and here. It is also known that many sources criticize the very use of the phrase as inappropriate. Discussion is nevertheless a matter of pulling teeth, where Ratel (and a small number of other editors) make no attempt to respond to issues raised and simply post terse statements, often soap boxing, with no supporting sources. A long discussion with User:Dmcq in this section resolved a way to provide an adequate summary in the lead, but now due to Ratel's repeated reverting, we are back to two sentences that violate not just WP:LEAD but equally WP:NPOV by omitting all controversy over the term. Ratel's last comment, like his others, confirms that to him the article should simply describe a "deliberate attempt to derail scientific consensus," and that this to him is a neutral assessment of the topic.[108] This is disruptive editing, after warnings, that is hurting the article and preventing improvement. Response to Ratel: I would be interested to see Ratel's evidence that I have been engaged in some sort of POV pushing campaign on this and other articles. He claims this with regard to the expanded lead that was added after extensive discussion and agreement with Dmcq.[109] He oddly supposes that I "despise" George Monbiot who, much to the contrary, I find to be quite reasonable. On Christopher Monckton my only participation was to strongly oppose the use of the picture seen here, which has now been removed. None of my three edits to Timothy F. Ball have been reverted. I believe my only edit ever relating to Ian Plimer is this. The claims Ratel is making here are, frankly, complete fabrications. Mackan79 (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC) To Jehochman: The issue is the following: 1.) On the first day, Ratel reverted twice against two different editors before posting any comment on the talk page. 2.) Quickly following were edits trying to summarily close the discussion.[110][111][112] 3.) After then first addressing the expanded lead and receiving a detailed response, Ratel simply ignored the response and reverted again.[113] 4.) Ratel has already been warned by 2/0 in relation to this probation.[114] What the content should say is not the issue; whether it is possible to work out what it should say when he reverts without responding is the issue. That he reverted a third time here, removing the product of a substantial compromise while pointedly ignoring the talk page, is the reason I brought it here. To answer directly, also, at least two of the listed sources specifically state that the term is pejorative, and many others suggest it. Discussion on how to address this would be very welcome; my problem is that Ratel's approach (reverting, ignoring, templating and adding sections to say the discussion is over) does not allow it. Mackan79 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Also Let me say that I would appreciate if someone noticed the string of serious personal attacks in Ratel's response, brazenly false, and without a single diff in support. I have thought that this is discouraged. Mackan79 (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC) To Ratel's update: I commented that Ratel's actions were obstructive only after he reverted twice before commenting, and then responded to a detailed explanation with a template that discussion was stuck, so "please move on."[115] This gave me no choice but to note the probation and the requirement for good faith collaboration. His next edit, after striking my comments, was nevertheless to post a new section, insisting that I stop "beating a dead horse," and "let it go."[116] I responded here saying it was my last request that he not try to stop the discussion without any basis for doing so. He then continued to ignore the discussion and proceeded again to remove the entire lead that had been worked out in a multi-day discussion. My statement that I would "wait it out" meant that I would not revert, hardly a statement that I was somehow going to wait until everyone else left the page (?). To say that this excuses him in fabricating a series of completely false attacks against me is absurd. Also the prominent mention of Monbiot is because he is the only writer we have found who defines the term, a definition that I produced, and Ratel objects to this here for the first time. Mackan79 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC) To Jehochman: Would you clarify if it concerns you whether Ratel's comments on this page are true or not? He accuses me (and my ilk) of despising George Monbiot, an utter fabrication that I find particularly offensive. He adds that I am editing as part "of an anti-science, politically driven campaign." He adds that my "edit history is replete with edits to climate-related pages that favor the side of well-known denialists like Timothy Ball and Christopher Monckton, etc." He accuses me of "anti-science subversive attacks" on the encyclopedia. Are these acceptable comments without evidence? Mackan79 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Notification of request [117] Discussion concerning Ratel Statement by Ratel I ask any admin present to please read the talk page carefully. You'll see that none of my actions is questionable, and that I have improved both the article and the Talk page. Mackan79's behaviour is what should really be under scrutiny here. This editor was opposed on the "pejorative" issue by not only me but several other editors, yet persisted and persisted in a dogged way in a situation where there was obviously no consensus for inclusion. His statements included threats to report opposing editors for alleged infractions and threats to "wait out" other editors and insert his version when we tire or lose focus. As to the lede, Mackan79 completely broke it by POV pushing in a not-so-subtle way, managing to expand it from the brief and clear explanation (that had stood there for about a year) to numerous paragraphs of woolly pap about someone he and other people of his ilk despise, left wing environmentalist George Monbiot, as if the whole idea of global warming denial is the work of this arch-enemy of the Right. Mackan79 is clearly editing the page as part of an anti-science, politically driven campaign. His edit history is replete with edits to climate-related pages that favor the side of well-known denialists like Timothy Ball and Christopher Monckton, etc. The encyclopedia is frankly under attack by people with motives inimical to the spread of knowledge. The basic science of global warming is almost completely settled, ask any practising climatologist, but these anti-science subversive attacks continue and are getting more tendentious and persistent. Wikipedia needs to put all global warming-related articles into a special category that can only be edited by a restricted set of editors, or we face the danger of science articles being rewritten by non-scientists with flat Earth theories. What really takes the cake is when these fringe POV-pushing editors, hell bent on influencing science-related pages to show the fringe denialist theories in the best light possible, start using noticeboards like this to report editors who actually represent the mainstream scientific opinion, in a shameful and scurrilous effort to hijack the system and use it against itself. On another note, I see that Mackan is a constant user, some might day abuser, of noticeboards and regularly reports people for opposing him in content disputes. Look at his edit history. This calls out for some sort of warning. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 07:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC) (response to LHvU) Lessheard, you mention my lack of AGF but what about Mackan78's comment to me that my responses on the Talk page were "obstructive" diff (that comment made when he started to lose the argument over 'pejorative'), and what about his threat to "wait out" diff other editors so that he gets his edit in no matter what the consensus is? These are signs of someone who is prepared to get his way, no matter what. The fact that we are discussing "pejorative" on this noticeboard is more evidence of his single-minded obsession with ramming his version through. And anyone looking at the lede he crafted, with its double mention of Monbiot (known as "Moonbat" to the denialists and a favorite target of ridicule for the Right), must concede that he is seriously POV-pushing and that his lede was inferior to what preceded it. On the larger issue of good faith, it is completely in keeping with the subject of the article under discussion to question the good faith of another editor. The whole article is about people and organisations abusing good faith to manipulate public opinion (arguably one of the most important topics on this planet at the moment, considering the consequences). Small wonder then that those who are editing to mitigate the seriousness of their crime against humanity should be of similar disposition, and face suspicion from other editors. ► RATEL ◄ 22:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Forgot to mention, please also note Mackan79's use of the threat to "take this to the enforcement page" —before— I made substantial edits on the issue of "pejorative", simply to bully other editors. diff And now here he is, making good on the threat. For that reason alone, this complaint should be rejected. ► RATEL ◄ 23:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC) To Lessheard, you say there was a consensus for inclusion of pejorative, and I breached that. Wrong. The word was added a few months ago and removed numerous times, and on the current talk page section discussing it more editors were against inclusion than for it. Hope this helps... ► RATEL ◄ 23:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Ratel This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I've had concerns in the past about Ratel and WP:NPOV when it comes to climate change skepticism, so much so that I even asked him about it at one point. I think his intense personal feelings on the subject get in the way of his attempts to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise in related articles. Cla68 (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Context: Cla68 is on a campaign to get the pro-Denialist article Watts Up With That to GA status and "hopefully onto the front page of wikipedia" diff. Please note how I say above that denialists are using Wikipedia to "show the fringe denialist theories in the best light possible". Case in point. ► RATEL ◄ 05:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Ratel, I'm currently personally working to get the DeSmogBlog to future FA status [118] [119], or at least GA status. Is DeSmogBlog a denialist website? Ratel, would you be willing and able to objectively improve and expand the Watts Up With That article to GA or FA status? If so, I'd like to see you join that effort and prove me wrong. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Your additions to DeSmogBlog include the line "The National Post has criticized the blog, saying [of Hoggan], "Here's a totally unqualified small-town PR guy making disparaging comments about scientists he says are unqualified while he lectures the rest of us on the science." This is a cherry-picked negative quote from many positive available via, for instance, Google News. And do I want to help you promote an article on a denialist Watt's blog page? Er... no, pass. ► RATEL ◄ 06:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Ratel, what does it matter what the topic of an article is? We don't take sides, remember? We're, as far as our editing is concerned, neutral, right? I believe you've just confirmed what I said, that your feelings on the matter are too strong to allow you to edit in a neutral manner. Cla68 (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC) You believe people with strong feeling on the mater are disqualified from editing on the topic? I look forward to you expressing this viewpoint in the future, and following it yourself. Hipocrite (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Certainly people who openly try to deny recognition of a GA quality article based on the subject matter of the page are only "people with strong feeling" because to call them what they are would likely violate WP:CIVIL. I took a look at the page in question and it's a very long way from GA much less FA status but an editor's dreaming to improve should be allowed to proceed to the limits of their skill and enthusiasm. Trying to keep an article disqualified based on the subject matter of the article should be sanctionable even when GA status for this page is as far away as it is. TMLutas (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Cla68 is spot on. But when it comes to AGW articles, sadly things like AGF and POV are just hopelessly compromised. Nevertheless it is good to see that some editors are at least trying to act and edit honourably, neutrally, and uphold standards. All is not yet lost it would appear. Jprw (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Suggest WP:DENY for future 'debates.' When an editor makes such a statement its probably best to highlight it with silence.--Heyitspeter (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC) This seems to be a content dispute with problematic POV-ish/argumentative language in both sides' versions. It is hard to separate the behavioral issues, if any, from the fact that AGW is accepted science whereas denialism is a peculiar cultural phenomeno concentrated in the US. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Wikidemon, could you point out which edits of mine you find problematic? We had a statement that was in the article for several months, and was removed without discussion. I have been attempting for some days to get editors to discuss whether we can really present this as a non-pejorative, neutral term for any position. Ratel maintains that the term is neutral, because it accurately describes what is in fact a disinformation campaign. This is like arguing that pinko isn't a pejorative because they are really communist sympathizers. He says the comparison should be to Holocaust denial or AIDS Denialism, but so far he cannot address that no reliable sources dispute either of those concepts, while numerous reliable sources dispute this one. Meanwhile, I have had an extensive discussion with Dmcq, the result of which I expanded the lead with sources to address his concerns and comply much more clearly with WP:LEAD. I made the proposal here, Dmcq agreed here, and I added it about two days later here. Ratel has now removed the material in its entirety twice, without engaging on the talk page whatsoever. He started templating on the second day that the discussion was over. So, the lead now presents the term as an accepted descriptor, and presents no controversy in plain violation of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV, because Ratel is reverting while I am trying to pursue a discussion. He responds here by making wildly absurd accusations that he does not support with a single diff. I wonder how an editor would correctly work this out. Mackan79 (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I wasn't trying to imply that your edits were problematic, just that both alternates seem on a simple read to have their own POV problems in the language. I also wasn't commenting on consensus, and I haven't been close enough to the article to judge what the stable / consensus version is. I'm a little short on time and I think we'd be going down a rabbit hole to begin discussing here what the POV / content issues are though. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Ratel, these guys [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] probably have this page on their watchlist. I don't think you've notified everyone who has edited that article. For example, JohnWBarber is active with that article but so far you haven't notified him of this thread. In any event, your editing should be able to speak for itself. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC) This case seems like Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing as committed and experienced by many in these probational articles. The zero revert or page ban must be an appropriate sanction to allow for continued progress on the article(s) while letting the offender contribute productivity elsewhere. The sourced content in question could obviously be presented in a NPOV; however, the offender takes a POV and works for exclusion or suppression. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC) "While AGF is not a suicide pact, I would suggest that long term contributors ... are due any and all AGF that is going" - You know, I'm pretty sure I coined - or rather, adapted - that phrase, circa 2005. Guettarda (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC) This seems to be a content dispute. A number of editors seem to be getting rather worked up, but I wouldn't single out Ratel. Stephan is free to comment where he likes; if he doesn't have the confidence of the other admins they're unlikely to be persuaded by what he says. Conversely, if he does... I would take this proposal, and the arbitration request arising from a minor quibble on who could comment in which section, as further evidence that a number of editors are harboring and fostering a battleground mentality. Very early on we acted swiftly and decisively to stamp out the abuse of this page as a battleground. Maybe the magic spell is beginning to wear off and it needs to be renewed. A general warning against battleground behavior would therefore be the best outcome of this request. --TS 18:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC) No, I do not agree that what we need is vague and suggestive statements about what may or may not be stamped out, without regard to any particular events. You do not say anything of the utterly baseless political soap boxing and political attacks by Ratel above, and frankly that says everything. The purpose of this page, I understand, is to ensure that we are able to work productively on these pages without battleground tactics. To say there is a content dispute, as some have, or to say that either side could be right, does not address the point. Is revert warring prohibited or isn't it? Editors will keep doing it if there are no consequences. Mackan79 (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC) This enforcement request is about the editors good faith behavior according to the sanctions, bringing in the battleground may simply be a battleground tactic. It's about good faith, that's what folks must be consistently be remind of. If the offender, didn't get the warnings, then time for enforcement. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Stephan Shultz Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. And before someone moves this comment elsewhere, the same page also says For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. I think a stern warning is enough. I would also like to remind LHvU that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC) @LHvU: Can you clarify what "zero tolerance for bad faith assumptions on other editors rationales within articles covered by the restriction" would mean?--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (responding here for clarity - and is not part of the admin discussion) Per my comments in the admin section, bad faith assumptions are specifically deprecated by the wording of the probation - and thus any action or edit or comment that alludes to another editors supposed intentions that is bad faith would draw firstly a warning and then a sanction. Editors are permitted to edit toward a particular POV, providing it falls within other policy (WP:UNDUE / WP:FRINGE etc.), without question as to their motivation other than to improve the encyclopedia. It is of course different in practice - POV's are often readily apparent - but openly acting in accordance of a bad faith assumption of other parties intentions is not allowed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the response! Might be good to be that explicit in the final wording (if it comes to that).--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Lessherd, can you show me where I've "acted in accordance with" a bad faith assumption? I have admitted here to finding my assumptions of good faith evaporating over the years in the area of climate change articles, but I don't think I have accused any specific editors, by name, on any page, of being in the employ of industry. ► RATEL ◄ 05:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Where did I imply that you said someone was in the employ of industry, and thus editing to a bias? What I said was, that you stated that some editors were editing to an anti GW bias, in accordance to some idealogy - e.g. "Mackan79 is clearly editing the page as part of an anti-science, politically driven campaign. His edit history is replete with edits to climate-related pages that favor the side of well-known denialists like Timothy Ball and Christopher Monckton, etc..." from your statement. AGF would be that Mackan79 is editing to improve the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC) This tangent is not helpful, please don't continue it (note that [e.g.] Stephan Schulz's comments to this request are ipso facto violations as well) WP MEAT violation UPDATE: Ratel has explicitly admitted that he knowingly violated WP:MEAT with his canvassing of the current request. (He also admits to persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:AGF violations w.r.t. those editors he sees as deleterious to the public perception of AGWeditors "trying to insert FUD into climate-related article.")--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC) How does MEAT, which specifies recruiting "new users", apply to my heads up to previously involved users? ► RATEL ◄ 09:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I am not concerned with the "public perception of AGW"; that is the interest of my opponents in this debate. I am concerned that science-related pages of an encyclopedia are being used for political and corporate propaganda purposes, contravening WP:FRINGE inter alia. ► RATEL ◄ 09:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Refactored.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) WP:MEAT: See Ratel's contributions between 6:15-6:22 on 16 March 2010. --Heyitspeter (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Nothing wrong with giving a heads up to other editors of that article, since this incident concerns the article as much as it does my edits. ► RATEL ◄ 12:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC) It's the sampling chosen that makes yours a violation. Perhaps WP:Canvass is more explicitly germane. You've certainly violated both.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) By your or Wikipedia's standards? "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy". Jprw (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I wonder if you remember writing just up above But when it comes to AGW articles, sadly things like AGF ... are just hopelessly compromised.? Perhaps you might wish to ponder that in relation to your comments William M. Connolley (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) The evidence spoke for itself. But I agree that WP:MEAT may have been wrong -- maybe inciting GANG or CABAL? Jprw (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC) WP:MEAT is clearly not applicable. I'm fairly certain that none of the informed editors will blindly do Ratel's bidding. If anything, WP:CANVASS could apply. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Right, a policy that it seems he is aware of.[128] Mackan79 (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see how your link establishes that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't call it a "canvassing campaign" per se This would indicate he knows of the policy mark nutley (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC) No. It would indicate that he knows the word "canvassing", not necessarily WP:CANVASS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC) How about the discussion here? Also seems to show that the WP:Battleground approach is not new. Mackan79 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC) It does not mention WP:CANVASS either, though at least it alludes to policies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC) MEAT is about recruiting editors to influence consensus in content debates, which does not apply here; read it. CANVASSING is a guideline, not a rule. I suggest you read that guideline carefully too, because I have not transgressed that either (no appeals to univolved editors, not excessively cross-posted, not worded or written to influence the outcome). There appears to be a fair bit of grasping at straws going on here. ► RATEL ◄ 08:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC) If you want to alert the people who are watching a page then just stick a notice onto the article's talk page. That's a fairly neutral way of doing it and far less bother. If it is relevant enough for me to be involved I'm sure I'll be aware, otherwise I can think of better ways of spending my life. The latter I believe applies in this case. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks, good advice, I'll keep it in mind for the future. Not sure why the requesting user didn't do that though. ► RATEL ◄ 10:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC) For admins: this is being discussed here. --Heyitspeter (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Ignignot @Jeh: the flip side is that if you punish someone severely it can serve as a deterrent for others to not repeat the same mistake. Everyone knowing that they have a few strikes before anything serious happens to them is an invitation to come right up to the limit of what is permissible, because if they go over they'll still be ok. A barely complying editor means that other people will sometimes think that they are not complying, which leads to more arbitration requests. I have felt for some time now that the only long term solution is to have very harsh punishment with little or no warning. "Good" editors should know better, which means they need a wake up call. "Bad" editors will never get it anyway so you might as well avoid the hassle. Ignignot (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Jehochman writes below at 19:33, 18 March: We need to convince people to be respectful in disagreement. Disagree, but don't be disagreeable. If somebody has been warned and coached and still fails to get it, then apply a long term topic ban. Then Ratel, being disagreeable, writes on this page's talk page (00:41, 19 March): [...] user JohnWBarber (talk · contribs · count) summarily removed my edits He also removed a quote from a book [...] without giving any reason. That's what we're up against, every damn day. (edit summary: example of antiscience editing [129] I said in the edit summary that the quote was two long, so an explanation was provided from the start, and I then responded more on the talk page. No one can show that my edits or comments have anything to do with being "anti-science", the kind of slur that isn't helpful to improving the atmosphere around here. Jehochman was aware of Ratel's statement because he participated in the same thread. When another editor responded to Ratel's comment [130] Jehochman told the editor he should refactor his response.[131] No request was made to Ratel to refactor his comment about me. Instead, Jehochman suggested, vaguely, that Ratel leave his feelings "at the door" or edit elsewhere.[132] Jehochman's response below (19:33) doesn't seem effective in improving the atmosphere around here. It will be interesting to see if his vague response on the talk page will work any better. Other editors have noted in past complaints that an editor's ongoing behavior during the complaint was relevant to that complaint. Mackan79 has already complained that Ratel was calling him "anti-science" as well. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Go start an WP:RFC of Ratel if you like. I believe there may be grounds to do so, but I don't think this board can fairly deal with minor incivilities or long term patterns of editing. We simply don't have enough space or enough uninvolved participants. Literally every one of you could be sanctioned if we employed the standards you seem to favor against Ratel. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC) You're the one who suggested to the editor commenting on Ratel to refactor comments. You're also the one who looked over the complaint I filed here with a fine toothed comb, and when I discussed it, wrote follow up comments by the subject that lack any sort of introspective qualities. Look: GSCC mentions ABF, NPA, CIV among the policies supposed to be enforced. That page states: Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian Seriously, is it your opinion that the words on that page are just bullshit? If you aren't interested in enforcing them, what are you doing here? I fully understand not wanting to enforce something too strictly, and I fully understand the idea that if everybody is violating a policy, the best thing to do is not to single one out. I haven't asked that you do so. Just do a better job of treating different editors with the same standard, and when it appears that you aren't, explain yourself well enough so that the different treatment is clear. Now I've left a request on his talk page for him to revert his comment. Instead of you suggesting that some other admin from somewhere start counseling him, why don't you do it yourself? You could start by treating him the way you treated the other editor and ask him to revert. He might have a more positive reaction to it than a request from me. It might help him stop committing many more infractions in the future, which was another point you made that I agree with. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, Jehochman, I just noticed this: If there are disagreements about those edits, civil discussion and dispute resolution is available. If on the other hand Ratel (or anybody else) resorts to incivility as a tool of furthering their position in this content dispute, then sanctions would be appropriate. Jehochman Talk 23:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Well, he seemed to be using invcivility as a tool to further his position in another content dispute (related to the first? I'm not sure), having the effect of bringing in like-minded editors to revert the mean old anti-science editor, so it wasn't merely incivility. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Do it!. Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Feel free to explain whatever it is your point is. Preferrably elsewhere.Ok, it was on topic. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I'd like him to just sanction everyone already and get it over with. I'd like you to be civil, but we're both not going to get what we want, are we? Hipocrite (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC) The Watchmen reference is pretty apt - there are two groups whose relationship has broken down, and the way out was to give them something to fear and work towards overcoming. As above, a few examples and the threat of harsh punishment may bring most editors into line. Unless you were making a comment about a homeless crazy person (the person who said that line). Ignignot (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC) The first. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC) (ec) Some time ago, I suggested just topic banning everybody and let the articles be edited with a whole new crew. Feel free to point out where I've been uncivil and how. I'm certainly trying not to be. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC) You don't see how "Preferrably elsewhere." is incivil? Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Hmmmm, maybe an assumption of bad faith. I followed the link, couldn't make anything out of it and figured you were off-topic. Sorry. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I think LHVU and Lar's general competence and fitness to rule on this is neatly summarised by their inability to spell Ratel William M. Connolley (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC) I think your general competence and collegiality is neatly summarized by your making a snarky comment (with an edit summary that verges on a personal attack, no less), rather than a polite request for correction. How was that helpful? You are strikingly unfit to participate at wikipedia, in any way, shape or form, as long as you participate in this manner. Up your game, as you have been repeatedly requested to do. I corrected my error just the same, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC) How, by any stretch of the imagination, is this sort of a comment useful here? Criticising a comment that "verges on a personal attack" with a personal attack? Not just unhelpful, but seemingly calculated to raise the temperature around here. Please refactor your comment. Guettarda (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Right. WMC calls them clueless, Lar responds with a warning, and Guettarda swoops in to admonish Lar with no reference to the original provacation. If it happens to someone like Lar, imagine how many newbies have been bitten by these group tactics. Sigh. ATren (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC) I should think we can pass over WMC's causticity, given the self awareness of the subsequent edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC) I have frequently see WMC make such over-the-top remarks against admins who have been critical of him. I believe it is an attempt to bait the admin into responding in kind, so that WMC can later claim that those admins are no longer "neutral" with respect to him. I'm glad to see that LHvU did not fall for it. ATren (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC) With respect ATren that speculation is a long way from assuming good faith of WMC (aside which I have seen him call admins many things but not claim they were non neutral). Your comment serves no positive purpose and I would encourage you to strike it. --BozMo talk 18:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC) BozMo, did you bother to address the original provocation on this thread, namely an editor who is subject to civility parole calling admins "clueless"? I wonder, how can my above comment (which addresses tactics, not the editor himself) be considered more offensive to you than an editor calling someone clueless? If there is consensus here that I should strike, I will strike, but I suggest that more egregious attacks be addressed as well. ATren (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC) For the record, just in case admins here didn't see it, I think this adequately reflects Ratel's current attitude (at least as of that timestamp) and reaction to all this: the opportunity I gave him to reconsider [133] and Ratel's response [134]. Taking a larger view, I'm really wondering why anyone would subject themselves to this kind of constant uncivil, bad-faith-assuming behavior by multiple editors. It's the opposite of fun, and the encyclopedia ends up not being improved or even worsened. Editors, admins and arbs who are watching this page should think about how normal human beings would naturally be repelled by the antics that go on around here and the good and bad reasons why certain editors decide to stick around and endure it. I have more productive interests (someone in a coma would have more productive interests). No, if I go through that door I won't let it hit me on the way out. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC) I see NW archived as I was typing this. I have nothing further to say, but I think admins here should follow those two diffs before closing this, and I don't think this comment should be archived if it means admins won't see it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Ratel This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I checked the first few assertions of this report and was not convinced. Administrators, please don't jump to process this too quickly. Mackan79, can you point out the one or two worst diffs? The warnings you cited are a couple months old. I want to see diffs showing bad behavior directly violating those warnings, not squabbles about content. Removing "generally pejorative term" seems like a possibly good application of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Is there a reference cited somewhere that says it is a generally pejorative term? I didn't see a reference, but I might have missed it. Jehochman Talk 12:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I have to say that I am rather startled that in response to allegations that Ratel acts in a manner that does not extend good faith toward editors whose viewpoints may vary from his own as regards climate change, that he comments upon both Cla68 (talk · contribs) [135] and Mackan79 (talk · contribs) (specifically the last paragraph) in terms that question the legitimacy of their contributions on the subject. Regardless of Ratals perception of the worthiness of other editors contributions to the subject, the article concerned is covered by the probation - which does note that edit warring is prohibited, and assumptions of bad faith also. I see Mackan79's diffs as clearly showing that there are violations of both (and Ratal violating the latter in his responses here). Under the probation, and Ratals continuing disregard for its restrictions, I should think that a short block, as well as a 1RR restriction and zero tolerance for bad faith assumptions on other editors rationales within articles covered by the restriction, might be considered; no more than 48 hours, and likely 24. Seperately, I support a 1RR restriction on articles covered by the probation, and a warning that further bad faith assumptions upon the part of editors who may be sympathetic toward a GW skeptic/denial viewpoint may be sanctionable. (To Jehochman)This part of the Request is to discuss whether the wording and spirit of the Probation has been breached, and to determine what actions to take. Your views as to whether "pejorative" should be included in the lede (which is a form of poetry, and not a good English variant of a word which may also describe the element known as Pb) should be made at the article talkpage or some other place. I would only comment that I checked back a few months on the article history, to determine whether Ratal was reverting new content, to find that variants of the use of the term "pejorative" within the article have been included over that period. Whether you feel it should be there or not, it seems that there has been a consensus, and that therefore it appears Ratal has been edit warring, and perhaps more, in an effort to remove it, contrary to the wording of the Probation, and therefore those actions need reviewing. I should be interested in seeing your comments in regard to possible violations of the probation by Ratal, and how they might be dealt with if found proven. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC) (Response to Ratal) You seem unaware that there is a probation covering the article(s) you refer to - much like you appeared unaware that this section is for admins - and that indeed bad faith assumptions are a violation of them, as is edit warring. Your "rationale" for doing so is irrelevant. However, I have reviewed your talkpage history and found that you were notified. It is your responsibility, should you wish to continue to edit these articles, to comply with the wording of the probation. You have not so far, and it is my and other admins responsibility to determine what - if any - actions need to be undertaken to ensure future adherence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC) I think a reminder might be helpful, perhaps, before applying a sanction. As a mitigating factor, Ratel's edits appear to be colorably justifiable by Wikipedia's content policies. I'm not saying they are correct edits, but that a reasonable case could be made that they are. If there are disagreements about those edits, civil discussion and dispute resolution is available. If on the other hand Ratel (or anybody else) resorts to incivility as a tool of furthering their position in this content dispute, then sanctions would be appropriate. Jehochman Talk 23:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Agree with J. --BozMo talk 07:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC) (response to Stephan Schulz) While AGF is not a suicide pact, I would suggest that long term contributors such as Cla68 and Mackan79 are due any and all AGF that is going. [comment redacted] My understanding of AGF and "Comment upon the content, and not the contributor" would be tested by Ratel's comments outside of this probation. As for warnings, they have been given per Mackan79's diffs - and apparently disregarded (or at least refuted). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Please post, concisely, the diffs of recent warnings (and counseling) and recent violations. Don't make me go through a hug pile of questionable diffs. Just point out the two or three most egregious. Jehochman Talk 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I think you have mistaken me for a clerk, but I have nevertheless reviewed Ratal's contributions of the past few weeks and then reviewed the talkpages of articles he has edited (that is, both the talkpages he has posted upon and also talkpages of articles he has edited). No, I have not found any more recent warnings other than that supplied by Mackan79 - or any suggestion of a method of alleviating any editing problem. I am not surprised, however, because it takes someone with a very firm grasp of both the subject and Wikipedia policy, and a tolerance to scorn, to wish to argue a point with Ratal. I can provide further examples of Ratal's recent willful disregard of WP:AGF, but I would return to those diffs I provided in my first response when Ratal commented upon both Cla68 and Mackan79 supposed sympathies/agenda's as the motivation for the request. In doing so I would again draw attention to the wording of the probation and note especially the first bulletin point, which in part states, "Any editor may be sanctioned ... for disruptive edits, including ... assumptions of bad faith." which Ratal boldly (and not WP:BOLD, either) declares as irrelevant ("On the larger issue of good faith, it is completely in keeping with the subject of the article under discussion to question the good faith of another editor... ► RATEL ◄ 22:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)") This is fine, and Ratal is entitled to his opinion - but may not edit articles under the provision of this probation if he is intending to do so contrary to the wording (and isn't WP:AGF a pillar for the entire project?) My extended review of Ratal's approach to interaction with editors, and especially those who do not share his viewpoint, leads me to the conclusion that he operates under a WP:BATTLE mentality. I invite anyone to read Ratal's comments in this request and note the casual allegations of concerted efforts to reduce or remove the scientific GW consensus as justification for his actions. If you believe that a warning is sufficient to moderate Ratal's attitude toward other editors of this collegiate, consensual volunteer editing project, then so be it. I would be unsurprised, however, if the editor was again reported to this page by some editor willing to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fulminations for doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with LHvU's analysis of the situation, and endorse the proposed remedies. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I must oppose, at this time, because my concerns immediately above have not yet been addressed. I am concerned that certain administrators appear to be acting tendentiously. Lar, your insults against the "science club" editors make your involvement here counter-productive. I have no issue with LHvU's involvement, though I'd like my questions answered before I would consider supporting any sanction. Ratel is well-known to me, and I've had concerns about his brusque style. That said, I am not without hope that a simple warning or reminder might be sufficient. I am loath to apply rote or mechanistic counting of reverts to establish sanctions on a seasoned contributor who has made many productive edits. (I'd make the same argument if somebody proposed sanctioning Cla68 or Mackan79.) To LHvU's question to me: why not simply warn Ratel not to repeat the disputed action, and to instead use WP:NPOVN or WP:RFC to establish a consensus based on a wider selection of Wikipedians? The article talk page is dominated by two groups with opposing views. Any discussion there tends to devolve into bickering and the result on any given day depends on which group has more editors present, rather than a rational analysis of content and policy. Jehochman Talk 09:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Eh? Editing tendentiously? That's a serious charge. Who are you referring to and in what way? Further, what supposed insults of mine are you referring to? Cite please, and make sure you demonstrate that they are insults, per se... You can do so on my talk if you wish. Red herring in any case. Focus on this case, not the admins participating. More importantly, being a big softie as I am, I normally agree with the notion of warning first. But when someone's response to discussion about issues is in effect, "stick it", it sort of makes the warning thing moot. Ratel got his/her warnings right here on this page, in a discussion he/she participated in and subsequently showed disdain for the very notion that there was an issue that needed resolving. But I'm willing to compromise. What specific sanction regime would you support that you think LHvU and I would support as well? Put it forward and maybe we can wrap this up. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Hey, that will do. He only said an appearance of tenditious editing which was bad enough but if you up it another notch in reply we are in danger of making us look even more snarky than some of the involved parties. So instead of asking for proof and something back (a proposal) why not walk away showing you can ignore such stuff and answer what he asked for (whats the most recent relevant offence)? --BozMo talk 19:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I'm just a bit tired of the rhetorical style of smearing by suggestion. So when I see it, I call it. Jehochman knows where my talk page is, if he has a complaint, he can make it there, not here. As for the diffs you asked for, LHvU gave them: [136] and [137] Those are problematic enough to warrant a sanction of the sort LHvU proposed. They show battleground mentality and a lack of assumption of good faith, as well as disdain for the enforcement process itself (not that that's sanctionable, thank goodness, but it doesn't help show reasonableness). But I would repeat my offer, propose something that you think LHvU and I can get behind, and I expect we will, and that will be that, we can close and move on. Warning alone won't cut it. It would have at the start of this, but not after diffs like that. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Hmmm. You are really sure these diffs are actionable? I have read them a couple of times. Both from his own perspective are calling a spade a spade. And where is the assumption of bad faith? I am sorry I just don't see it. I know I am a bit blind on these things but it depends what tone of voice you read the comments in (and the edit summary did imply the tone was to be taken with a grain of salt). --BozMo talk 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Yes. See LHvU's analysis. Again, do you have any compromise that might find consensus? You often come up with good ones, instead of just saying no. ++Lar: t/c 01:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I do not mind bowing to consensus but not seeing an offence makes it tricky proposing a remedy. --BozMo talk 06:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Nod. I can see how that might be a bit challenging. :) Perhaps I'm the one missing something then. May I suggest you review LHvU's analysis (the latest version, starting with "I think you have mistaken me for a clerk"...) and explain why you feel that there's nothing problematic. Maybe we're wrong. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, had another read and can see your point. As far as I can tell LHvU is still refering to just the two diffs: [138] looks to me as though he is saying Cla88 has a clear POV agenda. I do not think saying someone has a POV is per sae an AGF violation but I do agree that there is a WP:BATTLE element to the tone. [139] is more serious and makes a set of accusations on motive which are possible to be made about an editors actions with no assumption of bad faith, should they be justified (I don't know either editor well enough to have a clue if they are justified). From my perspective the problem with them is again WP:BATTLE wording (despise, of his ilk, flat earthers etc). There may be a second problem if LHvU is correct that the attacks are largely unfounded and these are well established and respected editors. My first attempt would be to ask Ratel to withdraw these comments on grounds of WP:BATTLE. --BozMo talk 20:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC) The nutshell at WP:AGF reads"* Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. * If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence" - and I am unaware of any clear evidence being presented. To be fair to Ratal it does appear that they sincerely believe that anyone who does not edit in strict accordance to the scientific consensus does so at the behest of sinister (um, or perhaps adroit?) interests, and the difficulty seems to be convincing him that his understanding is flawed. I would re-iterate, Ratal's initial response to this request was to propose dismissing it on the basis that the other party edited toward a different viewpoint, was thus campaigning to remove the existing consensus, and may be supported by disruptive interests. If that does not flag up concerns on the ability of the editor to contribute in accordance to the restriction and the WP ethos then I am uncertain what diff or example I may bring to the discussion will. As I responded to Jehochman, let us constrain ourselves to warning Ratal about interacting with other editors who might not share their viewpoint in accordance to WP:AGF and the specifics of the probation, and to not give the appearance of having a WP:BATTLE mentality. If they are able to do so, then no more needs to be done. If, however, they are brought back here with further claims of such inappropriate behaviour (without poking, of course) then perhaps a block while a topic ban duration is discussed would be the initial response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Ok with me.--BozMo talk 07:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Personally (1) I have no problem with Lar's involvement or LHvU's and I am sure we all make off guard comments sometimes; it is a volunteer project and we are all busy and sometimes tired. Also they both seem happy with disagreement which is good. (2) With J I am struggling to see specific recent issues and bearing in mind that a block or 1RR are intended to be preventative not punitive and particularly puzzled by a proposed RR restriction in the absence of recent RR violations. More generally, I don't know of a good way to get everyone to tone down the bickering and think intervening too much is probably not helpful. Tools like coaching, recontracting and possibly even community service come to mind. For community service (if we could get the idea to take off) rewriting an article here for the simple wikipedia comes to mind..--BozMo talk 14:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Shackling Ratel, or any of the other experienced editors is a bad idea. We need to convince people to be respectful in disagreement. Disagree, but don't be disagreeable. If somebody has been warned and coached and still fails to get it, then apply a long term topic ban. I hate these short sanctions where the editor gets pissed off by the sanction, tests limits, deteriorates their behavior, gets a bigger sanction, and so on. That may be a fine result if one is trying to troll an editor until they implode, but if we are trying to help people (yes, that's our primary goal, to help), then we don't want to set off that sort of death spiral. Can an uninvolved administrator who sees problems with Ratel's behavior please go have a friendly conversation with them, and provide the necessary warnings and coaching? If heeded, no further steps are needed. If not heeded, then we go for a much stronger sanction, such as a three to six month topic ban. Jehochman Talk 19:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Proposed Ratel is reminded of both Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation (regarding assuming good faith specifically), and is warned that further assumptions of bad faith will result in a prompt short block and a topic ban from Climate Change articles covered by the probation for a period to be decided. Ratel is encouraged to respond positively to other editors requests for co-operation and discussion, and to report any instances of possible provocation to an uninvolved administrator rather than reverting/warring. I hope this clarifies our expectations of compliance with policy, and the consequences of not doing so - and provides options should anyone test (deliberately or otherwise) their ability to do so. Comments welcome, but can we expedite this so we may conclude and move on? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Endorse as written. Moves to a warning rather than a topic ban, which I think addresses J and B's concerns, but does not minimize the seriousness of the non collegialness of Ratel's approach, which addresses mine. ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Also endorse as written. --BozMo talk 20:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Perfect. Jehochman Talk 22:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley

Marknutley (talk · contribs) by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)

Marknutley is blocked for 48 hours for incivility. Marknutley is restricted to one revert per 24 hour period to any article in the probation area until 2010-10-01. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Marknutley User requesting enforcement William M. Connolley (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, specifically, civility Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [140] Incivil edit summary, incivil change of section title, incivil text. [141] Incivil edit comment, incivil text. [142] Incivil diminutive in edit comment and in text. ... Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [143] Warning by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) (predates some but not all of the above) [144] Warning by BozMo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (and see previous) [145] Warning by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Comment redaction, civility restriction. Given MN's edit warring on Heaven and Earth (book), perhaps a revert parole too (on which, see-also "User:Marknutley blocked for 48 hours for edit warring at Rajendra K. Pachauri - [3]. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)" and "Marknutley is warned that further participation in any edit war in the probation area will lead to a one-revert restriction or similar sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)" @LHVU: edit warring: MN has 5 reverts to H+E since the 28th: [146] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Additional comments by editor filing complaint I note that MN is still refusing to admit his edit warring, and is claiming only three reverts (*only* three... well). But there are 5: [147] (marked rv) [148] (not marked as rv, but removes "conservative", which is a large part of the issue under dispute) [149] (not marked revert, but clearly is) [150] (ditto) [151] (ditto) Also note MN's It is not me who is edit warring here, it is wmc. - a glance at the history of that page will show that three different editors all disagreed with MN's edits. I can see no sign of MN understanding that his behaviour there was in any way at fault; hence asking for revert parole William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [152] Discussion concerning Marknutley I suggest the enforcing admins look at the context before each of the diffs WMC provides: MN was baited into incivility by WMC and Ratel. If MN gets a sanction, WMC and Ratel should get the same, especially given their history of incivility. ATren (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Statement by Marknutley What a pile of bollocks. 1st diff [153] Incivil edit summary, incivil change of section title, incivil text. My talk page, i`ll do what i want on it. If i consider it boring then i`ll say it is. Also saying something is boring is not uncivil. 2nd diff [154] Incivil edit comment, incivil text. How is "dur" uncivil? And as said, if he acts like a bull in a china shop in his constant rush to insult and belittle me then he is being "bovine" 3rd diff [155] I remind him of this He was given fair warning and choose to ignore it, his problem not mine mark nutley (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC) To recap, for weeks now WMC has done naught but insult me, frankly i`m sick of it and he will now get the same as he gives out. If he does not like this then tough tittys, perhaps he will learn to be more polite when he gets a dose of his own bullshit back mark nutley (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC) As lar says, i really should give some diff`s regarding WMC`s constant barrage of insults, so here you are [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] There you go, this is the majority of interactions between WMC and myself, and as you can see they are all sly insults and outright hostile mark nutley (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Regarding the accusation of edit warring above [165] You will not see 5 reverts in two days as wmc is saying.You will see three, all of which i believe are justified given the use of "conservative" to describe some of the sources. This is obviously not wp:npov and it is also being trashed out in talk. For instance this revert by ratel [166] his edit summary is blatantly false, there was no consensus to describe sources by political leaning, and to do so is just not on. So yes i reverted him per policy. His revert and WMc`s was against policy. It is not me who is edit warring here, it is wmc. mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC) An Offer Ok here`s what i`ll do. I will give my word to be civil at all times from this moment on. This will mean if i`m insulted or other crap is chucked my way i will get up, go for a fag and then respond. However i would also want those who continue to belittle and insult me to actually get sanctioned for it, not to be told "be a good little lad now" and for it then to continue. I can assure you my word is good. mark nutley (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC) If i am to get a block would it be possible for it to be a voluntary one? As in i do not edit any articles in the probation area for the block length? I request this as i would like to continue to work on my current wip`s. I have made this deal before with 2/0 who agreed and as my word is good i would hope the admins here would also accept my word in this, thank you mark nutley (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley Er... get the same as he gives out. If he does not like this then tough tittys, perhaps he will learn to be more polite when he gets a dose of his own bullshit back ??? No. Incivility in others does not justify responding with incivility. While I thought it rather cheeky of WMC to raise any sort of request here related to anything to do with incivility, given his own record of snarkiness, he is within rights to do so, and he has a point. The proper response, Mark, is to turn the other cheek, or to use the appropriate channels, assuming you haven't been blocked from doing so. Not to fire back with both barrels. I've put this here rather than in the next section, because I'm hoping you'll reconsider your response before we admins decide what to do. Will you? ++Lar: t/c 11:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Lar i have supplied some diffs above showing WMc`s constant stream of invective. Yes i know i should turn the other cheek but then again i`m not jesus, were i come from turning the other cheek just means both of them get slapped. Yes i know you are right, but i will not kowtow to someone who refuse to even give me the most basic courtesy. mark nutley (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC) While I am aware that two wrongs do not make a right according to Wikipedia's policies, I would say that given Marknutley's rather agreeable demeanor for the most part, given his contribution history on talk pages, and WMC's propensity to be condescending, snide, and frankly just plain mean, I think the response is fairly reasonable. Taking that on board, I think that incivility can be less acceptable in some cases than others. If MN bawled out some new editor for making a minor error, that would be much worse than lashing out at WMC for being mean to him over an extended period of time. In other words, I think the fact that WMC really did provoke him might not excuse the action outright, but does act as an important mitigating factor to be considered. Macai (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I am not without considerable sympathy to your argument, Macai. However, in that case introducing evidence of provocation (be it condescending, snide, or just plain mean, whatever the case may be) that mitigates the responses tone, as a point by point refutation of the cited incidents, might be a good approach in Mark's response, rather than being belligerent. I can't imagine that finding this evidence would be all that hard, would it? Being the better man often works wonders (easy advice to give, hard advice to take, as I well know myself). ++Lar: t/c 11:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Lar, WMC and MN have a long history of sniping at each other, and WMC has been uncivil to MN many times. In many cases WMC has mocked MN and treated him like a child, as he did here ("use the left button"). Yes, MN was wrong to respond in kind, but IMO WMC should get whatever MN gets. Also note, MN cannot come here to report problems because he was sanctioned from doing so, which kind of makes the playing field skewed if WMC can file a report after mocking MN and knowing that he can't file a report here. ATren (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Quite. However WMC HAS filed a report here now. MN would be well served, in his response, to detail, in depth, the various and sundry incidents of WMC's incivility to MN... WITH supporting diffs, presented as calmly and civilly as humanly possible (he might even seek assistance if it came to that, to get the tone right). There is nothing in the enforcement provisions that prevents sanctions being lodged against both parties, or even against the requesting party alone with no sanctions on the requestee, if circumstances warrant it. The ball is in MN's court, he has been invited to play (when he could not initiate such an invitation himself), the playing field is as level now as it can get given the circumstances. He should not respond with invective but with reasoned presentation of material. It is out there, is it not? (failing that, others such as yourself or Macai or whomever certainly could present it if they were so inclined) Present it. I cannot make myself plainer. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Re. "condescending": Sorry, but Mark is very often very obviously wrong about things he thought he read, and needs several carefully crafted explanations before he grudgingly accepts that. See [167] for an example. Pointing out that someone is wrong is not condescending. Pointing it out 5 times in a row may seem condescending, but really is necessary unless we want to let wrong information stand unchallenged ("to avoid hurt feelings"?). And also let me point out that saying "you are wrong" is not an insult, either, in particularly not if "you" are wrong....--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Per diffs, BozMo and I have previously warned MN regarding incivility and in particular when responding to perceived incivility - and that involving WMC. If diffs are provided of alleged violations by WMC (and other parties) then these can also be reviewed within this request, but that should not be regarded as alleviating MN's actions. Any alleged violations regarding this instance should be dealt with on an individual basis. It is not a matter of "evening up". LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC) WMC's recent incivility towards MN: [168] - "You have to forgive MN his background. When you say "paper" you mean scientific paper. He means something to wrap chips in". [169] - "use the left button" - treating MN like a child. [170] - "you're not reading" - mildly condescending, but relevant given the history of WMC belittling MN. ATren (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Can we get some context on those ATren? Your 2nd link, for instance, where you state that WMC treats Mark as a child, which i to some extend agree that he does - is a response to Marks repeating the same question after 3 editors have already responded. I would say that Mark is suffering from a very bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in that particular discussion - and the condecending tone came after Mark demonstrated that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC) And ever more bull. If a question is not responded to it gets asked again. Tony says this [171] my response is how exactly is the use of this lot is justified by one ref, then wmc made his snide remark [172] so please don`t be saying i got answered 3 times when in fact i had not gotten a single response to that question. mark nutley (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Seems like MN's behavior could improve if the root cause had been addressed in the previous dozen or so requests for enforcement with regards to WMC. Two wrongs don't make right; however, there has been a bad apple in the bunch for some time. WMC is obviously a bad example for MN to follow with regards to civility. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I suggest everyone just drop it. Science-oriented editors need to recognize that they are held to higher standards of conduct than are the contrarians. That might not be "fair" in some abstract sense but that's how it is. Deal with it and move on. There's nothing to be gained here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Well, at least we have some "neutral" admins who always chime in on both sides equally... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Scare quotes, Stephan? I do try to be as even handed as circumstances warrant. ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Apparently we disagree about the definition of "even handed" or about what we perceive as the "circumstances". Going back over your contributions here, can you point out one situation where you advocate a lesser sanction for "team science" or a stronger one for "the sceptics"? How does the tally jive with your claim to be neutral? Or have you ever compared the positive contributions of WMC with those of MN? Just as a thought experiment, mentally remove all edits from both. Which changes would be even noticed by the world at large? I don't know what you think you are doing, but what you are doing is making Wikipedia a worse encyclopaedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Your first question is the wrong one to ask. Equality of opportunity != equality of outcome, and evenhandeness does not mean meting out identical sanctions to non identical transgressors. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Yes. I think that's why some people find your stated objective of "leveling the playing field" to be misguided. MastCell Talk 01:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I'm aware of how unpopular that objective of mine is in some quarters, yes. Especially among those who happened to be on the uphill side of the field already. Nevertheless I do think equality of opportunity is a good thing to strive for. For if it is achieved the miscreants will have less externality to blame. In this case, I started out chastising MN, and rightly so, for no matter how grievous the provocation, we have every right to expect equanimity in behavior from all. But in looking into the matter further, I find that WMC has yet again sorely tried MN's patience, and it's no wonder he snapped, really. Doesn't excuse the snapping, at all, but it does call for yet another admonishment to WMC. Who, I note, has been admonished about this till the cows come home. So, something more beyond admonishment, then. WMC has been at the uphill end of the field for some time. But this is all well plowed ground. ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I don't think anyone is opposed to equality of opportunity, or to the concept of a level playing field. On the other hand, those terms are political rhetoric, calculated to play on a listener's innate sense of fairness. The danger in playing that game is that to an unsophisticated listener, "level playing field" means "all viewpoints are equally valid" (which is not the case here). The more substantial question is what a "level playing field" looks like in practice, and in the context of Wikipedia's policies and goals. MastCell Talk 06:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Fortunately, I don't hold the view that "all viewpoints are equally valid". I've explained that repeatedly.++Lar: t/c 10:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I know you don't, Lar. Unfortunately, some less sophisticated editors do, and this rhetoric plays to their misconceptions. That was the point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make. MastCell Talk 16:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Gotcha, it's easy to get confused here about who is talking to who and about who given that other participants are in fact referring to me. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I would think that a preconceived notion that the field is not level and that there is an uphill side very much undercuts any claims to neutrality. Of course there is always the problem that reality has a strong bias for reality... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Be sure to distinguish between preconceived notions and your own self delusion. I hold no preconceived notions. I merely have made observations of the behavior of certain editors that suggest they view themselves as superior to others, and that they hold the upper end of the playing field, viewing it as moral high ground rather than unfair advantage. I am uninvolved, but I am not uninformed. Rather than chafing at reality, you would do better to convince those editors to change their ways. Mirrors may be involved. ++Lar: t/c 10:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Do you intend to run for political office? Or is there some semantics hidden in that syntax? What you seem to say is that you think there are some editors who think they hold the high ground, but don't. If that's the case, why should there be a need to level the playing field? It is, of course, an easily observable fact that some editors are more productive and more knowledgeable than others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I thought my meaning was plain enough. A certain group thinks they hold the moral high ground, but actually do not. At the same time, this same group claims not to hold the high end of the playing field (from a tactical perspective) when in fact they do. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) In my opinion if someone baits another editor, and that editor responds in a less-than-civil manner, then both editors should receive corrective action. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I have tried to raise this before and what I understood from the replies I received was that Wikipedia is mainly here to teach good behaviour and places no particular value on the contribution of careful, informed and accurate content. Indeed people who donate such material are of no particular value to the project and are "expendable", "because any other good contributor can use the same references and arrive at much the same content". I've contented myself mostly with reverting obvious vandalism and watching to see how all this plays out since then. --Nigelj (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) It seems to me that Marknutley was pretty blatantly revert warring. He contended that the positive reviews should not be labeled as conservative because no source had said this; fine. But then Ratel presented a source saying exactly that at 1:33 on March 29,[173] but Mark kept reverting.[174] I have not read all of this discussion, and I'm not saying any of the discussion was ideal, but this kind of reverting needs to be strongly discouraged with sanctions. Mackan79 (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I agree with that. And sanctions are called for. But the remedy for revert warring is not snark. ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC) People seem to be afraid of clear fact-based standards, which is too bad, and I think results in a lot of the snark and coded language. Personally I like standards, and by mine the reverting here should have stopped when Mark's first argument was addressed. As to WMC's comments such as here, clearly these aren't helpful, but in this case I think it followed and didn't necessarily cause Mark's reverting. Mackan79 (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Tony's comment on Mark Nutley What is annoying most people, I think, is Mark's determination to remove the characterization conservative from instances that are either well sourced, or as in the case of The Spectator, unimpeachably and (with good cause) proudly conservative. The polarization of responses to the book, with ideological conservatives treading a path quite distinct from the mainstream including most scientists, had been remarked upon by commentators and was made all the more remarkable in the context of the vehemence of the scientific response to the book. Mark was trying it on and treating informed comments with contempt. And edit warring. If he's been warned about this kind of behavior in the past he should be told to stop trying it on. I've no doubt that he will now stop if told to do so firmly enough. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Mark's response is "bull", which I assume is a euphemism for bullshit. Well, perhaps Mark simply doesn't know that The Spectator is the proudest and most celebrated organ of political conservatism in the UK. I sometimes think that this is the tragedy of Wikipedia: that here we are not constrained by the bounds of our ignorance, but are free to comment endlessly on the areas in which our intellectual laziness makes us a liability. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC) To which I add: it's just the way it is. The reason why so many editing sequences have this result in this area is because there are a lot of people editing articles on the subject who have neglected to inform themselves on the most basic facts of life. Perhaps this is why they are attracted here: they see somebody refer to The Spectator as conservative, and perhaps never having picked up a copy of The Spectator and not knowing anything about tbe magazine's history they think it's extraordinary to refer to it as "conservative". No educated person can think this way. There has to be a reason why some editors of these articles persistently come out with outlier opinions on uncontroversial statements of fact. --TS 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I don't believe it's that obvious. Often the problem is not simply whether this kind of statement is generally regarded as true, but what it suggests about our editorial intent to say it. We all know this, don't we? The fact that a magazine is known for its political stances doesn't necessarily mean that this is said in every instance the magazine is mentioned. I notice one of the reviews is presented as coming from "the British Daily Mail's right-wing columnist Andrew Alexander." Statements like that are unencyclopedic regardless of whether they're true; it isn't unlike saying, "Plimer's book received some of its highest praise from a lunatic on the street." Charitably I could say some people don't seem to even realize that what they are writing is effectively snark, but then from time to time it becomes pretty clear that most everyone does know what's happening. None of this excuses the reverting, which I think this board is much better suited to control than alleged competence in the abstract. Mackan79 (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I do have a worry that pertains to the comparison between Mark and William. Obviously we'd much rather have intelligent, educated edits, so if an intelligent, educated Wikipedian complains about stupid and counter-productive edits by a Wikipedian who doesn't even pretend to know about the subject, and who further demonstrates his ignorance, it seems perverse to me that we would consider whether the intelligent, educated, specialist Wikipedian failed to demonstrate the necessary level of finesse required to avoid the the uneducated Wikipedian realising that actually learning about the subject he was commenting on would have helped Wikipedia. We absolutely must not drive intelligent Wikipedians away because they fail to waste much time with Wikipedians who choose to act in a stupid and annoying manner. Where it has been established that intelligent and appropriately educated Wikipedians are being harrassed by stupid Wikipedians or Wikipedians who have chosen to act stupidly as a tactic, we should act to protect our resources. Stupidity must die. --TS 22:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Arrogance should be interred in the same pit. Not commenting on anyone in particular, but "We are right because we agree we are right, and we all agree we are all fine, intelligent people, and therefore we cannot possibly be wrong (and we can find any sort of recommendation - written by our intelligent friends - that endorse our view)" is the type of mindset that leads otherwise reasonable people to treat other people who do not fall within that (self)definition abysmally. Really, really, really intelligent people are always aware that they may be wrong, are willing to have their understanding challenged, and recognise that revelations can come from any source. They are also willing to explain, because a really intelligent person should be able to express themselves in a manner that any lucid individual can understand. I should know. I have had things explained to me... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC) LessHeard vanU, I see that you have used a quotation from my contributions to Wikipedia, or to other forums, to support your argument here. It is as follows: "We are right because we agree we are right, and we all agree we are all fine, intelligent people, and therefore we cannot possibly be wrong (and we can find any sort of recommendation - written by our intelligent friends - that endorse our view)" Now would you like to demonstrate where, even for one minute, I said or represented any such thing? Or, perhaps, apologise? To clarify: I said no such thing. You have falsely claimed that I did. Stop that. If stupidity and arrogant intelligence are to be judged together, I will gladly be interred in the pit of arrogance. Look at the evidence. We explained, repeatedly, and yet Mark continued to act stupidy. Tolerance for that kind of feckless behavior has to stop. If you think it was simply about his having a good argument, why do you think he edit warred instead of arguing his point? --TS 23:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Along the same lines as my recent comment on your userpage, I don't think it takes much intelligence to be able to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise, which are the primary attributes required to edit a wiki, along with being able to summarize/synthesize information taken from secondary sources. Now, were the all the parties involved in these disputes with mark able and willing to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise over article content, or was each individual dead set on getting their way? Did any of them bait mark or otherwise personalize the dispute? Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I think it would be fair to say that everybody involved was excessively fair to Mark, even though he persistently edit warred. I cannot demonstrate my confidence in the state of Wikipedia more wholly than by leaving the climate change area forever at this point. I have no dog in this fight. That's all you'll get from me. --TS 00:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I`m sorry tony but that is not factual is it? Given my actual question gets sidestepped and never answered and still has not been [175] [176] Feel free to pop over and talk about the issue as it is a tad of topic here. I have also lost count of how many times in the above posts you have either inferred or called me "stupid" and "ignorant" I`ll not bother to ask you to redact them, but i would like you not to say such things again, thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC) (to TS/Tasty Monster]] I was not quoting you, you said ...if an intelligent, educated Wikipedian complains about stupid and counter-productive edits by a Wikipedian who doesn't even pretend to know about the subject, and who further demonstrates his ignorance, it seems perverse to me that we would consider whether the intelligent, educated, specialist Wikipedian... and We absolutely must not drive intelligent Wikipedians away because they fail to waste much time with Wikipedians who choose to act in a stupid and annoying manner. Where it has been established that intelligent and appropriately educated Wikipedians are being harrassed by stupid Wikipedians or Wikipedians who have chosen to act stupidly as a tactic, we should act to protect our resources. Stupidity must die. etc. and you very concisely quoted my impression of the mindset of an individual displaying an arrogant assumption of superiority, based upon a self perception of ones own intelligence and knowledge. You indicated why you feel that ignorance and stupidity - or those which model such behaviours - should not be permitted continued access to Wikipedia, while I produced a pastiche (very likely stolen from a 19th Century pamphlet) of an arrogant editor's self satisfied justification why their apparent intelligence made them immune from deficient decisions. I am shocked to think that anyone might confuse the two as addressing the same specific concern - although the general consideration that behaviours which conflict with the ethos of open and collegiate editing based upon consensus, is one we apparently share. I trust this alleviates your concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Do i need to start a new enforcement request? Edit-warring Mark is clearly in breach of this Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2#TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC, where both he and i were warned that edit-warring would result in 1RR or the like. A previous enforcement request here over edit-warring by Mark, was closed (by WMC incidentally), because the discussion had gone stale. Editwarring by Marknutley on Heaven and Earth (book) over "conservative" description: Revert 1 - Mar 28 15:44: This is really the 3rd revert of that particular item - Mark is reinstating an edit by an anon, which had previously been removed by Tony[177] and Ratel [178] Revert 2 - Mar 28 17:38: Partial revert to remove conservative Revert 3 - Mar 29 15:22: Expanding conservative removal to several others Revert 4 - Mar 29 16:51: Revert back to #3 Revert 5 - Mar 29 17:44: Same That is not only edit-warring - but also quite close to a 3RR violation (by 6 minutes). There is some discussion on talk [179] (see above), where Mark is pretty much alone in his argument, and being quite incivil. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC) It`s already been thrown in with the supposed incivility junk mark nutley (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC) First of all i don't think it is "junk", secondly: No, it hasn't been addressed - it has been hinted at... Here are the diffs to show it, and the links to the probation enforcement that you feel that you can just ignore. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Marknutley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Regarding the request for a 1RR restriction within CC related space, there needs to be diffs for the alleged edit warring before admins can consider the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC) There is a reply to this by WMC above under enforcement action, "edit warring: MN has 5 reverts to H+E since the 28th: [180]" which I include here for completeness as it is in answer to the question but I have not looked at the edit history to check the claim (having said that whatever one says about WMC he generally adds up reverts pretty accurately). --BozMo talk 20:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I have reviewed this previous closing statement, referred to by WMC. Since it appears that Marknutley (talk · contribs) has edit warred contrary to the statement I feel that a 1RR restriction should be imposed for not less than 3 months - I would suggest 6. In reviewing the earlier decision, I also noted that WMC is currently under 1RR restriction which he violated at Heaven and Earth (Book). As I am unaware of any other violations of the 1RR restriction I suggest that William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) be blocked for 24 hours only. As regards Marknutley's incivility, I was one of those admins who have warned MN over previous concerns and feel he has been sufficiently placed on notice not to repeat these instances. He has, and has again excused his behaviour as being in response to perceived baiting/incivility - which was not considered reason previously also. Under the circumstances, I think a 48 hour sanction should suffice to indicate that this behaviour is inappropriate. If Marknutley is able to come to some arrangement where he may be mentored regarding his interaction, then that is good going forward - but outside of the consideration of this Request. Finally, WMC is already under notice that he may not use derogatory or demeaning terms on talkpages when referring to skeptic inclined editors. I think that this should be extended to include using any derogatory/demeaning terms or phrases in interactions with or about other editors within CC related talkpages. However, since this is not explicit in any notice to WMC that I can find then I propose no other action relating to the comments made by WMC on CC article talkpages relating to this request. If this is agreeable generally, with perhaps some discussion relating to the tariffs, then we can expedite this; someone can propose a closing statement in line with the consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Seems kind of imbalanced to me. I find myself in agreement with Cla68, above about the civility matter. The diffs show WMC has been baiting and generally being disagreeable. He has been warned about this repeatedly. If Mark is to earn a block for this, I think so should WMC, who presumably is much more mature than Mark, and has been around far longer, and as a former admin, surely knows better. I'm fine on the 1RR restriction on MN though. 48 hours (civility) for MN, as you suggest, and 72 for WMC (48 for civility and 24 for edit warring), would be my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 22:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Not convinced about the "baiting" which assumes the intent was to provoke a reaction. Disagreeable is another matter. --BozMo talk 07:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Nod. We can never judge intent. Only outcomes. Perhaps there indeed was no intent. But the appearance given is that there was, and that a reaction certainly ensued. We do have rules and practices against baiting, and I guess what we require is that there not be an appearance of it, rather than that one's heart be pure. WMC fails the appearance test in my view. ++Lar: t/c 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC) As regards "unbalanced", my view is that Marknutley has specifically acted in a manner for which he has received past censure - incivility in response to perceived "disagreeable" comments from WMC, and edit warring. For that reason I suggested the 48 hour block and extended 1RR restriction. WMC has also been on notice that violation of his 1RR restriction would result in a sanction, but my brief review indicated that this was likely an isolated incident - thus the 24 hour tarrif. As regards the language used by WMC, the same brief review indicated that he had been warned about referring to parties with differing philosophies in a demeaning manner, but nothing (that I could see quickly) about general tone. Unless it is suggested that the comments singly or as a whole can be regarded as personal attacks, then I feel that expanding the existing warning not to indulge in demeaning language to include comments to or about other parties would put him to the level that Marknutley is and is being sanctioned under. As I see it, not unnaturally, I think my review is balanced - but I of course realise that opinion may differ. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I just think it's a bit quibblish to slice the warnings to WMC, an experienced editor with thousands of edits, and many years here quite so exceedingly fine. He's been warned about his conversational style over and over, hasn't he? I don't see the difference here between demeaning reference and derogatory manner. For example, "Push the left button" is something I'd characterize as a demeaning reference, for example. So no, I don't agree. No further warnings are needed in his case, a sanction should apply. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC) If you can find a diff where WMC has been specifically warned regarding his choice of words and tone when interacting on talkpages, as has been the case regarding 1RR for him and edit warring and uncivil comment has been to Marknutley, then I would be willing to consider what sanction you would propose. Yes, I know that WMC has both a reputation for dismissive and condescending attitudes toward some editors and that he should be aware of the requirements to act in a way not to deprecate the collegiate editing ethos of Wikipedia - being a long standing editor and previously an administrator, with an understanding of policy and guidelines - but unless these instances are unilateral blatant personal attacks then we should not act as if the account was that of a troll or vandal; they get the specific final warning. My rationale, anyway. If other admins do feel that WMC has knowingly induced warning violating behaviour from MN and that a sanction is required, then I will not veto that working consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I think you're splitting hairs. How many times does WMC need to be told that dismissive and condescending attitudes are not on? How many times must WMC be reminded that he should not act in a way that deprecates the collegiate editing ethos of Wikipedia? Your recalcitrance does you no credit. But if every other admin thinks warnings will suffice, then I'm ok with that. Give him one, and tell him this time we really really mean it. Just like last time, and the time before that but this time really, we do! No fooling. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Can we agree to differ on the WMC "tone" issue - please would any other admin step in and comment? - and agree the consensus on the other aspects? Like it was said two days earlier, this should not be drawn out. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I have not had a chance to examine the evidence properly, but whatever decision is made should be made within the next few hours, not over the next few days. Letting this request go stale and making a block for incivility impossible would not be productive, unless long-term blocks/topic bans are being considered. NW (Talk) 19:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I support moving quickly, but not TOO quickly please. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC) There seems to be little danger of moving too quickly. MastCell Talk 17:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Anyone else thing is it worth trying appointing ATren as a parole officer? Just a thought. In general I am sure Mark feels he is only giving as good as he is getting on civility but an eye for an eye is not a recipe for Sicilian peace; and I am sure others in good faith see him as escalating. I guess sooner or later we will have to convince him to stop. --BozMo talk 20:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Sure, why not? And take Mark up on his offer, too. But I think examining WMC's behavior in this before we close the books on this one has a lot of merit. ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC) As I indicated, this is an excellent idea going forward - but I am inclined to strongly indicate what the consequences of not finding a resolution to these behaviours will be; it makes the alternative more appealing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC) We should discuss with ATren if he is happy to do this. It is a kind of last resort for an editor we would rather keep. If we are prepared to, the form of consequence could be a suspended (for say three months) sentence of the form immediate 1 month topic ban for any comment in violation of whatever rules we want, with edit summaries not forgivable but a rider than ATren or MN have a 24 hour period to withdraw by strikethrough of MNs talkpage comments by either of them. And if we do this we make it clear than "provocation" is no defence. ATren gets a big barnstar if it works. Probably not now but the option exists to appoint someone WMC respects (?Boris) to do the same thing with his talkpage edits. --BozMo talk 07:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Assumes facts not in evidence. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC) This has been open far too long - closing per above. If we need a new case for aspects discussed but not agreed upon, someone please open one, but it is not fair to Marknutley to leave this hanging so long. The mentor idea might have some merit, but that discussion can continue elsewhere. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation

Dave souza (talk · contribs) by Heyitspeter (talk · contribs)

Declined. Not formatted, but more importantly the edits were a series which constituted 1 revert. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to bring a 1RR violation to your attention. It is discussed here: User_talk:Dave_souza#Edits_to_Climategate. After two requests to self-revert and discuss his edits on the talkpage Dave Souza continued to make changes to the article (many of which constituted reverts). He has yet to reverse them. With that, I'm off to bed. Happy editing.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Malformed, obviously. And not clearly valid, per DS's talk. Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below applies, unless someone cares to tidy this up William M. Connolley (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Responded to this at my talk page and at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy#A series of changes, some modifications – to comply with the letter of 1RR as Heyitspeter interprets it, I could have reverted all of his long string of edits at once, then restored any aspects or made suitable changes. It seemed more collegiate to go through each section and make minimal changes or reverts to improve the article and bring it into compliance with policies and standards, acting in full accordance with WP:3RR#Application of 3RR policy which states that "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." . . . dave souza, talk 14:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

They were not. The two strings of edits I cited were separated from each other by intervening edits. In any case, here we go again (note the following diffs are all different): --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Deliberate Baiting? Can someone look into this, please?

Ratel (talk · contribs) by A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs)

A Quest For Knowledge

A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)

No action - the reviewing admins found that there was no merit to the allegation of a 1RR violation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning A Quest For Knowledge User requesting enforcement William M. Connolley (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation (1RR limit on this article) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [183] (clear revert) [184] (second revert in 24h (article is on 1RR parole. Not exact revert, but removes text recently added by [185])) Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge#1rr_violation - warnings by various User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge#1RR - attempt to resolve this. AQFK won't accept that #2 is a revert. nb: [[WP:REVERT says Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.. AQFK's edit very clears undoes the effect of one or more edits. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) std block; 1RR parole. Additional comments by editor filing complaint @AQFK: You say WP:REVERT says reverts are where the page is restored to a version that existed sometime previously. But no, it does not say that. It says what I have already quoted above: Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits. This is what you have done. It continues which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. But you cannot quote merely one part of a conditional. The use of "normally" very clearly says that in other circumstances, it may not be so. the part that is absolute is Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits and this is what you have clearly done. I presume you accept at least that: you do agree that you have undo[ne] the effects of one or more edits? - please confirm this William M. Connolley (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC) @MN: Am i reading this right? No. You aren't. The edits are not consecutive William M. Connolley (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [186] Discussion concerning A Quest For Knowledge Statement by A Quest For Knowledge As far as I understand the rules, not all edits are considered reverts, and reverting means reversing an article to a previous state. The first edit is a revert. The second isn't unless someone else had made the same edit. To the best of my knowledge, this has never been in the article. I told WMC that if he could provide a diff which demonstrated the second edit was a revert, I'd self-revert[187] but he failed to do so. The discussion can be found on my talk page here.[188] But my offer still stands: If someone can show that the second edit is a revert is a reversal to a previous state of the article, I'll be happy to self-revert. But at the point, I don't see how the second edit is considered a revert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC) WP:REVERT says reverts are where the page is restored to a version that existed sometime previously. If someone can show me a diff that demonstrates that I've reverted to a previous state of the article, I'll self-revert. Until then, I don't see how this can be considered a 1RR violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning A Quest For Knowledge Well according to what Dave posted above WP:3RR#Application of 3RR policy which states that "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." AQFK has not actually broken any rules at all as both his edits were consecutive. Am i reading this right? mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC) No, the two edits weren't consecutive, but the second edit is not a revert since it did not reverse somebody else's edit nor did it restore a previous version of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm sympathetic to AQFK's position on this – the "ration" of one revert doesn't fit well when trying to deal constructively with separate sections and issues and not reverting to the same version. The main issue is dealing constructively with making improvements, and while I don't agree with all of AQFK's edits they are evidently good faith attempts to do that. No case to answer as far as I can see. . . dave souza, talk 15:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I'll be very interested to see what admins think of this frivolous nuisance complaint after the way I was batted around for a much more substantial complaint. The result there: All editors warned that the tolerance for WP:BATTLE and general gaming of enforcement requests is approaching zero. Now let's just see if the rules apply to William Connolley. On the face of it, this looks like WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on William Connolley's part. The second edit replaces a phrase. It's impossible to improve the article at more than a snail's pace if the uncontroversial replacement of insignificant phrasing is going to be brought here as a 1RR vio. This edit by Kenosis 13:55 April 1 [189] similarly reverts the word "committee", amid other changes and comes less than 24 hours from this minor, uncontested, uncontroversial edit [190] at 15:42 March 31. Is it productive of a good editing environment to consider these edits by AQFK or Kenosis sanctionable reverts or is it instead obstructing a good editing environment? I suppose it's possible to game these kinds of tweaks to the article to slip in something an editor knows is going to be controversial, but if the "reversions" are nothing more than adjusting phrasing and obvious, uncontroversial "housekeeping" changes, then what is the practical value of a complaint here? Compare AQFK's and Kenosis' constructive work via these edits with the time William Connolley has spent wasting the time of the rest of us with this complaint. Meanwhile, the first report on this whole business has been issued by a committee of the UK parliament and we've got very little description of it in the article. We've all got better things to be doing with our time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC) And here's a revert combined with the "reverting" of material as part of rewriting by another editor. [191] [192] both on March 25; and again [193] [194] on March 19; or by still another editor here [195] at 21:12 March 12 and here [196] at 12:22 March 13. Here's a similar set from January 6 [197] [198], just days after the 1RR sanction was imposed. I'm sure there are many more, but these are the ones I could pick out relatively quickly. None of these edits should be thought of as a 1RR vio, or if they are, then a general statement explaining the exact boundary is needed. We don't need to single out specific editors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC) This is ironic: William Connolley has done worse at Heaven and Earth (book): [199] (09:03 March 31) and [200] (08:36 April 1), and these were both contested matters and clear reverts, not housekeeping. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC) The second listed revert here does not undo the effect of the supposedly reverted edit here. Mackan79 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC) To Franamax, I think that pattern happens all the time. Perhaps "a short review" is a biased phrasing, and perhaps "the first review" is biased as well. Those wondrous wiki moments come when someone is forced to bridge the gap. Mackan79 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Oh c'mon. "First" is quantitative, "short" is qualitative. Until there are 3rd-party sources to describe the quality, we go with what we know, what we can quantify. The same principle applies to publishing the response of a named institution, it's what we know has transpired. (yeah I know, NOTNEWS, but then again, it's the "Responses" section and all) I don't see where the "short" wording is supported by the sources. Franamax (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Or put another way, could I equally substitute "an inquiry by the most competent team available, which was able to easily arrive at a conclusion in the shortest possible time"? Franamax (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Franamax, the "short" wording is supported by the source here: "Lawmakers stressed that their report - which was written after only a single day of oral testimony - did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending and which were instigated by the University of East Anglia. "Willis said the lawmakers had been in a rush to publish something before Britain's next national election, which is widely expected in just over a month's time. ""Clearly we would have liked to spend more time of this," he said...""[201] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I've gotten lost a bit in the various sources, so I'm not sure which one starts The first of several... (underline by me) and which one mentions that there was actual written testimony the parliamentarians could have read before the "single day" of oral testimony. If the imperative was to complete the work before the anticipated election, why not say that so the reader can decide? This is getting quite content-y and not appropriate at this page, so have the final word here if you wish, or we can discuss elsewhere. Franamax (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning A Quest For Knowledge This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I do not see the second edit as undoing the effects of one or more edits, but more of an amendment to a small part of fairly substantial previous edit. I feel the difference between "first review to become available," and "a short investigation" as not materially effecting a change to the meaning of the remainder of the original edit, or placing a significantly different emphasis upon the deliberation concerned. Under my understanding of WP:Revert, there was not a second revert within a 24 hour period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Both candidate edits are doubtful. Reverting addition of text based on a primary source in the exact spot where primary sourcing would be acceptable ("Responses") is pushing the definitions. The alternative would be to correct the spelling of "parliamentray" and balance with other statements from the press release. As other sources become available, the EAU response can be put into proper integrated context, but they have a proxy "right of reply" in the nonce. It's encyclopedic to note what they had to say. Changing "the first" to "a short" seems pretty POV to me (the second candidate edit), since we have no good definition for "short" as opposed to "first". However, I see no technical violation here. It's worrisome that an editor could use the technique of reverting one edit in a dispute with one editor, then go on to make a POV change to related text the same editor might object to - one inference could be an intelligent reading of the "rules", forcing a choice of last-RR revert onto the opposing editor. I've also heard that stuffing beans up one's nose works well, up until you go to the doctor. Franamax (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Violation of 1RR restriction by William M. Connolley, per Marknutley Enforcement request

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) #15 by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs)

William M. Connolley blocked for 24 hours in respect of 1RR violations, and warned not to use derogatory words and phrases in respect of other editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this matter has already been discussed in the Marknutley section above (at time of writing), but not forming part of the actions resulting from the closure of that request, I would re-open that aspect of that section here - in an abridged form. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Violation; As noted, WMC is under a 1RR restriction in respect of CC related articles - which was breached by these edits. Statement by William C. Connolley Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley Here are two more: [202] (09:03 March 31) reverts this edit [203] and [204] (08:36 April 1), which reverts the previous edit. Both contested matters and clear reverts, not any kind of technical violations. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC) It appears to me that a 24-hour block doesn't do much for an editor who's already on a 24-hour 1RR restriction. Either way, the editor can simply wait 24:00:01 to make their next revert. This kind of reminds me of the situation in baseball where a starting pitcher gets suspended for a day or two. It's a meaningless suspension because starting pitchers only play every 4th or 5th game. Further, this editor has show no effort to reform his behavior. I recommend a 48 hour block. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC) The preventative component of a block is the temporary removal of editing privileges, not the inability to make the same violation. Yes, WMC could take a 24 hour timeout and then make the same edit again and claim properly that it does not violate 1RR (since they were blocked when the clock ran down...) - but they would then be edit warring. Also, it would be assuming bad faith that an editor will edit war if allowed to continue editing and that a lengthy block is simply a means of preventing that from happening. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC) In order to correct the behavior in question if it happens again, since it appears to so far not be corrected, I suggest that the duration of the blocks escalate dramatically instead of incrementally each time they occur, videlicet, if this block is 48 hours, then the next one be four days, then one week, then two, then a month, then two, and so on. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC) If this passes (which I do not recommend), may we assume it will apply likewise for contrarian editors, or only to those in the "GWCab" as you call them? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC) All applications of the probation should be universal - and, no, I would not care for such an adoption. The premise behind the probation is to encourage the editing of articles to good models of WP behavour, not to have very few contentious edits because everyone is blocked... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC) And I certainly don't want to see editors blocked for long periods of time. As you know, I've asked WMC and a few others to help me out in getting both the Watts Up With That and DeSmogBlog articles up to Good Article quality. DeSmogBlog is almost there and, I haven't checked lately, but I'm sure that Watts Up is close behind. Cla68 (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment -- I realize a "collegiality" directive may be too much to ask, but I would like to see a final warning for WMC to cease edits that mock or insult another editor. The two I refer to are stuff like "MN thinks a paper is something you wrap chips in" and snarky replies suggesting he doesn't know how to open a link in a browser (I cited diffs in the last report, archived above). I thought previous warnings would have covered such abrasive language, but there appears to have been wiggle room in previous warnings, so I agree with Lar below that there needs to be a comprehensive warning to refrain from any edits which address the editor (as opposed to the edit) in a demeaning way. ATren (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment ... What on earth?? I just looked over WMC's edits in the recent history of Heaven and Earth (book) ([205]). ..... This diff presented at the outset of this request for enforcement seems misleading, IMO. Is the allegation that WMC submitted two reverts 22 hours and 27 minutes apart on two unrelated matters? As John W. Barber alleges? Or that it's w.r.t. the word "conservative" submitted 22 hours and 6 minutes apart? As 2.0 says in the administrator discussion below? Or w.r.t. the sourced word "glowing ["reviews" or "endorsements"])? ..... What I see when looking through the diffs is two separate sets of edits on material that could be characterized as reasonably related are: 09:10, 29 March adds the word "glowing", directly quoting the source, and 09:03, 31 March reverts, re-adding "glowing endorsements" quoting from the same source. ..... The second pair of potentially relevant diffs I see is: 18:15, 28 March WMC adding the word "conservative" in one place. And, 16:21 29 March WMC reverts Marknutly replacing a whole paragraph and adding the word "conservative" in several places to the words "press", "broadsheet", and "magazine". In the interim, other editors have also participated in bringing this material to the place where Marknutly reverts the edits both of WMC and others. ..... Please do correct me if I've gotten any of these diffs wrong. Assuming I have not missed any potentially relevant diffs or gotten them wrong, I submit this proposal for sanction of WMC seems a heck of a stretch in interpretation of this "1RR" limit. WMC appears to me to have been diligently attempting to follow the established "rules of engagement" in this repeatedly contentious topic area. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Kenosis, did he or did he not violate this sanction [206]? I believe he recently violated it twice. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC) To clarify, it doesn't matter whether or not the reverts on material [...] could be characterized as reasonably related. What matters is that he made reverts within 24 hours of each other on the same page after he was told not to do so. Those reverts were not any kind of uncontroversial edits: In each of the four reverts he was in a conflict with another editor. The problem with reverts is when they are a part of edit warring. He was edit warring. To repeat: He isn't allowed to do that. I just now understand what LHVU was doing with that single, neat diff of two different reverts at the top of this section: He was simply showing that each of the edits represented a revert. Hasn't WMC's latest behavioral probem now taken up enough of our time? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC) OK, thanks for the partial clarification; I now see the following: "William M. Connolley is restricted until 2010-05-03 from making more than one revert to any article in the probation area in any 24 hour period. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)". Understood now. Seems to me in cases where there's a specific provision applied to one individual, it might be helpful to all to state the particular provision a user is alleged to have violated. Much simpler that way. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment I got a one month topic ban on my first, and so far only, offense against this probation. WMC is on his, what, third now? I don't know how many he's had, but this certainly isn't his first. There were talks of a one year topic ban for me. Sorry, but we have people here debating about a one day block or a two day block, and that shows a certain favor to him. Either WMC gets a stiffer penalty -- like, for example, a multi-month topic ban -- or the administration tacitly admits that it's more acceptable for WMC to break the rules than it is for me to break the rules. Macai (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Looks like he's been sanctioned on five different occasions, according to the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Log of sanctions and warned on another occasion, according to the "Log of warnings" further down on that page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment. Based on the response to my comment above, it now appears to me the alleged vio is that WMC submitted two reverts in one article 22 hours and 6 minutes apart, the second coming, well, ordinarily we'd be content to call it "a day later". Clearly this violates the letter of the "law" cited above. Yet, to be frank, unless we're missing some additional fact(s) it's starting to seem to me like a bit of blood lust against WMC that is going on here. (It's easy to see in the recent history of that article that multiple editors were involved in the contested edits.) Or did we miss something else here? ... Kenosis (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I think you've got it. The sanctions regime has turned into a game of "gotcha" where enforcing the letter of the sanctions to score one against your opponent is what counts. Adherence to the spirit of the sanctions is regarded as irrelevant (or foolish). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Repeatedly snarky edit summaries are in accord with the spirit of the civility policy? Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I did not say that they were. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC) the letter of the sanctions to score one against your opponent is what counts Isn't that what William M. Connolley is asking admins to do in his frivolous complaint against A Quest For Knowledge, just above? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Could be. I might also suggest that repeatedly characterizing others' actions as "frivolous" (especially given that the closing admins gave no indication that they considered them frivolous) is not especially helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC) No, it's more than just could be. It's a classic frivolous complaint. It has no substance. William M. Connolley is accusing AQFK of doing something that loads of other people are doing on the same page and that results in no real problems because those edits don't seem to be contested. Connolly's accusing AQFK of doing something that Connolley himself recently did twice over on another page and in a case where it was contested. It is crystal clear who's trying to use the letter of the restrictions as a weapon and who's violating the spirit. It is especially helpful to point out that while William M. Connolley is doing that his complaint is empty, without substance, a nuisance and frivolous. It puts both that complaint and this one into perspective. He is disruptive. Repeatedly. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC) It wasn't just the "letter of the 'law'", Kenosis, but the spirit of the law. The 1RR restriction presumably was a way of getting him to quit fighting so much and start working more collegially with editors with whom he disagrees. By shortening the leash on editors with behavioral problems, the idea is that they either get the message or, if they continue to misbehave, other editors don't need to put up with the new misbehavior quite as long before the problem editor is sanctioned again. Of course, it doesn't work nearly as well if admins don't escalate the sanctions. William M. Connolley still can't wait 24 hours between reverts. Even after previous blocks on other WP:GSCC-related misbehavior. And he's filed a frivolous complaint against another editor, in the section just above, for an alleged 1RR violation, indicating he's alert to that kind of misbehavior -- even as he continues it with two violations of his 1RR sanction within just a few days. Admins seem to be looking at his record as a coincidence of unrelated, discrete problems. But he's becoming continually WP:DISRUPT-ive, so the block times should be escalating faster. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Diff(s) please? for the second instance to which you refer? (You just said two violations of his 1RR sanction .)... Kenosis (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Eh? The first 1RR violation was in the diff LHVU put at the top of this section. The second 1RR violation was in my first post in this section. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, I now see better. You cite another pair of reverts, the first 09:03 March 31 and the second 08:36 April 1, a day later--OK, 23 hours and 27 minutes later. OK, fair enough I suppose-- that now appears to me to be two technical fouls by WMC. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC) In the interim, when you said just above that WMC had filed a "frivolous" request for enforcement a bit farther above (apparently against Marknutley) I got curious, so I decided to research a bit further. AFAICT, that "case" was dismissed for lack of presentation of specific evidence by the person who filed it (WMC). Here are the diffs I found: [207] Marknutley removed one instance of "conservative". 18:15, 28 March WMC replaces the word "conservative", a revert 14:18, 29 March Marknutley reverts, removing the word "conservative, plus removes the entire paragraph]" 14:20 29 March Marknutley removes another instance of the word "conservative" 14:21, 29 March 2010 Marknutley removes yet another instance of the word "conservative" 14:22, 29 March Marknutley removes yet another instance of the word "conservative" 15:51, 29 March Marknutley reverts Ratel, removing all instances of the word conservative and additionally removes an entire paragraph, a revert 16:44, 29 March Marknutley again reverts exactly the same material, word for word, 49 minutes later. ...... Now, I'm not proposing to "go after" Marknutley here, but that's three reverts I counted within 2 hours and 26 minutes, on the same article, precisely the same content, which appears to me to be what WMC was referring to in his complaint above. So it directs me to wonder: Is this really a frivolous complaint by WMC? Or just another technicality? How did everybody miss this 3RR that I found just by looking through the diffs? Again, if I've gotten any of the diffs wrong, please correct me. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment stricken through. I now see I'm looking at another case where WMC's complaint resulted in a brief sanction. Calling it a night--will try to catch up on this minor hullabaloo later on-- take care everybody. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC) (ec) The frivolous one wasn't re Marknutley, but re A Quest For Knowledge, immediately above this request. WMC lists a second revert that clearly isn't a revert. I don't get it, personally. There are many editors who share WMC's views but are able to restrain themselves from constantly breaking the rules that the rest of us make the effort to follow, because they know that you can't have a functional environment on Wikipedia where the good guys just do whatever they want and boss everyone else around. By simply following the rules, the guy could do more than anyone to let others clean things up, but for whatever reason, he won't do it. And so short blocks won't work, but long blocks border on the absurd. Not that I have a solution.... Mackan79 (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I believe that consistently enforced, escalating blocks will eventually correct the behavior in question, either because the editor self-corrects and starts following the rules, or because the editor eventually gets banned for good. Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Kenosis above and Bozmo below, are calling these repeated violations of William M. Connolley's 1RR restrictions technical violations. They aren't "technical" in the least. A "technical" violation would be an edit where Connolley would have been trying to abide by the restriction but maybe came in a few minutes too soon because his clock may have been off or he was performing a "housekeeping"-like edit to modify phrasing without changing the meaning in any significant or contested way -- which is the kind of edit that A Quest For Knowledge made and which Connolley has used to accuse AQFK with as a 1RR violation. Connolley did none of that here. He disregarded the sanction personally tailored for him and did it twice. A 24-hour block is ridiculous. Connolley has been given at least three restrictions of various types and warned once. If he hasn't been listening after all that you need to get his attention with a two-by-four. A block of at least 48 hours. He shouldn't get a volume discount. Bozmo thinks an apology would do. But forced apologies have no meaning to either party. Getting him closer to a topic ban will. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC) LessHeard vanU, 2/0, Lar: Has this editor shown any efforts to reform their behavior? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Yes. Generally he has kept within the 1RR restriction, and does not refer to editors with opposing views on CC as "septics" or similar. He may do so only because of the consequences and so the efforts are not voluntary, but they are efforts never the less. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning William M. Connolley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Since I am reactivating a complaint made against WMC, and am only opening this "extension" since the earlier request was closed without a consideration upon this aspect, I consider myself uninvolved. However, I do agree to for my comments to be moved to the "others" section above if a fair argument is made that I am not. My rationale is to be found in the Marknutley section, but in summary is that I believed that WMC did break his 1RR restriction, that it appears to be a singular instance, and that a standard 24 hour block should be levied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Per second instance of 1RR restriction violation, as evidenced by JohnWBarber, I would now suggest 48 hours, but will accept 24 if it means this can be expedited. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Removal of a word originally sneaked in by a sock of a banned user should not be sanctionable behaviour. Prolog (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I screwed the pooch on this one by misreading the month - check the history here. The relevant reverts are [208] and [209]. The talkpage just after the second revert is here and does not show a strong enough current consensus to justify IAR on not waiting two more hours. Ratel asserts a consensus in the archives when reverting Marknutley here before WMC's second revert. Support 24 hours unless I am missing something still. I might not be around this weekend (fingers crossed), so consider this my endorsement of whatever consensus indicates. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC) At least 24, preferably 48 for the edit warring. Plus (taking up unfinished business from above) a comprehensive warning to stop being snarky and start being collegial, broadly construed. No more "warned about this but not that" get out of jail free cards will be accepted. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Simply extend the current warning on inappropriate terminology about editors, to include comments to editors. Expectations of collegiality, however, are unrealistic, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Just about support 24 block and move on, but concerned about the 22 hours plus being a technical infringement only for which I would prefer to extract an apology. In general with people of a particular type requesting an apology seems more constructive that imposing a block which they can carry on disagreeing with in their own mind. The best outcome (keeping all contributing editors but getting behaviour nicely) seems better furthered if we try to get people to say sorry more rather than inflame the situation with blocks (but I never like blocks). BTW for clarity is this a 24 hour topic ban or a 24 editing block? Again we need to be consistent. --BozMo talk 14:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Hmmmm. First time, WMC added one word. Second time, he reinserted an entire para that Marknutley had removed. Is Marknutley also under a 1RR restriction, by the way? Guy (Help!) 16:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Marknutely is now under a 1RR restriction, following the request from which this one also originated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I have enacted the 24 hour block, as this was the single definitive period that was agreed by all admins but one. I have also given a warning over the further use of demeaning or derogatory words or phrases with other editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck?

Did anybody here notice that there is no reply to this request in the WMC section? And that WMC has not edited Wikipedia since about 3 hours before this request has been created? Do we now block people without a hearing? If yes, I have a couple of blocks I'm sorely tempted to make. In short, I consider this a major fuck-up. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved to talk page. Franamax (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, moved here for those interested. 'Twas getting a little too philosophical for this venue, or perhaps too pragmatic. Franamax (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave Souza

Dave souza (talk · contribs) by Heyitspeter (talk · contribs)

no action needed
--BozMo talk 08:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Request concerning Dave souza User requesting enforcement Heyitspeter (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Dave souza (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 [210] String of edits, some reverts. [211] Revert to restore these edits in violation of 1RR restriction, prior to discussion on talk. Example of a specific series of three removals of the sentence "some newspapers, [etc.]," so that the presence of a violation is less ambiguous. Two within 24 hours, three within 2.5 days: [212] Removal. [213] Removal after reinsertion. [214] Removal after reinsertion, violating 1RR. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [215] Warning by Heyitspeter (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Sorry if this is bothersome (I imagine it is). All I would like to see is a self-revert and a discussion of the individual edits on the talkpage prior to their reinsertion pending some sort of consensus, and a future commitment to this process where the edits are contentious (as here). If administrators think something else is warranted I would support it. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Dave Souza made contentious edits to the article and edit warred to keep them in place rather than discussing them first. I believe that a collegial environment necessitates adherence to the latter course of action and am filing a request to enforce the choosing of that path over its tendentious alternative. @NW, KillerChihuahua, and Bozmo (or whoever): While I agree that no block or enforced self-revert is needed (another editor has already made said revert), I do not see how a warning is not in order. Dave Souza has made an unambiguous and conscious 1RR violation. There's something to be said for legitimacy, and this is not the way to keep it. I suppose I've already stated as much in the talkpage earliermuch earlier (and cryptically), but I will not be filing requests in this forum again given such a hearing. This is not a threat, it's a statement and a suggestion. I imagine I'll see you later at AN/I. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [216] Discussion concerning Dave souza Dave's change: "Newspapers and bloggers variously alleged" to "Climate change sceptics gained wide publicity in blogs and newspapers for allegations" [217] is not a revert to either version presented in Heyitspeter's diff Heyitspeter's blind revert re-inserted inaccurate information and grammatical errors. His "warning" was a request that Dave re-insert the same erroneous and ungrammatical material. Since you are responsible for your own edits, even if they are reverts, the only problematic behaviour I see here is HiP's insertion of inaccurate info and grammatical errors into the article. Guettarda (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Shorter version" changing the word "newspapers" to "politicians" is not the same as moving "newspapers" from the first to the ninth word in what is arguably a different sentence. The latter edit is not a repeat of the former. Guettarda (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Statement by Dave souza As far as I can see, HiP's timing is in error – I made a series of edits introducing new material and correcting material unsupported by references, not reverting to older versions, and discussed the changes on the talk page both before and after the edits. HiP reverted without discussion, I noted this on the talk page, then having checked the timing, undid HiP's disruptive reversion to incorrect material. If I'm in error in my counting, do please undo any relevant changes, but I won't be available for quite a while to do it myself. . dave souza, talk 22:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Dave souza Result concerning Dave souza This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I am not seeing a reason to apply a sanction or warning here, and will archive if another admin agrees. NW (Talk) 01:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I concur with NW. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 04:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just want to state how extraordinarily frustrating this response is. Given this precedent (though note the existence of contradictory 'rulings') I do not see a reason to respect 1RR. All I have left is a naive, last-ditch faith in AN/I. I will not be filing further requests in this forum.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I normally don't comment on other people's requests for enforcement but it appears that Dave violated 1RR by restoring the phrases "gained wide publicity in blogs" and "dismissed the allegations" twice in less than 3 hours.[218][219] Am I missing something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This isn't "put a nickle in, get a sanction". Just as one can be blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR, just because you think someone needs a whack doesn't mean admins will agree. Our focus must always be, What is best for Wikipedia? Heyitspeter's focus seems to be otherwise. Dave souza is a very longstanding editor of considerable repute; he has participated in this page, he is aware of concerns raised. There is no more need to warn him than there would be to remind Jimbo that he needs to sign his posts. Heyitspeter, who brought this to this page, blind reverted and did not even attempt to work with Dave souza (who did make talk page posts and show effort to work with Heyitspeter) - Heyitspeter made a demand, and then came here to make another demand. We don't work by getting our own way here, we work by working with others and following the policies and guidelines. I'm not too impressed that as Guettarda pointed out, Heyitspeter's edit had basic errors which he didn't even acknowledge, that he escalated immediately instead of first attempting to work with other editors to improve the article, and that even now he seems more interested in getting someone else "punished" than to move on and work on improving the encyclopedia. I'm far more likely to think sanctions are in order if I see actual evidence that someone is warring - and the only one I see warring here is Heyitspeter. I'm far less likely to think sanctions are in order if I see that someone is running to tattle on perceived infractions, or even manufactured infractions, so they can "win" a dispute. My advice to Heyitspeter: AGF, and attempt dispute resolution by the gradual, reluctantly escalated steps of first discussing with the other party(s); get further input via 3O or article Rfc or noticeboards; try informal or formal mediation via MedCab or MedCom; and only as a last resort, and for clear wrongdoing, should you request sanctions. You now state you will go directly to AN/I, and I can assure you that board is not for content disputes nor for tenuous cases of debatable rules infractions in order to enable you to get a leg up on a content dispute. Surely you must realize that even if we accepted your view that DS violated 1RR - which I am not stipulating - all he has to do is change the page back every 24 hours. This would be a slow edit war instead of a fast one - and DS has tried to discuss the content with you. You have been the one who was non-collaborative and refused to work with him, instead coming here to get him put in timeout so you could get your edit - for all of a few hours? and completely against our principles. Think this over, and if you have any questions feel free to ask on my talk page - but don't keep beating this particular horse. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Better to explain before or at closure rather than afterward. I haven't looked into the details, but this looks like good reasoning. Around here, longstanding editor of considerable repute has been overused, but it's a minor point here and I don't think it's been repeatedly used as an excuse for Dave souza, who doesn't appear to need it. Most of this reasoning could easily be used in the AQFK case not far above. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I had intended to comment here while the request was live, but was involved with the WMC section earlier. I will make only one post closure comment; it is a distinct relief and pleasure that two previously uninvolved "uninvolved" admins reviewed and commented on this matter. Please consider that if two individuals with no background in either the disputed area or in adminning the probation can come to a conclusion that there is no case, then perhaps there really was no case. Also, let us try not to prejudge the disposition of freshly arrived sysops on the basis of their first efforts in this matter, and certainly not make them disinclined to return. If they are not overly familiar with the probation now, this will improve if they stay - if they without bias in respect of CC/AGW articles and their contributors then wish very hard that they maintain such an outlook. Admins make mistakes and while I do not think that they have, it beholds all contributors who wish to have this difficult subject properly administered that we give as much support as possible. We may disagree with the conclusions, but please not with the application to the process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Slight correction, NW has participated here before, although not for a few cycles. KC is entirely new, I believe. Nevertheless it's good to see them both. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm a bit confused. If you guys want to say that 2 reverts less 3 hours[220][221] isn't actionable, that's fine. But I don't understand why this was closed down so quickly when the complaint against me only contains 1 revert in 24 hours is still open. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Like, I suspect, many others looking on mostly 'from the sidelines' now, I too am happy with this decision. I welcome the arrival of more admins here and support the views expressed in the closure and above, which I see as representing a holistic and helpful position of oversight. This is a positive view to the long-term and to the overall good of WP. --Nigelj (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• • It was closed because we did not see any reason to keep it open. These threads are open for far too long as it is. As for this specific complaint, I investigated it holistically, not counting reverts but trying to divine the intentions and figure out who was responsible for causing the most disruption to the article. My conclusion was that Dave was not that person and sanctioning him would be unnecessary. Can you explain why you think the request should have been kept open? NW (Talk) 15:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not saying this should be kept open. I want to know why mine hasn't been closed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Good point. Very, very good point. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't "put a nickle in, get a sanction - well, it sure sometimes looks like it, minus the nickel. I quite agree that this "should not be...", and fast closing of this is a step in the right direction. In general, however, I feel that this has become a "who whines more wins more" mechanism, not to mention immensely partisan. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you seriously expect otherwise? You must be new here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really new, just really naïve. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Using the same principles across the board and explaining those principles would do a lot to counter the feeling that partisanship rules. Admins who don't explain themselves leave themselves open to the suspicion that they have no good explanation. Admins who can show in their explanation that they use the same principles can almost abolish the suspicion. And then it's easier to pick out what's whining and what isn't. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge

A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) by Dave souza (talk · contribs)

A Quest For Knowledge blocked 24 hours for article 1RR violation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning A Quest For Knowledge User requesting enforcement dave souza, talk 09:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested A Quest For Knowledge (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 [222] Disruptive removal of material under constructive discussion, violating WP:BLP by showing only allegations of wrongdoing and removing properly sourced mainstream views. [223] Revert, contrary to principles being discussed on talk page and removing mainstream views of Select Committee as discussed on the talk page [224] Second reversion, in breach of 1RR ... Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [225] Warning by dave souza (talk · contribs) ... Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Block as appropriate for breach of 1RR, topic ban on articles relating to CRU controversy until talk page consensus reached (not ban from talk pages) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Progress towards consensus is going much more slowly than I'd have hoped – I'm too tired to contribute much just now, and perhaps because of the 1RR restriction, the text showing mainstream views that the e-mails were less incriminating than the sceptics claim has not yet been added back into the article. From my own reading of policies and principles outlined in this discussion I thought it was very clear that "we should give full and accurate information, not just about fringe accusations, but about how mainstream commentators and important authorities responded to [them]", and such an essential part of the article should be summarised in the lead. At present the only constraint on AQFK seems likely to expire before much progress has been made. I therefore reiterate my request for consideration of a topic ban of AQFK on articles relating to CRU controversy until talk page consensus reached. . . dave souza, talk 15:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [226] Discussion concerning A Quest For Knowledge Statement by A Quest For Knowledge What Dave S doesn't seem to realize is that WP:BLP concerns are a very serious issue. I've attempted in good faith to discuss the issue on the article talk page.[227][228] However, Dave is edit-warring to include contentious material about living people. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. This applies whether the BLP material is negative, positive or neutral. According to WP:BLP, we must get the article right. Because of the WP:BLP dispute, I've removed all contentious material from the lede - which is exactly what we are supposed to do. This is the safest thing to do until we can figure out how to resolve this dispute. Edits to fix WP:BLP issues do not count towards 1RR so there's nothing actionable here save Dave edit-warring to restore contentious WP:BLP material without meeting the appropriate burden of proof. I ask that we all should attempt to reach consensus on the article talk page before restoring controversial material about living persons. If we cannot reach consensus, then we should bring the issue before the WP:BLPN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning A Quest For Knowledge AQFK is clealy demonstrating why a 1RR rule is needed on articles such as this, and for those of us who have been obeying the rule, violations need to be taken serously. AQFK's edits are becoming rather disruptive and frustrating, with the most notable recent example being the removal of the following text three times in the space of ten hours: The latter largely vindicated the CRU and its director, Professor Phil Jones, and found no evidence that either had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming. The committee stated that the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity" was not challenged by the emails. It criticised the university for a "culture of withholding information", but said that Jones had been unfairly scapegoated and accepted that he had released all the data that he could. Jones stood aside from his post during the reviews. The committee said he had no case to answer and should be reinstated. Given AQFK's referral to CRU scientists as "criminals" [229], I can understand that the user is new to the concept of WP:BLP, but the blanket removal of the results of an official enquiry is most certainly not in accordance with WP:BLP. If we present the statement of fact that investigations are being conducted into the conduct of the scientists involved, it is incredibly disruptive to remove the findings of these investigations if one disagrees with them. One should also note that AQFK has been involved in a similar edit war on the talk page of the same article, modifying comments of Stephan Schulz. StuartH (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC) @LessHeard vanU: AQFK's edit is currently the top edit. Is his violating edit allowed to be reverted? I would consider a 24 hour ban which others are not allowed to roll back for the same period of time an insufficient disincentive for violating 1RR. StuartH (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Requests for enforcement are in respect of technical violations of the probation, not for resolving content disputes. The discussion at the talkpage should lead to a consensus of what may be placed in the article space. There is no reason why a third party cannot revert in the meantime, except that if there is a series of single reverts by different contributors that will constitute an WP:Edit War and the possibility of a tranche of sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I guess my question is, given that I restored the first of AQFK's three removals, would it be inappropriate to restore it myself given that my edit was AQFK's second reversion and hence the one in violation of the 1RR rule? At the moment, I'm assuming so and I'm not touching it, but I am uncomfortable with the fact that a violating edit has stuck. One can almost see it as a reward for violating 1RR. StuartH (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC) You are correct, you cannot again revert within 24 hours. Also, like AQFK edit, the legitimacy of the edit is irrelevant and not part of the admin consideration; it is supposed to onerous to editors to comply with 1RR, it is the preventative aspect of the sanction - if you don't want one, then don't edit war. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I can't say I'm impressed, but I will not be violating the rule, unlike some. Thank you for the clarification. StuartH (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC) One should note that AQFK made a further revert (four in total - on a 1RR article!) after being notified of the request for enforcement. I recommend that a much longer block be considered. StuartH (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Comment. ... A 12 or 24 hour block might be appropriate for four reverts in a standard setting where no additional restrictions are in place. The four reverts, all within 12 hours, all on the same material, same issue, all outright reverts that removed significant, sourced contributions previously made by Heyitspeter, StuartH, Dave souza, myself and others, are: 00:36, 5 April, 08:47 5 April, 09:01 5 April, and 11:18 5 April. I believe there needs to be a block of adequate additional length to make explicit that simply citing WP:BLP is not a free pass to run rampant over core content policies and revert rules by reverting/removing significant, thoughtful contributions of multiple other editors--while still leaving open a very quick path back for AQfK to restart productive contributions. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Comment DS also violated 1RR, and although provoked by AQFK, also removed some properly sourced information and reinserted probable BLP violations. (Contrary to one of the comments, the claim that the sources were misrepresented had been made earlier, and not really resolved.) I think he should be warned, or does that require a separate RfE? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I believe an RfE requires prior warning, and if not, it is generally polite to give one. If AQFK accepted his warning and self-reverted, it would have stopped there, so if you think Dave should be warned for violating 1RR then send him a polite message yourself. On the BLP issue, I count at least four admins who reject the claim that BLP applies, though. Dave and others have been working towards an acceptable inclusion of skeptical claims, but AQFK just removed the entire discussion of the review findings which had been developed by several editors over the course of a few days, without articulating what the issue was. StuartH (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning A Quest For Knowledge This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Obvious violation of 1RR by AQFK, so therefore a standard 24hour block seems appropriate. Since there is a good chance that consensus will be reached among others within the santion period I see no point in also enacting a short topic ban on the article space - a warning that any edit that may be considered a revert to AQFK's preferred version (as evidenced by diffs above) without specific consensus will be considered edit warring and liable to be sanctioned should suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Blocked 24 hours. I saw the edit warring independently of this request for enforcement, and acted on it. It was only after I posted the block notice that I saw Dave souza's notification in the section above mine. I believe there is some logging for any enforcement action or 1RR violation block. Could another admin please show me where I should do that? NW (Talk) 11:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log#Log_of_sanctions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Now logged. Thank you, NW (Talk) 11:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC) AQFK has requested unblock; please feel free to undo my block without further consultation of myself if you feel there is sufficient cause to do so. NW (Talk) 11:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Good block. I was also going to comment that BLP does not cover sourced content, unless it is given that the sources are misrepresented - which was not addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Good block, and second LHvU's comment above; BLP is not reason to whitewash articles, or remove everything negative. However, it is clear that AQFK has violated BLP in referring to individuals as "criminals" who have not even been charged, let alone found guilty, in any court. I suggest AQFK read BLP carefully - he seems confused about when and how it applies. Suggest also AQFK note that there is strong consensus among admins here regarding this; WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is generally not advised as an approach to resolving disputes on Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)