Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:34, 10 February 2010

WP:GS/CC/RE

This board is for users to request enforcement under the terms of the climate change article probation. Requests should take the following format:

{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request

| User against whom enforcement is requested          
  = <Username>

| Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
  = [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation]]

| Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so 
  <!-- When providing several diffs, please use a numbered list as in this example. -->
=<p>
# [<Diff>] <Explanation>
# [<Diff>] <Explanation>
# [<Diff>] <Explanation>
# ...

| Diffs of prior warnings
=<p>
# [<Diff>] Warning by {{user|<Username>}}
# [<Diff>] Warning by {{admin|<Username>}}
# ...

| Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) 
  = <Your text>

| Additional comments 
  = <Your text>
}}

This will generate a structure for managing the request including a second level header. Please place requests underneath the following divider, with new requests at the bottom of the page. For instructions on generating diff links, see Help:Diff.

For Requests for refactoring of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines violations only, comments by parties other than the requester, the other party involved, and the reviewing/actioning/archiving editor will be removed.

TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC

Until 2010-05-03 Thegoodlocust and William M. Connolley are restricted from making more than one revert to any article in the probation area in any 24 hour period. Until 2010-08-03 Thegoodlocust is banned from reinserting any of his own text to any article in the probation area that another editor has removed from the same article for any reason. Until 2010-08-03 William M. Connolley is required to initiate or participate in discussion at the relevant talkpage any time he makes a revert to any article in the probation area, excepting to revert blatant, obvious vandalism. Marknutley and KimDabelsteinPetersen are warned that further participation in any edit war in the probation area will lead to similar sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all impressed with [1] where as far as I can see TGL did 4 reverts in 24hours and the other two named above did three each. Does anyone disagree with this assessment or that it is edit warring on articles under probation? --BozMo talk 15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this entire topic, broadly construed, was under a 1RR restriction. If so, all of these editors should receive blocks. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that isn't an edit war I don't know what is and the article is certainly under probation. ~~So yeah a plague on the lot of them,~~ er sorry I mean yes I agree there should be some sanctions. Dmcq (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeatedly asked for 1RR on the entire topic area. As far as I recall, I've been repeatedly refused. Sorry about the edit warring though - that was bad William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, KDP also joined in the edit-warring, with two reverts of his own. If there are sanctions for edit warring, KDP needs included in them. I'd support a 1RR for the lot of them. Unit Anode 16:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accused Mark Nutley I`d have to say no to your proposal Bozmo, we were all at it TGL should not be punished more than myself or WMC. Those guys were reverting an entire section based on the fact they did not like one ref. That`s provocation so some leeway should be granted to TGL. Put us all on 1R for being ejit`s and have done with it. mark nutley (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I actually took time to get copyright permission for the graphic used in the section I wrote up. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No - the whole editing environment has been allowed to deteriorate to the point at which good productive editors have started to behave like the disruptive ones. It's quick action against multiply-offending behaviours by individuals that's required, not teacher putting the whole class into detention due to his own failure, letting the situation descend into chaos. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whom are the good ones and whom are the disruptive ones? Are you saying we should be topic blocked? --mark nutley (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think some of the ones who've caused this are very good indeed and the topic can't possibly afford to lose them. But this quick-fire revert and PA stuff was always going to have a bad effect on everyone else. I want all this to stop so I can improve articles - it's now even more important that the Amazon savannahification/desertification/+ve feedback business be added to the main article than it was when I got knocked back. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A link for you, that clearly demonstrates why no tilted enforcement should be applied. Unit Anode 16:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Before "logging" anything, please note that WMC also has 4 reverts there, and if that's the reasoning behind TGL's stricter sanction, then WMC should be 1RR as well. Also, KDP's 2 reverts should not simply be ignored. Unit Anode 17:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The initial lean on this enforcement is revealing. The results may be balanced. Thanks UnitAnode for clarifying things in this tagteam issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a final civility warning, yes, that would put one (much complained) editor over the top here for warnings. Unfortunately with little faith, the enviable will happen now or latter with drama. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just noticed this, but from looking at UnitAnode's assessment, it looks like WMC and I each made 3 reverts in 24 hours - not 4. Just thought I'd clarify that unless I'm missing something or having a brain fart. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the initial complaint accidentally included an edit or two as a revert when they were edits (to add more refs) and not reverts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I took that into account. I just took a look again. It's 4 for both of you during the edit war, which may have spanned slightly more than 24 hours. Unit Anode 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I didn't realize the calculations sometimes went beyond 24 hours. I just saw his revert, saw that I'd been 24 hours and then reverted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to the admins, why am I getting stricter sanctions than KDP and WMC who've been tag teaming these articles for years? Frankly, if someone isn't open to reasonable discussion and simply reverts with either bogus excuses or none at all then the only thing to do is revert them back. I'd be open to suggestions on how to deal with such behavior, but this probation was specifically designed not to deal with their MO. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for yours to be stricter than KDP's or WMC's. Or more lenient. You all should know better by now, presumably. I advocate 1RR for the lot of you. I'd go with 0RR but that's not workable. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I advocated 1rr when this probation was first proposed. If anyone cares I could easily show KDP/WMC tag teaming on other articles (both recently and over the span of years), and with WMC's prior unpunished 1rr broken I can't possibly see why I'd be sanctioned more than him. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WMC, KDP, SS tag team illustrated in this dispute is a most prevalent and common issue from my observations. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like this are not in any conceivable way helpful. This is just "shit-stirring", quite frankly. Perhaps you should be blocked for not assuming good faith by accusing editors of tag-teaming? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the admins below

Please do not ignore KDP's two reverts during the edit war. While I'd think amnesty for those who only made one might be acceptable, once he made the second one, he was fully involved. Any remedy that excluded KDP needs to be rethought. Unit Anode 18:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please do not ignore KDP's 2 reverts in the proposed sanctions. Those who made only one could possibly be given amnesty, but to treat WMC, TGL, and MN one way, and not do the same to KDP would be a bit unfair. Unit Anode 20:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here are a couple recent edit wars involving KDP - they weren't hard to find. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any sanction that includes WMC (4 reverts), TGL (4 reverts), MN (3 reverts), and not KDP (2 reverts, and an SPA to boot), is illegitimate. Unit Anode 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I truly can not fathom how 2/0 can't understand that there's a big difference between someone who reverted ONCE and someone who consciously clicked undo the second time (and is an SPA to boot). Unit Anode 02:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hipocrite an admin?

If not, and he certainly isn't uninvolved, then why is he editting in the "result" section? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As my first comment (which was basically just a link to a summary of the edit war) was moved up here, Hipocrite has no business posting in the discussion down there. If no one else does so, I'll be moving his comments shortly. Unit Anode 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite's conversation with Lar

Could we also hit all four with a final civility warning and a no-alternate-accounts requirement? Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not clear MN needs a final civility warning, but a nice strong reminder never hurt anyone. Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many final warnings do each of the participants get before we escalate to "we really really mean it" level final warnings? Haven't some participants already received their final warnings? ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you want to nominate me at RFA, Lar, and by "you" I mean "Lar, and no one else," then I'll accept, just to show you how unlikely it would be that someone with my tolerance level for worthlessness could retain their bits. But, you want to know what I would do, if I ruled the world? I'd put everyone who has ever added or reverted a disruptive change on "don't make a change that someone "on the other side" would ever consider reverting," probation, a "stop fucking around on talk pages," and a "strike one you're out" civility patrol. Then I'd block the fuck out of people. But that's just me. Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were one already. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, I'll have to inform you that my history of slightly disruptive sockpuppeting and extensive (but lost) block log make it unlikley that I'll pass RFA. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stephan Schulz

[In reply to LHVY's MAD suggestion below]: It's a bad idea, as everybody who can count to two will be able to force certain content in (or out). I'd like to see the aggressive CUing, though - at the moment it's significantly more work to remove the socks than to create them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Bozmo

KDP has been involved in far more edit wars in this topic area than I have (and recently too). Also, he was the first person on talk because he was responding to a reference someone else added (not me). This reference was then used as an excuse to constantly blank the section - despite the fact there were far more souces in that section and it wasn't originally used to write it up. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to cover all of the probation areas, I am reacting to the page which I noticed being protected. Working out cases against editors across a number of pages takes way too much time for me at the moment, but if by some strange chance I get a couple of hours free I will start with the editors whom I have happened to notice most around the place being argumentative which probably would include both KDP and you ...strangely prior to today I would not have had MN or WMC high on my list of people to check. --BozMo talk 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure go for it, I just wanted it, on the record, that the reversions (by Stephan Schulz and WMC) started before any conversation at all - and with poor reasons too. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took out a version with the only source being tinfoil-hatted Icecap, and with a detailed edit summary to boot. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by that logic when I restored the text, with the addition of the sources that the other guy took out, then I didn't really revert a 4th time. Thank you for the defense Stephan. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read up on WP:3RR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says a person shouldn't make more than 3 reverts in a period of 24 hours - which is something I did not do. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also says that 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. Even one revert is often one too many. ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is really an understatement. The only reason I see not to have 1RR across the board is that sometimes there are situations where you are adding sources, or making a change that is technically a revert but clearly aims toward good faith consensus building. It's isn't to protect revert warring, just so editors can put the burden of argument back on the other side. I think we've known for a long time that such editing does nothing but degrade the editing environment. The answer is to stop, discuss, and deal with the issue. If there are not going to be topic bans here, which I think is what has been done before (see for instance the much harsher response here), please let's be clear that will be the result next time. Based on what has been done before it seems a page ban for all of the involved editors would be better supported. Mackan79 (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only harsher, but quicker! 6 hours start to finish. No diffs (other than the 1RR violation which I both tried to self-revert and started a TP dialog on), no fuss no muss, drop the gavel and move on. The hand wringing here over KDP is a laugh riot. JPatterson (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by KimDabelsteinPetersen

I am fully in agreement with a 1RR restriction on the article. But i am rather surprised about the discussions below on my contributions in this....

Yes, i did revert twice, and then stopped, because it became obvious that the content would be reinserted no matter if it was in compliance with our content policies or not. During all of that time i was (and am) in active discussion on talk.

If i may note: What is missing completely from the discussions here is context, and adherence to policy (broadly construed), and not only the limited policy on edit-warring. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once you made the second revert, you were part of the edit war. Unit Anode 01:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe Kim should be dragged into this, yes he did two reverts but he did start up a talk about it. I believe he should be excused the edit warring charge based on this. --mark nutley (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary ban for one week

Since it seems that at least some of the admins believe that i'm a negative influence and that i'm stirring up more than i ever intended ... and maybe i am "argumentative" (though why this necessarily is evil?). I will, effective immediately, voluntarily ban myself and contemplate this for a week. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The page is now protected but as an uninvolved admin I propose that we cut short the discussion and put Nutley and WMC on 2RR across all articles under the Climate change probation (except the articles already on 1RR of course) and put TGL on 1RR similarly, for the duration of these articles being under probation. As a general rule people who push the line should have the playing field reduced. Support? --BozMo talk 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the administrator who protected the page edit warred over, that sounds good to me as well. I was actually contemplating much more severe sanctions, but this seems fine for now. Please note that tag teaming, whether or not it is to evade a restriction, will not be looked upon lightly.

BozMo, this sounds fine to me. Would you like to log the restriction in, say 12 hours if no uninvolved administrator objects? Parties: I'd highly advise against trying to get in your reverts right before the restriction is formally applied. NW (Talk) 17:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the 1RR of the entire area that two people requested above, I'm not so sure. That seems like it would lead to even more tag teaming and gaming of the system than we currently have going on, which is already a lot. I'm open to other opinions though; any comments on that? NW (Talk) 17:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider 1RR everywhere as a reaction to a problem everywhere but I haven't been widely across the probation space. This is a reaction to this single episode which was not impressive. I agree if there are no dissenting admins we should carry on and do it, but I will keep an eye on comments above the line for a little longer too. --BozMo talk 18:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why would we put different people on different numbers of Rs? Put them all on 1RR. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think there's some merit in issuing some (some interim, some final, some final, final really!) civility warnings in this instance. ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lar, my reasoning is various warnings on civility but this case is edit warring which is different. On edit warring I take the view that an RR restriction is a good measure of control. Certainly there are some civility issues with at least two of these editors but I think we should put a line around edit warring. --BozMo talk 19:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1RR for User:Thegoodlocust, User:Marknutley, and User:William M. Connolley sounds good to me. This is flat out edit warring by any definition, and is particularly deprecated in the probation area. Would three months be reasonable?

Most of the edit-warred text appears to have been added to the article for the first time here, by Thegoodlocust. Edit warring your own text into an article is extremely poor form. The relevant timeline for this paragraph is: text added by TGL; text reverted by User:Stephan Schulz; first revert by TGL; first revert by WMC; *then* the conversation at Talk:Global warming controversy#Joe d'Aleo and temperatures was initiated by User:KimDabelsteinPetersen. An additional restriction on TGL to wait for consensus at the talkpage if any proposed addition of theirs is reverted for any reason (regardless of 24 hour rule, no restriction on requesting outside input at a noticeboard) seems in order. Similarly, we might impose a requirement for WMC to start a talkpage thread any time he reverts material that has already been reverted by anyone (meaning that the logic in the original edit summary was not found to be persuasive by at least one other person), if such a discussion does not already exist. These two sanctions could run concurrently with the proposed 1RR, and might be extended beyond the 1RR period.

There will likely be collateral Scibaby damage from the second of these sanctions.

Imposing 1RR for all editors at Global warming controversy would not be amiss. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point number one sounds fine, but I would prefer six months. The next restriction is also good. I understand the issue with Scibaby, but I don't believe that taking three editors out of the picture would severely impact that. As for 1RR on Global warming controversy, I don't believe it is necessary. The current dispute has been quashed by the page protection; I am willing to watchlist the article and impose a 1RR if it turns out to be necessary in the future. NW (Talk) 20:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1: If we can't solve this in 3 months, waiting another three won't help. So either 3 or 6 is fine with me. I'd extend to cover KDP too, though, they have some culpability here. I like the "start a talk page thread" requirement for WMC, but I'd go one step earlier, he has to start it for any reversion, not just rereversions. Couple that with a final, final warning on civility for WMC and that ought to do it. I agree with NW about Scibaby. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot, I'm ok with the proposal regarding TGL needing to wait for consensus before reinserting anything of theirs that was reverted. ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think given argumentive tendency I would require "clear consensus" not just "consensus". So where are we: "six months 1RR for MN, TGL, WMC on all article space covered by probation. TGL may not revert back in any of his own contributions once any editor has removed them without clear consensus on talk first and WMC must start a talkpage thread before repeating anyone else's revert" (I don't entirely get the logic on the last bit but it sounds ok). I would consider a review after 3 months with a possible removal if exemplary behaviour is displayed? I would not be surprised if within 6 months everywhere on probation is 1RR anyway depending on how we go on stopping the current problems, so MN may end up in the same boat as everyone else (which is fine). But then it would not be surprising if at least one of them is banned for disruption from all articles in Climate change pretty soon too. --BozMo talk 20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other side of that coin is that one editor saying "no" shouldn't thwart consensus. TGL shouldn't be subject to gaming ... Here's my draft:

"three months 1RR for MN, TGL, WMC, KDP on all article space covered by probation. TGL may not revert back in any of his own contributions once any editor has removed them without clear consensus on talk first and WMC must start or continue a talkpage thread before (or concurrent with, defined reasonably... i.e. the very next edit) reverting anything" ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dissent on including KDP. I did not notice or raise his behaviour and I would want more discussion on arbitrarily shifting the line. He did revert twice but they were only two reverts on this article this year (versus e.g. five for the good locust in 48 hours plus the original addition) and it was early on before the full swing of revert battle. He also started on talk first. If we are going to punish at a second revert we might as well put in 1RR now. Not that I think he is a saint... --BozMo talk 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am late on this, so I will put this up for suggestion if the proposed restriction above is not agreed or is found to be ineffective; place content on a revert restriction - once a certain number of reverts of an edit is made in a determined time, then the subsequent trangressors get sanctioned (the warning could be in a commented out section next to the content). "Kamikazee" new accounts and ip's to be CU'd (/waves at Lar) aggessively and ranges blocked if appropriate, puppet masters also if found. I would also suggest that this MAD option be considered in any other area of pernicious edit warring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting idea. It's more work up front, I think (since you need the warning in the comments in advance of applying the sanction). But worth a try, if not here, then perhaps in some other situation. I'd want more details worked out first. ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@LHVU. Maybe. But at the moment (despite not being around much) I am of the view that visible admin presence and action case by case is better than any sort of automated system which people may work out a way to game. --BozMo talk 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue against sanctioning KDP in this case, at least in part because he did start a meaningful talkpage discussion. Best practice at this point would have been to leave the material out for a reasonable period of discussion, but, well, if everyone did that we would have to close down the probation. I think for the TGL- and WMC-specific sanctions we should specify a time limit, preferably one somewhat longer than the 1RR restriction. TGL - actually, if the consensus is good then someone else can be relied on to add the material, we can reduce the potential for gaming by just having it as a flat ban. WMC - I would be fine with requiring talkpage participation with any article revert except blatant obvious vandalism; this is best practice anyway, and could be considered on a broader scale. I also like LHvU's ideas of aggressive CU and applying restrictions per content rather than per editor. I think it might work best on a per-incident basis to stop an incipient edit war by stating the rather obvious point that there is disagreement regarding a particular edit, and continued reverts will be considered edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as always, trying to game another editor's sanction is disruptive. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, 2/0. Would you like to try a summary and see if we can rattle an agreement? --BozMo talk 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think KDP is very much a part of the problem here. Long term SPA and edit warrior. Random chance, at best, that KDP didn't edit war as much as the next fellow in this particular incident. I can't sign off on this sanction if KDP gets off scot free. Perhaps something not as stringent (1RR but shorter time period?) ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that it would be quite unfair to sanction KDP in this instance. I agree that I have seen him around as one of the more, er, argumentative editors active in the probation area, though he also tends to be one of the civil more editors in this area, on balance. The couple times I have checked I have found nothing in need of action, but it would not surprise me if a different set of actions justified a sanction. In this particular case, he offered arguments against and later removed a section whose creator was inappropriately edit warring it in. If editors cannot present their case and restore an article to the old consensus version pending further discussion and a new consensus, then we are opening an enormous can of worms and undermining the development through consensus of stable up-to-date articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I think this and this are simple edit warring as they remove the same thing more than once. That's edit warring. What happened on talk doesn't excuse it. KDP already knows not to edit war. ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By a similar metric, we should be sanctioning everything except the initial addition and the first removal - they were all the same or essentially the same text, and, as KDP mentions above, past a certain point it was clear that the only people who were going to "win" this would be the ones to stop the rerereverts and their consequent rererereverts. Not something I would reject out of hand, but I would like to discuss it first. This gets close to NuclearWarfare's focus on content-over-editor, below. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who else do you have in mind? I think the 4 I named about cover it. But if you want to expand to include more editors that were also edit warring I'm not averse, as long as we keep KDP in, since they were garden variety edit warring. ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin and Yilloslime added and removed the text once, respectively, after it was clear that there was an edit war going on (they should be notified if we pursue this route). I am more worried, though, that we are treating people the same or nearly the same when their behaviours were very different - KDP was vocal on talk and removed a section whose creator was edit warring over it. Nobody broke the letter of 3RR here, so we need to focus on what behaviours are breaking the spirit of the probation. As I see it, blindly counting reverts does a disservice to the editors involved, as it fails to take into account that let's go work it out at the talkpage is precisely the attitude that we would like to see prevail across the probation area. Since go ahead and revert even though it is obvious that someone will rerevert immediately is one of the reasons for the probation, though, I could see the logic to a stern formal warning to wait for dispute resolution to catch up in any similar future situations. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the content restriction I really think we need to talk this one through a lot more before we try. I like the idea but I'm leery of putting it into effect on 1/2 a day's discussion without working out all the details. As a CU I am concerned about whether things can be checked fast enough if there's a hot war going on. Please understand I am not saying never, just not this sanction, unless we can hammer out the details somewhere a lot more crisply. (in fact I am very attracted to the notion of a content revert restriction, it's like protection but a different flavor of looseness than semi) ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have used a similar strategy as a "soft lock" on part of the article while leaving the rest open for editing. I think it has been enough in those few instances, but it does require active monitoring and plenty of warning. I agree that both of these ideas can be left for another day, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partial proposed close (I think we are almost done except the KDP point): Until 2010-05-03 Thegoodlocust, Marknutley, and William M. Connolley are restricted from making more than one revert to any article in the probation area in any 24 hour period. Until 2010-08-03 Thegoodlocust is banned from reinserting any of his own text to any article in the probation area that another editor has removed from the same article for any reason. Until 2010-08-03 William M. Connolley is required to initiate or participate in discussion at the relevant talkpage any time he makes a revert to any article in the probation area, excepting to revert blatant, obvious vandalism. Does this look about like where we are? - 2/0 (cont.) 02:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of KDP, I agree, that's close to done. One nit is I thought we had a proposal on the table for TGL to be able to reinsert text if consensus for it could be gained. But I suppose if TGL can convince others of the merit of the text, some other editor (preferrably one from the other side) could actually do the edit. Which fits within your wording, so works for me. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TO be honest Lar trying to introduce KDP into this looks to me like some kind of filibuster. If you really feel we should not move on edit warring without dealing with KDP then lets close this without action and you can bring a KDP example to the table for action? Alternatively if this kind of thing happens with every discussion we bring here I would rather blanket 1RR all articles on probation cos I don't have time. Two of the three here (WMC and tgl) have apologised anyway and there is a point where we admit the horse has died? --BozMo talk 07:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to putting in consensus language for the TGL restriction, but contentious edits tend to attract contending interpretations of consensus - your call. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marknutley pretty much apologized as well near the start of the report, as well as reporting the edit war at my talkpage. We could downgrade this to stern formal warnings all around based on the currently protected status of the article ... but I think I would rather not. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BozMo: characterizing my raising concerns as "Lar trying to introduce KDP" is unhelpful. (I didn't introduce KDP, the material was presented before I spoke the first time, and KDP edit warred, not me) my dissent as a filibuster is not at all helpful. Threatening to close this without action is also not at all helpful. I am starting to see why some participants question whether you are an "uninvolved" admin, although I also think they are looking at it through their own lenses, incorrectly. How about we remove Marknutley and KDP from the 1RR restriction, but issue them stern formal warnings that the next time they revert anything, regardless of what "#" it is, they will be added... no more "we didn't know" excuses or apologies will be allowed. (How many times has WMC apologized over the years, anyway? it seems to be a favorite tactic... do something bad and then issue an "oops" and get off scot free) Downgrading to stern formal warnings all around is completely unacceptable at this point. 2/0: As for the consensus matter as I said above, I think if TGL can convince someone else (from the "other side") to introduce the material via persuasion, they will have satisfied the consensus requirement so I'm OK with either wording. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lar, 2/0. I am certainly happy removing Nutley. Or all of them if you want. However step back and look what happened in terms of this procedure... I raised three editors actions on one article and asked for comments on the accuracy of the judgement on that instance. As always here others raised other issues above the line ("and the electricity hasn't been right since the war" etc). Everytime anyone raises anything people cloud it by raising other irrelevant issues, we know that. But it was certainly you, Lar, who picked out KDP from that discussion and introduced KDP below the line into the uninvolved admin discussion of results. I am not that bothered by what is unquestionably process dysfunctionality, life is short and we have to be pragmatic but it seems strange of you to dispute what you clearly did from the edit history. And as I said, I agree KDP is far from innocent across the board on edit warring and quite argumentative (KDP is generally opposed to me on BLPs which is where I do get involved) but the general issue of edit warring is not the same as this particular case. I do not have time now or soon to consider the general issue of edit warring across the whole probation area. If you wish to you can do so, with my blessing and good wishes, but I will have to back out of the discussion because I could not do so fairly, it would require too much time to read it all. If we are just considering this page to be proposing the same sanction on an editor who has reverted something out twice this year as one who has put it in and reverted it in a further five times this year would not be reasonable; your reasoning that if KDP wasn't guilty it was only by good fortune this time is also rather telling. I am not going to comment on the uninvolved bit which I invite you to strikeout. --BozMo talk 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept the logic and fairness to issuing a stern formal warning for MN and KDP with the understanding that 1RR or similar sanction will be applied next time they participate in an on-going edit war. I strongly encourage both of you (well, everyone really) to avoid any and all reverts except perhaps one revert with discussion of material that has not previously been reverted. This is a very severe interpretation of WP:Edit warring, but hopefully we can avoid situations like this in the future. There is a bit of grey area between reverting to get your way and partial revert as part of the consensus-building process, but I urge all editors to err on the side of caution. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed close: Until 2010-05-03 Thegoodlocust and William M. Connolley are restricted from making more than one revert to any article in the probation area in any 24 hour period. Until 2010-08-03 Thegoodlocust is banned from reinserting any of his own text to any article in the probation area that another editor has removed from the same article for any reason. Until 2010-08-03 William M. Connolley is required to initiate or participate in discussion at the relevant talkpage any time he makes a revert to any article in the probation area, excepting to revert blatant, obvious vandalism. Marknutley and KimDabelsteinPetersen are warned that further participation in any edit war in the probation area will lead to sanctions. The last sentence might need some work, but I would accept anything that follows that spirit. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me --BozMo talk 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I would suggest a tweak to the last sentence, but I can't think of better wording. ++Lar: t/c 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only, since I have not been involved in specifics; place "similar" as the penultimate word, so it makes it apparent that further violations get the same type of restriction now applying to TGL and WMC. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good tweak. Print it. ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed and logged. Kudos to LessHeard vanU for correct use of the word penultimate (my pet peeve - using it to mean "really really ultimate). - 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

84.72.61.221

No edits for three days, please bring this back if they continue. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning 84.72.61.221

User requesting enforcement: Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 84.72.61.221 (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

[2] Incivility, PA (before warning)
[3] Ditto
[4] Ditto
[5] BLP violation (after warnings)

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

[6] Warning by Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
[7] Warning by dave souza (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Either topic ban or block would be appropriate.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Everything that needs saying said above.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [8]

Discussion concerning 84.72.61.221

Statement by 84.72.61.221

Let's face it: The topic has been hi-jacked by a group of people. They have the power, and they do whatever they want. They violate the wikipedia-rules and make misleading or even plainly false article-contribution. They seem unstoppable atm and the damage to wikipedia's reputiation is already very high and likely to grow. Which is very saddening. Feel free to topic ban me, if the truth has been too violating for them.

update: In fact, a topic ban would be the best thing for everybody. 1) the complainers have their wish. 2) to me it doesn't mather whether my contributions get deleted or whether i can't make them in the first place. 3) this topic ban may, all long many others, serve as a hint to future wikipedians, making them aware of how a good project can be manipulated/hi-jacked by a ideologically motivated group.

2. update: i wouldn't advice a indefinite ban since my ip gets changed about every quarter year, so there's a chance someone else might be punished instead. TheGoodLocust ist right, I stopped all contributions except for my talk page after I saw the warning.

Comments by others about the request concerning 84.72.61.221

I think it is pretty clear that this is a disruptive single-purpose agenda IP with little discernible value to Wikipedia. Not only are the contributions often disruptive, hostile and uncivil, but even some of the edit summaries leave much to be desired. I would recommend at least a topic ban, but I also think an indefinite block should be considered. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor could use some mentoring, but I think he has potential. I should note that the one diff provided "after the warnings" occurred only just a couple minutes after the warning and, in all likelihood (considering the acknowledgement of the warning came later), wasn't even read before his edit. I suspect WP:BITE may have also affected his behavior as well considering the topic area. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where they've made any contribution to the encyclopedia, except removing some dead links with a snarky edit summary. Curious if you saw something I missed. JPatterson (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is clearly a reasonable person, and I noticed he had an eye for detail that wikipedia would benefit from. I agree he should be less snarky and needs more knowledge of wiki-policy, which is why I suggested mentorship and perhaps a topic ban/probation for a month or two. My feeling is that he has potential, and any reaction from WP:BITE and the general problems at the GW problems should take that into account - also if he stopped making contributions after being warned (not noticing a warning for a couple minutes is forgivable for an IP), then that should give him some latitude. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The probation was not devised to stop trolls and SPA's from disrupting the article space, since there are sufficient general policies, practices and guidelines to do that; the probation was intended to provide the appropriate conditions so that editors could contribute according to policy and guidelines and not be tempted into improper conduct. Having the ability to contribute to these pages is insufficient to be allowed to, there is a need to show that they will do so exclusively non disruptively. The ip has shown little indication of intending to, despite their grasp of the subject. That said, if they have not edited since the warning outside of their talkpage - and we AGF of their newness to the project - then perhaps a final Final warning regards conduct would be appropriate? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, my main problem was the RfE when the only diff he could provide was minutes after the warning. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....of course after already having been warned for the first time about BLPs back in November... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(shrug) Since the ip is changed quarterly we may have only some 3 weeks of sanctionable time left.... unless.. the ip is fibbing! Surely not, because no-one would fib on CC related articles would they?! Perhaps, then, a block on the account until 1st March when we can find out if the editor has changed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning 84.72.61.221

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

142.68.95.166, 142.68.92.131

Dynamic IP, page semi-protected, rangeblock discussed. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

142.68.95.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
142.68.92.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Could an uninvolved admin review and determine what, if anything, should be done about this user? Hipocrite (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could kindly tell him about the probation on these articles? He doesn't appear to read his talk page though and so he might need to be informed through one of the talk page threads he is frequenting. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes, I had forgotten about the requisite hoop jumping. Now corrected. Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed to refer to additional IP. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that doesn't work, for this and any other IP that isn't participating, a short block with a reason pointing here is not unreasonable, in my view. Blocking an IP mars no records except the IP's. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't work. The IP's most recent contribution was "John Costella is a reputable researcher with credentials that exceed most editors in here."[9]. John Costella is a 9/11 truther, a JFK conspiracy theorist and a host of other fringy things. His website is [10]. Hipocrite (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[11] looks highly useful too. If there are any admins here not too busy on matters of civility to deal with actual BLP problems, how about you block the IP and semi the talk page? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

142.68.92.131 blocked and logged - the other ip was too stale to justify sanction. If, as I suspect, the two are the same editor and a fresh addy starts up the same charm offensive then a request for sprotect might be made (noting that there was no original request). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too early for the fulsome thanks I'm afraid [12]. I think you need the semi. noting that there was no original request - you want proactive (or at least, the portion of that article that is sane) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the edit history of the talkpage - the last 500 edits. I noted 6 ip's and two new accounts. Of the 6 ip's two are those in this section and one is in the section above, as at writing, and only one of the remaining three do not appear to be AGF. One of the 2 new accounts is also not AGF. Neither of these two accounts have more than half a dozen edits to the page combined. There may be a couple of new accounts whose username page is not redlinked, but otherwise everyone appeared (far too) familiar to me from these pages. I don't see what sprotection would achieve, since we would be disallowing contributions from the majority of ip/new accounts that are not already noted on this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all recognized Scibaby socks will be bluelinked due to tagging. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks from WHOIS that all three are Halifax, but on two different /16 ranges, making a rangeblock problematic. They are acting like the same user, though, so I applied a WP:DUCK block for 31 hours. Oh, and thanks LHvU. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add 142.68.165.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to the list (recent diff). Does this constitute block evasion? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCKed (and they edited an earlier comment from the 142.177). They appear to have access to the full 142.68.0.0/16 (65,000 addresses). I have never made a range block before - would it be justified in this case? Does anyone know offhand how to check for collateral damage - are other anon users active in this range? - 2/0 (cont.) 02:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a big range. How long did you have in mind? Let me run a quick check for collateral damage potential and pop back here in a few. I'm more concerned about named accounts than I am IPs but if I see a lot of IPs too... we'll have to think. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results: I checked 142.68.0.0/16 It's a busy range. It has a lot of traffic. Most of it is named users which we avoid by using anon only, of course. But even so there are significant contributions from anons to areas other than climate change. How much? I was doing it by eye, so this is a guestimate, but I counted dozens of contributions from our pals, and many, but not as many, from other IPs. Perhaps 30-50% of the total are everything else. Do we want to lose those for a day or two? We could, we have before. I would not go much beyond 3 days though I don't think. Up to you guys. Hope this helps. If you need other checks, please ask. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lar :). That sounds like RBI is the best plan for now. Hopefully they will find something else to do for long enough that the block does not get reset. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

142.177.62.236 (talk · contribs) and a week or so of semi for the talk page, at this point, I think. Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say rangeblock anyway, at least for a few days. This is becoming intolerable. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now a new IP again: 142.68.164.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need an admin's attention to this as soon as possible. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page has just been protected. I was about ready to nuke that part of Canada. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think an anon only range block is not out of the question. There will be some collateral damage but I don't think it is unacceptably high. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley

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

Request concerning William M. Connolley

User requesting enforcement: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

[13] Removes 'Code and documentation' section without consensus
[14] Removes 'Code and documentation' section without consensus
[15] Removes 'Code and documentation' section without consensus

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

[16]
[17]

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: WMC has resumed his edit-war by deleting yet again the 'Code and documentation' section of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident without consensus. While WMC is allowed one revert per 24 hours, I do not think he should be using his 1 revert to resume an edit-war.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [18]

Discussion concerning William M. Connolley

Statement by William M. Connolley

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley

Ah, looking at those diffs, it appears that two are from on or about 28 January, and one is from seven days later (4 February). I'm not sure that jives with AQFK's implication that WMC has been making one revert per day to edit war, particularly given that WMC's lone revert this month was accompanied by discussion on the talk page. Moreover, the 'diffs of prior warnings' provided above seem to be entirely unrelated to the present situation; those are requests from Prodego to be more polite.

AQFK has made the exact mirror revert in the past (indeed, undoing WMC's edit here). One cannot help but be concerned that this request has only appeared because an admin has protected the wrong version of the article. Can we close this request as just another spurious throw-everything-at-WMC-and-see-what-sticks thread? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, AQFK, filing report after report in hopes of getting your "enemy" banned is not how things ought to be done here. Please take this as a warning to only file reports with actual merit in the future. Statement withdrawn and apologized for NW (Talk) 05:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I believe that this is the first time I've filed a report about anyone to this page. Further, I only filed this report to this page because several other editors said that I had reported it in the wrong place (which also was my first report). If I have filed other reports about the same thing in the same project, can you please refer me to them? To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time I've started a request about this particular editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how AQFK can be faulted for thinking this would be appropriate. There's a history, e.g., Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive1#Heyitspeter.--209.253.65.90 (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate AQFK's views on this, rather than edit warring to keep a clearly defective section it would be good to review this section on the article talk page in the light of the newly introduced link to the blog of John Graham-Cumming, Newsnight's expert, where he is quite open about his lack of knowledge of climate software, and expresses support for the scientific consensus. The article naturally suffers from inclusion of early ill informed news reports and opinions about the emerging story, and as more facts emerge these should be replaced. . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Filing reports like this to try to get the upper hand in a content dispute is inappropriate. The only violation I can see here is mild gaming by AQFK. Recommend no action. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of some of these people (Another editor using these kind of words) naming others work as "trash" like the last edit above (rm section agains, which remains trash. No RS for inclusion). Plaing with the truth in the edit summary is neither a proper way of writing these summaries (claiming that <ref name="WashTimes1127" /><ref name="computerworld" /> isn't WP:RS is ridiculous. It's just something that is thrown out trying to get rid of something unpleasant as I see it.). Should we get an ok environment here at Wikipedia we cannot allow to much of this kind of arguing. Nsaa (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really hoping that the enforcement admins will actually look into the underlying issue. WMC made a basically bald revert, with a deceptive edit summary. That's just not on. Sanctionable? Not sure. But it needs to stop. Unit Anode 13:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"WMC made a basically bald revert, with a deceptive edit summary" Yes, but it's more than that. WMC has made the same revert repeatedly. That makes it edit warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but it should be noted that [19][20] Heyitspeter did also, and [21][22][23] Oren0. Why are we putting up with this from any of them? Article-space breaks for all. Hipocrite (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support long breaks from editing the article for everyone involved in inserting a section without offering to revert themselves or removing a section that they've removed over and over again without engaging in discussion on the talk page to reach consensus with people that disagree with them, or at the very least reaching across the isle to try to work with someone who they think disagrees with them. Perhaps a month for Heyitspeter and WMC, with a week for Oren0? Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) It's cute that you provide three diffs for Oren0 and two for me, and then ask for 4 times the sentence in my case. Also, note that the second of my diffs was in response to a direct request by Scjessey for Oren0 to fix broken refs before reinserting the section. It was just his edit with fixed refs.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the talkpage, and Heyitspeter engaged at talk with regards to the addition. I didn't see the same attempt from WMC. He may have, but I didn't see it. Unit Anode 14:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMC explained his revert here, and Heyitspeter responded in that section with "WMC this is the third time you've removed this section without consensus and with the same rationale (in the face of WP:V). That's extremely disruptive." but I contend that's neither are "engaging ... to reach consensus with people that disagree with them." Engaging at talk is far different than "engaging ... to reach consensus with people that disagree with them." If Heyitspeter is reaching consensus with people he's disagreeing with, he shouldn't see his inability to edit the main article as a substantial hurdle - of course, if he were like Nightmote or myself in proposing bold edits to the article as opposed to stale reinclusions of old text, that would be different - but it's not. Look - at some point reasonable editors are going to have to come together to improve this article. Are you seriously alleging that Heyitspeter's current conduct dosen't need to be corrected at all to be one of those reasonable editors? Leave the bunker, please. Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you give wasn't related to the two diffs you provide. I don't mind you bringing accusations, but when you do please look into their terms carefully. Past that it's a waste of time. Also, in regards to the Nightmote edit, I do want to thank you for making this individual attempt to contribute to the article constructively, but allowing that edit to characterize the entirety of your additions/subtractions and using such a contrived characterization to compare yourself to other editors is problematic.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Leave the bunker, please"? How is that kind of language helpful at all? I looked at the talkpage, and saw what seemed like genuine discussion from Heyitspeter. I couldn't find the same thing from WMC. That's all I was saying. Why pick a fight? Unit Anode 14:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to get people to stop using all of these pages to continue their us-vs-them warfare. Do you really think Heyitspeter's recent conduct is reflective of a reasonable editors working with other reasonable editors to improve the article? To compare, do you think mine is? How about Nightmote? Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hipocrite, it would be good if we didn't get so much partisan sniping. (for example dave souza and Scjessey turned up here... while they did have some substantive, more or less, contributions, each did also get in a dig or two, very subtly). Both sides need to stop the bunker mentality. Hipocrite is trying, and deserves credit in my view. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit of a low dig, Lar. Please accept that I'm trying to get constructive discussion moving forward rather than seeing this page being used as part of an edit war over a dubious part of the article. There's good reason for this probation page being on my watchlist, if you want to check back. . dave souza, talk 17:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did my initial post here demonstrate the bunker mentality? That was my problem with what Hipocrite wrote: he addressed me with a "Leave the bunker, please" statement that I felt was a bit inappropriate given the content of the post I made right before it. Unit Anode 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you to leave the bunker because you are prasing the damnable done by one side. Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm asking you how my qualified assessment in my initial post here causes you to believe that I'm "prasing the damnable done by one side." It was simply what I found when I looked at the talkpage. I didn't word it antagonistically, and even qualified it with that I may well have missed something. And you respond with "Leave the bunker, please." That is the kind of thing that needs to stop. Unit Anode 16:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you continue this sub-discussion somewhere else? The issue here is WMC's repeated edit-warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note as a reminder that WMC's name is mentioned in at least one of the emails that was made public in the Climategate incident. The possible COI concerning WMC's involvement with that article did not achieve consensus for any action on the COI noticeboard [24]. That being said, I would think that WMC's participation with that article, because of the fact that he is somewhat involved with that topic in real life, should be completely above board and uncontroversial. If not, then corrective action may be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be reasonable as soon as all other involved editors declare their identity and all possible COIs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't cast aspersions without evidence. You know better than that. If there is a discussion somewhere about other possible COIs in addition to WMC's, then link to it when you say things like this. Cla68 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. We should not penalize editors for being upfront about who they are. As you said, the COI notice board rejected the COI case. So I suggest you drop it, Tim Ball! ;-) ruins it but is probably necessary--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mischaracterize discussions. There were several editors involved in that discussion (including me) who felt there was something to the charge. Now, if you're not going to back up your allegations of COI with any evidence or links, are you going to drop yours? Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since everyone in this discussion including all three admins agree that there was slow edit warring by William I think a sanction is appropriate. Connelly's disruptive behavior continues to hijack efforts to collaborate collegially. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If CoM is referring to poor behaviour on wikipedia, he might cast his eye once more over the summary of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight. He should also learn how to spell "Connolley" properly if he's going to use it so often, Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for 2/0

You are going to have a content revert restriction? So wmc being disruptive in removing that text which was agreed upon in talk can`t be put back in? This is a joke, he has no reason t oremove that section other than wp:Idontlikeit and gets off scot free, and now we can`t put the text back it? It has reliable sources, the code was a major part of the files released (like 95%) and now we can`t have that in an the article about it, i call bull --mark nutley (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mark nutley, the issue is still covered in the article in reasonable detail, including the main points in the disputed section. Look a little higher, to #Content of the documents. 2/0 has already discussed this point. . dave souza, talk 20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

WMC has not violated any restrictions imposed upon him - any alleged violations of restrictions now standing were historical. The matter of there appearing to be a slow edit war does not fall under Requests for enforcement, but WMC would not be the only party reviewed if there were. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Differ on one point. Slow edit wars are within the remit of these sanctions. In spirit anyway, if not explicitly named. I have to review the diffs provided to see if I concur with the rest of your assessments (likely, but not certain, I will) so hold off a close for a bit please. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur with Lar that slow edit wars are covered. Heyitspeter brought this to my talkpage here before this was filed, and I replied that in my opinion the fact that most of the material is still in the article changes the context of the most recent edit sufficiently that it is more normal editing than edit warring. The article is currently protected until tomorrow (though Hipocrite has requested that that be reviewed, so I may lift it in a few hours after checking the current situation) and under a content revert restriction (any comments on that are particularly welcome). Support leaving this open a while for further review. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, yes, edit wars - slow and otherwise - are covered, but that implies that there are more than one party participating (otherwise it would be blatant disruption/vandalism). I have returned to the discussion that A Quest for Knowledge started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change#WMC has resumed his edit war at the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident to try and determine if there is an edit war, and to determine where consensus lays regarding the content. This request, however, specifies an allegation that only WMC has been violating his restrictions, which I feel is a different aspect and not sustained. Hopefully, the related matter of an alleged edit war can be dealt with at AN/CC. I will not, of course, move to close until there is a consensus to do so.LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think if someone alleges person X is edit warring, it's not impermissible to also point out that persons Y and Z are too. (it's not a defense for X, it won't mean he gets off, it's just relevant) And if appropriate, sanction them, after they have a chance to respond to the allegations. We should not stand on whether the Is were crossed and the Ts were dotted properly. That is, just because this report started out about one person, if in the course of working it we find other problem areas, deal with them too. ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        ...and then Enforcement becomes a venue for claim and counterclaim; I understand that there needs to be an accounting of all relevant violations of probations, restrictions, and straight forward violations of policy, but I suggest that Probation Enforcement isn't it... PE might be considered as the AIV of CC related matters - the yeah or nay of one person violating the terms. More involved reviews of conduct of various parties regarding various restrictions needs a more discursive venue. PE needs swift and certain responses to requests, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Something more along the lines of "don't tell us that here, start another report if you want to talk about Y or Z" then? ++Lar: t/c 01:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. There is also the AN/CC noticeboard for more involved admin review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility increasing

Incivility at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident is increasing in volume and vitriol. Perhaps some final warnings are in order? Hipocrite (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was civil for most of the day but it's taken an unfortunate turn of events the last few hours. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were you to have used the template you would have seen this text at the top of this section: Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Please get some diffs together if you have time.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that 2over0 has aided and abetted the most disruptive and uncivil editors by taking their side, collapsing threads where their behavior is discussed, and attacking editors who bring the issues to appropriate venues for discussion, even as he continues to sanction a good faith editor inappropriately on nebulous accusations. When admins abuse their tools to push a POV and encourage disruption we get more of it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pop some diffs up so those of us who haven't been following it know what you're talking about, please. --John (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner or late CoM will be banned from this page if he continues writing this kind of histrionic nonsense. His new method of disruption - attacking one of the few administrators willing to police this page - seems counterproductive. Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree diffs would be good. I agree that we should avoid histrionics. However there has to be some vehicle available (whether it is here on this page or somewhere else I do not know) to raise concerns about admins participating in enforcement, if such concerns are warranted they need to be acted on. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately although perhaps desirable, that's not really workable, because it's very hard for any administrator - no matter how well intentioned - to remain totally impartial (cf the difference of opinion between you and LHVU below). On the other hand ChildofMidnight here and below seems to be writing highly charged but unsupportable statements attacking a series of editors. In that case, perhaps the only solution is WP:DFTT. Mathsci (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate vehicle to raise concerns about administrative action is WP:RfC. As is has always been. You all can read more about it at WP:ADMIN. Certainly if I thought an admin was "aiding and abetting" disruption, attacking editors, and abusing his tools to push a POV, I would pursue that avenue. Heck, if I seriously believed that (as opposed to employing it as hyperbolic rhetoric), I might even go straight to ArbCom. This is pretty basic stuff, and I don't really understand why it should be news to anyone here. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sirwells

Sirwells is warned to seek and adhere to consensus at article talkpages, and to abide by the civility policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Sirwells

User requesting enforcement: Hipocrite (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sirwells (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

[25] An edit to the lede of the aritcle, Sirwells sought no consensus for his change, did not discuss his change on talk at all, and did not state a willingness to revert his change on request.
[26] Another edit to the lede of the article, yet again Sirwells sought no consensus for his change, did not discuss it on talk at all, and did not state a willingness to revert his change on request. Furthermore, this was part of a slow-moving edit war and uses a basically deceptive edit sumamry.
[27] In this edit, which is not to the lede, Sirwells has no edit summary, sought no consensus for his change, did not discuss it on talk at all, and did not state a willingness to revert his change on request. This edit was part of a series of edits where neither side was willing to compromise at all.
[28] This edit, which was the final straw, has a false edit summary, as the change had been rasied multiple times in talk.
[29] This talk page snark is a direct copy of my previous attempt to fix Sirwell's behavior here

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

[30] Direct explanation of problematic editign behavior by Hipocrite (talk · contribs)
[31] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
...

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Indefinite 0rr probation across entire topic area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Unless this is solved, I'm going to give up on my attempt to cross the line and improve these articels, and instead go back to my bunker.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [32]

Discussion concerning Sirwells

Statement by Sirwells

Other than name, rank and serial number, all you'll get is this (regarding last nights edits): I had not noticed hipocrite was working collaboratively with jpatterson on his huge edit. For that, I'll admit to making a mistake. Although I am still not convinced he had consensus on such a large edit (it was quite large), I would not have reverted it if I knew he had "crossed the line" and was working with others. When I saw both QuestforKnowledge and Jpatteson come to his rescue, I self reverted. I don't want to be the cause of hipocrite giving up on this noble cause.

If hipocrite promises not to "go back into his bunker", I'll promise to never revert anything by Hipocrite. Sirwells (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address this comment by Lars in reference to the warning I placed on hipocrites talk page: "...strongly encourage Sirwell to refactor that snarky echoback or apologise for it. We can't force that, but we can strongly encourage it, and warn that further such will not be tolerated."

I don't what "refactor" means, but regretfully I cannot apologize for the warning I placed on hipocrites talk page for the following reasons:

1. The warning was sincere and justified in my opinion. hipocrite made a huge edit to the clime-gate article. I find it impossible that he could have obtained enough consensus to justify his edit. At best, hipocrite should have made the changes in smaller bites, so that the rest of us have a chance to weigh in on his changes. The cut-&-pasting was, admittedly, laziness on my part. If it's that big of a deal, I can revise the warning so it is more specific. However, if I do so, I should point out that hipocrites warning to me a few months ago was even more vague than mine. I believe that hipocrite should be made to abide by the same standards on which he (aggressively) pushes on others.

2. hipocrite has recently gone on what I consider to be a very immature and unjustified smear campaign in an attempt to have me banned. Using vulgarity and making demands on admins, often with threats behind them. (see my comments to his talk page). Due to his recent behavior, any apology made on my part has no possiblity of being sincere.

3. hipocrite has essentially pre-emptively rejected any apology I might choose to make. So I am not sure how it makes sense to issue apology for something to which such apology has already been rejected. (see hipocrite's talk page).

Sirwells (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Sirwells

This request is a serious one? Maybe I just don't get what is so objectionable about the diffs. However, I do find it objectionable that you threaten to go back into a "bunker" mentality if the outcome of this RfE isn't to your liking. That's far worse than any diff you've provided. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you feel that way. He's on your "side," so you have to defend all of his actions and attack all of mine. Hipocrite (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, some WP:AGF. And this after writing in the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" that you plan on heading "back to [your] bunker" if this request falls through...?--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, if you like I can provide diffs of the many times I've "crossed the line." TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too doubt you, so yes: a few diffs would be useful. Don't mess this bit, though: dump them on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing - that wasn't hard at all. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's telling that Hipocrite is requesting a no-revert restriction a half hour after Sirwell reverted his edit, and due to alleged violations that do not involve reverts. This incongruity suggests that we have a content dispute on our hands. (I say this irrespective of the question of whether sanctions should be brought against Sirwell. I haven't carefully reviewed all the edits.) --Heyitspeter (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh update and apologies, the diff Hipocrite calls the "final straw" did concern a revert (the same one linked to by yours truly). Above comment stands, of course, as this only backs it up, but consider the last clause of its first sentence appropriately attenuated.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course. He's on your "side," so you have to defend all of his actions and attack all of mine. Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why straight to 0RR? I'm not seeing that. In fact I'm not seeing a strong case here that Sirwells behavior on the page is worse than anyone else's. Unless we see similar reports for a good fraction of the participants on that page (on both sides) I'm not sure I can support any sanctions whatever at this time. My read of the evidence shows engagement in the talk page. Can more specific diffs be provided where he was specifically asked to justify the edits in the first two diffs? That talk page is problematic for a variety of reasons. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I do think mimicking a warning back to the editor who warned was unnecessarily snarky. An admonishment for that seems in order. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in order, but it's not going to happen, it's not going to get apologized for, and it's not going to get retracted, because this is a war, and if you leave the bunker, you get shot. Hipocrite (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm particularly disturbed by Hipocrite's "do what I want or else I'm going back to the bunker" post. Completely inappropriate. UnitAnode 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps H isn't feeling that his efforts are appreciated enough. I don't see any of his allies thanking him for them, and not many of his adversaries. (how unfortunate that these terms, allies and adversaries, fit...) I think he's trying hard. More people should. I'm willing to overlook a bit of lapse due to apparent frustration. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, but this isn't the only page where he said he'd act out due to this. Also, on this very RfE he's accused two editors, myself and Peter of basically being blind partisans. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we're serious about changing behavior, then we need to employ incentives. Hipocrite has been making an effort to cross the battlefield and collaborate constructively. That sort of behavior should be incentivized. If someone attempting to collaborate is treated no better than someone who is clearly a single-purpose partisan warrior, then there is no incentive to collaborate. In fact, there's an incentive to be a partisan warrior, because at least you have some protection in numbers. I suspect that's what Hipocrite was getting at. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - We're not. It is. I quit - every so often I'll show up at the article to make an edit, but trust me, the only people who will really like my edits will be people on my side. Hipocrite (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think we are serious. But it will not happen overnight. Or even in a week. It may take months. Throwing in the towel after a few days isn't how to effect change. Please reconsider. Your efforts HAVE been noticed, and they ARE making a difference. Even a little difference for the better is an improvement. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Prove it. Hipocrite (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That your efforts made a difference? That's my opinion. It's not an easy thing to measure objectively but it's my belief that it's the best way forward. Or else everyone in this articlespace is going to get sanctioned, eventually. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        But why should it take months? I've been trying to mediate between the two warring factions for 3 months now, and I've been accused by both sides of being a member of the other. Why not just ban them all and let neutral editors write the article? We'd be done with the article in less than a week. Instead, we have all this drama. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How long do people need to wait for someone who writes a factually misleading edit summary and drops a steaming pantload on their talk page regarding a topic under probation to get a stern talking to? Hipocrite (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also note for the record that Sirwells is standing behind the warning he dumped on my talk page - [33]. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sirwells

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Oppose any action pending further discussion, see above. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibble: the diff labeled as a warning from me is just placing the probation notification template. I did, however, strongly concur with Hipocrite's concerns with Sirwells' editing, having navigated to their talkpage for very much the reasons expressed in it. The snarky warning Sirwells posted to Hipocrite was not on, but I think that a warning would suffice in this case. Any editing sanction should be limited to no more than one year per the remit of this probation, and should probably be restricted to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident at this point, though there have been unproductive edits elsewhere in the past. That article is already subject to revert restrictions, which would make the minimally invasive sanction either 0RR or article ban.

Pending further discussion, I think we should close this with a warning about respect for their fellow editors, unproductive comments, and seeking consensus, without prejudice to revisiting the issue at a later date. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you. However, I'd like to go a bit further, to strongly encourage Sirwell to refactor that snarky echoback or apologise for it. We can't force that, but we can strongly encourage it, and warn that further such will not be tolerated. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we can meaningfully require an apology and refactoring should be left up to Sirwells or Hipocrite, but that sort of thing shows a definite disregard for the WP:CIV pillar. I agree that an apology and refactoring would be indicative of a collegial spirit on Sirwells' part. Proposed warning: Sirwells is warned to seek and adhere to consensus at article talkpages, and to abide by the civility policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, we can't force. But we can encourage. And we can say absent any apology (and signs that there is an intended change in behavior) the next time will be much more severe. That's a kind of incentive. ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macai

Macai is topic banned from any and all edits to articles and discussions related to climate change until 2010-03-07. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Macai

User requesting enforcement: ChrisO (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Macai (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

[34] Copy-and-paste move of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident to a POV title without any consensus, evading indefinite move-protection and violating GFDL
[35], [36] Self-justification with implicit acknowledgement that there was no consensus in favour of this POV move
[37] Explicit admission that Macai is "overriding consensus".
[38] Assertion that "move protection is overridden as per WP:NPOV".
[39] Deletion of move-protection template (apparently in the mistaken belief that this turns off move protection)
[40] Provocative incivility
[41] More incivility

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: This editor was involved with Climatic Research Unit hacking incident back in December but has just reappeared to demand that the article's title be changed to "Climategate scandal" (cf. WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal). Despite being told repeatedly that his proposed title blatantly violates NPOV and WTA, despite the fact that it has been discussed literally dozens of times before and despite being notified of the article sanctions, he is attempting to force through a POV copy-and-paste move (which also violates the GFDL - see WP:MOVE#Before moving a page). Additionally he has behaved disruptively and provocatively on the article talk page - as LHvU has said, "provoking the bear with WP:POINTy sticks". I note also that this editor has previously disrupted other articles with politically-inspired vandalism [42]. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[43] Notification of article probation
[44] Warning by LessHeardvanU
[45] Warning by Seb az86556
[46] Brief AN/I thread

Discussion concerning Macai

Statement by Macai

I'd like to point out that ChrisO, the one filing this request for enforcement, has made ad hominem attacks on me prior to a topic ban request being made.

Then we have Scjessey, who says that everyone who disagrees with him should be topic banned.

Besides, calling the Climategate scandal (which it is a scandal; it's made a real big hit to the credibility of AGW to both the public and the mainstream news media, which happen to be more or less the two things that dictate what makes a scandal a scandal) the "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" is like calling the Lewinsky scandal the "Oval Office impeachment incident".

We have a bunch of people bringing up WP:WTA over and over again, ignoring the basic reality that Climategate is over; it came, and it went. Just because people - or even mainstream news- are talking about it doesn't make it not historical. Granted, it's pretty recent, but that doesn't make it nonhistory.

I haven't even started on those people who don't want the Climategate article to matter-of-factly state that CRU scientists conspired to exclude scientific opponents from the IPCC. I mean, how else can you interpret "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow" (a bit more context there)? The entire article is a big white wash, focusing on a hacking (and even that is seriously questionable) incident that nobody honestly cares about.

Failing to call the Climategate scandal the Climategate scandal is POV. It's a scandal, and plugging your ears and screaming "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" doesn't change that.

It's fucking absurd.

As for all the things I'm accused of doing: the only thing I disagree with is the POV assertions - I consider myself pretty neutral on the topic. Other than that? Guilty as charged. I'm not going to try and make them seem like anything other than what they are.

However, some of the things I did I see as necessary per WP:IAR. That's right; I played the "fuck your rules" card. The consensus on the subject was retarded and in my own perspective in noncompliance with WP:NPOV, which I think is a great idea and basis. It's necessary to break rules sometimes to improve Wikipedia; it just so happens I put my money where my mouth is and actually did it.

Now, as for the punishment that I have no doubt I will receive: go wild. Topic ban, or even block me if that's what you feel is necessary. I don't want to give the impression that I'm doing the whole martyr thing. To be quite frank, I'm saying this because it doesn't bother me that much to be banned (or blocked, which is effectively the same thing as a ban).

Surprise! I don't give a shit.

Have fun, kids.

Comments by others about the request concerning Macai

I think it is regrettable that HiP encouraged Macai in this: Hahaha beautifully argued. I'm in.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's also regrettable that others, notably Nsaa, are using this latest incident to push yet again for changing the title to a POV term. I'm considering whether to raise an enforcement request for a general injunction against such tendentiousness. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably (at least by some) the current title is POV too. I'm not sure a NPOV title exists, if by that we mean a title that satisfies everyone, or even almost everyone. I note that Climategate is a redirect to the article, so I'm not sure that the title HAS to be "Climategate" If this matter is well and truly settled, even in light of current developments, an injunction may be in order. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist (he is pro-AGW I think) suggested "Climate Research Unit emails," which I thought was NPOV and so I backed him up on that suggestion. It is unfortunate that Macai was a bit brunt with Scjessey, but it is understandable considering the battleground environment Scjessey is promoting with his constant belittling of Christians (I'm not a Christian) and Republicans (I'm not a Republican). He has also flat out said people should be topic banned for disagreeing with him (and basically that nobody else's opinion mattered) and I believe ChrisO threatened another user that he'd go to this page over what I consider to be a content dispute. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider refactoring this last comment of yours, TGL, since it's basically garbage that you made up that has nothing at all to do with the matter at hand. It is exactly this sort of problematic behavior that should result in you getting indef blocked from Wikipedia. Certainly your value to the project thus far has been too negligible to quantify. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do one better and provide a diff of the last insult of yours that I noticed [47]. So the public believes in "dumb things like Jesus?" Was that really appropriate? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely off-topic. Please stop the bickering, both of you. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider refactoring this last comment of yours, Scjessey, as "your value to the project thus far has been too negligible to quantify" is not in any way a helpful statement. ++Lar: t/c 23:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it false? Have you seen any evidence that TheGoodLocust is interested in the project to assist the project, as opposed to push a far-rightist PoV? Honest question. Hipocrite (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many "far-rightist" do you know that want all drugs either legalized or decriminalized, are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and atheist? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can all of you just hold it down? Scjessey and Hipocrite, you are not helping your case by characterizing other editors like this. TGL, same advice. Even if you're responding in kind, just don't do it. No, make that especially if you're responding in kind. If the other guy starts acting like a jerk then by taking the high road (a) you bring his misconduct into sharper contrast with your own good conduct and (b) you just, might, maybe, set a good example that he will take up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone attacks and/or mischaracterizes me then I'm going to defend myself. That being said, I've been far more polite in this discourse and as far as I can tell my only crime was to provide the context for the civility accusations against Macai (esp. since Scjessey features so prominently in the dispute). TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting TheGoodLocust's actual perspectives aside, what relevance do they have? I mean, having a personal political opinion and disagreeing with you about how a Wikipedia article should read does not an argument for bias make. Furthermore, I'm surprised that this user is apparently hated enough to have tomatoes thrown in his face even when someone else is on the pillory. Figuratively speaking, of course. Macai (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Seb az86556

Never dealt with this editor or this topic before, but somebody who violates a move-protection by copy-pasting an entire article (thereby breaking the article history > copyvio) and then leaves a defiant "I-am-right"-message in reply definitely deserves some sort of sanction. Excuse my language, but ain't never seen that kinda %$#* before... this user obviously hasn't the faintest idea about consensus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think he knows about consensus, he just doesn't care about it. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meatpuppetry? I've never been clear (e.g.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Seb raised the issue on AN/I (see here); my post to his talk page was a notification that I've raised the issue elsewhere. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone totally uninvolved, I find this behavior totally inappropriate and I mean anywhere in the project. The minimum that should happen is a broad topic ban, though I think this may even reach a larger sanction such as blocking for a long time. I think the issues raised by multiple uninvolved editors says it all at this point. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a copy paste move is never an acceptable approach. If an editor knows better (and editors with some history on the project all should) it's sanctionable, especially if followed by belligerence. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macai has been an editor for longer than you have, Lar, so I'd say he does know better (or has no excuse for not knowing better). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LessHeard vanU

My brief interaction with the editor leads me to believe that the editor is disinterested in contributing to the encyclopedia, but only in causing disruption. I do not even believe their action in recreating the article under the alternative title was sincere, since they were surely aware that it would be reverted, and may have been simply a method by which they would outrage and annoy those editors which which they feel they are conflicted. My attempts, as an uninvolved admin, to have them change their approach was rejected and when I noted my admin status they responded by inviting me to block them (as apparently in a partisan manner, since I was warning them). I do not believe that there is any benefit in allowing this individual to continue editing the topics covered by the probation, or indeed the encyclopedia generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdJohnston

If Macai won't express awareness that his action was incorrect, I would support a sanction under the article probation or a block. A copy-and-paste to avoid move protection is obviously wrong. Some issues are subtle, this one is not. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are articles supposed to be moved? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is move-protected, then WP:Requested moves should be used. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By clicking the "move" tab displayed at the top of every article (except ones that are move-protected). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to know, I've never had to do it before. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JPatterson

I'll leave for others to decide whether these ([48][49]) cross the line of tendentiousness but they bother me. The drawing of sand lines should somehow be discouraged. JPatterson (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Followup comment by ChrisO

In considering the length of time that Macai is to be topic banned, I'd like to draw the admins' attention to the end of the #Statement by Macai above: "Surprise! I don't give a shit. Have fun, kids." Does this sound like someone who is willing to be more constructive after a short break? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone who doesn't like to play bullshit political games. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Macai

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Proposed close: Macai is topic banned from any and all edits to articles and discussions related to climate change until 2011-02-07. A lengthy block might also be in order for this sort of thing. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a typo in there somewhere? Presumably his topic ban didn't end an hour and a half before you typed this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ngh, corrected to one year from today - thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find [50] helpful at all. But I think a topic ban for a year may be a bit extreme. Can we try a month, or 3 months, and revisit if this behavior continues after? ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not seeing any mitigating factors here - disruptive user causes disruption and is banned or blocked for it. Macai has never performed a move properly (I have not checked for other improper copy/paste moves), so I do not think that the method of the move is an aggravating factor, just the extreme disregard for their fellow editors. They have not been sanctioned here before, so I suppose we have no data regarding whether they are willing to change their behaviour in response to a firm indication that that sort of thing is not acceptable for Wikipedia editors. I could see the logic to closing this with a one month topic ban and a strong warning with the understanding that repeated disruption will lead to escalating sanctions. If they come back and start editing productively, great; if they come back and start editing disruptively, the cost to the project can be minimized with reference here and swift action. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any mitigating factors either. If I had I'd say start with a warning. But I think a year is a long time for a first offense. I endorse the suggestion to start with a month and a stern warning that no further such shall be tolerated. A year would be fine for the second offense, and that should be made clear. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I follow your logic here, and I think it makes sense - thank you. If there is a next time and if there are other matters to consider then, we can take those into account. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for restrictions on article renaming discussions

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident has repeatedly been the focus of frequent and often acrimonious discussions about the title of the article. This has produced unnecessary controversy and disruption, and has consumed far too much editorial time that could have been used more profitably on other issues. To address this, I request that the following administrative restrictions be imposed on Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident under the auspices of the climate change article probation:

1. Discussions of changes to the article's name are limited to one renaming proposal per calendar month.
2. Editors may not make proposals to incorporate the terms Climategate or scandal in the article title. Any such proposals shall be closed or removed.

The first restriction should be self-explanatory. It really should not be necessary to have an endless series of discussions prompted by a fresh proposal every other week. This restriction would encourage editors to focus more on improving the article and not waste so much time and effort arguing over its name.

The second restriction would stop the repeated tendentious proposals to include the POV terms "Climategate" or "scandal" (or both) in the article title. This has come up many times (e.g. [51], [52], [53], [54]). On every occasion the proponents have been told that WP:NPOV and WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal specifically preclude the use of such terminology, and every attempt to introduce such terms has been rejected.

However, there is a hard core of editors who do not accept this and either disrupt or contribute to disruption by repeatedly demanding or supporting the use of POV terminology. This is classic tendentious editing - repeating the same argument over and over again in an effort to wear people down. The resulting controversies are completely unnecessary and wasteful. Without prejudicing good-faith proposals to change the article's name, proposals to introduce the deprecated terms Climategate or scandal into the name should be closed down as quickly as possible to avoid yet more fruitless bickering. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to Lar). We do not use -gate constructions in article titles. Compare Rathergate, Attorneygate, Whitewatergate etc. WP:NPOV#Article naming sets out the standard that is to be met (read the 2nd para): "[E]ncyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." That is foundational policy, not a guideline. The use of "-gate" terms is specifically deprecated in WP:NC#Descriptive titles - again, that is a policy, not a guideline. This does not affect the use of POV terminology in redirects (which are not subject to NPOV restrictions) but it does rule out the use of "Climategate" as a term for the article. NPOV cannot be set aside by a consensus of editors, so there is no point in discussing terminology which NPOV and NC explicitly deprecate. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, It's not clear to me that -gate (or "scandal") is unequivocably prohibited. It's just not as cut and dried as you claim. The canonical example, is of course, Watergate which currently redirects to Watergate scandal (as opposed to Watergate incident or whatever). I think a restriction to once a month is certainly workable, and I support it, but I think you don't get to restrict what is proposed. Shoot it down once a month on "asked and answered grounds" if nothing new is introduced to make the case, but a blanket restriction on a proposal? No. Too controlling. (As I said, I don't prefer either of those terms myself, but that's just my personal view. As an enforcing admin I cannot see this sort of restriction, sorry.) 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are mistaken about Watergate scandal. The name "Watergate" was taken from the place where it happened - the Watergate complex - whereas every subsequent "-gate" name is a snow clone coined to evoke Watergate. See -gate#Etymology, usage and history of -gate for background. The deprecation in policy of "-gate" names refers to the use of snow clones, not the original Watergate. As for "scandal", please note what WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal says: "They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources." This is not an historical case, nor is it widely used by reputable historical sources (no such sources exist, since it's an ongoing current event). So there is no point discussing either a "-gate" name, as policy explicitly rejects that, nor is there any point discussing "scandal", since that is POV and explicitly deprecated by WTA. Since there is no point discussing either there is no point in allowing disruptive discussions of either. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. The reason Watergate is the canonical example of the name is precisely because Watergate is the name of a place, an apartment and office complex near Foggy Bottom, and that's why scandals after it got the -gate tagging (no scandal before it did), as the sources you point to so ably elaborate. But that has nothing to do with my point, which is that it's not a blanket prohibition, all policies have exceptions. One of the things the side arguing against name change has been saying is prohibited is the use of the word "scandal" And yet the main article on the Watergate affair has "scandal" in its name. That refutes your statement that it's an unequivocal prohibition (although we must always keep in mind that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument that refutes policy). If you would be less stubborn you might find that discussions would flow better. ++Lar: t/c 23:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, you're overlooking what I said about WTA permitting "scandal" in "historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources". Watergate is an historical case and it's covered by reputable historical sources. The CRU controversy is neither - it's an ongoing current controversy. I never said it was an unequivocal prohibition - my comments above make that abundantly clear. This is not a matter of me being stubborn; it's a question of whether people can be bothered to make the effort to read what is plainly written. The answer to that is apparently that they can't. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark Foley Scandal was called so almost immediately after the page was created, while the event was unfolding. So clearly, there is no historical context for not allowing of the word scandal in the title. Arzel (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO: "it's a question of whether people can be bothered to make the effort to read what is plainly written. The answer to that is apparently that they can't" ... OR, that it doesn't say what you think it says. You may not want to be so dismissive of the views of others, especially when it's relatively small beer, or when the others are actually agreeing with the desired outcome if not with your tactics. ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment by TheGoodLocust

Chris, more NPOV language has been suggested and you've rejected it. The problem with the current title is that it assumes a crime (hacking) was committed even though security experts have said it was most likely a leak. This is especially important since a lot of the defenders of the climategate scientists have tried to distract from the contents of the emails by shouting that they are victims of some horrible crime. I suggest you work towards improving the current title and then you wouldn't have to worry about people wanting to change it so much. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I have no objection to good-faith discussions, but we need to stop the repeated bad-faith attempts to introduce those two POV terms into the article title. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure your diffs show that the attempts are actually bad faith, not just bad faith in your view. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the likes of Macai's recent intervention in the section above this one. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that action as evidence of bad faith during discussions about moves. ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article name change proposal is headed for a content RfC. If consensus in the RfC is to change the name to some variation of "Climategate" then it will be so. That's how we do things. As long as the article content dispute resolution process is allowed to proceed without disruption, I don't think there's a problem here. Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already told you, NPOV cannot be overridden by a consensus of editors, which doesn't exist in this instance. Go and read the 2nd para of WP:NPOV if you doubt me. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how do we know what NPOV is? There is no absolute NPOV, so we try to reach consensus on what is NPOV. The point is, many editors believe that the current title is POV, and that is what discussion must resolve. ATren (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in this case we don't have to try to decide if it's NPOV or not. After seeing a neutral article in the Japan Times, among others, which referred to the incident as "Climategate", I was convinced that that title is now the de facto phrase used by the press. We report what the sources say. We have procedures for deciding consensus on issues like this one and those procedures, in this case likely an RfC, should not be preempted by administrator intervention. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus states that some form of "Climategate" (which a ton of reliable sources use) is more NPOV, we need a firm commitment that ChrisO, and the other editors who support the current, extremely awkwardly-worded title, will not claim that they know better, and move war over it. UnitAnode 07:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, this is the only Gnews result when searching "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident", which I thought was telling. Read the article. The one-sided nature of the Climategate article is giving WP a black eye. Unit Anode 07:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to search in Infotrac and NewsStand tomorrow and see what I come up with. Cla68 (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call for an end to this kind of disruptive obstruction

The current name is enormously problematic, as has been discussed repeatedly. First of all it's not clear that hacking was involved, the information may have been leaked by an insider. This has been reported in reliable independent sources and we may well be misleading our readers. Yet those obstructing corrective improvements continue to dig in.

The same group of editors engaging in this obstruction are the ones 2over0 is protecting despite their insistent incivility, edit warring, and wikilawyering. It's time the editors causing problems be brought into line with our policies so the disruptions and distortions of the article to promote fringe propagandist viewpoints are stopped. The denialist editors who want to ignore all the reliable coverage of this scandal shouldn't be permitted to distort our content in an effort to suggest that the only relevant part of the incident is the accessing and publication of the information. The controversy over the information released is the most widely covered aspect of the incident, and its aftermath has already resulted in official findings of impropriety and further revelations of unscientific misinformation campaigns and misconduct. These issues need to be included in the encyclopedia per our core NPOV policy.

The title leaves out the controversy over the e-mails and focuses solely on another aspect of the event that isn't anywhere near as notable. There are very reasonable suggestions for incremental improvement such as adding and e-mail controversy to at least make the title more appropriate and inclusive.

This outrageous request to keep a completely inappropriate title and to prevent anyone from discussing the needed changes is another in a long series of disruptive attempts to prevent the article from being improved to make it neutral. It's outrageous and I think ChrisO should be given a break from his disruption of constructive article work. This kind of abusive obstruction isn't acceptable, it's damaging the encyclopedia and its contents, it's damaging to collegial cooperation, and it's gone on for way too long. It needs to be stopped. If ChrisO doesn't want to be part of the solution, he should be stopped from adding to the problems. A ban of he and William from this topic is certainly long overdue.ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mark Nutley

Is this a joke? Not only can we not call it by it`s known name Climate gate now we are to be banned from talking about it? Bet Orwell never saw this one coming. Sorry guys, you do not have the right to censor wikipedia, if people want to discuss renaming the article then they can, regardless of what you think is best. --mark nutley (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be quite clear, then

It seems what ChrisO (and now LHvU) are saying is this: it doesn't matter what the reliable sources call it. We're going to use our original research and synthesis to call it a convoluted, potentially misleading name. And we're going to quash any discussion of change because -- dammit! -- we know what's best! Amazing. Unit Anode 13:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. "Climategate" is a POV nickname. We do not use POV nicknames. WP:NPOV#Article naming directs us to use descriptive names that do not take sides "for" or "against" any given issue. "Climategate" fails this because it takes sides. The media has no requirement not to take sides; we do. Therefore we do not slavishly ape the media; we find neutrally worded descriptive names. Compare "Killian documents controversy" with the POV media term "Rathergate", for instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't take side if we uses it as everybody else. Please re-read our policy on WP:V (we uses (secondary) sources). Quote it like 'Climategate' and we follow the standard used by (nearly?) every secondary source reporting/writing on this controversy (yes this is what most uses, some use scandal instead). Just take a look here: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Climategate_usage. Yes, the name was established on/by a skeptic (blog), but have we etablished that it's meaning is not WP:NPOV by WP:RS sources now? Why are The Guardian, The Independent (and all the other media reporting on it) then using it? Are they now Skeptics and not true believers in the AGW hypothesis? Nsaa (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tony Sidaway

If editors are persistently repeating failed arguments for article moving for weeks on end and refusing to accept the results of the move discussions, they may be sanctioned for disruptive editing. We'd do this in any case, and I see no reason to tolerate this conduct just because they're engaging in this behavior under the noses of admins watching on a talk page under community probation. That should make our standards tighter, not more slack.

I think this page could also benefit from a cleanup, as there are clear signs of an attempt to turn this discussion into yet another move discussion. --TS 13:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the request was an attempt to tamp down move discussions. So, I think it can be forgiven if people discuss the relative merits of moving the page to a less neologistic, and more reliably-sourced, name. UnitAnode 14:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During my time editing that article there were about half a dozen failed move discussions. I take it that there have been more, all of them failed. No new arguments having emerged (I can see from above that this is so) then repeatedly nominating these moves could be disruptive. Deliberately wasting time on pointless arguing on a talk page is disruptive. Repeatedly "asking the other parent" in the hope of a different result is disruptive. Defences could be made, but the presumption is that those still presenting the same failed arguments are engaged in deliberate and knowing disruption. In particular, raising the same arguments on this page, where such discussion is inappropriate, may be disruptive in itself. --TS 14:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the question is, how much embarrassment will have to be visited upon the project by forcing the article to stay at such a neologistic name before people are willing to do anything? UnitAnode 14:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Could we please not rerun the pro- and con- arguments from the talk page? That's where they belong, and they've all been duplicated numerous times throughout that page's archives. This is a proposal to resolve the disruption caused by the endless reruns. --TS 14:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  It's entirely impossible to consider whether one side of a discussion should be stifled without attempting to dig into the roots of the problem. I've long thought that the title of this article was hackneyed and forced, when a reliably-sourced, non-hackneyed version ("Climategate" or "Climategate scandal") is readily available. I simply had not noticed the discussions at that talkpage, as -- like many -- I was chased away by Connolley and the others when I dipped my toe in the GW waters at Garth Paltridge. Shutting down discussion by fiat is never good. Never. Unit Anode 15:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Repeatedly "asking the other parent" in the hope of a different result is disruptive.". Part of the problem with the editing environment of this article (and others) is that one side sees themselves as "the parent".JPatterson (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good thing that at least one group of editors in the discussion is known for its longevity on Wikipedia and knowledge of how things are done here. My analogy here could have been better, though. I should more properly have referred to editors repeatedly hammering away at the same failed arguments in the hope that objections to a rename to "Climategate" will disappear one day. If it will happen, it will happen, but in the meantime hammering away on the subject isn't going to persuade. It only distracts attention and may even be counter-productive. --TS 19:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am mainly in agreement with your conclusions and said as much here. I do think the constant condescension exhibited by some editors gets in the way of productive work. It is especially inappropriate in an article that is not about the science but about how an historical event has played out in the real world. The article should reflect that reality, and each editor should be on equal footing as we attempt to reach that goal. JPatterson (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The condecension is possibly unavoidable. Scientifically literate editors tend to have little patience with the constant retreading of ancient myths that passes for discussion of global warming on the "skeptical" side, and these myths have turned up with a horrible predictability in discussion of the hacking incident and its aftermath. As we're supposed to be reporting the facts, maintaining focus on the known facts rather than speculation and myth is especially important. It's a very difficult job, full of repetition. This doesn't excuse the sometimes shocking incivility of discussion, but it does provide context on why the level of discussion is very low. Scientifically literate editors acquainted with the mainstream position grow weary of the constant dripping of misconceptions from those who would inflate, usually out of ignorance, the scientific strength of various minority positions. There are only so many times one can approach the news that "it's been a very cold winter in Illinois" story with a cheerful heart. The level of ignorance of basic science displayed by some Wikipedians involved in editing global warming articles is sometimes nothing short of shocking. --TS 20:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the issue. Two points: I reiterate that this article is not about science but rather what has been reported in RSs about the behavior of some scientists. Secondly, I would put it to you that condescension is generally counter-productive to your stated goal. Poking and prodding frustrated editors only fans the flames of passion and encourages more to charge the ramparts. I suppose it is useful from your viewpoint that a certain number of unsophisticated neophytes will take the bait and find themselves at the business end of the sanction chipper but personally I don't think this works overall to the good of the project. JPatterson (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JPatterson, this article is about an incident inextricably linked to the science, the minority or fringe opposition to mainstream science, and political use of the incident to promote denial of the current findings of science. We have to make clear the majority view of the science, and show how minority views have been received by the majority. We also have to show the majority views of the behaviour of the scientists whose supposedly private correspondence has been publicised, as you suggest. All part of npov. Passionate attempts by newcomers to promote political or fringe views are common, and we have to helpfully persuade them that they should follow policies. . . dave souza, talk 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with the above but I don't see how this article is about "the minority or fringe opposition to mainstream science". It is by no means a fringe view that the emails and computer codes cast a pall over the attitudes, policies and procedures at the CRU. This would be a true statement even if it were not supported by the statements of many scientists in the field (which it is) because according to polls it is the majority view in the US and a strong minority view in the UK and has been widely discussed in any number of RSs. That doesn't mean that view is correct. This may in fact be a denialist conspiracy, but if so, its been a successful one and we have an obligation to reflect reality. My objection is to editors on both sides who want to use WP as a propaganda instrument. It is not our job to either bash the scientists or protect them but rather to provide an accurate portrayal of the events, their context and their social, political and scientific impacts. JPatterson (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are restricted by WP:BLP from throwing blog-sourced mud at individuals working at CRU, until after the inquiries report and we have unimpeachable sources for doing so. My view is the science will have changed not one jot, but a few scientists may be told to be more careful what they write during work-time after this. The denialist furore will die down with no further fuel and those who helped hype it up will just look silly. That's why we need to be sensible, stick to policies, and let others in the commercial media go out onto unsupportable limbs if they want. --Nigelj (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To bring the discussion round full circle, its a pretty thin branch we find ourselves on what with "hack" in both the title and lead. JPatterson (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of funny to have these quite naked innuendoes pointed in my direction in a discussion about failed arguments and condescension. The statement "I suppose it is useful from your viewpoint" is a failed argument because it presupposes that I have a viewpoint in which this matters. The reference to "[p]oking and prodding frustrated editors" presupposes, contrary to my clear statements to the contrary just above, that I approve of uncivil behavior. This isn't funny, it's downright annoying, and I almost feel moved to condescension. We cannot communicate if all the time we're talking across one another. This might happen less if you would pay attention to what I'm saying. --TS 01:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more precise. By "viewpoint" I meant the view you expressed above - "Scientifically literate editors acquainted with the mainstream position grow weary of the constant dripping of misconceptions from those who would inflate, usually out of ignorance, the scientific strength of various minority positions." I supposed, based on that stated view, that the burden you spoke of would be lessened to the extent that the newbies could be induced to scale the castle wall. As to the rest, I am not familiar with your editing style so I have no idea if you fall into that category or not. You certainly weren't one of the editors I had in mind. I'm glad you are shocked by the lack of civility, we share that view. The environment is not going to improve as long as arrogance and condescension are justified and not roundly condemned. JPatterson (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to condemn some arrogance and condescension on your side, or is your condemnation reserved only for people you disagree with? Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment section above on Macai for an example of my condemnation of someone on the opposite side as you. I reject your implication however that I have a side in this. I have been inaccurately identified with the skeptic camp only because the article was so blatantly skewed toward the tempest in a teapot meme. In attempting to nudge it toward neutrality I have of course run into to more opposition from your side than from the other. JPatterson (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Scjessey

The key to all of this is the investigation by Norfolk police. When the investigation is concluded, we should find out for certain whether or not a hack occurred. Other details may also be revealed, such as who stole the data and what the motive was. Retitling proposals prior to the conclusion of the investigation are unlikely to be successful. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in the interim I suggest we use the phrase the Norfolk police used and replace "hacking" with "data breach" in the title. I have proposed this on the talk page. Please comment there. 16:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest For Knowledge

I propose that we change #1 to "Discussions of changes to the article's name which incorporate the terms Climategate or scandal in the article title are limited to one renaming proposal per calendar month" since that seems to be the major problem. It violates WP:AVOID and has no reasonable chance of reaching consensus. Other suggestions, such as ScienceApologist's Climatic Research Unit e-mails, do not violate WP:AVOID and unlike Climategate have a reasonable chance of reaching consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again: does it not matter what the reliable sources call the incident and following kerfuffle? A simple yes or no, with a short explanation would be nice. Unit Anode 16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. Ultimately the community decides what is acceptable. WP:Title requires that titles adhere to a stricter standard of neutrality than even the article itself. While I do not understand why Climategate invokes such a visceral reaction in some, I take the fact that it does in good faith and therefore as prima facia evidence that it is not NPOV. Until or unless that changes I see nothing to be gained from rehashing it over and over. BTW I feel exactly the same way about "hack" and "hacking" in the title and lead. It's not NPOV. JPatterson (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malcolm - I've new to this argument but from previous experience it's unlikely that the resistance to Climategate is policy-based. Or indeed reasonable in some other fashion. If there are good arguments (or a consensus reached by editors) then I'm sure someone can present these arguments in some easily understood form such as a table. Having said which, I'm not sure that even a title that is factually false like this one is important enough to battle over. Far more important is that the suite of Global Warming articles be made fit for purpose. Currently they fail to inform the readers on any of the issues most likely to bring people to read them. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both warring factions fight over the most minute of details - no matter how unimportant - if they think it gives their side an advantage. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EngineerFromVega:

I'd like to oppose this as it will set a dangerous precedent of blocking edits and moves based on some editors' opinion. A request to move a article is in no way harmful for this article or for Wikipedia. EngineerFromVega (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZP5*:

Point 1 could slow things down to a civil pace. Point 2 could be excepted with weighty source support. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nsaa

For the first ChrisO: Wikipedia is written by following WP:V and specifically Secondary sources as outlined at WP:SECONDARY. This supersedes WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal big time. Just read our pillars at Wikipedia:Five pillars stating "That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.". Secondary: Our current article name (Climatic Research Unit hacking incident) fails this big time. The current article name is even not the hole truth and make a point out of something that is not important at all in this regard (per WP:UNDUE) since it claims that it was a hacking incident, which many sources has told us otherwise (it may be a insider^{[Nsaa 1]}, leak ^{[Nsaa 2]}, it may be published by CRU at an open ftp server, it was even said that some of the CRU scientist published their email AND password in all their correspondence.^{[Nsaa 3]}. Third: Our current title "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" has NO support by ANY secondary source. A short Google News search on the current article name gives ZERO, NILL hit (except for Solomons "highly acclaimed" piece talking about our article)^{[Nsaa 4]}. Climategate gives instead 1644 per 2010-02-08 ^{[Nsaa 5]}. Claiming that a title like 'Climategate' is not WP:NPOV is, to say it mildy, strange. Every secondary source we have for this incident uses this. Even the most leftist green AGW newspaper like The Independent and The Guardian, just take a look here for some examples on how broad the Climategate usage is: Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Climategate usage.

ChrisO is known for just removing well sourced material in this regard ^{[Nsaa 6]} ^{[Nsaa 7]}. Making treat against me for just be part of an ongoing discussion asking awkward question to him ^{[Nsaa 8]}. Calling other editors and outside people by name ^{[Nsaa 8]}.

He and some of the other editors at this page looks like they're so desperate that they don't event allow a WP:RS^{[Nsaa 9]} source to be included in the talk page. See what I find as an absurd discussion here Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_20#Pressmulti_-_removal_of_a_piece_with_millions_of_readers.3F_-_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia (read it and you see how far out they are willing to go to keep out critics of the AGW-belief).

I think some serious actions needs to be done against this kind of collusion.

ChrisO get a serious warning that this kind of incorporative behavior. It is not acceptable.
Just trying to hijack the article by getting a ban on even trying to "Editors may not make proposals to incorporate the terms Climategate or scandal in the article title." is so anti Wikipedia that it in itself maybe is reason for a reaction.

Nsaas references

^ McMillan, Robert (2009-11-20). "Global warming research exposed after hack". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2009-11-26. Retrieved 2009-11-26. Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider," he said.
^ Police question global warming 'sceptic' scientist over 'Climategate' email leak
^ Data-leak lessons learned from the 'Climategate' hack
^ "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" in Google News
^ http://news.google.com/news/search?q=Climategate 1644 per 2010-02-08 ()
^ removing Climategate from the text
^ Removing Climategate from the text again
^ ^a ^b (→Prepare to a RfC: - fair warning) Since you appear to be determined to be tendentious, I'll put you on notice: if you pursue this further I will ask for probation enforcement against you and a general injunction against proposals to include "Climategate" in the article title. Cite error: The named reference "wpdiff_342285425" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ Per both WP:V and WP:RS blogs that is published in a newspaper under full editorial control can be used as a reliable source. Let's quote "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.". The highly contested(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/) piece by James Delingpole (on the talk page!) falls under this definition

Nsaa (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the usage of Climategate even by the Wikipedia:WTA#Controversy_and_scandal can soon be justified ("They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases") . It starts to be an historic event by the publishing of books in the area. See http://www .examiner. com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m2d9-Global-warming-When-in-doubt-slime-the-opposition Global warming: When in trouble, slime the opposition which talks about the book Climategate: The CRUtape Letters (ISBN 1450512437). Nsaa (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a non-notable self-published rant by a pair of non-notable anti-science activists. So no. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of comments will by time earn you a block or a topic ban. Nsaa (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on dredging up self-published junk (which is plainly not a reliable source) then you have no grounds to object when someone points out its uselessness. You would be better off trying to find mainstream reliably published sources rather than self-published anti-science rants. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please? Hopefully you don't say this when Cambridge University Press publish a book with this title? You know, a book like The Skeptical Environmentalist was published there (by many of your "friends" called by the same kind of language you now uses). Nsaa (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dmcq

The acrimony surrounding the name indicates to me that as neutral a name as possible should be used so the contents of the article can be edited in a more NPOV fashion. It is allowable for names like 'Climategate' to be used in redirects to the article so there is no problem about people finding it. After the whole business has died down in a couple of years the matter should probably be revisited and perhaps then it can be called climategate if that still seems appropriate but for the moment I would like something that removed the hacking as well from the title since there has also been objections to that. As to that reliable blog in the Telegraph are we to take the statement 'James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything.' as being in a reliable source and written under full editorial control? I really would like to see a bit more cool in the discussions on the talk pages. Dmcq (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Delingpole and his blog at The Daily Telegraph can be discussed ad nauseam. My point was that his piece describing our article was not allowed in the top of our talk on serious dubious reasons (See ChrisOs way of argument ...). Just read this discussion Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_20#Pressmulti_-_removal_of_a_piece_with_millions_of_readers.3F_-_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia. One of them was that it was not a WP:RS piece and therefore could not be used in such a prominent place ... (I claim only that this piece is good enough for being used in the {{pressmulti}}-template on the talk page). Nothing else. The Telegraph will never allow blog post under it's domain name that's not reliable and attracts millions of readers without editorial control (he as any other journalist can make wrong statements, and the editorial control can miss on it. I don't say anything else.). They don't kill themselves. Nsaa (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a read again and it seemed to have very little at all to do with the Climate Research Unit controversy. It was more an attack on the wikipedia handling of it and other related issues. If anything it should be in with the other global warming controversy stuff perhaps in a special wikipedia section. I'm not concerned about sticking in references which criticize wikipedia and I'm unsure if there is a BLP issue, I'd check on the BLP noticeboard first about that. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see for yourself. Now since I found one article mention our "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" article, I inserted it in our talk page here. If you have the nerve you can also insert the other references out-commented. It should obvious be there, but ... Thanks for checking it out! Nsaa (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in a blog hosted on the press site hardly sounds like being in the press to me. Dmcq (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five minutes and it out. Without discussion. Without anything. I'm sick of these non cooperative people. Nsaa (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, it's vandalism to remove your demands that we include an off-hand mention of a blog posting on a newspaper site from a talk page, and, of course, it's always people that disagree with you that are "non cooperative," because you've been the paragon of reasonable compromise. Hipocrite (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be polite. Why is {{press}} and {{pressmulti}} being used all over. A lot of other articles uses blog post from newspapers. See for example our own Talk:William_Connolley (that is closely watched by the same removalists) mentions the same blogger (for a long time Samw 2008-05-04T02:11:18 (add press reference), not added by me). Nsaa (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh. this is bad [55]. Can an admin look at it and give some of these people a break? Nsaa (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is bad. You're linking to an unreliable blog posting with inaccurate derogatory material about a BLP. I've undone your edit, please desist. . .dave souza, talk 12:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, there's more her. Look at THIS Talk:Geert_Wilders. They've used pajamasmedia.com/blog. No. Please reasch consensus before removing this stuff. At the {{Press}} or on other higher level places. Nsaa (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, other stuff exists. Argue it out on that talk page. . . dave souza, talk 12:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes other stuff exist. What is your point? We're discussion usage of {{press}}, not the specific article as I see it. Can we add (newspaper) blogs to press or not? I've just stated that people tries to remove unpleasant coverage (yes I didn't like it either. It's bad for Wikipedia, but this removal stuff just let them get a point about us. They now ccan claim that we "remove and twist the reality"?). And about WP:BLP. Read this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive77#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident (it has been raised as you see) Nsaa (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Nsaa#3rr (I've always tried to behave at Wikipedia, but now I got my second 3rr warning. I know this is some of the tactic from the collision partners. Why I got it I don't know. I've not enganged in any edit war in any article, but have just protected the project from disruptive edits to make a point at some talk pages. Nsaa (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Point #1 makes sense to me but I'm not at this time on board with #2. WTA is a style guideline, not policy. I tend to think a redirect from -gate is sufficient, but I don't think that we want to prevent editors from making the case if it's makeable. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am contrary to Lar, I'm afraid. Point #1 would not be an issue if there were an agreement to adopt #2, because those are the alternatives advocated in nearly every instance. To be quite clear, I agree with ChrisO's interpretation and would suggest that regardless of the guideline those titles will never be acceptable to the point of consensus - it is futile to permit discussion unless there is a sea change in the viewpoints of a group of editors. I am now going to abuse my sysop flags by trying to find that discussion and proposing my alternative. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thegoodlocust

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

Request concerning Thegoodlocust

User requesting enforcement: Awickert (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Thegoodlocust (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

(originally made for AN/I, so slightly-different-format than just a list and a couple non-climate diffs here)

I am writing here concerning User:Thegoodlocust. Although I am no longer a very active participant in pages related to climate change and the surrounding controversy, I have been watching them. I strongly feel that Thegoodlocust has had a large negative impact on the tone of these pages, productivity there, and in fact the cause of those who are skeptical of global warming. This is because of the consistently combative nature of his posts. From my observations, he generally adds arguments to talk pages without adequate background or sourcing and proceeds to argue ad nauseum without any real progress being made in article space. He also behaves rudely to those who disagree with him and makes incorrect claims. I approached him about this, but received no response and (more importantly) saw no change in his editing behavior. My concerns are, with examples taken from (mostly Awickert (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)) this past week:[reply]

He treats those with whom he disagrees with disrespect:

"bloodletting"
"Also, if you've studied statistics..." (on User:Coffee's talk after Coffee closed Thegoodlocust's RfA for basic procedural reasons (I still think it was rude, but concede that I may have misinterpreted. Awickert (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
"You are destroying the readibility of this section - you did the exact same thing in the Carbon sink article..."
Dougweller
talks down to Dave souza

He starts talk page threads combatively:

badgering header at WIlliam Connolley's talk
My own feelings on Mr. Chávez aside, this is an unproductive way to start a post
Africagate! (He also complains that IPCC mistakes are always alarmist, which is incorrect: they underestimate sea level rise.) Further, he made an error in his initial stament, and replies to this by lambasting the IPCC.
Glacier melt overestimated by 50%! (Here he also makes incorrect assumptions about glacial melting and sea-level rise, which can be problematic to a discussion)

He makes generally unproductive comments:

negative comments on Raul and WMC
sarcasm
Looks so close to being an useful WP:RS-related comment, then degrades to calling global warming "nonsense" and insulting Wikipedia's reputation.

He makes strong (incorrect) scientific claims on talk pages without reliable sourcing:

Doesn't understand radiocarbon or global carbon cycling, yet argues like he does (this is the unproductive part, I do agree that blogs are not WP:RS), he also confuses this with carbon stable isotopes. Not malicious, but misguided and counterproductive
"nonsensical gobbledygook"
mistaken statements about glacier dynamics and lack of understanding of sea level rise since the last glacial maximum (I considered responding, but decided not to due to the standard uncooperative tone - and incorrect information - in the start of the thread)
And in spite of being wrong so often he is sure that he is right. Not that this or the other examples are punishable offenses, but a lot of time is required to explain to someone why they are wrong, especially if they have different preconceptions, and it is something that I don't want to do when they seem willing to insult the people that disagree with them; I'd rather contribute in article space than deal with it.

Also note comments on his RfA.

Less than 10% of his contributions have been in article space, as of the time of posting. He comments prolifically in areas where real-content contributors take time to respond to him (as opposed to using their time for adding content).

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

Topic ban, block, self-imposed restrictions, or anything that will bring some peace and productivity back to these talk pages

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In sum, Thegoodlocust edits with a strong POV, does almost no work in article space, makes repeated incorrect statements about science (his being wrong always being in support of his POV), treats others disrespectfully, and uses a combative tone on talk pages. The result is that content-contributing editors get stuck in large, rude debates. The number of conflicts in which he has been involved reflects this. This behavior detracts from the encyclopedia in general, and from the climate change articles in particular: it gives those who are skeptical of global warming a bad name, and makes others (including myself) hesitant to work with them in that content area. Ideally, I would like to see him either change his ways and become a productive content-contributor, or leave the project to those who care about writing an encyclopedia.

Comment from AN/I

Wow i have never seen this in all my time here..cant believe hes still got account and he wants to be an admin..that better not happen!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion from AN/I

Extended content

I believe this belongs on WP:WQA instead of here. Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one watches wikiquette alerts (my experience), and I would like action taken on this. A suggestion has been made to move it to the Climate Change Probation area. Awickert (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Considering some of these diffs involve violations at locations that are on article probation, perhaps this belongs at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement instead. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably true, I am about to lose internet access for about 45 minutes; could someone move it please? Thanks, Awickert (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:Thegoodlocust#AN/I

Discussion concerning Thegoodlocust

Statement by Thegoodlocust

This is ridiculous. I go to sleep this gets posted and then closed by 2/0 without any comment by myself or others. I went through those diffs and most were perfectly fine and/or highly misrepresented. Also, I find it telling that he went back over a month for diffs and that was the best that he could dig up, but I guess there is no point going through those edits and defending myself since this is already closed. However, I recommend people actually look at the diffs and if you have questions about them (like the context) then I'll provide it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not closed, 2/0's actions and mine are being conflated. ~~What is over a month old?~~ And what is misrepresented? I'm happy to strike if you explain. But if you stand by these edits as appropriate behavior, then we have vastly divergent views of what Wikipedia should be. Awickert (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's go through them one at a time, and I do admit some of them may not be the best, but let's start at the top and go down. The first diff, which you describe as "how I treat other editors" and you focus on "bloodletting" says nothing about any editor. It was my opinion on how effective the proposed actions would be and I said they'd be as effective a cure as bloodletting - in other words I thought those actions wouldn't be effective at all and would likely make things worse. If you want to read up on it then here is the article on bloodletting. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should also note that the edit was over a month old. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many much better ways to say that, and I do think that that what you said there, not just about bloodletting, but about other editors, the toilet, etc., is inappropriate. But I think that I will try to step back from this for the moment and let others comment, since by now my opinion should be obvious. Awickert (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The toilet analogy is apt and that entire post is being proven correct by 2/0's own actions in this area. Regardless, I can see we won't see eye to eye on this and so I'll start on the next diff (below). TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 2? Umm....what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with this other than my ignorance of wiki-policy. My statements regarding statistics are correct and there was no disrespect in that statement at all - you are really reading too much into it and/or reaching. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably more minor, and I could have misinterpreted it. But what I interpreted was that you were assuming Coffee was screwing up, which is a little arrogant IMO. Certainly not horrible. But the statistics were, 1/2^10 = 1/1024 = tiny (though if you invoke a lead-and-follow-mentality, statistics may be better for you). I'm happy scratching this one off as my misinterpretation. But I'm taking off for a little while and I'm more interested in broad-brush behavior than discussion each point individually, so you're going to have to continue this debate with others, Awickert (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm glad you agree you may have misinterpreted and since I know what I meant then I can tell you that you did indeed misinterpret it. Please strike it out now. Also, kind of off-topic, but self-selection bias is also a problem with those kinds of things and those stats really aren't astronomical. Am I to understand that you now wish to resume the diff analysis? Earlier you made it sound like you no longer wished to defend those statements. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented instead of struck, but that should do +/- the same thing. I'm unlikely to defend point-by point with the present vigor (if I defend my statements at all), but you are free to attack. The combination of your response here and my feelings (summarized above) should give both of our opinions, which should be enough by itself. Awickert (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did say you would strike, but whatever. Next edit.TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 3, I was actually referring to the carbon sink, not the carbon cycle and specifically I was referring to Connolley's edit where he kept cutting a sentence in half, not even adding punctuation at the end, which screwed up the explanation of the paper as explained in the source. I don't see anything particularly egregious about pointing out when an editor is insisting on editing in a way that harms the article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 4, not even in climate change, but I was refering to this edit of Doug's. It is obvious that my edit greatly improved the section and added sources to it (it had none before), but he is plainly opposed to introducing real criticism into the section and so the section remains, due to his actions, crap. I also find it curious that he is editing in the supposedly "uninvolved admin" section of this RfE. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 5, again, no real disrespect shown other than a statement of fact - it doesn't matter what Dave Souza thinks of the owners of various media outlets. He is the one, of several, who keep on going off on random political tangents with references to "torygraph" and other abusive language. The diff as a whole was quite relevant since I explained the importance of the story. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 6, umm..."badgering header?" That's what you call "Last Chance to go on record?" You are really reaching on this one too. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 7, there are sources that talk about Chavez's mental illness and the man said that the US used an earthquake weapon on Haiti. This isn't exactly controversial to anyone other than the pro-Chavistas. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 8, Africagate is the amusing name that's being used in the blogosphere - what would you have me call it? The "IPCC Rainfall Impact Overestimation Incident?" Additionally, you claim I was "lambasting" the IPCC when I was pointing out that Stephan Schulz was lambasting me for my minor error. Honestly, it looks like you didn't even read these diffs and that you just scanned them and threw a bunch out there and hoped they would stick. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 9, and what exactly is the problem with this? I provided a source showing that glacier melting has been vastly overestimated. Also, I didn't say anything in that diff about melting, other than that they have retreated since the end of the last ice age 10k years ago,and nothing in that diff about the sea level. Additionally, as I may show later if I get to it, your opinion on whether or not I'm wrong is simply that - an opinion. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 10, I was asked which admins had lost privileges and I answered the question. Raul was found to have abused his admin tools in this area and Connolley also used his admin tools when edit warring on climate change articles - this is simply a fact and it was in response to a question I was asked on my own talk page over a month ago.TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 11, Sarcasm! I plead guilty!

Diff 12, I didn't call AGW nonsense, I called apocolyptic AGW nonsense, due to certain editors talking about how billions of people will die from global warming - that is ridiculous and has no basis in reality. And how did I "insult wikipedia's reputation" by pointing out that it can't be improved in this area until the culture at large makes a paradigm shift? You are also aware that problems can't be fixed until they are recognized as problems right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 13, this was my previous attempt to improve the FAQ by removing unsourced statements and those sourced to activist liberal blogs of dubious origin. My knowledge of carbon isotopes may not be the greatest but is not the worst either. All the literature I've read says that C-14 levels cannot be accurately measured (the difference I mean) these days due to the huge amount that was created during nuclear tests in the 50's and 60's. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 14, you have a problem with the word "gobbledygook?" I suggest you look it up, it is a perfectly fine word and a great way to describe a FAQ "answer" that is almost completely unsourced. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 15, simple question, do you deny that surface area/volume ratios will affect the rate of ice melting? If you do then let's take two cubes of ice, crush one into pieces and then see whether the crushed ice melts faster than the whole cube. Of course, I'm not sure what is wrong with this and I don't see why you think I'm mistaken about the simple physics of heat transfer. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 16, the post was basically a joke, but Dave Souza accused me of using logical fallacies and I told him what logical fallacies are most common among the AGW crowd. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Admins

Please remove Dougweller's statement to the appropriate section since he is very clearly an involved admin and was directly named in the complaint against me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Thegoodlocust

From Heyitspeter: I think most of these diffs are unactionable, but having said that, I fully agree (from experiences with Thegoodlocust on pages that perhaps aren't being watched by the OP) that he could benefit from a huge restructuring of his practices. A considerable percentage of his contributions involve semi-irrelevant polemic and divert discussion down unprofitable paths.--Heyitspeter(talk) 18:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah well there you go. It looks as though my response was anticipated by several minutes and 2/0, impressed by the solemn words he predicted I would employ, acted early. I'm down with closing this request now.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mark NutleyDo you not think TGL should at least be allowed to defend himself before passing judgement? Some of the diffs are a month old for gods sake, this is ridiculous. --mark nutley (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Which diff?~~ [Ah, WMC talk, and Chávez is >1 week; my apologies Awickert (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)] I thought I picked them from entirely within the past week, but I could have slipped up. In any case, yes, I am happy to let him defend himself. But I think that it is patently not ridiculous to bring up an editor who is argumentative but doesn't contribute content. You (of course) are free to form your own analysis of what's going on. Awickert (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Chavez (climate change?) diff is one of the newer ones - you posted 6 diffs that are over a month old (long before my restriction). Oh and I DO contribute content, the most recent example is the article I created, from scratch, known as INCCA. Also, you've misrepresented most of my posts and put in your own interpretation that was plainly not there. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote how they appeared to me. If your posts appear hostile to an uninvolved editor, there is likely a problem. Sorry for the >1 month ones, screwed up on that. But <10% content contribs is a small minority. Awickert (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I talk a lot but I don't think that's a crime. I usually try to present things on talk and let other people make the edits and often try to persuade people to do the right thing. I suppose I could find a few articles and then revert everyone to get my articlespace count up - would that be preferable? My articlespace edits are quality, not quantity, and I've improved lots of scientific articles (e.g. quasars). Also, how exactly do you qualify yourself as uninvolved? I'm curious what standard you are using.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rescind my "step back" for direct responses. We could go ad nauseum about the edits, but I have not seen many significant changes in articles coming from you. That's all.

You pose a fair question. "Uninvolved" in the above context means "3rd person": I wasn't part of that conversation. Awickert (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awickert, I think arguments which try to quantify an editor's value are fundamentally flawed. For example, the 10% number you cite: for editors who work on contentious articles, it's quite possible for a good faith editor to accumulate dozens of talk page edits in the process of debating a point, and not a single article edit is made in during those debates. In fact, in my experience with contentious topics, those who edit article space without talking might be considered less productive, if many of those edits are simple reverts without supporting discussion. ATren (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from ATren Once again, justice is swift and harsh against one side of the debate, while response to similar infractions from the "other side" is apologetic and weak. And once again it's 2/0 handing out this uneven punishment, seemingly without input from the other admins. Let me be clear: I do not necessarily think action against TGL is unwarranted, but in the context of the level of enforcement leveled against other editors, this is much too harsh. And therein lies the problem on the GW pages: years of uneven enforcement have created an environment of hostility and distrust. Until admins show similar willingness to enforce against all offending parties, this will continue to be a war zone. ATren (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me understand, as I haven't yet decided what I think of this one - you believe this is the right action to take about TGL, but you oppose it because other bad actors have also not been banned? Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't decided on this one either, and that's part of the problem -- not even a day has passed and we're already at enforcement. Similar complaints against others (some with more evidence) have festered for days without action, and then closed as "unparseable" after the threads exploded. My complaint is the inconsistent level of enforcement, which this quick action clearly demonstrates, IMO. ATren (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should review this complaint, then, as opposed to making a meta complaint. When you've decided if your issue is the poorness of the decision to ban TGL, or the poorness of the decision to not-ban WMC, we can figure out what section you'd like to comment in. Hipocrite (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can answer: "Already at enforcement" is actually the result of 2/0 and I doing the same thing, at the same time, independently, except that he did it with more oomph. It's unrelated to this. Awickert (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is unrelated. The diffs involve predominantly climate change articles, so it should have been brought here for discussion before enforcement. 2/0 certainly knows about this probation page, and yet he was more than willing to act on enforcement without a request here and without discussion here. This is yet another example of 2/0 taking quick, unilateral action against so-called "skeptics" -- previously he did it with JPat, GoRight, and was close to doing it with Gavin Collins -- while he defends editors on the other side (see his earlier extended defense of WMC's sanction-violating "yahoos and idiots" smears). It's clearly uneven enforcement from 2/0. The absolute worst thing that can happen in this probation is for admins to act rashly, unilaterally, and with apparent bias; yet that's what we've seen from 2/0 from the start. Now, in this particular case, he should revert his unilateral decision and let the discussion play out with the other admins who have been watching this debate. After that time, it may very well be that some sort of sanction would be applied to TGL. But this action was too quick, too strong, and too unilateral. ATren (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several misconceptions here. Firstly the probation explicitly provides for what you refer to as "unilateral" enforcement. A discussion is not required. Secondly, This user has been sanctioned several times in the past, and on January 5th was given a logged warning for pretty much the same kind of problem behavior he's been exhibiting for the past month now. If you think you discern a pattern of misbehaving editors being given escalating sanctions as they fail to address their problems, you're right, you're not imagining it. That is how the probation is supposed to work. 2over1 is explicitly supposed to have a bias in that regard. If the bias you discern is that the sanctioned editors tend to be (but are not always) acknowledged to be here explicitly to push a fringe scientific point of view, you're also probably right. Coming to this Wiki for that purpose probably shows a certain lack of clue, and such poor judgement typically manifests itself independently in other problematic behavior. --TS 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for 2/0's unilateral action when it comes to Scjessey calling all Christians dumb and the other political nonsense that he and other pro-AGW are constantly bringing up in the climate change articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said "[T]he public are ignorant folks who believe in dumb stuff like 'clean coal' and Jesus." In otherwords, I said Jesus was dumb, not the people who believe in him. This is exactly the kind of antagonistic misrepresentation that shows how appropriate a topic ban is, although an indef block would be a more sensible approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, actually defending that statement eh? Well, regardless of what you think of it I'm still waiting for the unitlateral action against you for statements like that which are far worse than any diff that's been posted about me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever. Just keep diggin' that hole. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this or that is the place to be praising or slamming religious figures. If the goal is a professional environment. Just saying... Mackan79 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, does this mean it's no longer open season on Xenu? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might include Drew Brees if you're in New Orleans. But now I'm creating the distraction, ah well. Mackan79 (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C) I was only trying to say that 2/0 posted Thegoodlocust's topic ban 3 minutes before I posted this thread, so it can't be taken to be a decision based on what I wrote here. I did post this earlier at AN/I, but deleted it quickly and 2/0 used different diffs than I did, so I don't think that there is a relation between those two. No other comments from me at the moment, Awickert (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Arzel There is a lot to be said about this blatent attempt to stiffle any disenting discussion on AGW articles, but it would be both redundant and possible grounds for a future banning of me. Arzel (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Arzel has hit the nail dead on the head. I can't speak for every one of the diffs since I have not read them all. But the few I have read look like just someone simply making an arguement. Are we not allowed to argue?!? There's a difference between truely disruptive posts and basic arguing to make point. The admins here should try to figure out the difference, and then draw the line equally for both camps. Of course who am I to talk, I have a hipocrite trying to get me banned. Sirwells (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are aware of any editors on the other "side" who have a similar record - who managed to rack up 5 blocks and a six-month topic ban in less than 100 article-space edits, and who have taken a consistently argumentative stance here without any record of positive contribution to the project to even begin to balance the ledger, with extra BLP bonus points for this now-deleted contribution - then please open a request and I would happily support an editing restriction. This is basically the same behavior that led to the topic ban from Obama-related articles. Whether or not you think there's a double standard at work, this isn't part of it. MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the top of my head? Scjessey. Who I've already shown to have made edits that are far more disruptive and insulting than mine. Oh, and I can't see the edit you are referring to, but the link seems to refer to Miley Cyrus. According to my talk page, I had to refresh my memory, I'd mentioned on the talk page something about her controversial relationship with a 20 year old man while she was a minor. Big freaking deal. Also, your characterization that I haven't made any useful edits is a flat out slander that you people keep on repeating. Just because I haven't spent years reverting other people's content to get my edit count up doesn't mean my edits haven't been worthwhile. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and while some of those blocks may have been valid, I recall several that were completely without merit and without proof - kind of like this whole fiasco, but at least this time diffs were provided so I could debunk them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey (talk · contribs) has been blocked five times, three of which were overturned. That's over the course of about 4,200 article edits. He was also topic-banned from Obama articles for 6 months. His comment about Jesus was completely over the line and offensive. I'll go along with the parallel to a certain extent, with the caveat that Scjessey's positive contributions to the project are an order of magnitude greater than yours. Whether that balances the negative is an open question, I suppose. MastCell ^Talk 06:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well I don't fall for "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" since a lot the much touted edit counts of some of these users is a symptom of countless edit wars over a period of years - reverting content you don't like doesn't make a person a good editor. The simple fact of the matter is that the one edit you agree is "completely over the line" 'is a pattern with him and more importantly, even on this page he defended that statement and found nothing wrong with it. Additionally, as I've already stated, my content is of quality, not of quantity and I'm sure that article space edit to article space edit that mine have improved the encyclopedia far better than his. Of course, I guess I shouldn't give your opinion on the matter too much weight considering your rather close editing relationships with some of the more prolific pro-AGW editors. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That edit war claim is bogus. A huge proportion of my article space edits are unique articles, given that my average number of edits per article is a little more than 3. If your best defense for your poor behavior is to attack another editor, it is clear that sanctions are appropriate. If anyone has an issue with me, they can file an RFC/U against me. In the meantime, this is your party TGL. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh on the contrary Scjessey, I think it is highly relevant because you were one of the first people I encountered at wikipedia and my behavior, if at all objectionable, is due to the example set by your (and others) behavior. For example, when you said you wanted to use the bug spray "RAID" on me, without sanction (again a surprise), that gives new editors the impression that such behavior is acceptable. Of course, if I'd made the comment, considering the creative interpretations of my diffs, then it would've been seen as not only a threat of murder via poison gas, but also anti-semetic as well with appropriate accusations of white supremacy. By the standards you and the rest of the AGW crowd have shown my behavior has been exemplary - then again, I'm not trying to provoke people in order to get them banned.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, TGL, there is very little place on wikipedia for editors with your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing. You're clearly not here to add encyclopedic content, but just to game the system. What you write makes no sense at all. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't promoted any battleground mentality. The problem is that the people who are obviously promoting that environment have never faced meaningful sanction and so they will continue using wikipedia as their personal latrine while complaining when someone applies a little bleach to the situation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a reasonable namespace editing record, your statements might be considered seriously. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't noticed, this page has shown that several long term editors have noticed the same problems (ask Unitanode what he thinks). However, this elitist concept that you are promoting, that only the right people can articulate valid criticisms, is the same notion that got these articles in the terrible state they are in - all rules are ignored for the "science" (even though the problems aren't scientific in nature) or "great justice" because the so-called good guys are telling us what to do. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I thought this section was "Comments by others about the request concerning Thegoodlocust". Not about TGL badgering others, and not about content complaints. Anyways, since he's already topic banned, keeping this open seems to only serve the purpose of watching TGL make more of a fool of himself. He's had his Miranda rights, so unless it's for an ArbCom case, I think we should collapse and close the thread. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only foolish behavior here comes from those making the fundamental attribution error.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Thegoodlocust

Pseudo edit conflict - I was in the process of writing up a banning statement at User talk:Thegoodlocust#Topic ban from all articles and discussions related to climate change until 2010-08-08 while Awickert was preparing this. We can either close this as redundant or use it for review. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say close as redundant, and thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say let's evaluate this a bit more closely first before we close it. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The info and discussions above seem to me to be strong enough to support a topic ban. I'll wait to hear if Lar wants the admins to look more closely at any specific items. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking at the above I'm glad it wasn't closed yesterday, and I agree about waiting to see if Lar has any more comments. So far as I know, my involvement with TGL was reverting something from World Government that was not properly sourced and an AfD on an article he created on a non-notable Wiki (which, although I didn't know it, turned out to have climate change relevance). Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with 2/0 that a long topic ban seems about right in the circumstances. --BozMo talk 06:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing the specific things that support an indefinite ban. What am I missing here? There is a lot to digest here... ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More incivility from William

[56] ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is incorrectly formatted then this complaint can be removed. I am, however, going to warn WMC regarding his continuing use of inappropriate tone and ask him to redact the comments directed toward the other editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If CoM was a little more 'on the ball' he'd have spotted this rather conclusive discussion at the article he wanted to link to and realise why it is the wrong article, and what's going on in the bigger picture. Then people may have more patience with this reverts. --Nigelj (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of WMC's point, that it was in the wrong place, appears correct - per due diligence I read a couple of edits prior to the one linked and all those since. WMC's tone however is improper, and the choice of phrase(s) pretty adjacent to that which he has been required to refrain from. On that basis, and only that basis, I have warned WMC. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If CoM wants to avoid being called out for making pointless malicious reverts, then he should avoid making them. A glance at the talk page he was linking to would have shown him his error. His revert has, correctly, been re-reverted (not by me). I've now made the article he linked to a redirect, which is what it should be. History of climate change science is the correct link, but it didn't belong in that section, it belonged in see-also, which is where it already was William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why couldn't you say this without the condescending, accusatory language? ATren (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you ponder the text just below this, and then ponder why you're not going to go and warn CoM William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your justification is "Look, he did it too!"? And, BTW, the link you post wasn't directed at you, so I can't see how it relates to yours. ATren (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, my point is that your pretence of caring about civility is only that: a hypocritical pretence. You can be bothered to comment here, and oh look guess which "side" you've decided to comment on. Can you be bothered to chide CoM, even very faintly, for worse? Oh deary me no, that would be far too much trouble. Couldn't you at least pretend to be balanced? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what does this have to do with YOUR continued incivility? The CoM diff is not related to you nor to this probation. ATren (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Speaking of incivility... shall we all just pretend that [57] didn't happen? Your disruptive nonsense is absurd. Wikipedia is infested with disruptive POV pushers and trolls - hmm, happy with that? Perhaps this kind of civility enforcement on good faith editors who call out master harassers and master baiters is why we keep losing good editors Nope: that is obviously Quite OK: not a peep of complaint from LHVU on CoM's talk page. Can you say "one sided"? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a complaint about CoM, start a new thread. This seems to be little more than an attempt to muddy the waters, with comments unrelated to GW articles, from CoM, regarding how you expressed your view on the Climategate article. I happened to agree with your view, but you're enjoined from expressing such views in an uncivil manner. Scott aka UnitAnode 22:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love it nobody realised that 'septic' is Cockney rhyming slang for 'Yank'. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ WMC were`nt you also meant to stop calling people "old fruit"? [58] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don't really care (talk • contribs)

I think you'll find that is bollocks (that is "bollocks" in the LHVU "bollocks is really quite acceptable" sense, not in the sense that everyone else uses it in, of course) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[McMillan_2009-11-20_computerworld-1] McMillan, Robert (2009-11-20). "Global warming research exposed after hack". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2009-11-26. Retrieved 2009-11-26. Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider," he said.

[2010-02-05_dailymail-2] Police question global warming 'sceptic' scientist over 'Climategate' email leak

[Johnson_2009-11-26_techworld-3] Data-leak lessons learned from the 'Climategate' hack

[2010-02-08_Gnews1-4] "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" in Google News

[2010-02-08_GnewsClimategate-5] ttp://news.google.com/news/search?q=Climategate 1644 per 2010-02-08 ()

[wpdiff_328051053-6] removing Climategate from the text

[wpdiff_328054625-7] Removing Climategate from the text again

[wpdiff_342285425-8] (→Prepare to a RfC: - fair warning) Since you appear to be determined to be tendentious, I'll put you on notice: if you pursue this further I will ask for probation enforcement against you and a general injunction against proposals to include "Climategate" in the article title. Cite error: The named reference "wpdiff_342285425" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[wp_RS-9] Per both WP:V and WP:RS blogs that is published in a newspaper under full editorial control can be used as a reliable source. Let's quote "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.". The highly contested(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/) piece by James Delingpole (on the talk page!) falls under this definition

[Nsaa 1]

[Nsaa 2]

[Nsaa 3]

[Nsaa 4]

[Nsaa 5]

[Nsaa 6]

[Nsaa 7]

[Nsaa 8]

[Nsaa 9]

@@ Line 987: / Line 987: @@
 *If you want to make a complaint about CoM, start a new thread. This seems to be little more than an attempt to muddy the waters, with comments unrelated to GW articles, from CoM, regarding how you expressed your view on the Climategate article. I happened to ''agree'' with your view, but you're enjoined from ''expressing'' such views in an uncivil manner. [[User:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#999999">Scott</span>]][[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Georgia;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F"><small>aka '''''UnitAnode'''''</small></span>]] 22:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 :I love it nobody realised that 'septic' is Cockney rhyming slang for 'Yank'. [[User:MalcolmMcDonald|MalcolmMcDonald]] ([[User talk:MalcolmMcDonald|talk]]) 22:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
-::@ WMC were`nt you also meant to stop calling people "old fruit"? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=343221906&oldid=343221198]
+::@ WMC were`nt you also meant to stop calling people "old fruit"? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=343221906&oldid=343221198] {{unsigned|Don't really care}}
+::: I think you'll find that is bollocks (that is "bollocks" in the LHVU "bollocks is really quite acceptable" sense, not in the sense that everyone else uses it in, of course) [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)