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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:19, 23 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.

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. [1], [2], [3], [4]). 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

Extended 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 [5]. 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]

Comment by Oren0

Two points. First, the current name is a violation of WP:V and is an inaccurate description of the current article. Second, WP:WTA is a guideline and there are many articles with -gate or scandal in their names, such as Bandargate scandal, Coingate scandal, and many many more. Oren0 (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to 2over0's recent comment, my impression is that the problem is on the way to being resolved. A number of editors seem to be actively collaborating on user talk pages to iron out differences and focus on a single name that they all find acceptable. This is a bit unorthodox but, if it gains sufficient support, I think it may well achieve a resolution nearly everybody can live with. --TS 01:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning article renaming discussions

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]

This has been sitting a while. I like the idea of throttling how often requests are made, but not the idea of restricting the scope or type of request, as I said. I think throttling will achieve the needful. Other folk? Suggestions? Close without action? Find a compromise? ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to think of a good way of limiting disruption while preserving open discussion using this approach. I would support some action if others think it would work, but I think for now it would be best to close this with a note that continually raising the same discussion without bringing substantial new arguments can be disruptive. A request detailing such editing by a particular editor might be actionable. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. Suggest that this be closed no action (with a note worded as you suggest), soon, unless someone has some ideas. ++Lar: t/c 14:26, 16 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

Extended discussion

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]

So what's the going rate for getting away with "over the line offensive" remarks about religious faith? 10000 edits? 40% article edits? What level do I have to achieve before can I attack others with impunity? ATren (talk) 07:24, 11 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]

To make sure we are on the same page here, does this include my six month banning statement on Thegoodlocust's talkpage? Some of the confusion in the above discussion comes about because I was preparing the diffs and text for that ban at the same time as Awickert was preparing this report, so both got filed. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the loop... I think a(nother?) warning is a better approach, or failing that, a shorter topic ban. Has the difficulty continued? Maybe he's taken the hint? ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marknutley

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Marknutley

User requesting enforcement: ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I hold no brief for William M. Connolley; I've said previously that he could stand to be more civil. However, I'm concerned about the constant flow of complaints from editors opposed to his POV. We currently have two WMC-related threads running simultaneously. Someone mentioned above that the latest is the 8th enforcement thread that's been opened concerning him. It should be obvious by now that this enforcement process is being abused for political reasons. This kind of behaviour should be strongly discouraged. Action is needed to send a signal to all editors that frivolous enforcement requests filed in pursuit of a vendetta are not acceptable.

The worst offender by far is Marknutley, who has been responsible for no fewer than three enforcement threads against WMC. The first was "Closed as unactionable. Please do not use this page as a mere extension of content disputes." [6] The second was closed as "No action. All editors are reminded to be proactive in seeking dispute resolution, starting with the talkpage." [7] His latest thread is likely to go the same way, given the absurd complaints being made ("old fruit" is a personal attack? Seriously?).

I suggest barring Marknutley from making any further enforcement requests - it is absurd that he alone is responsible for more than a third of all the complaints against WMC. Every complaint he has made has been dismissed as unactionable, and his latest complaint is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Marknutley has plainly not understood that article probation is not a means of pursuing a vendetta against other editors. He has abused this enforcement process by making repeated unactionable and frivolous complaints. His conduct is that of a vexatious litigant and he should be restrained from making any further enforcement requests. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[8] Notification by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Enforcement action requested: Injunction against Marknutley making any further enforcement requests.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Marknutley

Statement by Marknutley

Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley

Extended content

This is ridiculous. SIX different editors have asked for enforcement against WMC, three of them have resulted in warnings against WMC (but of course it never goes beyond that because WMC is untouchable), yet ChrisO is presenting this as evidence of "abuse for political reasons"? Really?

It's unbelievable to me how much apologizing is done on behalf of this one long term, abusive user. If admins would actually take a stand for once, maybe these requests would go away. ATren (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable to state that the targetting of William M. Connolley (which is clearly taking toll on his equanimity) is overtly political and driven or at least strongly encouraged by, identifiable and quite openly declared outside interests. He has been attacked in the most dishonest terms by Lawrence Solomon and another writer, and there are any number of blogs repeating their easily debunked falsehoods as fact.

We do not want to go down the route of disabling an editor simply because of extensive falsehoods written about him by people with a declared interest. On the other hand we must ensure that his failings, which are real, do not unduly warp our content. This is a difficult path to follow, because in truth he is a very valuable and welcome content editor and his conduct is in the broad context rather good. At the same time the conduct of those who attack him tends to be rather mixed and their value to this encyclopedia is often quite low or even negative.

Whatever happens isn't going to be pretty. As long as we all recognise the immense external pressure William M. Connolley is under, we can be understanding at the same time as we are protective of Wikipedia's norms.

I think Mark is a good editor who doesn't appreciate the problems in this particular area. Hopefully he can be educated. --TS 23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, WMC has been doing this for years, it's just now being recognized by more editors. And the editors filing these reports are not Scibaby, nor are they IPs that came out of the woodwork -- in fact, most have long edit histories outside of this debate. As for the "immense pressure", well if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. ATren (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were doing fine (but without presenting evidence) until you dismissed the external pressure. This is real, we're aware of it. It's not deniable in the terms you use here. --TS 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working to collect evidence. It is a daunting problem to analyze tens of thousands of edits, and I am actually writing code to do so. It will take time, but I've been watching long enough to be confident in what the result will be.

As for pressure, this is a website. Nothing life or death here. So if the pressure is so strong that an editor cannot maintain the minimal level of decorum required, then he should not edit. Civility is a core policy, and no single editor should supercede it.

Also, consider this thought: what will happen if an admin takes a hard line against WMC? There's certainly the possibility he will leave, but it's also possible he will stop the behavior that got him sanctioned. It's happened to many former "problem" editors who reformed their behavior after being blocked. Right now, there's little reason for vested contributors like WMC to behave, because they know they're untouchable, but if they know they're going to be held to the same standard as everyone else, there's a good chance they'll adhere to that standard while still being a productive contributor. ATren (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What policy is Mark Nutley breaking? He's filed three independent requests in response to three independent incidents. Viewing reactions to the diffs given for other editors on this project page (e.g., see the "Kauffer" request above) it's not confused for MN to assume that the diffs given in his requests were actionable, whether or not they were actually acted upon.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's violating the policy against nitpicking, as well as the policy against timewasting. You didn't know those policies existed? Think again. --TS 00:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah man I hate to WP:NITPICK but are you sure WP:NITPICK exists? If it doesn't then I've been ['[WP:TIMEWASTING|wasting my time]] trying to find it, in which case I hope that policy doesn't exist either...--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There where 6 editors filing for enforcement in 9 threads and many others complaining about WMC with constant evasion ... it's predictable that MN would be complained here. How can MN be any worse than the many incivil diffs presented against WMC? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we ought to remove this section entirely from the template. Just let an uninvolved administrator look this over, and stop bickering. NW (Talk) 01:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, stifling discussion and dissent is always a great idea. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've highlighted something very significant with your most recent posts. This page is not meant to hold long discussions about people disagreeing with each others' points of view. It is supposed to allow a small group of administrators to come to a quick decision about a disruptive user. If they think the user is not disruptive, the report will be dismissed. The discussions distract from this; rarely do they ever help. Plus, if an administrator wants to read them, they're still there. NW (Talk) 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Marknutley

There are apparently no shortage of editors who are prepared to bring forward complaints against WMC. Marknutley's complaints contain a high level of flawed accusations. This being the case I hereby ban Marknutley from bringing forward complaints until 12 April. Similar actions against others or after the ban expires may result in broader action being taken but I don't think it would be justified at this time.©Geni 03:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please do not comment on closed discussions. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I hereby encourage Marknutley to ignore this ludicrous "ban", as it has no basis in either policy or the actual sanctions. In fact, it stands in complete contravention to the sanctions. What utter nonsense. Scott aka UnitAnode 04:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point about contravention to the sanctions, I had not considered. I would prefer to see MN make better complains, perhaps there should be a wikilawyer's services (in the good faith interpretation) to assist him with forming the complaint and the process. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above request was brought at 22:46 on 11 Feb and closed less than 6 hours later. That's unacceptable. I would have protested this result, and in fact I still think it's unreasonable and needs revisiting. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which was exactly my point in the comment collapsed right above this. This rush to ban people from one side -- and to close even discussions of such bans for being too conentious -- is inappropriate in the extreme. Scott aka UnitAnode 14:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree Lar. The reason for the existence of this noticeboard is that several disputes have become so long and drawn out that they need a quick resolution. We don't need to come to a consensus on everything; in fact, I would say that the unilateral actions of one administrator is more helpful in the long run in keeping order on this articles. And if you disagree with the result, contacting Geni might be the better way to go. NW (Talk) 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we need to work to a more consistent timing. Some of the dispute resolution attempts here have been long and drawn out too, which is not good. And some have been too short. Balance, and appropriate time, is needed... each dispute is different so hard and fast rules may not work but still. This one felt too short. I may be partly at fault for some of the more drawn out ones. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofMidnight

Suspended User:ChildofMidnight is subject to an ArbCom request. Depending on the outcome, this request may be reactivated or closed with or without sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning ChildofMidnight

User requesting enforcement: ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ChildofMidnight (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

from Talk:Global warming
Unproductive discussion, repeats ad nauseum issues without source and substantial reasons, WP:FORUM
I'm sure our admin elite will sort this mess out in no time once they're made aware of it and have a chance to review the evidence of BozMo's foul play."
Civility, disparaging sardonic demeanor.
"...involvement has been very disruptive and his enforcements have only gone after one "side""
Battleground menality.
"swan song of an incompetent and dishonest admin to me ... So you join an elite club of abusive admins who act improperly"
Unwilling to conduct RFC/U, responds with personal attacks
"doesn't change the fact that your involvement has been grotesquely biased and damaging."
See previous.
Note: Additional Diffs provided in context below. They are numbered.

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

Forum warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Name calling warning by 2over0
Civility warning by 2over0
Civility and bad faith block warning by BozMo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Probation warning by 2over0

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Two central issues: (1) willful lack of respect for warnings, and (2) contempt.

ChildofMidnight (CoM) has been repeatively warned by both administrators and editors of (1) unproductive discussion, (2) civility, and (3) battleground mentality. Two of these issues, unproductive discussion and civility, were raised on his user talk where he ignored in a sardonic and uncivil manner (discussions linked).6 The third, is a warning logged under this sanction (discussion archived here), which has been ignored. This willful lack of respect represents that warning as a remedy has failed.
CoM is in contempt. He responds aggressively. 2over0 has issued the most warnings to CoM under this sanction. He has therefore received the most attacks because of such.7 Because of these attacks, Bozmo has temporarily blocked him. CoM responded aggressively to Bozmo.8 Diffs provided, CoM lacks the respect to resolve discussion in a productive manner.

I am therefore requesting that ChildofMidnight be topic banned. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Diff provided, also requested unblock so that he may reply. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning ChildofMidnight

Statement by ChildofMidnight

This is the worst kind of abusive forum shopping. BozMo's abusive and improper block was undone and I'm being retried on the same B.S.

The first diff and statement are wholly innaccurate. I did not engage in "Unproductive discussion", repeat ad nauseum issues without source and substantial reasons, or engage in WP:FORUM. I made a specific point ONCE about the content and title of our global warming article. I pointed out that it does not include historical context, something that I've now been told has been noted repeatedly, but still hasn't gotten fixed. Anyone who checks Brittanica or dictionaries, will find that we're misrepresenting the subject matter out of any context and ommitting information about how this warming is different in some ways and similar in others to past events. It's quite simply not an article about global warming, it's about recent global warming or anthropogenic global warming.

Most of the other diffs are out of context quotes where I objected to biased and abusive enforcements including a one week block by BozMo that was overturned unanimously as being wholly inappropriate. The reasoning was flawed, there was no discussion, and no warning. Hopefully we won't see any repeat performances from him. Some of his comments about me and defending William also make the block HIGHLY improper.

It also needs to be pointed out that the comments I made pale in comparison to what we've seen here on this very page, and I hope that the block of William indicates that these kind of attacks and disruptions (on this very page) won't be allowed going forward:

"ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is deliberately misusing this page." "CoM has made similar capricious, clueless and offensive edits just to make a WP:POINT against a perceived opponent. " "CoM should refrain from manufacturing events " "If CoM has nothing sensible to contribute, he should be banned from posting on this page or its talk page. Mathsci (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)"
"At the moment he is gaming the system and misusing this page. Mathsci (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 "
"Absolutely. Another example of baiting and gaming the enforcement system based on very little knowledge of the facts. I think. --Nigelj (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC) "
"On the other point there is a difference between calling an editor malicious or an edit malicious. Compare "foolish". I make foolish edits sometimes and would not consider having an edit called foolish a PA. Calling me foolish would be quite another matter (I may be as well but it is a PA to say so). But I do not think this request is other than good faith. People do feel that WMC is offensive sometimes and some of the reason why it keeps coming back as an issue is a sense of frustration which is better aired, up to a point. --BozMo talk 09:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)" I think this quote is tellingly ironic. BozMo defends abusive behavior when it's someone he agrees with and friendly towards, and blocks editors for much less without any warning or discussion when they don't hold opinions he shares. Hypocritical?

What remains is the same trivial mudracking we've seen before. It's a spurious pile-on request and should be discarded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Calling trolls and POV morons trolls and POV morons isn't incivil, it's the truth. Truth is the ultimate defense to defamation. -- 166.135.160.248

"..."old fruit" is categorically inoffensive."--BozMo talk 09:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This relates to WMC calling other editors "old fruits". BozMo defended him, but fruit is derogatory slang in the United States to refer to gay people, so it's totally unacceptable on several grounds, especially from someone named William who objects to being called "Will". Even if it has a different meaning in the UK, calling people you disagree with names is inappropriate, and BozMo should cease encouraging that kind of disruptive and antagonistic behavior.

2over0 referred to an editors comments as "tendentious and unproductive" - 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC) which is also pretty insulting. Let's try to be more constructive and collegial.

These are all comments from editors aggressively promoting AGW and seeking to censor to anything they disagree with no matter what how well sourced. Sadly, these comments weren't objected to, and instead we've seen a pattern of one-sided enforcements from 2over0, which is what I was objecting to in some of the above diffs. William Connolley was finally block after 7 or so filings and dozens of diffs by at least a dozen different editors, so I hope there is some hope going forward and that we won't see more abusive and disruptive incivility from Mathsci, Tarc, Nigelj, or Stephan Schulz, and that disruptions will be stopped no matter who the editors is engaging in it.

This rehash of a bad block that was already overturned should be closed. We don't need inappropraite and disruptive filings of this sort. Let's focus on content and try to work together collegially with none of the incivility and disruption I've cited above. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Mathsci

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has written above that I am "aggressively promoting AGW and seeking to censor to anything they disagree with no matter what how well sourced". That is a deliberate and malicious lie. I have never edited a GW article nor have I expressed any view on the subject. I have commented that CoM's editing on this page is highly disruptive and that he is gaming the system. While he gets away with making baseless personal attacks on good faith editors that will continue to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning ChildofMidnight

STRONG motion to suspend and close this now with prejudice. The editor is under 1 week block and can not defend themselves. This pile on can wait, unless an admin will unblock the editor for this now. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've requested an unblock, when CoM able to respond we can resume discussion. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is unblocked so no worries in terms of being unable to respond. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Definitely some problems here, but this whole climate change nexus of articles seems a complete and utter mess, with a number of people behaving badly on both sides. In ChildofMidnight's case, problematic behavior is not limited to one set of articles but has happened in multiple parts of the encyclopedia going back a long time. Rather than a specific request like this, a more general discussion about what to do (which may or may not end up happening here) could be more productive. I'd also just point out that I personally would not want to go anywhere near trying to enforce climate change probation. The editing/enforcement request environment seems to be unbelievably toxic, and the toxicity seems to be coming from folks on both sides, which makes trying to do anything as an admin an extremely unpleasant prospect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very interesting that you've "dropped in" on the climate change articles. I wasn't aware that you were working on any of them? Instead of engaging in a disruptive soap boxy smear campaign against me, I wonder if you could offer some insights into the actual diffs. What is wrong with my first statement for example, where I point out the distortion of the global warming article so it completely lacks historical context? Have you compared our article to Encyclopedia Brittanica's? Or maybe you can address the other diffs where I object to biased enforcements including a block that overturned unanimously as being inappropriate?

Frankly Bigtimepeace there are enough disruption and dispute without you coming here to see if you can rehash old conflicts and inflame new ones. Kindly remove your comments (and this one along with it) and start keeping your promise to stop seeking conflict with me. Hounding editors to seek out conflict is unacceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so interesting, obviously I came here via the conversation at the administrator's noticeboard. I'm not advocating for anything to happen to you here, and indeed am suggesting that this specific request probably is not the right way to go. I'd be happy if it was closed down with no action and conversation continued at WP:AN, which is the only reason I posted here. There's no hounding or smearing or anything like that on my part, but you won't be troubled by any further posts from me here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the irretrievably compromised editors I had in mind in my "Triage" suggestion on the talk page. He has added little of value and on the downside his presence editing in the area is toxic because of his unacceptable and inflammatory conduct.

In my view it is imperative to the health of Wikipedia's coverage of the issue that he and editors with a similar pattern of editing as warfare be excluded as quickly as possible. I suggest a ban from all content and discussions related to climate change, broadly construed. A long ban would be best, because his responses suggest that he has absolutely no intention of adapting his behavior to concerns expressed by other editors. --TS 10:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, those wondering whether Child of Midnight's tone here is an anomaly in a career of otherwise unblemished and exemplary interaction should look at this:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight

From the summary, written just over three weeks ago by closing administrator User:Nihonjoe:

The main areas of concern are that CoM:

Has regular and ongoing problem with making accusations against other editors (specifically and in general) without providing any supporting evidence
Has failed to follow proper dispute resolution steps in almost all (if not all) cases
Is apparently unwilling to accept any constructive criticism or suggestions provided in good faith by multiple editors who tried to help for at least the last six months
Is very often contributing to discussions in an unhelpful and/or irrelevant manner

And this is very much the way ChildofMidnight's problematic behavior has presented to us here in the past few weeks. The fact that the summary mentions his failure "to accept any constructive criticism or suggestions provided in good faith by multiple editors who tried to help for at least the last six months" (my emphasis) underlines the fact that he is not prepared to change his ways. This editor's presence in the climate change area of editing is an active danger to the chances of de-escalating hostility and restoring a collegial editing environment. --TS 11:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -

The first diff is an unobjectionable on-topic remark. One diff by definition can not support a charge of tendentious editing.
(2),(3) and (5) are unactionable. Comments about the actions of others, including admins, do not run afoul of any policy I am aware of.
(4) is personal attacks directed at an individual. Given the fact CoM was blocked under questionable circumstances at the time, no warnings re the remark were issued, and the editor to whom the remarks was directed raised no objections, CoM should perhaps be asked to refactor.

I suggest this action be closed with a strong suggestion to CoM that he switch to decaf. JPatterson (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. While I find CoM's style unhelpful at times, a topic ban is serious overkill.--SPhilbrick T 18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored #4. It's been a very frustrating experience and, unfortunately, it continues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JPatterson and Sphilbrick, and I'm glad to hear #4 was refactored. Comments made immediately after being blocked are commonly discounted. And yes, switch to decaf. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due Process

Tangential to this case

I find most of the above decidedly unhelpful. Prejudicial comments like "This is one of the irretrievably compromised editors I had in mind","problematic behavior is not limited to one set of articles but has happened in multiple parts of the encyclopedia going back a long time", and "those wondering whether Child of Midnight's tone here is an anomaly.." do not belong here. If you have diffs that you think violate the ~~sanctions~~ probation start another action. Otherwise we should deal with the specific allegation of this case. JPatterson (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "due process" has, or should have, no place in the production of an encyclopedia. We're faced with an editor who exhibits a chronic failure to work well with others and a chronic unwillingness to improve his behavior in that regard. We're also aware that little or none of his contributions to Wikipedia on climate change have been helpful and most of them have made the atmosphere on some of the most contentious articles almost intolerably bad. Swift action is imperative. The health of Wikipedia's coverage of climate change is compromised by that editor's propensity for treating the wiki as a battleground. No amount of "due process" will alter that. --TS 18:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due process is fundamental to wp:civil within Wikipedia reasonableness; however, content seems to take precedent over human rights in wiki. In CoM's case here, there were a few things clearly out of order with the process. We all benefit by justice well served.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not about the production of an encyclopedia, it's about sanctions where fundamental fairness requires some measure of due process. While we're on the subject of encyclopedia production (and due process for that matter), I'll add this remark from the CoM RFC closing that you neglected to include: "Almost everyone here agrees that CoM is an excellent editor in general when it comes to working on and creating articles." If we are going to give latitude to experienced editors who contribute productively we must do so on both sides of the divide. JPatterson (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every single page on Wikipedia is about the production of an encyclopedia. Every single action and comment on this wiki that is not about the production of an encyclopedia can be, and should be, disregarded, removed or deleted. See the Ignore all rules policy for an eloquent and pithy expression of this. Editors who are a net deficit to Wikipedia's coverage of this area of content should be encouraged to go elsewhere. On Child of Midnight's high quality of editing elsewhere, note that it was him I had in mind in my comments in the Triage section on the talk page: " Some of those have shown that they are capable of splendid work elsewhere and they should be encouraged to do so." . --TS 19:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it passing strange than anyone would attempt to sustain an argument against some measure of due process on a RfS page. In any case, if you have generic concerns with an editors behavior there are other forums available to you.This one is about specific allegations. JPatterson (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim about the nature of this page is false. No page on Wikipedia is devoted solely to procedure. But since you ask for specific examples I suggest you examine the diffs provided. --TS 13:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to uninvolved admins

@BozMo, where you say: "There is clearly a pattern of strong language incivility and abuse, much of it violently rejecting anyone who attempts to rein him in a little, with occasional spells of sweetness. It is going to be hard to improve the atmosphere with someone who behaves like this. I think we have reached a point where there is enough grounds for a topic ban." I am having difficulty distinguishing if you are talking about WMC and/or COM, as this may apply to both. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on this is noted, but not really relevant here. --BozMo talk 20:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not when ignoring credibility. Best to clear this up, or restore credibility somewhere else. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@2/0, yet to close. The editor is under complaint at arbcom now, having two open at once can not be fair to all involved. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ChildofMidnight

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

I have hesitated about contributing here because although I am uninvolved, I was attacked when I blocked him but I have limited wiki time so I thought I would comment now. In part I will give a view, which probation definitions allow here because I am sufficiently concerned about the possibility that CoM is deliberately attacking admins to try to make them become involved. (1) I had a look at CoM after I requested WMC give an explanation for calling him "malicious" [9]. There is clearly a pattern of strong language incivility and abuse, much of it violently rejecting anyone who attempts to rein him in a little, with occasional spells of sweetness. It is going to be hard to improve the atmosphere with someone who behaves like this. I think we have reached a point where there is enough grounds for a topic ban. As an aside Ref his edit [10] the claim that there is forum shopping or that he has been in anyway found innocent, or that my block was found unfair is not correct "Beeblebrox (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)" ‎ (to allow him to participate in ArbCom case related to his actions)" here.(2) However at risk of stating the obvious I would like to be entirely clear to other uninvolved admins that it isn't personal for me and any outcome which is good for Wikipedia would be great. --BozMo talk 08:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my failure to fully state the reasons for the unblock in the log. Allowing participation here was a secondary concern, the primary reason was in fact that there was consensus at WP:AN that this block was not merited. This is not me saying it wasn't merited, just my actions based on the results of that conversation. I was perhaps overzealous in trying to convince CoM to take this process seriously, and failed to record both reasons in the block log, an oversight which has now been corrected. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will comment on this elsewhere but the clarification was helpful. --BozMo talk 07:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As much the same issues were discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock review request and are now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#ChildofMidnight, and ChildofMidnight has indicated that they are taking a short wikibreak, I move to close this request with no action but no prejudice to opening a similar thread should similar edits continue. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing risks CoM claiming it as a victory, which isn't a huge problem but perhaps it is possible to "suspend" rather than close. The Arbcom case is not looking specifically at the Climate Change area. If you don't reckon that works I support close as a second choice. --BozMo talk 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP disruption

Something needs to be done about the disruption being created by the anonymous IP editor "142.x" who was previously discussed in this archive. The individual is currently using the following IP:

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

I'd like serious consideration to be given to a range block, since blocking this individual's IP addresses has been ineffective thus far. I have become a favored target, with vandalism of my user talk page and disgraceful personal attacks being the current problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the current addy, but only for a short while - since they hop addresses, longer is pointless. I suggest you form up an SPI report, and let someone see if there can be an effective rangeblock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or seek another CU to do the same sort of checks I did. With the assumption of Ombudsmanship, I no longer can run routine CUs so someone else will need to. However,n I stand by what I said before though, I don't think a short range block is that damaging. Yes it loses some IP editing that isn't part of this problem, but not shedfuls. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get some help at WP:SPI but received none, so I opened this ANI thread, which resulted in week-long range blocks being applied. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda

Suspend Guettarda has not edited since before I made the proposal. Will take up when they are active again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd asked Geni about whether this was actionable, who suggested I bring it to this page rather than ask him/her: User_talk:Geni#Is_this_actionable.3F.

Over the past 1-2 days (and counting) Guettarda has made repeated allegations of a WP:Canvass violation (w.r.t. a vote in an RFC), and has continued to post more or less unmodified versions of this complaint on various pages despite explications of the policy and requests for diffs.

This is disruptive, clutters talkpages, and generally instigates further comments designed to address the concerns raised only to be ignored (i.e., WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), distracting discussion.

Allegations [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

Answers [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

If I'm the one misinterpreting policy here I'd like to be informed. If not, I'd like a request that Guettarda desist in raising this contention outside his/her own talkpage with respect to this particular alleged violation. It's disrupting discussion across these various pages. Thank you.

(Guettarda was notified of this request here)--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion related to Guettarda

I invited Guettarda to take this up on ANI, but he did not do so, leading me to think that his allegations are not an honest attempt at dispute resolution. Instead, in my opinion, it appears to be an attempt to bully, intimidate, distract, or delay discussion about an article page move that he does not agree with. By any measure, his behavior is extremely unhelpful. If Guettarda's personal feelings on the subject in question are too strong to allow him to participate in an NPOV and collaborative manner, perhaps he should stay away from that article. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have echoed the request to bring the complaint here, together with a request not to use the term without supporting diffs elsewhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Maybe that's enough, though I see Guettarda making the same problematic edits to this section so I don't know. Whatever works.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lot of diffs. Shouldn't be tolerated. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss here. I strongly support the attempts to get agreement for a new name for the article, in the spirit of Ignore all rules, and I'm very impressed that GoRight, who I had initially imagined had been banished from the topic for several months, had reinvented himself as a peacemaker.

At the same time. I don't think it's normally a good idea to try this kind of thing. It definitely needs to be justified, and rejustified. I could find myself swayed by Guettarda's arguments, despite my long and heartfelt support for "Ignore all rules." I think Guettarda's opinion that the user talk canvassing was intentionally aimed at swaying talk page discussion is tenable. There was certainly a strong bias to the canvassing, and the usual route of an RFC was avoided (though possibly for defensible reasons).

So complaining about a prima facie abuse, even in the face of insistence by the participants that they did not conduct that abuse, is defensible, and we'd have to have strong evidence that Guettarda was trying to cause harm or was reckless in his use of his editing privileges. I don't see that here. I see a dispute about a laudable, but failed, attempt to handle the endless bickering about the article's name. Guettarda's complaints have merit in policy, even if they do not carry the day. In short, dispute resolution is not optional. Selecting a group of supporters, either on or off wiki, and then marshalling them to overwhelm opposition, isn't a very good way to behave. Guettarda is right to highlight the concerns he has here and he does deserve a proper response. --TS 23:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we're clear, there are two different instances where canvassing has been alleged. One is regarding the petition at User_talk:GoRight#CRU_hacking_incident_article_name. This was canvassed by any definition and shouldn't be provided much if any weight in rename discussions. The second is regarding my alleged canvassing for the renaming RfC. For background, there was an RfC asking "Should the article be renamed? If so, what should it be called?" There were lots of respondents to this with varying opinions; a slim majority supported renaming the page but they disagreed on what it should be named. I opened up a new section in the RfC proposing a specific name. I then neutrally notified all of the participants in the previous RfC section regardless of their positions that a new discussion was taking place (sample diff). Not only did Guettarda close the section immediately claiming I had violated the RfC rules (diff) but he has since accused me of inappropriate canvassing at least 10 times despite repeated explanations why what I did was OK and misquoted my statements about the RfC (the latter may be a miscommunication rather than malicious). I invite any uninvolved experienced user to review my conduct and determine whether I have inappropriately canvassed. If anyone including Guettarda believes I have, please open up a section on me here. Otherwise, I ask that Guetterda stops making these accusations and stops attempting to speak for me. Oren0 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think what was done was defensible. But that doesn't mean we should regard people who (as Guettarda has done) strongly disagree with that position, and state it repeatedly, are doing the wrong thing.

In fact until Guettarda pointed it out, I'm now ashamed to admit, I thought nothing but good could come of this, and I still admire those who made the attempt. But no, this attempt to forge union seems to have spread a little more division, and I don't think it's wrong to admit it. The use of talk pages, which is well known. The use (you now say) of a vaguely worded RFC as a stalking horse for a move proposal--all of these strike me as legitimate applications of "Ignore all rules", and laudable at that. Thank you.

It's the claim that Guettarda was in the wrong for complaining that I don't agree with. It's always legitimate to raise such concerns. If "Ignore all rules" leads you to ask for another editor to be sanctioned for disagreeing with you, then you've ignored some of the most basic, unignorable rules.

We used to refer to such meta-rules, in aggregate, as "Don't be a dick", until some clever-dick realised that all such references were self-defining. --Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 01:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raise the matter, sure, no problem. But how many times, in how many places, before it's considered tendentious, or even disruptive? That's the question in my view. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic principle that underlies WP:CANVASS is that you shouldn't canvass votes for discussion. The norm is to let interested editors find there way there on their own. WP:CANVASS outlines some exceptions to this idea. One acceptable use, according to WP:CANVASS is to notify "editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion". Who among the "interested" editors weren't notified? Well, lots of people. A list that just so happens to include:

User:William M. Connolley
User:KimDabelsteinPetersen
User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
User:Stephan Schulz
User:Tony Sidaway (the #1 editor to the talk page)
User:Hipocrite

The "article related to the discussion" is the CRU hacking article, not the RFC. People make mistakes, of course. Oren0 may have meant well. But that's beside the point. By selectively leaving out a large number of interested editors, Oren0 created a poll that appeared tainted. And it goes matter of who you notify. Canvasses are also read by other editors. Although the RFC was not listed anywhere, within a couple hours it attracted input from several editors who have never edited either the CRU hacking page or its talk page. Like-minded people read each others talk pages. Favouring one "side" and neglecting the other reverberates beyond the actual pages you edit.

Canvassing is never a zero-sum game, even when it's done properly. That's why it's never a good idea. It's not about Oren0's intent. Selective notification taints discussions, especially when (like this one) most of the canvassed editors simply vote and leave. Guettarda (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that I disengaged from that article some time ago when accused of ownership, and more recently I disengaged more overtly for a while, renouncing the entire topic for a couple of weeks that happen to have coincided with this affair, so I can believe that failure to canvass me was appropriate, and even most considerate. But the failure to canvass the other editors listed above, all of them very much reputable editors whose good faith is unimpeachable, is worrying. There is legitimate cause for concern that cannot be wiped away by trying to blame the person who happens to make the complaint.

Please understand that I don't think anybody has done anything sanctionable. My only beef is with those who are saying that Guettarda's expression of concern, annoying as it may be, is sanctionable. It ain't. --TS 02:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oren0 systematically notified every editor who had voted in the attached "Should this article be renamed?" poll regardless of their vote. Additionally, Oren0 added a notification to the parent article's talkpage indicating that the vote was occuring. That page is watched and/or monitored by everyone making significant edits to the article or its talkpage. A move request template was also posted to the talkpage (here) with a link to the vote. This is canvassing, but it's the right kind of canvassing. That's indisputable, and though I'm not surprised you don't know the details (as you aren't actively editing that page), Guettarda does know them because he or she has had them pointed out to him or her repeatedly, and yet he or she still continues to post the same allegations, as shown here, just above us. It's misleading for people who don't follow the page closely (as with you in this case) and it disrupts discussion, cluttering the page.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought in passing. It's telling that Heyitspeter bring, among the diffs of my "misbehaviour", my responses to Oren0 and Cla68 on my talk page. It's also telling that it's only when I stopped responding that they chose to escalate. So isn't that a classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation? Guettarda (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about leaving those two diffs out (note that we would still be left with eleven diffs), but figured I should keep them as indicating more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. That's a valid concern, though. I'm still not sure it was the right decision.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You keep accusing me of engaging in disruptive editing by "refusing to get the point". If you're going to accuse me of that, doesn't someone have to come up with a more convincing argument than "you're wrong"? Isn't the onus on you to explain why a canvass for a page move that leaves out the editors mentioned above, is appropriate, or explain how such a discussion isn't tainted? Guettarda (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting really meta. In a thread about your refusal to get the point, you're refusing to get the point, despite its being explained to you (again) in this very section. (I could reasonably add your comments on this request to the request.) Other attempts at addressing your concerns are shown in the sampling of diffs I provided above (and it was just a sampling). I'm going to disengage now because I'm frustrated (I hope not too obviously). I've said all I want to say, administrators can sort out the rest if they see fit.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fair to remark that Guettarda isn't the only person not getting the point here. I really am not trying to avoid getting it, and I don't get the impression that he is, either. What is the point, exactly? --TS 04:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case? specifically? Guettarda stated, "If you're going to accuse me of that, doesn't someone have to come up with a more convincing argument than 'you're wrong'?" Arguments have consisted of far more than that, as shown in this talkpage. That is to say, Guettarda's statement (just quoted) is an example of a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT violation, viz. "refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error."--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I want you to stop saying that Guettarda isn't getting the point that your argument is that he isn't getting the point. I don't get the point. I want you to explain what the point is. Whatever it is that Guettarda and I are not getting. Explain it. --TS 04:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here (repeated)--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the editors in question made efforts to contact editors who had an opinion. But it really isn't at all wrong for Guettarda to point out, repeatedly and possibly annoyingly to you, that whoever did it didn't do a very good job of it.

As for involvement in the RFC, the thing was so ridiculously vaguely worded that, after a quick glance to confirm that there was no consensus for any one name, my first edit was to close it, and my second was to move it--all 50k of pointless arguing--onto a separate page. How many other people with an opinion simply passed over the mess without comment? We will never know. I do think you all did a great job and I think you acted on good faith, but there are enough problems for me to be doubtful that are only multiplied by this misconceived attempt to sanction somebody who objects to the way you did it. --TS 03:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, please try to stay on topic here. Guettarda sprayed bad-faith accusations of canvassing, because, IMO, he was unhappy about the consensus that developed in the RfC to rename the article, and then a second consensus which developed on the new name. He declined to take his accusations to ANI or to this forum, which are the forums we use to settle editor behavior issues. In other words, he disrupted a content dispute resolution process, videlicet, the RfC and its associated discussion, and has been called on it here. That's it. An admin (LHVU) has agreed that his behavior was problematic and has apparently taken some action and hopefully that will correct the behavior in question. End of story for the moment. Cla68 (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating for any sort of sanctions against anybody. What I'm asking for is for someone uninvolved to decide whether what I did was OK or not. If it wasn't, explain why. If it was, Guettarda should stop complaining about it. All of these repeated complaints serve to derail and undermine the discussion, and one wonders if that's the point. As for the list of editors above, if they neither participated in the RfC nor saw the multiple messages on the talk page then clearly they weren't interested in participating. Oren0 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for an evaluation (and elaboration on the opinion given) strikes me as a reasonable request, as at first glance Guettarda's activities certainly do raise eyebrows, but perhaps there is more to it. ObDisclose: Guetterda recently opposed my stewardship reconfirmation, and among other canards, claimed I'm not an uninvolved admin w/r/t AGW. That's ~~nonsense~~ "just, like, his opinion, man", of course, but there you are. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Scjessey

I also have repeatedly complained about the canvassing problem, and I referred to the matter as "procedural shenanigans" from the very start. Canvassing should never be used to solicit votes, and RfCs are supposed to seek comments to promote discussion, not votes. I support Guettarda's statements completely about how the "vote" was tainted, so if Guettarda is to receive some sort of sanction for stating the obvious you had better clap me in irons as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by slightly involved Wikidemon

I don't think we can separate the behavioral / procedural issues from the underlying fact that there is no clear consensus after many attempts to find conensus on what to call the article. My colleague Scjessey probably thinks I'm nuts for saying so, but I think we should just rename the article "Climategate" and be done with it. Nevertheless, we do have to respect that there is good faith disagreement, and underlying that, a lot of reasonable uncertainty, on what the article is about and how to name it. Going about it again and again, in different forums and with different methods, yields different results. I doubt that anyone is intentionally process gaming, that's just a fact of how consensus works. At some point, all the repeated proposals and attempts to discuss the matter become a huge distracting time sink, whether done in IAR fashion or completely according to the rules. Perhaps a brilliant mediator will come along and propose a solution involving sister articles, redirects, and wording in the lede that makes everyone happy. Failing that, I think we just need to accept that we have a provisional article name for now, put a lid on it, and revisit it later rather than in continuous serial fashion. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LessHeard vanU

This has expanded quite a bit since I last looked. I made a proposal at Guettarda's talkpage, upon which I am waiting a response. If the response is agreement, I would be looking to conclude the matter on that basis. I think that this is not about whether WP:CANVASS violations took place, and upon which I have no opinion, but whether it is proper to make those allegations without seeming intent to address the issue. Other editors with similar concerns, and those refuting those concerns, might also consider whether they are prepared to instigate some process to determine the matter, or to let it drop and move forward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you mean?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If G agrees that referring to claims of canvassing without proceeding to resolve the matter was inappropriate, and promises to not repeat the claims outside of such a process, then we can shut up this request. Plus, all other parties might consider doing the same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, okay. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Mark Nutley (2)

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

Request concerning Marknutley

User requesting enforcement: Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation edit warring despite warnings, and earlier probational restrictions.

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

[31] first insertion of content
[32] first revert
[33] second revert
[34] third revert

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

The specific sanction that Mark is violating is this: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2#Result_concerning_TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC, he was informed about the sanctions here [35]

I warned Mark here [36] as well as here [37].

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Enforcement per the earlier probation warning.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: In addition to this is should be mentioned that Mark has previously been edit-warring in contradiction to his (and my) sanctions, which i warned him about here [38]. That previous episode was handled by 2over0 amicably. I've tried to resolve this in private with Mark, by asking him to self-revert - but unfortunately he hasn't been cooperative.

Note: I will be off-line for most of the evening. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [39]

Other involved party: Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[40]; Added by Wikidemon per discussion below - Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Marknutley

Statement by Marknutley

Sorry it`s taken so long to get to this, work has been mental.

I was not edit warring, every edit i made was backed up with ever more ref`s each and every time.

WMC says i am POV pushing, no i am not, the majority of the refs show the MWP was global, from europe to china to new zealand.

Stephen also accuses me of synthesizing, this is untrue as two of the refs used actually state the MWP was a global event. This is not me making connections, it is written in the papers i used as ref`s.

mark nutley (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WMC

[This is wrong, 'cos I misread the parole. Rather than striking it all I'll just put this here - William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)][reply]

[41] and [42] is one violation of the 1RR parole (re-inserts "worldwide", which is but one word but is the substance of discussion).
[43] is the second violation of the parole.
[44] is the third.

Why isn't this an open-and-shut case? Three violations of the parole and an explicit rejection of warnings:

You are aware that this is a breach of the probationary restrictions that we are under - correct? And that the consequences may be a 1RR permanent restriction for you? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, however i do not believe i am edit warring. If you feel otherwise you know what to do :) See you on the RFE board mark nutley (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like MN is prepared to listen to "friendly warnings".

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the editor continued "despite" and in "explicit rejection" of warnings. Where are those warnings? The two you mention were done after the last revert. Given that, and the fact that the person giving the warnings is a non-admin and an involved party, I think it would be useful for an uninvolved administrator to formally endorse / repeat that warning before taking any action. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the substance: MN has been been engaging is tendentious discussion on the talk page, asserting that http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm is a RS. It blantantly is unreliable. Comments like Not according to the ref`s i just used to rewrite the lead, it was global the proof is there, it is pointless to deny it are unhelpful; MN is blantantly POV pushing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has their POV. It looks like a legitimate good faith argument to me. Whether it is a correct argument is a content matter, and should be met with courteous discussion on the article talk page, not behavioral complaints. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@WMC AFAIK MN is not on a 1RR parole, or if he is then it isn't what is linked to above? --BozMo talk 20:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, he is not, though barely not. Marknutley is warned that further participation in any edit war in the probation area will lead to a one-revert restriction or similar sanctions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree: apologies. Only TGL and I are. So, given that this *is* clear participation on an edit war, the obvious santiocn is to put him onto 1RR, as per the parole, yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@LHVU: fine by me (not often you hear that, worth it for the novelty alone :-) though of course I'm not in charge here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley

If this is to result in any sanction, Steven Schulz will have to suffer the same fate since he is just as guilty of edit waring. 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd Revert Arzel (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, as far as i can tell, Stephan isn't under special probation like Mark and I are. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So he has a licence to edit war? I sorry, but it is this kind of crap that makes people believe there is a double standard with regards to these articles. His actions we no less egregious than MN from a purely reverting point of view. Arzel (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you reduce everything to spelling, The Communist Manifesto is as correct as On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Fact is that Mark has been reverted by several editors by now. He is trying to insert scientific nonsense, originally sourced to a self-published skeptic web site, then by synthesizing several sources, none of which supported his edit, and which did not even support it collectively. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fact is that Mark has been reverted by several editors by now" maybe BUT during the actual sequence of reverts listed above the only other editor who reverted him said it was specifically for a wording error which Mark simply corrected after agreement on talk. So aside the probation thing (and of course the question of who has right on their side) it was a pretty even handed dispute. Since two or three other editors have sided with you but perhaps you should have waited for them to arrive first (in an ideal world). --BozMo talk 19:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)j[reply]

If the sanctions are going to mean anything we have to enforce the restriction on edit warring. Edit warring by both sides is wrong, but per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, as the proposer of new content it's Marknutley's responsibility to gain consensus if his change is disputed in good faith. Nevertheless, this is a flawed report in that the warning came after, not before, the last revert shown. Asking that he self-revert or face a report / sanctions is a little heavy handed. I would suggest a caution to both parties, and a warning to take it to the talk page rather than continue reverting, or face blocks on either / both sides. I have no opinion and admittedly no background to judge whose version seems better supported, but that's besides the point as long as one side is not clearly vandalism, bad faith, copyvio, against a firm longstanding consensus, or any of the other edit warring excuses. We may have the "wrong version" in place, but that's the nature of the process. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, noting the "mitigating circumstances" BozMo describes below.[45] Although approaching the line and perhaps being too aggressive, I think this is worth a friendly caution at best. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon, your point about 'a firm longstanding consensus' above has weight - even back in 2004, there was no doubt in this article about the non-worldwide aspects of the subject. The statement had migrated into the first few sentences by July 2005 and, as far as I can see has been there ever since. To anyone with any knowledge in this area of science, there has been no doubt about this for a decade. In know we're not here to debate content or facts, but this degree of background provides some context. This isn't a 50/50 argument. --Nigelj (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm? How is this a flawed report? Both Mark and I are under strict orders/warnings against edit-warring, that was the result of WP:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2#Result_concerning_TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC. I used rather a long time trying to persuade Mark to self-revert his last edit, so that he wouldn't be violating the probationary sanction (it is linked above). I only filed this when Mark's reply was: If you feel otherwise you know what to do :) See you on the RFE board, which to me states 2 things: 1) Mark is well aware of the restriction 2) He doesn't care - since he is enforcing his version of WP:TRUTH (and thus cannot be edit-warring). I would also like to note that in the case where Mark and I where put on "parole", we were both actively talking, and none of us were above 2RR - so it is rather clear that both of us know what edit-warring is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted, despite the fact that i believe that this is one case where the content issue is minimal, since both Mark and I are under strict orders not to editwar, that while the last section on the talk-page seems as if the content hasn't been discussed, it was already discussed in Talk:Medieval_Warm_Period#Proposed_article_update, which Mark initialized, so Mark, wasn't unaware of the lack of consensus for his addition - and the problem with his sourcing (which is basically original research, by cherry-picking sources, that are in contradiction to the article text and later references by the same authors) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment regarding Lar's "expand 1RR whenever someone clashes" proposal. Interesting..... So that means that instead of playing nice, and not edit-warring - i should keep my peace until at some point i can use edit-warring as a WMD, by engaging someone whom i do not like, and ensure that they will also be restricted. Hmmmm, seems to me to be a rather strange proposal. Please do check the facts: Mark was editwarring despite warnings, despite previous talk-page discussions, he still doesn't accept that he was edit-warring, since apparently he holds the WP:TRUTH. Mark is/was on 3RR - Stephan despite claims above is at 2RR (one revert per day btw.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at it that way, if trying to look at things in the most combative way possible was your intent, or you could look at it as an attempt to level the playing field. 2RR is 2RR too many. ++Lar: t/c

Doesn't that depend on content? Mark is trying to insert something that is actually contradicted by the references in the text. He is concocting a synthesis of references... by cherry-picking references that go back to the early 90's, he ends up with a conclusion that is in opposition to what the same scientists conclude later. And btw. i'm not trying to look at it combatively - as i said to Mark in talk, i could have "won" that particular edit-war by 1RR, but i didn't, and i won't... it was already an edit-war by Mark, and i am going to stick to not to engage in such, if i recognize it as such .... no matter how correct or incorrect the content issue is, and i am going to hold to that.

There are to my eyes three things that make this case rather clear-cut (to my eyes). The first is that Mark and I are under special warning not to edit-war (no matter what the content is), the second is that Mark already had done so and been warned for it (on the IPCC page (see my links), and the third is that Mark ignored well-meant advice on this, and in fact is convinced that because he knows the WP:TRUTH he can't be edit-warring. If you are going to make "preemptive" strikes - then make the 1RR restriction for all articles and all editors. I'd support it 100% - and as far as i can tell, most of us do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could support 1RR for articles on probation (usual exceptions) but I would want to include an exception for someone new to the page. If they haven't edited since the page went on probation, it is unreasonable to assume they know different rules apply. As soon as they are warned, the rule can apply.--SPhilbrick T 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Re. Lar's suggestion

I find no more polite way to to say it, but "I think it's come to that, but failing that I think whenever we have a situation of someone ON 1RR engaged with someone who isn't and it's brought here, we ought to consider extending the 1RR to whoever it is that isn't (in the interests of leveling the field)" has to be the stupidest thing somebody has said in this discussion for a long time. I can hardly imagine a better way of reducing Wikipedia's quality than to "level the playing field" between uninformed and already sanction POV pushers and scientifically literate editors in good standing. If you hand out sanctions indiscriminately, the best possible outcome is that you loose all the more experienced editors and get left with socks and single-purpose accounts. "The Romans make a dessert and call it peace" - let's not forget the ultimate purpose here: To create a good encyclopedia that reflects the best published sources. Everything else is secondary. Civility is only important because it furthers that goal. Making new editors feel welcome is only important in so far as it furthers that goal. ---Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand this "level the playing field" proposal either. To my mind, it exposes how utterly retarded the 1RR approach is. Essentially, it rewards troublemakers (who are now legion, thanks to off-wiki recruitment) by hamstringing good faith contributors. Wikipedia needs editors who are experienced (and often experts in the topic in which they edit) more than in needs troublemakers. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the above language, which I think skates pretty close to what shouldn't be accepted here, I tend to agree that 1RR all around may not be the best approach. It seems to me that 1RR should be applied to editors when they misuse the discretion that editors are given as a default. This way overly combative editors are limited, but editors who show discretion can have a little more leeway. They shouldn't have much more leeway, but I think a little more in situations like this where there is a lot of socking going on is warranted. Mackan79 (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan, could you clarify what you are saying? Are you saying the Mr. nutley is a "uninformed and already sanction POV pushers" while you, in contrast, are a "scientifically literate editors in good standing"? Am I correct in that this is what you are asserting? Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't add up. The fact is you can't say "this revert replaced superior content, therefore it was ok." If we said that, then it wouldn't be about revert rules in the first place; we would simply decide who writes better content and kick out whoever annoyed them ("You've been blocked for lowering the quality of this article. You can appeal this block by stating why your edits were an improvement.") Ultimately it has to be about editors' ability to comply with policy (if we're not content just to assume that more editors will support the better content). I guess you can say to hell with consistency if a sham system works, but a.) that will widely be considered unethical, and b.) it therefore probably won't work very well. You want to avoid sanctioning good editors, but to some extent it takes convincing them that they need to play within the system. Mackan79 (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that Mr. Schulz is saying that some editors are better or "more equal" than others here in the wiki. I hope he will be coming by here soon and stating clearly that he is not alleging that and that he is committed to the Wikipedia principles of cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the real life planet where I live, with its admittedly antiquated university system, it is indeed the case that different inhabitants of the planet (some of whom contribute to the writing of this online encyclopedia) have different levels of intelligence, different levels of training in science and different aptitudes for understanding science. Wikipedia principles will alas not change that. Nor is it a secret that there are expert editors on wikipedia. Surely Cla68 is vaguely aware of that? Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe we should say that on science articles, science experts are given two reverts to others' one. I'd be fine with that where the experts could all be documented as such, although, come to think of it, it would probably be better then not to let the rest of us edit at all. We might have to change the name.... Mackan79 (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More significantly, on science articles we should comply with undue weight policy, and not give undue prominence to fringe positions being persistently pushed by some editors. There seems to be an unfortunate idea that by labelling a science article "controversy about this science subject" then fringe views should be given priority, without any evaluation of the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of the sources. . . dave souza, talk 09:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's specious. Unit 731 was a scientific endeavor. This does not mean that scientists are uniquely qualified to comment on the controversy surrounding it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it mean that Wikipedia has any obligation to show every contrarian fringe theory about it. The controversy should be sourced to reliable historians, not to polemics written by campaigners, though they can be cited for their own views if reliable third party sources show them to be historically significant. . . dave souza, talk 10:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, indeed, that article is about a breach of scientific and medical ethics which scientists and doctors would have more training and knowledge in than unqualified newspaper columnists. . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking on the general principle of Lar's statement, not on the concrete case. However, it is certainly true that while all editors have an equal opportunity to contribute, not all editors and not all contributions are equal, and not all editors should be treated equal. If it were otherwise, we could just block all editors (so they are all equal to User:Licorne). In particular, sanctioning editors who are in a dispute with already sanctioned editors to "level the playing field" without looking at the substance of the conflict is, and I'll (not gladly, but freely) repeat this, a stupid idea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with you thinking it's a stupid idea. That doesn't mean that it actually is. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar is wrong, obviously. Stephan is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could just nominate Napoleon and Snowball to decide who amongst us is more equal than the others. Or maybe Stephan and William would suffice. Scott aka UnitAnode 10:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no policy that those infringing policies should be treated equally with others, but do note that WP:NOTANARCHY. . . dave souza, talk 10:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan, I propose that all editors are treated equally, unless the issue at hand is a violation of Wikipedia's rules, such as revert warring and POV-pushing. As Mackan points out above, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and I believe the assumption is that everyone should have equal opportunity to do so unless they're breaking the rules. You seem to be saying that your contributions are more valuable than other editors who have been sanctioned under the AGW article probation, and therefore you don't deserve sanction even though you have been caught engaging in the same behavior for which the others were sanctioned. Is that what you're saying? Cla68 (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla, this shows up the problem with BozMo's point "(2) he added more references each time and sought to address the arguments raised". Looking at the three edits Stephan reverted, in the first instance Marknutley changed the lead on a scientific article to a minority view, adding a reference to the website of the fringe non-scientist John Lawrence Daly,[46] in the second he did not add a new source but argued Daly was a reliable source,[47] and in the third case did add references in a synthesis to reach the same fringe position. Blatant pov pushing contravening undue weight, and you seem to want to "level the playing field" to favour fringe pov pushing changes to a science article. NPOV is a basic rule. . dave souza, talk 12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right dave, i`m pissed off with ~~your~~ the constant lie about this being wp:synth. As i pointed out in my statement above two of the refs state the MWP was GLOBAL. So stop pushing the line about synthesis ok GLACIAL GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD and The Medieval warm period mark nutley (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow i was wrong three of the refs said it was global Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period still going to stick with your spin about synth? mark nutley (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, content issues belong on the article talk-page. But you may still want to ponder the difference between "global event" and "global warm event". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know content issues belong on the article talk page kim, but if dave peddles his spin about wp:synth i kinda have to point out he is flat out wrong mark nutley (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, you really don't seem to understand that synthesis requires you to reflect sources accurately, and not combine them to reach a novel conclusion. You were edit warring for the lead that "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of Worldwide warm climate,"[48] yet your references say nothing so definite. The first and third are the same 1993 paper by Grove and Switsur, which "hypothesised" that "The results suggest that it was a global event". Your second reference, p. 134 of a 1994 book by Hughes and Diaz, describes the Grove and Switsur argument, but concludes on pages 136–7 that the evidence "does not constitute compelling evidence for a global 'Medieval Warm Period'" and the concept "is no longer supported by the available evidence." Classic synthesis, advancing a position not supported by the sources. I'm sure your edit was a mistake rather than intentional pov pushing ~~and quote mining was inadvertent, due to carelessness rather than design. I do take exception to your personal attack, calling me a liar, and expect you to strike that immediately.~~ (thanks for striking the accusation) . . dave souza, talk 17:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC) unsolicited clarification, and thanks for action taken. . dave souza, talk 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will i bollocks, Now you accuse me of POV pushing and quote mining because i am careless, am i fuck as like. The paper by mann et al, currently used in the article is also a hypothesis right? perhaps we should remove that, after all a few trees in yamal can`t really be enough to declare it was just confined to the NA can it? If i find sources which say this was a global event then they are just as good as the current sources, get over it mark nutley (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you realise that WP:WEIGHT requires us to show well sourced viewpoints proportionately to their predominance in the expert literature? If there are significant minority opinions, we show them as such, but we don't overturn current science with a tentative 1993 paper. . . dave souza, talk 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)With respect, I think the points here would be clearer if there was an attempt to tone them down. I don't know that this is synthesis, but it does seem to me an overly strong statement based on the sources if Souza's summary is correct, whereas I notice that the competing language does note that it "may" have been broader.[49] Is there a focused discussion on this issue on the talk page? When it comes to enforcement I think that's the kind of thing that should matter. Mackan79 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the talk page. An accurate summary based on the above sources would be that a global warm period has been hypothesised, but the evidence is not strong and there could have been local warm events at various times. That's just based on these sources, and more modern sources are cited in the article. The current state of the article isn't satisfactory, my hope would be that it could be improved to show the current state of scientific ideas more clearly, with a more cooperative approach on the talk page to reflecting majority as well as minority views, . . dave souza, talk 19:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a lot to ask, but I was just hoping I'd look and see a very clear refutation of one position or the other. I see some of that from Stephan Schulz, but mostly I see curt and dismissive retorts going back and forth. It would be nice if one could convince editors that it's worth their time to clearly explain their stances so that they might actually resolve some of these disputes, at least for a time. I don't know if there's more to this, anyway, but I would say in that particular discussion mark nutley isn't representing his views especially well to have kept reverting. Mackan79 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, don't think it was ideal. Unfortunately, mark seems to have been convinced of The Truth and given the bad advice that all sources are equal if they are published by a reputable publisher, no matter whether or not the author has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You're right that the focus should be on explaining as much as possible. Unfortunately some editors don't want to hear about weight, so it's a learning process. . . . dave souza, talk 22:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about content

Perhaps others see it differently, but it seems to me that if someone presented a clear analysis of how one or another editor was adding material that clearly misrepresented the source, or clearly went beyond the source, and kept inserting it despite this being explained clearly by other editors in a fully reasonable manner, that it would be grounds for sanctioning the offending editor without having to focus only on who reverted how many times. Basically, if it is quite easy to show that one editor's position is completely unreasonable based on the given sources, but they keep reverting, I think others here would respond to that. I believe it's under the presumption that there are reasonable views on both sides that we would generally say editors should not be reverting. Personally I don't respond to the idea that one person is an expert and the other isn't, for several reasons, but I would respond to clear evidence that someone is not doing an adequate job with the sources. Perhaps some feel that issues of content shouldn't be raised here, but I'd like to suggest that if done very clearly and succinctly, focusing on evidence that discussion was not working, it could be persuasive and useful. Mackan79 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't respond to the idea that one person is an expert and the other isn't - curious. In the real world, the concept of "expert" is widely recognised. People go to "experts" to have their medical conditions treated, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in the "real world" the experts would be chosen via a deliberative process, and certainly the public wouldn't be involved. The issue isn't that the public knows as well as experts, but simply that Wikipedia isn't set up to be expert-controlled. It has its strong points, nonetheless. But of course experts should be in a strong position to explain to competent non-experts why someone is simply not doing an adequate job of editing in the area, which is one of the many reasons expertise is needed. Mackan79 (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty in this area is that mainstream media are convincing many editors that all scientists have been caught lying and The Truth comes from contrarian bloggers. Too many non-experts are incompetent and won't listen. Disclaimer – I'm not an expert, and make no claim to competence but I will listen and investigate. . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be an expert in climate science, but you might be an expert in spotting incompetence :) -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Lar's 1RR confusion

The sanction that both Mark and I are under is this: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2#Result_concerning_TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC, it should be clearly marked in my filing for enforcement - which i assume is being read in full? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to LHvU ~~Stephan is to my knowledge not under any warning that further editwarring would result in 1RR.~~[striken, was corrected by LHvU from Stephan => KDP]
Further, your "gaming" comment here seems to ignore that a status-quo/prev-consensus version always does exist, and that the onus of gaining consensus lies on the contributer of new content. Had the roles been reversed - Stephan trying to push content, and Mark reverting to SQ/pC - then your comment would have some merit (my 2¢ on this), otherwise you end up with reverse "gaming", by the person already under restrictions (as i pointed out to Lar). Please note that the reason that i'm persistent here is that Marks and my restrictions are the same, and thus this particular discussion has direct relevance to my own situation, by setting precedence as to what is and what isn't part of the expanded probation enforcement warning that we both got --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. See below... I'm proposing that as a result of this enforcement action, MN be taken to the next level (which in MN's case I think means from: warning that the next infraction means he's on 1RR, to: actually being on 1RR) and that other participants also be taken to the next level (which in the case of SS I think is from: general abjuration to play nice to: warning that the next infraction means he's on 1RR)... If I have people's levels wrong I'm subject to correction of course, but that's the general idea. All participants ratchet up. Which levels the playing field in the long run. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that three edits over a period of 3 three days, two removing an acknowledged bad source (with a descriptive edit summary) and the third removing unqualified OR, all supported by a discussion on talk that started before the first of my reverts, constitute "edit warring", we have very different definitions of edit warring, and you seems to be very selectively eager to enforce yours. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response(s) by LHvU (not part of "Result" consideration)

To KDP; This seems part of the dichotomy of having two apparently sometimes conflicting policies - WP:BRD and WP:3RR. The latter should not need exist were the former strictly adhered to, but there seems to be this dispensation allowed for "editors in good standing" to edit war in good faith for a bit before trying to see if there can be a consensus. Reverting (either within BRD or 3RR) to the previous version because it "had consensus" is not always sufficient, references to policy or related discussion is preferable. It is the use of ones ability to revert under 3RR, when the other disputant is under restriction, without further explanation or rationale that gives the appearance of "gaming" the situation. In your case, thoughtful/nuanced edit summaries indicating why you are reverting someone again, regardless whether they are under a restriction or not, may preclude you from being restricted under the existing warning. As long as you can show you are not "warring", then you are permitted some reverts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't scan with the case where Mark and I were warned/enforcement restricted. Nor does it scan with the comments in the admin section for this case. Nb: Please check and verify the talk-page for MWP for the content issue - while it seems as if this hasn't been discussed, there are previous discussions (with Mark) on exactly the same issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this kim? [50] were both yourself and short brigade harvester agreed the MWP was global? mark nutley (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, this is not the place for content issues. But you may want to ponder whether agreeing that the MWP was a global event, is the same as saying that the MWP was a global warm event. The trouble is that you are missing the nuances. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended my comments in the admin section, to better reflect my views above. Does this suffice? As for the specifics of the TGL/WMC case, I didn't comment on the particulars then since, as I noted, I came late to the matter. Upon review, I note that BozMo states we deal with matters on a case by case basis - and I agree that if an admin feels the current case is served best in a manner which ignores or modifies a part of an earlier decision, then they should advance that proposal. As said, WP is not a court of law where precedence forms part of a legal framework - and while it is useful in consistent application of sanctions and restrictions the nature of a Wiki is that as soon as something that indicates a better way of doing things appears then we are at liberty to try that option. The previous conclusion still applies to that matter, but might not hold us to the next (although it may be decided that it will in a subsequent matter). It does make things complicated, I realise, but perhaps if everyone edited to the idealised ethos of WP we would not need to tie ourselves into these knots? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New problem: serious incivility

The problems with this editor just jumped up an order of magnitude. Please note these edit summaries:

I recommend an immediate block. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, i see you don`t bother to say why i got angry? If my post had not been edited and when i reverted with "do not edit another users posts" only to have my post edited again, and again, and again even when hippocrite is told to stop editing my posts mark nutley (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no possible excuse for that kind of behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief note that Mark has now apologized for his outburst after what he felt was a provocation. Perhaps a review of of Scjessey's own mental state in that same thread ([51] and [52]) would be in order? --GoRight (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding, right? The diffs you present against me are perfectly acceptable. I suggest you are trying to deflect criticism of Mark's egregious behavior by attacking me instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a minute, this is being dealt with [here] so why is it also being brought up here? mark nutley (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is the appropriate place for it, and because I was already deep in the processes of compiling the diffs before I noticed (and added) the Wikiquette alert. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he had not kept messing with my post for no reason other than "I don`t like that blog" then this would not have happened. Especially after i had requested him not to. mark nutley (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: This notice provided as a service for those who may have missed my previous attempts to close this section. Please note that this section is off topic with respect to this enforcement request, as such it violates this request, and that Scjessey is willing to edit war over it. Please take this into account and take whatever actions you deem appropriate under these circumstances. --GoRight (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. I interpret it differently. Plus you made 1 attempt, so my 1 revert is hardly "edit warring". It's not clear why you have felt the need to insert yourself into this discussion anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My interest is simple. I saw that Mark was heading in a bad direction, I told him so on his talk page, as a result he apologized which was the right thing to do, and so I think that should be the end of it. Hence my note above about the apology and my subsequent attempt to close this section. --GoRight (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are attempting to close this section, but you should not be. No-one views you as neutral in this. Leave closing, or not, to the neutral admins William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Marknutley

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

Hmm. There are a lot of mitigating circumstances (1) it was over a few days (2) he added more references each time and sought to address the arguments raised (3) he was on talk (4) one of the reinsertions appeared to follow agreement by the person on talk who had reverted him, since the reason given was only ambiguity. --BozMo talk 19:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be sufficient to place him on the same 1RR limitation, as previously warned, as other editors are already under? WMC appears to think this would be appropriate, and I consider it fairer to keep those who are in dispute with editors already under restriction to the same prohibitions - without necessarily determining who is the more wronged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the naive comment, but shouldn't everyone be on 1RR (per article, or at least per specific content passage)? Why don't we just ask that of everyone who has been properly notified? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would support blanket 1RR for all articles on probation, with the usual exemption for obvious vandalism, bad faith, socks. --BozMo talk 14:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's come to that, but failing that I think whenever we have a situation of someone ON 1RR engaged with someone who isn't and it's brought here, we ought to consider extending the 1RR to whoever it is that isn't (in the interests of leveling the field). In this case, Steven Schulz probably should be added, if we don't go to a blanket 1RR. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lar. AFAIK neither were on 1RR. --BozMo talk 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nutley wasn't on 1RR? I'm confused by what KDP is saying in the case presentation, then. There seems to be an assertion that they were. ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is under warning that further edit warring would result in 1RR - same as with KDP - per here . LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Then I revise my suggestion.... look at all the participants in this war. Then, take MN (and whoever else was warring that was warned alrady) to 1RR and take whoever was warring who HASN'T been warned already to "you've been warned, next time it's 1RR" state. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only MN of those warned (i.e. not KDP) was edit warring, so I think my proposed wording - including bringing new accounts up to speed promptly - satisfies your suggestion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or.. We could simply rewrite WP:3RR... I don't think we can, per WP:AGF, place anyone under the 1RR limitation without an evidenced complaint that they have edit warred - but if that complaint does indicate that they warred with someone who is already restricted then they get the same restriction by default; even with the best AGF over intent, using your own ability to simply revert when the other party cannot appears as gaming the system. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing from this one: basically I don't have time to look at Nutley's behaviour properly. --BozMo talk 13:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed wording Until 2010-(date)-03 Marknutley is restricted from making more than one revert to any article in the probation area in any 24 hour period. All current and past editors of the articles under prohibition and not under restriction are advised that any further edit warring will result in the imposition of a similar restriction. New editors found to be edit warring are to be warned of this restriction as soon as possible.
I prefer dealing with the named individuals in a request for enforcement, and am only willing to expand it generally to others. If there is another account that is felt to be also needing enforcement, then there should be a further request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note re "edit warring" and 3RR - my view that blind or reflex reverting is edit warring, whereas a revert with a good rationale noting policy or consensus is permissible - although it is recognised even this AGF interpretation can be abused. If found so, then it is edit warring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support including analysis of talkpage and other discussions in any examination of edit warring. A 3 month 1RR restriction across the probation area for Marknutley is warranted in this case. I am not sure about the phrasing of the rest of the proposed close - do we intend to make a 1RR restriction the standard response to edit warring (absent mitigating or exacerbating circumstances), or is there something more here? - 2/0 (cont.) 07:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defaulting to 1RR restriction in the advent of further edit warring by the editor concerned is my intent, mostly to discourage reflex reverting of any party who is already restricted (because sanctions are preventative and not punishment, so we are not here to allow "naughty" editors to be reverted with impunity) but to require properly rationalised reverts for those not restricted. By limiting the opportunity to "edit war, even in good faith," it might be hoped that editors will attempt further discussion before changing the text again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Marknultey and Hipocrite blog post dispute at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Both editors blocked 24 hours. Hipocrite for part removing/replacing another editors talkpage comments, in violation of WP:TPOC, without permission, notice to the other editor, or discussion/consensus. Fuller rationale provided with block notice at editors talkpage. Marknutley for edit warring on the same issue, while aware they are imminently to be placed under 1RR restriction for the same issue. I consider my actions appropriate under the provisions of the Probation, but will not contest any other admin amending or reversing them - I only request that both parties be dealt with equally in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 23 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 931: / Line 931: @@
 ::: I strongly support including analysis of talkpage and other discussions in any examination of edit warring. A 3 month 1RR restriction across the probation area for Marknutley is warranted in this case. I am not sure about the phrasing of the rest of the proposed close - do we intend to make a 1RR restriction the standard response to edit warring (absent mitigating or exacerbating circumstances), or is there something more here? - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 07:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 :::: Defaulting to 1RR restriction in the advent of further edit warring by the editor concerned is my intent, mostly to discourage reflex reverting of any party who is already restricted (because sanctions are preventative and not punishment, so we are not here to allow "naughty" editors to be reverted with impunity) but to require properly rationalised reverts for those not restricted. By limiting the opportunity to "edit war, even in good faith," it might be hoped that editors will attempt further discussion before changing the text again. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
+===Result concerning Marknultey and Hipocrite blog post dispute at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident===
+Both editors blocked 24 hours. Hipocrite for part removing/replacing another editors talkpage comments, in violation of [[WP:TPOC]], without permission, notice to the other editor, or discussion/consensus. Fuller rationale provided with block notice at editors talkpage. Marknutley for edit warring on the same issue, while aware they are imminently to be placed under 1RR restriction for the same issue. I consider my actions appropriate under the provisions of the Probation, but will not contest any other admin amending or reversing them - I only request that both parties be dealt with equally in this instance. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 22:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)