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

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.

---

JettaMann

JettaMann is topic banned from William Connolley and related articles, broadly construed, and interaction banned from User:William M. Connolley.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JettaMann User requesting enforcement Hipocrite (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested JettaMann (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 [1] Blatent violation of WP:BLP - "a Wikipedia arbitration committee found him guilty of violating a number of Wikipedia rules" - not true. This went on at the beginning of an RFC on the talk page, which has hardly even begun. [2]. Over-the-top BLP violation - "I don't think this individual has any notoriety of any kind, other than for being caught for various Wikipedia editing infractions. That's pretty much all this page should say about him is that he was a Global Warming activist who got caught gaming Wikipedia." Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [3] 10-day block by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with note "I would strongly recommmend when you come back from the block, even if you haven't been banned by then, you should tread very carefully in that area or preferably choose to avoid the field altogether, because if you continue behaving like you did you will most likely incur more sanctions." Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Perminant topic ban, along with ban from all biographies of living persons. Additional comments by editor filing complaint This is exactly the kind of "user" that makes dealing with these articles impossible. 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 JettaMann Statement by JettaMann Comments by others about the request concerning JettaMann I disagree that second diff violates BLP. This seems like something better handled via a disruption route rather than being specifically related to the Climate change probation. Prodego talk 18:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) This is a slightly unusual case in that the target of JettaMann's comments is both a BLP subject and a Wikipedia contributor. As such, I think the no personal attacks and civility policies are clearly applicable here. The claim that WMC is a "Global Warming activist who got caught gaming Wikipedia" strikes me as both a personal attack and a highly incivil comment that displays a battleground mentality - none of which should be encouraged. I would suggest closing this with a firm warning that any further incivility will result in blocks. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC) JettaMan was blocked for 10 days by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on December 10 for "disruptive tendentious editing and personal attacks on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident". After the block expired he made one edit, a less than civil comment aimed at User:William M. Connolley, on December 22, before making the edits in question. Guettarda (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I am inclined to agree with ChrisO; these are incivil and battleground-like edits, though not so problematic by themselves that they require immediate sanctions. A final warning should suffice in this case. (Disclaimer: I have participated in that same content dispute during the past few days, after learning about that article through my OTRS work, though I have made no other contributions to climate-related topics that I can recall.)  Sandstein  21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Jettamann seems to have a modest but blame-free record of editing on other matters, but severely problematic behavior on the subject of global warming. He was blocked for disruption last month and as soon as he comes back he's already engaging in some pretty serious attacks. I suggest a warning that he faces a topic ban if he acts disruptively again. We could use this otherwise productive editor on other parts of the encyclopedia where his feelings do not overrule his judgement. --TS 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I've sent the following note to Jettamann by Wikipedia email: I'm contacting you by mail because you haven't edited English Wikipedia since 17:34 GMT on January 4th and since then a Wikipedia editor has filed an enforcement request concerning your recent edits on the article William M. Connolley and its talk page. A notification was placed on your user talk page at 18:34 GMT on January 4th. A provisional remedy has been posted by an admin with a suggestion that you should be given up to 48 hours to respond before the case will be closed. Discussion is ongoing. You could be topic banned from articles related to William M. Connolley. Please see the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#JettaMann --TS 12:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with Tony and with the proposal below but there is a small issue of a total non-interaction ban with William as they are more or less bound to cross paths at some point. Could we please clarify whether, if both users happen to turn up to an article, both are permitted to comment on the article content? Guy (Help!) 15:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC) They can edit the same articles, but JettaMann should not comment on WMC. Comment on the content, not the editor. If JettaMann is wise, they will put a fence around this restriction and not go anywhere near WMC for a while. Testing boundaries usually ends badly. Jehochman Brrr 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Adding: I will take a dim view of any baiting or goading of JettaMann by WMC. When an editor is restricted, others have a moral obligation not to encourage violations. Jehochman Brrr 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Since I've had absolutely no interaction with this user for longer than I can remember (indeed I can't recall any; anyone care to trawl back far enough to find any such interaction?) I find this "warning" gratuitously offensive William M. Connolley (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I am not in any way involved in Climate Change articles. If Jehochman is going to comment here or in other science-related matters (eg WikiProject Mathematics, where he has posted a link to his Masters degree in Computer Science), it might be an idea in future if he made sure that he had some familiarity with the matter on which he is commenting. At the moment his comments give the rather worrying impression that they have been made at random without forethought. This is extremely unhelpful. If he cannot stop this and in addition appears to have his own personal issues with William M. Connolley, then it probably is not appropriate for him to involve himself on this page. More administrators are needed to make these new procedures work smoothly, but not those who cannot stop themselves making comments that are at the same time clueless and offensive. Please redact your comments, Jehochman. Mathsci (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I agree (less angrily) with WMC. We don't ask BLP victims not to have contact with their abusers in other circumstances. If WMC were to start needling this (almost certain never to return) account, there would be no need to warn him at all - just block WMC till he stops. I don't see anything in my (not WMC, who has had zero involvement with this user to date) request asking for anything about WMC the editor, rather William Connolley the Living Person who was defamed by wikipedia in violation of WP:BLP on an article under general sanction. This is not about editor interaction, it's about editing an article disruptively. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Actually, Hipocrite, we (FSVO we) do exactly that. For well over a year now I have been a victim of an intermittent campaign of harassment which has included nuisance phone calls, posting of private data on the internet, visiting my house and posting observations on the internet and so on. This has lost the abuser two ISP accounts, but the police response is to avoid the venues where he arrives to abuse me; in practice this means I am being asked to accede to his demand to stop using several sites and forums because he dislikes my opinions. I was there first, he arrived solely to harass me, but the advice from law enforcement is to walk away and emphatically not to respond to him. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Clearly you live in a backwater country still ruled by a girl. You raise a good point. Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see how either of the quotes provided above are bannable BLP violations. The first - "a Wikipedia arbitration committee found him guilty of violating a number of Wikipedia rules" seems true. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley found that he used admin tools while involved (Findings of Fact #14) and that he edit warred (Findings of fact #14-1 and #14-3 and Remedy #7). It is a violation of WP:V in that it isn't sourced, but it's hard to argue that adding a true statement to an article once merits a ban. The second is questioning the notability of the subject on a talk page. This is commonplace and, while it is a bit harsh and could be viewed as a personal attack, I don't see how it merits a ban either. Is there conduct other than these two diffs? I am also concerned that disallowing a user to interact with WMC is in effect a topic ban because WMC edits such a wide range of global warming pages. I think the appropriate thing is either a warning or a topic ban of limited duration. Oren0 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I guess I'm a little late for my own case here. Wasn't even aware it was going on actually. I would add to OrenO's comments that the first supposed infraction of mine had several references to leading newspapers such as The National Post. This was referenced, and as OrenO notes, it was also true. The second supposed infraction was merely a talk page comment asking what makes this William Connolley person eligible for his own Wikipedia entry? As I said then, Idon't see anything notable that he has done. There does seem to be a small cabal of AGW activists who really go after people with a vengeance using Stalin-like methods, and that's all this looks like to me. JettaMann (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC) The non-interaction provision is clearly not going to be practical if they are allowed to edit GW pages. No one can edit GW pages without crossing paths with WMC and this provision allows one-sided sniping, regardless of whether there is a history of such sniping or not, which is obviously unfair. The sanctions should be symetric in this regards. --GoRight (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Result concerning JettaMann This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Provisional result: JettaMann is indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to William Connolley, broadly construed, and interaction banned from User:William M. Connolley. I don't see evidence here sufficient to topic ban JettaMann from all Global Warming pages. The previous 10 day block was immediately followed by personal attacks and violations of WP:BLP, per the evidence cited above. Just because somebody edits Wikipedia their biography does not become a free fire zone. Please keep this thread open until JettaMann comments, or until a total of 48 hours have passed from the initial filing, and then log the sanction, notify the user, and close this thread. In this case indefinitely means until suitable explanations, retractions and assurances are provided to ensure that the objectionable conduct will not recur. Jehochman Brrr 03:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Support all provisions of this proposed result. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Also support all of proposal. --BozMo talk 22:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Thread closed, ban enacted. If JettaMann chooses to lodge an appeal, please take into consideration that they have not edited since shortly before this request was opened. Notification. Log. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1rr Violation User:Dcowboys3109

Blocked.

Resolved [4], [5]. Blatent, and obvious. Hipocrite (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Why is H not using the prescribed template given that this involves a single editor? Also, I note that it is possible that the editor in question may not be aware of the WP:1RR restriction since they are not listed in the notifications table, [6]. Frivolous and vexatious use of this venue to engage in WP:BATTLE? You decide. This is the fourth such request. I was warned after 1. Some neutrality of enforcement, please? --GoRight (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Blocked 24 hours in the course of investigating above. There is an editnotice that displays every time anyone edits that page. If they make a credible appeal, I would not object to an early unblock - this is not a frequent flyer here. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite notified Dcowboys3109 six minutes after the first revert, nearly four hours before the second. I was over that way anyway, so I have added this to the log. GoRight does raise a good point, though - the log of notifications is there to serve as a collective memory. Right now the probation is new enough that it is easy to see a notification in the talkpage history and the main participants in the topic area were also active at the community discussion, but this set of procedures should be futureproof inasmuch as possible. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC) There is no need to use undue formality when the violation is sufficiently obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC) User:Hipocrite seems a little fast on the trigger in requesting enforcement, and doesn't always do his homework. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Biosequestration dispute

Content discussion moved to Talk:Biosequestration#Biosequestration dispute on multiple articles. Please continue content discussion there. NimbusWeb briefly blocked for edit warring. All editors are reminded that there is no deadline and consensus should be sought for any edits under dispute.

Immediately this move took place disruptive editing against Hansen's ideas occurred by the two anti-Hansen editors above (William M. Connolley and Arthur Rubin) at the 'carbon tax' "Kyoto Protocol" AND 'biosequestration' articles. I would like to appeal the transfer of this enforcement dispute to the biosequestration talk page. We are clearly dealing with an attack on Hansen's ideas in multiple aricles.NimbusWeb (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC) William M Connolley has now attempted to remove the entire paragaph (with over six references) with Hansen's ideas about carbon sequestration at coal plants from the biosequestration article. This was after a recent edit by me attempted to clarify by highlighting use of algal biosequestration at coal plants in the Garnaut Report immediately above the Hansen ref.NimbusWeb (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC) ARthur Rubin has now attempted to remove the same fully referenced paragraph from from the biosequestration article. How can this sort of disruptive editing be allowed to occur? These editors are providing no justification fro rmoving this material, but by simultanous attack they are making it hard for me to keep it in the article (although it is directly on point) without having to constantly revert them. Help, this is unfair.NimbusWeb (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Calling WMC an anti-Hansen editor is absurd. In addition, it's not fully referenced and it wouldn't be relevant, even if referenced, as noted on the talk page. Please continue the discussion there, and don't edit against consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Conclusions are reached on the basis of evidence available. All that is necessary is to examine the edit history of you two in relation to Hansen comments. 'Absurd' is just an irrelevant appeal to a negative emotion. Why should you assume that your point of view represents consensus, especially when what you are trying to do is remove referenced material and make ideas hard to understand? The discussion board has been used extensively to try and prevent your disruptive edits. It appears to have failed. Higher level scrutiny is now requiredNimbusWeb (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Absurd is quite correct. WMC has added other Hansen comments to other articles, where I consider them problematic in terms of relevance, although not as bad as this one. Furthermore, this (and other comments) constitute a severe WP:AGF violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Kyoto Protocol, Carbon tax, Biosequestration Kyoto Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Carbon tax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Biosequestration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Administrator attention to recent very acrimonious edit warring on these articles might be merited. --TS 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Noted. I won't edit again unless consensus can be obtained somewhere unless any of the parties reports a clearly improper edit reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC) If all involved will similarly down tools pending the achievement of consensus, no further action will be necessary. --TS 20:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, it appears I was forced to break my assertion. Tags indicating my concerns as to why NW's edits were inappropriate were removed. It seems to me that removing tags without a clear consensus to do so, or a previous discussion leading to the conclusion that the tags were inappropriate then, is disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I agree provided the disruptive edits on 'biosequestration' 'carbon tax' and "Kyoto Protocol' can be reverted to where they were before this blew up.NimbusWeb (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Using that argument as a pretext to carry out further edit warring, as you have just done[7] [8], is rather inflammatory. --TS 20:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC) But TS-look at what they did at 'carbon tax' they replaced the words 'carbon sequestration' at coal plants with 'sequestration' at coal plants-making the idea unintelligible. Sequestration of what? Carbon? Well why not say it-except that it creates an unpalatable precedent for teh coal industry. Why should that sort of disruptive editing be allowed to stand indefinitely. This is why formal dispute resolution should commence here. This is not a small issue for the coal industry NimbusWeb (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Beware the curse of Plaxico. --TS 20:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Beware editors that have retainers from the coal industry to make sure ideas requiring them to sequester carbon as a condition of operating never see the light of day.NimbusWeb (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC) OK, I'm requesting enforcement. NW is now over 3RR, despite warnings about 3RR. I've reported this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:NimbusWeb_reported_by_User:William_M._Connolley_.28Result:_.29. However it would be desirable to deal with it here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC) WMC? Retainers from the coal industry? I think the coal industry is libeled by that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Note: NW has now removed the 3RR warning, and the notification of the AN3 report from his talk page [9] with the edit comment "minor edit". I don't think this looks like good faith any more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I'm fully aware of the warning but think it should be applied to WMC and AR. Please note I placed a similar warning on WMC's talk page which he also deleted. Such editing is allowed on your own talk page. So let's get this right. You two gang up and start deleting whole paragraphs of referenced material on Hansen's ideas (see biosequestration-policy implications section) and making them unintelligible (replacing 'carbon sequestration with 'sequestration). This is despite the sections being changed being fully justified on the discussion page. Particular references include Hansen writing in his open letter to Obama and his book that power plants need 'carbon sequestration'. You allege that can't refer to algal biosequestration despite Garnaut amongst others specifically making that connection. When I try to stand up to your disruptive editing you invoke 3RR and try to bully me into submission. You call me a 'noob' claim I am 'spamming'. I'm the editor who is trying to write sentences with full references. You two are the editors who are trying to delete them or make them unintelligible. It will be interesting to see who is censored and no doubt also somewhat revealing about the internal administration at wikipedia and how this climate change probation system works and who runs it.NimbusWeb (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC) It will be interesting to see who is censored - I *think* you mean censured. In which case, we've now got an answer: you William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC) I have been asked to review recent editing and conduct issues relating to the above, by Tony Sidaway It is my conclusion that Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), NimbusWeb (talk · contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) are all in violation of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, relating to edit warring (I am not concerned with the technicalities of 3RR or team tagging) and WP:NPA (again, I am not concerned who is the most egregious practitioner). If I were not of the opinion that any short sanction would simply pause the continuation of these violations I would have sanctioned all three named editors for 24 hours, so no "advantage" may accrue to either side of the dispute. Under the circumstances, I am now warning all the above editors that any infraction of the Climate Change Probation by any party will result in a 72 hour block for all three - possibly disrupting the other WP activities of all concerned. I would ask Tony Sidaway to notify me of any infraction, although I would comment that I shall take sole responsibility to the blocks imposed, after notifying the parties concerned and reviewing any response/appeal. While drastic, I feel my actions are permissible under the Probation and are designed to impress upon the editors the necessity of keeping within the restrictions. The above will apply as soon as Tony Sidaway agrees to referee the application of this warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Everybody be nice, please. --TS 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Your (crossed with TS, so to be clear: LHVU's) non-neutrality in this is obvious; your ignoring a blatant 3RR violation is also obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC) <facepalm> --TS 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with LHvU and TS. If AR and WMC disagree with what Hansen is saying or writing then non-disruptive editing should see them inserting referenced criticism of Hansen's ideas and not simply trying to delete them or render them unintelligible wherever reference to them appears. What's going to happen if they team up to launch another attack on Hansen's ideas later?NimbusWeb (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with WMC, except as to the obviousness of LHvU's non-neutrality. (Note, this is a rare occurance; don't take it as a trend.) Ignoring a 3RR violation after warning while censuring 1RR "violations" made without warning of 1RR is questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Please don't make this more bloody than it need be. All three of you got into an out-of-control edit war across three articles. Less Heard van U is giving you the chance to knock it off and handle it the Wikipedia way. This doesn't make him biased. All of you have to stop engaging in personal attacks (you know who I'm referring to here) and all of you have to stop edit warring (and that applies to all). NimbusWeb has far less experience than the other two, so Please do not bite the newcomers applies. Now be nice, all of you. --TS 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC) I would like the {{syn}} and related tags that I've added restored pending discussion of the material. It seems obvious that the tags are at least nominally appropriate, and there certainly isn't consensus against the tags. In fact, a previous version of Hansen's comments were previously removed from one of the article per consensus at one of the notice boards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Those tags were clearly disruptive given the talk page of the article has extensive discussion in which multiple editors have attempted to answer AR's pedantic and disruptive views on Hansen's use of the word "biosequestration' instead of the synonym 'carbon sequestration'. Reinsertion would only reopen the dispute.NimbusWeb (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC) There was no "discussion", only IPs' arguments that it's important, but without even assertions of relevance. Hansen never said "biosequestration" or "geosequestration", and doesn't appear to have said "proportional", so those words should not be in the articles as Hansen's opinion unless sourced to others referring to Hansen's comments. In fact, on one of the articles, the section was previously removed as not being sourced, per comments on one of the noticeboards. It's still (mostly) not sourced, even if it were relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC) To TS, above. I don't think he's technically a newcomer, as the questioned paragraphs had been inserted by IPs for about a month previous to the creation of NW, and he takes credit for the "arguments" made by those IPs. And (to NW) "carbon sequestration" is not "biosequestration". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC) The IPs could the same user - all from AU hosts, two from Sydney, two from Canberra. Similar styles too. Ravensfire (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC) The sentences AR and WMC seek to either delete or qualify have direct quotes where Hansen expresses the idea that coal-fired power stations should no longer be approved or allowed to operate unless they have what he terms 'carbon captture' or 'carbon sequestration.' Both these quotes are referenced-to Hansen's Open Letter to Obama and to his book. So the question for AR is what does Hansen mean by 'carbon capture' or 'carbon sequestration' at power plants. It can only mean geosequestration or algal biosequestration. There are no other alternatives currently being debated in the scientific literature. Clearly this is what Hansen is referring to. What else could he be referring to when he uses the terms 'carbon capture' and 'carbon sequestration' in relation to on-site use at coal-fired power stations? Answer that. There is a reference to Garnaut discussing algal biosequestration at power plants in the sentence above. This is another attempt at disruptive editing. Claims that only one editor is opposing AR and WMC are also clearly ploys to attack process rather than deal with the substance of the dispute.NimbusWeb (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Perhaps if you weren't continually attacking those with whom you disagree, they'd be more motivated to address your points. You are new to Wikipedia but not so new as to be unaware of the No personal attacks policy. Please address the arguments and not the person. --TS 02:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC) OK. I apologise. But isn't the claim above my most recent entry above a personal attack on me?NimbusWeb (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC) If you remove the references to biosequestration, including the paragraph in that article, and replace it by carbon sequestration, then almost everything would be sourced. ("Proportional" still isn't sourced, possible, or likely to be relevant.) The relevance and undue weight would still be subject to discussion, but I'd probably stay out of it. Deal? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC) It wasn't intended as a personal attack; if you did edit under those IPs, and if those IPs were warned of inappropriate behaviour (which I don't remember doing), then you are considered to have been warned. But I'm willing to work with you in cleaning up the unsourced sections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC) AR, I believe it is reasonable and still maintains the sense of what Hansen is arguing to replace the word 'biosequestration' the two times it appears in the Hansen paragraph in the biosequestration article with "carbon sequestration'. I'm relying on your good faith in agreeing to this. I order that the agreement not be violated I suggest that either TS or LHvU make the changes. It still seems unusually pedantic to meNimbusWeb (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC) It's not just the biosequestration article; it's in all the places it's been added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Utterly bizarre This is utterly bizarre. There is an absolutely clear 3RR violation by NW, correctly reported, and we have a pile of admins (yes I know you're watching) saying "la la la I can't see it". Regardless of the article probation, that should lead to a simple block on NW. TS is saying "This is a train wreck" - no, it isn't. This is a very simple situation which had it been handled in the normal way would have caused no problems at all William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC) It appears that there is sanity in the world after all: [10] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC) If I gave the appearance of being very indulgent towards NimbusWeb, it's because I was--and deliberately so. He gives all the appearance of being a sincere and relatively inexperienced editor. I would have liked to see the content dispute resolved without the need to block him or anybody. My efforts were directed towards restraining the edit warring tendency to which, as a newcomer of little experience, he easily succumbed. There was a suggestion that he might be the same editor as some of the IPs who adopted a similar stance and tone. I haven't investigated but I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. If so I think he should be commended and applauded for registering an account and thus giving all of his edits a single name. This fellow is obviously not here to cause harm but to fix what he perceives as an error in Wikipedia's coverage of biosequestration. He has made some accusations and attacks, but that is not perhaps surprising since he has probably read such attacks on related talk pages and may well have convinced himself that such conduct is acceptable. This isn't to excuse his attacks or edit warring. He has had an opportunity to learn some of our community norms, and has failed to do so. But his errors are those of a beginner. He commits the beginner's solecism of characterizing edits he disagrees with as "disruptive" (some newcomers misuse the word "vandalism" in a similar context). I had hopes that you would both be prepared to back off and give the fellow some breathing space, which would have made your words arguing against his edits all the more persuasive and permitted him a glimpse of how we do things (at least, on a good day) on Wikipedia. --TS 11:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC) NW had all the hallmarks of a very overenthusiastic beginner who was not going to listen to any warnings. And indeed that is exactly what happened: he got plenty of warnings, and deleted them all (which in fact is *not* the hallmark of an inexperienced editor, so there is a little puzzle there, but never mind). However, all those warnings were from me, doing my humble duty in sharing the meaning of wiki. But perhaps he dismissed them as blustering from an involved party. Arguably, he *might* have listened to a strong warning from you or LHVU that breaking 3RR was not acceptable and he needed to self revert (let alone pay some attention to the article probabtion). Alas you, and more particularly LHVU, declined to do this, instead preferring "a plague on all your houses" type warnings, which NW mistook for license to ignore my valid warnings. I would hope that you, and more particularly LHVU, might take a lesson from this: being excessively soft on overenthusiastic noobs does not do them any favours in the long run William M. Connolley (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC) WMC deleted the warnings I placed on his talk page. He doesn't refer to that. I guess he lives to different rules. He claims there were 'more like 15 articles' which is a blatant three fold exaggeration designed to impugn my credibility. Hopefully the real lesson the wiki editing community learns is to watch the edits of AR and WMC very closely particularly in relation to Hansen's ideas that 1) on-site carbon sequestration should be a legal operating condition of coal plants and that 2) coal, gas and oil should be taxed and the dividend returned to people at a rate depending on their carbon footprint. No doubt also, more objective editors will see through what is going on here. Why do AR and WMC turn up in certain articles only to remove or distort comments Hansen has made? Who knows, my favoured hypothesis is that they simply don't like the way Hansen dresses. But if there are senior editors in wikipedia who are allowed to go around deleting whatever referenced sentences they feel like on dubious excuses which we have seen in this dispute like links are dead (when they are not), people aren't notable (when they are), precise words aren't used (when the meaning is otherwise clear) etc etc, then expect the rest of us to play catch up and seek consensus before reverting them, those senior editors should only get such privileges if they are prepared to disclose their actual identities to an internal wiki hierarchy and have any conflicts of interest fully disclosed. Otherwise the ongoing credibility of the system will be in jeopardy. This will be particularly important in areas where the coal or pharmaceutical industries or, religious organisations, multinational corporations or political parties are likely to view wikipedia as a form of advertising or campaign promotionNimbusWeb (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

No action. All editors are reminded to be proactive in seeking dispute resolution, starting with the talkpage.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning William M. Connolley User requesting enforcement mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [11] First Revert on 19:08, 17 January 2010. [12] Second revert on 20:15, 17 January 2010. Mistake, not under 1R rule [13] Two reverts in under 24 hours in breach of the probation. [14] ... Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [15] Warning by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) This diff is just to show WMC was well aware of the probation. ... Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) {{{Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)}}} Additional comments by editor filing complaint Topic ban for a minimum of 48 hours on all articles currently under the probation.(putting this here as in preview this does not appear above in the enforcement section)mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [16] Discussion concerning William M. Connolley Statement by William M. Connolley I'm baffled. What does an edit that happened 11 days ago [17] at Rajendra K. Pachauri made by MN not me have to do with me? (or indeed this [18]? Has MN fouled up his diffs, or am I missing the point?) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Also, I'm missing and an explanation how these edits violate it from MN's diffs. This looks just like pointless disruption on his part William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Fixed the wrong diff, sorry about that. [19] look to the left of that one and you will see your revert. Hope this clears up your confusion. What are you on, old fruit? Your current #3 points to [20], which is an edit by you; and your #4 points to [21] which is an edit by GR. Both of them are antique, and I don't think you'll now be sanctioned for them, but I really can't see *why* you're bringing up your previous poor edits, and those of GR, in a complaint about me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Are you unable to move your head or eyes to the left of your screen? You can clearly see your reverts, two in under 24hrs. I had not realized that ten days made something antique. But lets wait for the admins to decide that one. --mark nutley (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC) If you want anyone to take this seriously, you need to give diffs of *my* edits, not someone else's. Fix them and I'll pay attention. At the moment this bizarre request has two struck out diffs and two meaningless diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Done, however the original diffs did show your reverts so i fail to see how it`s a problem. mark nutley (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Well done, you got there in the end. Why is 2R an intrinsic breach of probation, though? The article isn't under 1RR sanction, and the edits were extensively discussed on the talk page. And this is all ancient history - why are you bothering? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your condescending words. The pachauri article is under 1R is it not? I was brought to book for it at any rate, either way you were edit warring and the discussion on the talk page was most certainly for it`s inclusion. However that is not an argument for here is it. --mark nutley (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC) If you don't want to be condescended to, I suggest you stop making quite so many mistakes. "The pachauri article is under 1R is it not"? Good grief, have we got all this way and you really haven't even bothered to check? The page header gives no hint of a 1RR restriction, neither does Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log#Log_of_sanctions William M. Connolley (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley Unless this article was specifically under 1RR, this is inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I was under the assumption that all the article tagged with the probation were under 1R --mark nutley (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC) You are mistaken. 1RR has to be imposed by an uninvolved admin on an article-by-article basis and logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Log of sanctions. It is not automatically applicable. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Well you're wrong, aren't you, cos if you were right the article probation would say so William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC) No i`m not, it does not say that on the pachauri talk page, just the same article probation notice as everywere else. I have struck those diffs as i appear to have made a mistake. --mark nutley (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Please discuss biosequestration in the preceding section The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Arthur Rubin and WMC have been edit warring and disruptively editing in tandem against Hansen's ideas at Biosequestration Carbon tax and Kyoto Protocol. The discussion pages of these articles have extensive comments in relation to the disruptive editing of both editors. They have removed an entire paragraph of referenced material from biosequestration on the basis that Hansen doesn't use the word 'biosequestration". Instead, as is fully referenced, Hansen's idea is for what he calls 'carbon sequestration' at coal plants. This can only refer to on-site "algal biosequestration" (a policy option for coal plants that Garnaut mentions (referenced and fully discussed in the same section of the biosequestration article) or geosequetration. Despite this being made clear on the discussion page, they continue to delete the whole paragraph. In carbon tax they replaced the phrase 'carbon sequestration' with the unintelligible 'sequestration' at power plants.NimbusWeb (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Could you please clarify the specific nature of your accusations, preferably without going into content issues? For example WMC has made precisely one (1) edit to Kyoto Protocol in the past two months, and two (2) edits to Carbon tax in the past year. That's not much of an edit war. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC) There seems to be no indication of a 1RR restriction on this article. The request appears to be malformed: diffs 1 and 2 show two very different edits by William M. Connolley, diffs 3 and 4 are ten days earlier and showed mark nutley apparently reverting twice within 24 hours, arguably edit warring. As amended after I wrote the above, diff 4 now shows GoRight reverting, and perhaps ironically accusing William of edit warring. Clarification needed, but tacking two edits from 6 and 7 January after two edits from today looks stale. . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I should like to point out that diffs 3 & 4 with regards to me were already dealt with here. And even though it was brought up in that enforcement request WMC was not sanctioned, so no it is not stale. I have been reading up on how to actually do one of these things as i messed up the last one so badly. Is there a time limit on infractions? First and second diffs, my mistake, i assumed all articles under the probation were 1R only. So i will withdraw them now. I'm frankly baffled as to what this complaint is all about. I don't see evidence of a violation, even if we make the assumption that the listed articles are under the 1RR restriction. Furthermore, the disputed text appears to be an obvious piece of synthesis. Since this synthesis relates to a living person, it might also fall under the auspices of WP:BLP; therefore, the reversion of original research pertaining to a living person wouldn't count toward any sort of reversion restriction. Looks more like a case of gaming the system on the part of the reporting editor to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Please discuss biosequestration in the preceding section. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. WMC has the following disruptive edits at Biosequestration all done today in which he is trying to delete an entire paragraph of referenced material: 1# (cur) (prev) 20:42, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (32,194 bytes) (→The importance of plants in storing atmospheric carbon dioxide: rm apparently unjustofied assertion) (undo) 2# (cur) (prev) 20:15, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (32,571 bytes) (rv: clearly no consensus for re-adding this material, which looks off topic. Please discuss on talk first) (undo) 3# (cur) (prev) 19:29, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (32,571 bytes) (→Biosequestration and climate change policy: agreeing with AR - this strays too far off topic - rm) (undo) 4# (cur) (prev) 19:08, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (34,821 bytes) (rv: please don't do this) (undo)203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC) An "entire paragraph" of synthesis, actually. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Claim it is 'synthesis' is a blatant misrepresentation. Direct quotes are referenced and on the discussion page the entire cited paragraph is reproduced for comparison.203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I am missing the "synthesis" too, (perhaps Scjessey could be specific with an excerpt somewhere else); however this request is about a pattern of WMC disruptive reverting in General Sanction articles. A truly productive editor could guide the proposed text (sourced and cited in the diffs) to a meaningful outcome without reverting. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC) WMC also has these two edits today at carbon tax: 1# (cur) (prev) 19:06, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (48,714 bytes) (rv per Talk:Biosequestration#Biosequestration_dispute_on_multiple_articles) (undo) 2# (cur) (prev) 10:54, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (48,714 bytes) (remove incorrect ref to bioseq) (undo).203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC) WMC also has this edit today at Kyoto Protocol: (cur) (prev) 19:05, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) m (116,146 bytes) (Reverted edits by NimbusWeb (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (undo).203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I'm disappointed by the complaint and the response. This is classic battleground behavior. Over the course of a few hours, a content dispute has grown into trench warfare, with no chance of consensus or resolution. Please, everybody, look at LessHeard vanU's warning above, and take it to heart. Drop the attitude and step away, all of you. --TS 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC) What the hell is going on here? why is there a content dispute in the middle of this request? If it keeps up i would ask the whole lot be archived, what a mess. mark nutley (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I have collapsed that portion of the thread above. Please keep the disputes separate. Sanctions are imposed to prevent current disruption to the project of building a free high quality encyclopedia, not as indefinitely enforceable traffic infractions. The section above may contain evidence that a sanction on WMC would be warranted, but at least for now I really like LHvU's idea. Please keep discussion of that issue at the appropriate thread, though. Since there seems to have been some confusion at the outset here, perhaps this thread could be archived with encouragement to MN to prepare a new request? It may be helpful to read Help:Diff for advice in preparing the links in such a way as to facilitate easy review. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks 2/0 but to redo it would seem pointless, it has been pointed out above that using diff`s over ten days old is stale and that I am gaming the system. I actually waited to do this as i was trying to ensure i got it right this time around but still managed to make a mistake :). If the diff`s which show WMC breaking the pachauri probation are not enough or are to old then just strike the lot. mark nutley (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC) I suggest we close this with a general note that multiple reverts aren't an entitlement and the terms of the probation entail an obligation to responsible engagement. The healing of the climate change articles is more important and should be given a higher priority than any one edit. --TS 12:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC) No, I'm not happy with that. the terms of the probation entail an obligation to responsible engagement - of course, we all agree that. But doing so rather suggests that didn't occur in this case. I don't think that's true. I'd accept 'the terms of the probation entail an obligation to responsible engagement (responsible engagement did occur in this case), though that would make your closure odd. Also, MN opened this complaint with Two reverts in under 24 hours in breach of the probation. - I'd like it made clear in the close that this is an error by MN: at the moment, his last edit indicates that he doesn't accept this. As far as I can tell this entire filing is based on an error by MN, and the close should reflect that William M. Connolley (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, Mark did get it ridiculously wrong. Perhaps singling out this case for that proposed concluding statement (which I think is generally true) sends the wrong message. A null close would be okay with me. --TS 12:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC) That will do fine by me William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Yes i did get it wrong, i was under the assumption that the pachuari article was under a 1R restriction as i was reported for breaking it if you recall. I must however disagree with WMC`s statement that responsible engagement did occur in this case as it most certainly did not, look at the diffs and tell me which WP Rule says you can revert well sourced material on "monckton is a wacko"? That is disruptive editing and pushing a POV. I believe WMC should be warned at the least for this. I have no problem with the closing statement saying i has made an error with this case. --mark nutley (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Material on global warming sourced to Monckton or giving any weight to Monckton's opinion on matters of global warming, except on Monckton's own bio or a related article such as "Global warming conspiracy theory" where it can be presented in context, should of course not appear in Wikipedia article--much less the biographies of others. But the place for such discussions is not here. --TS 12:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Result concerning William M. Connolley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Scjessey

No action taken. Misunderstanding of 1RR provision.

I'm worried I'm misinterpreting the rules here, so I figured I'd pull a Hipocrite and lay down the request without using the template. It seems to me that Scjessey violated the 1RR rule with this edit, which reversed three unrelated, recent edits. I'd like the editor to self-revert. --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC) If it helps, you can find a short discussion (prior to this request) of one of the edits Scjessey reverted here: User talk:Heyitspeter#Self-revert.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC) You are misinterpreting the rules. One reversion is one reversion. In fact, per WP:3RR I could've performed the same changes as a series of concurrent reversions if I wanted to, but there was no need. If you had sought consensus before making such controversial changes, a reversion like this would never had been necessary. You must, for example, had been fully aware of the total lack of support for using the word "leaked". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) As Scjessey's edit here demonstrates, he knows that this article is on 1RR restriction. He could not have made the same changes as a series of concurrent revisions. Can I get an outside opinion on whether the edit should be (self-)reverted? Thank you. --Heyitspeter (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC) (In regards to the "leaked" word choice, this isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. I will say that a) I didn't know 'leaked' would be contentious, and b) as an editor you can easily change that word without making a broader revert. I'm still not clear why that wasn't done.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I haven't looked at the diff, but I can tell you absolutely that a single edit can never be a violation of 1RR. As Scjessey correctly notes, even a series of consecutive edits – all reverting – would not violate 1RR if there were no intervening edits; they would be taken together and count as a single revert. A revert is simply any edit which undoes the effect of one or more other edits; it doesn't matter how many intervening edits are undone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Ahh okay cool! Had no idea that was the case.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Talk:Global warming

I am at this point an uninvolved editor on the subject, but at Talk:Global warming there is a massive edit war brewing with several editors removing comments by others, simply because they do not agree with them. User:McSly and User:Kenosis have removed several comments several times. I did reaad the comments, but they have been deleted again. Several comments on differant threads have been hacked using WP:Talk and WP:Forum as their justification. I must point out that the users who are removing the comments seem, to me, to not agree with the other editors' viewpoints anyway. Several other editors are involved in this case and I did warn that I would report the problem here if the deletions did not stop. So here we are.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't vouch for every removal, but talk:global warming has a chronic history of inappropriate content. As the article is under probation perhaps this issue, if it is an issue, should be discussed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. --TS 21:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but since we seem to be hitting several 3RR problems, it may be more sticky than all that.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, here is the comment I removed [22]. It seemed to me to be pretty obviously against the talk pages discussion policies and that's why I removed it. Was I wrong ?--McSly (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is, as TS says, a long history of people using the GW talk page as a venue for discussing GW itself, not for discussing improving the article. And of old arguements being constantly repeated. There is a fun wrinkle in all this: most (though not all) of the ill-disciplined chatter is from skeptics, who would like to butcher the page in various ways (yes, I know, you don't agree, you don't have to, I'm just giving my opinion of course). But they can't, because none of the talk page discussions ever come to any conclusion, becasue they always wander off into the weeds. I even wrote a teensy essay about it: User:William M. Connolley/For me/Musing on the state of wiki.

Meanwhile, how about someone semi's the article talk page? That would help a bit.

@JJH: if someone has hit 3RR then there is a trivial solution: block them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've unwatched that page, due to the tone and tenor of some of the users that regularly edit there. I have noticed frequently that talkpage comments are removed, often -- at least seemingly -- as much because the remover doesn't agree with them as much as anything else. This needs a stop put to it. There's no need to squelch dissent. UnitAnode 21:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not listening. No-one is squelching dissent William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're one of the reasons I quit trying to improve GW articles. And I distinctly remember you and either Kim or Boris removing talkpage comments several times after I'd asked you not to do so. That's the kind of behavior that chases editors away from the articles. It's a problem, and it needs dealt with. UnitAnode 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dissent is being squelched as it has been for years. Either way, talk page comments are indeed being removed by editors who don't agree with them, outside of policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of it is akin to a little kid putting their fingers in their ears and going "La La La La" really loud so they don't have to listen to what is being said.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of these removals are reckless. At one point I was informed that there'd been a local agreement that newspapers would no longer be considered RS. I didn't protest this over-turning of policy but I did request to see the special procedures that were in place, My request was deleted. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. Guettarda (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What for? There's no question it's going on. I've even done it myself, though that was an IP and I moved it to their TalkPage to continue the discussion if they had a point to make and it seems they didn't. There is a slight drizzle of trolling and spam, but that's very easy to deal with.

I recently asked what was the point of the article and whether it was meant to be informative, it sure doesn't look as if it answers anyone's questions (I described the tests I've applied, the article failed them all). The section was archived 8 minutes after the last contribution. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, remember the WP:TRUTH needs no diffs because it is obviously true; actual evidence would be redundant William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is degenerating already. In a last (and, I know, doomed) attempt to drag us back to reality: people seem too have the idea that any removal of talk page comments is outside of policy. This is wrong. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles. Comments that do not do this may be legitimately removed. "Dissent is being squelched" type comments seem to confuse free-speech in the sense of newspapers with comments on wiki, which is unhelpful. My prediction: this discussion, like so many at the GW talk page, will wander off into the weeds uselessly. Hopefully I'm wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"This discussion is degenerating already" and "drag us back to reality" could be taken as personal attacks towards good faith editors. The dissent is being squelched comments are also in good faith following WP:NPOV and have nothing to do with notions of "free speech" as they relate to governments. Your take on talk page comments seems to me, to mean that anything not agreeing with your own PoV on the topic is not an improvement to the article and thus can be removed at the slightest hint of clumsiness. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO SIMPLY STOP USERS MCSLY AND KENOSIS FROM ENDLESSLY REMOVING DISCUSSION FROM THE DISCUSSION PAGE? I am really sorry to use all caps there but it seems incredibly hard to get any clear points across in the utter fog of confusion which seems to be DELIBERATELY sown here. IN the name of God, can we NOT AGAIN HAVE THE COMMENT "THE TALK PAGE IS FOR IMPROVING THE ARTICLE". YES of course the talk page is for improving the article. OF COURSE. OBVIOUSLY. What happens is there is discussion on the talk page, (IE, DISCUSSION ABOUT IMPROVING THE ARTICLE) and McSly / Kenosis simply REMOVE THE DISCUSSION and then slap on the cover-all comment "THE TALK PAGE IS FOR IMPROVING THE ARTICLE". YES, THATS RIGHT, THE TALK PAGE IS FOR IMPROVING THE ARTICLE --- THE STUFF YOU ARE DELETING IS COMMENTARY DIRECTLY ABOUT IMPROVING THE ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It becomes incredibly ridiculous if every single time you remove something (McSly and Kenosis) you just blandly say "oh, the talk page is only for improving the article, that's why we deleted your comments" OVER AND OVER, when you are deleting comments directly about improving the article!!!!!!!!!! Astonishingly you even deleted my comments (and others) ABOUT HOW YOU ARE DELETING COMMENTS which is THUS THE EXPLICIT REASON IT IS MAKING IT VERY HARD TO IMPROV THE ARTICLE!!!!! Can anyone see the irony here?? Can someone just get to the point and simply STOP mcsly and kenosis from endlessly removing ALMOST EVERYTHING from the talk pages???? Also you might want to actually READ MY PROPOSAL about this (which astonishingly - of course - THEY DELETED ... IN TWO INSTANCES WITHIN A FEW ******SECONDS******* OF IT APPEARING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I gabbed about this for ages at User_talk:MalcolmMcDonald#GlobalWarmingAd . For what it's worth I for one am in the category of simply CAN NOT BE BOTHERED ANY MORE as you will see is the only possible outcome any sane person would have, when they suffer this sort of "deletion insanity" from these two administrators (or whatever they are I urge you, someone, anyone to just STOP Mcsly and Kenosis from this endless deletion frenzy. It is nuts. It is weird. It is bizarre. 83.203.210.23 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Try collapsing nonsense comments instead of removing them. And people better be informing the editors on their talk page instead of WP:BITEing them and moving on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't nonsense. It was only clumsy and overlong. Ok to hat it, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant nonsense on the talk page. I collapsed in part for the personal attacks and informed the editor that they need to be discuss things calmly instead of just ranting and raving. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It was unencyclopedic and clumsy (likely unknowing) with the PAs but straightforwardly in good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was nonsense either. This was a reader much like any other, someone who would not be protesting a sensible and worthy article even if they didn't agree with it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just chime in and say I have noticed in the past, not recently, but I haven't looked at the article in question in a while, that the pro-AGW crowd has a tendency to delete others edits, prematurely collapse or archive them, or even edit other people's comments. In fact, one of that group was recently warned by an admin for that sort of behavior (on AN, not GW articles). I suspect that this tactic is usually done against newer editors who are less likely to complain and more likely to get themselves 3rr banned by restoring their own edits. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As I've said many times, that's how it's done. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still chuckling over the irritation and consternation expressed by the regulars at the Reliable Sources noticeboard after some of the GW regulars insisted that newspapers can't be used for GW articles. Actually, I'm glad that that happened, because it can be used forever as an example illustrating some of the kinds of behaviors that occur in Wikipedia.

Anyway, back to this edit war. I believe that in the past Scibaby socks were prone to leaving trolling and unhelpful messages on the GW talk page and I can understand their removal. The problem is that sometimes the removals get too aggressive and end up being bitey to newbies who may not understand what is going on. If it isn't happening already, I suggest that everytime someone removes a comment, that they also politely explain why on the editor's talk page, even it appears to be a Scibaby sock. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Cla, I can't find the RSN discussion which you find so amusing. Could it be the brief comment at WP:RSN#Proposed rule, which seems to propose giving advocacy groups and newspaper op-eds priority over peer reviewed journals? Seems odd, I'd be grateful for a diff of the comments of which you speak. . . dave souza, talk 23:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Those socks are socks, but aren't always what they seem to be. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If comment removal is turning out to be too controversial, then, it might be better not to do it anymore. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's a particularly sharp elbowed tactic when used by long term editors who ought to know better. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also reviewed the complained of actions, and find that they do not comply with WP:TALK and indeed violate WP:TPOC; you do not remove other peoples comments unless they violate policies such as NPA, BLP and the like. I also find that arguing a mechanism by which good faith content related comment may not be removed for a certain time period is also a good faith attempt at improving the article - even if it has or is rejected by the community, that fact should be noted and the comment allowed to stand. Now, I have only been reviewing the edits since the above ip started complaining of the removal of their comments but I think that all parties including the ip have exceeded the 1RR restriction for content that is not vandalism. I shall be blocking McSly (talk · contribs), Kenosis (talk · contribs) and 83.203.210.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 12 hours per the CCP. I would suggest that had comment not been removed under inappropriate reasoning (and WP:TALK is a guideline it should be noted) and simply responded to - or not - then these actions need not have been considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that all parties including the ip have exceeded the 1RR restriction for content that is not vandalism - hold on. Which 1RR restriction would that be? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As far as I can tell, neither global warming not talk: global warming is under a 1RR restriction. The phrase is certainly not mentioned on the talk page, and there is no appropriate entry over at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Um.... that would be the one only I was apparently aware of; my mistake regarding my skimming of the probation page. I acknowledge I am wrong about the specifics, but generally the warning about edit warring - and how 3RR is not an allowance per WP:3RR - indicates that the tolerance for revert wars is lower than most places, and I think my sanctions are in keeping with the purpose of the sanctions. I will correct my rationales at the various editors talkpages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC) I shall not get involved in a discussion over adopting 1RR on GWP pages, since I hope to remain uninvolved for a little while longer.

Also, according to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Notifications, neither Kenosis nor McSly were notified of the probation, let alone warned. Given that strict interpretation of WP:TPG has been the norm for a while (and overall quite helpful) on talk:global warming, I don't think these blocks are appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole thread/section has a strange lack of specifics, and a lot of claims about generalities. How about focusing on one archiving/removal at a time, and then discuss whether or not (in the context of what has been on t:GW) it was archived/removed correctly. That way it would actually be a learning experience instead of mudslinging, which is getting us nowhere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to call any of these comments, of whatever stripe, mudslinging. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is what the above comments best can be described with. Notice that mudslinging here isn't a perjorative, it describes a situation where people aren't listening to each other, and instead throw bald assertions at each other. The assertions may be correct, and one side or the other may be in the right, but it isn't moving forward in any way or form. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't call good faith comments on a talk page mudslinging. This is spot on the fuzzy, overbroad kind of thing that has brought forth these worries to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a lot of mudslinging on that talk page. Personal attacks are often intended quite sincerely and in the deepest of good faith. This doesn't make personal attacks acceptable. --TS 00:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I was actually referring on the above comments. Stating for instance that "dissent is squelched" but not providing any diff's is a bald assertion that cannot be answered by much other than equal assertions. Talking about archiving/removals without any context of a specific thread/case is equally unproductive. We aren't getting anywhere. I would again try to ask for targetted discussions and specific examples, instead of this (yes i'm going to say it again) mudslinging at each other (and there is no specific target applied here, it is quite generic). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to call good faith comments mudslinging either. What I'm seeing is a pattern of when someone makes a general observation, of asking for specifics, and when specifics are brought, each is dismissed as a special case, exception, or the work of an editor in disrepute. The issue here is that there's a general perception of one side trying to control the discussions (which in turn controls the content of the articles). Work on the perception if you want people not to allege grand cabals. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me. An anon ip just deleted another editors comments a few minutes ago. Another block please?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's just one of our resident trolls being a silly sausage. If you block the IP he'll just use another open proxy. --TS 00:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So semi t:GW. It has been often enough in the past William M. Connolley (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi'd it to stop anon antics. Vsmith (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony's protocol

As a result of this discussion with LessHeard vanU I suggest we develop a protocol for editors to follow when they encounter off-topic clutter on talk pages covered by the probation. The idea is that we'd make sure that newcomers who just happen to come to, say, talk:global warming and then post a thread about something they read on a blog would not be bitten, but would be politely informed of the reason why their discussion is inappropriate. People (including regulars) who persisted after warnings would be sanctionable here.

Traditionally such off-topic discussions have been archived in situ, but often they are unarchived for various reasons. Perhaps really egregious unarchiving might be seen as sanctionable. I suppose that could be handled on a case-by-case basis.

As LessHeard vanU says, the important thing is to get people behaving themselves because they want to continue contributing.

In any case, I think everybody should read the thread and then come back here and comment on his proposal. --TS 01:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful idea! As a technical aid, maybe something even simple as a "tag" around the off topic comment and when there are abundant tags among a few eds, then consider the collapse, remove option with consensus. The idea is the tag serves as a simple clean clear warning right in place. It could even link to a more elaborate guideline or policy reminder. (Yes, tag wars would be eminent, but then maybe even that discussion could be put to another place.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Found it ... a variation on these Template:Off-topic-inline, Template:Off-topic? for talk pages that would point to WP:TPG. The existing article tags maybe ok to start. Comments? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Note, I took this proposal for additional comment [23] here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A tag is better than removal. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Template's done. I called it "Template:Inappropriate under talk page guideline", little long, but it's self-explanatory in the wikicode. If you want to adjust the message or update the documentation, feel free, if you don't know how, just post it here and I'll add it in. There are five actions:

1. "remove", comment won't display, but still will be searchable.
2. "collapse" collapsed, floated right, header is grayed out so it would be less intrusive.
3. "tag over", prints "Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines." followed by an optional reason on top of the comment. Background is 10% transparent so you can still see what's under it.
4. "tag", prints "^{[Inappropriate WP:TPG]}" followed by an optional reason.
5. "no action", doesn't do anything, except in the wikicode.

Error messages will print if you forget "action" or "comment". "reason" is optional. Examples are in the documentation. ChyranandChloe (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Seems really powerful, I pray for it's appropriate wp:civil purpose and application. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

well, do as you like, but I will most certainly ignore any such warnings when and where I feel it is warranted. Most of the time I see arguments archived in this way (and when I archive them myself, which I have done) it's a way to end a conversation which is spiraling down the hole; this is a good thing. but too often I see conversations archived as a tendentious way of shutting up editors (I assume as a means of enforcing page ownership) and I never put up with that. just an FYI, because I'm suspicious of this move on this page; I'll be keeping my eye on the applications of this template to make sure that it isn't abused. --Ludwigs2 10:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Grateful though we all must be for making new tags available, I must question why this discussion is going on at "Requests for enforcement".

It is off-topic and should be removed forthwith. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What LessHeard VanU suggested--and it is well within the WP:TALK guideline too--is that off-topic material should be promptly moved to an archive page and the originator notified that this is not the purpose for which the talk page exists. Accordingly I have removed an off-topic item from talk:global warming [24], archived it [25], and notified the originator.[26] I hope we can move towards more orderly use of the talk space. Needless to say, any edit warring over such archiving will probably end badly for all participants. Please raise issues arising from inappropriate archiving or unarchiving on this page. --TS 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the idea that off-topic material should be removed (archive if you must, who cares, it is all in the history and no-one bothers with the archives). But you should note that this is directly contradicted by LHVU's second rationale for his block of K, which was that *any* removal (other than, one presumes, orderly archiving) of not-clearly-vandalism was blockable. So since people are being randomly blocked for failing to follow non-disclosed rules, I think you need to make the rules very clear. If the rules are "only material deemed archivable by TS or LHVU maybe archived early", then clearly state that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor sanity

It is good to see that off-topic cruft is finally being removed [27]. This is exactly what we've been asking for for ages, over the screams of "censorship" and "suppression of dissent" from the ignorant. Its also what poor K has got blocked for doing; apparently what is "egregious edit warring" one day becomes highly laudable behaviour the next William M. Connolley (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mind you, TS had better watch out. According to LHVU's personal rules, which he doesn't seem to worry about enforcing willy-nilly, TS's edit was against policy and presumably a blockable offence [28] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that, in common with WP:TPOC, LessHeard VanU draws a distinction between archiving, hiding, collapsing, userfying, etc, and outright removal. See my full description of the archiving in the section immediately above. --TS 13:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I will be much more impressed when the removed/archived/compressed material does not always involve posts that are contrary to TS and Connelley's agenda-pushing, and I take exception to Connelley's claim that people who are willing to listen to evidence against AGW, rather than accept it as holy writ, are "ignorant." 69.165.159.245 (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To repeat what I said at your talk page:

Your comment was archived because it wasn't about improving the article. The fact that most such disruptive material is added by people who imagine themselves to be climate sceptics does tend to make it look as if one view is being censored, but if you look at the page you will see that climate sceptics are vastly overrepresented in the comments there.

--TS 14:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC your comments are not helpful. Perhaps you're part of the problem rather than the solution? ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look in a mirror William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your frustration, I really don't see the need for you to be so acerbic all the time. I very much sympathize with your general position within this topic, but Lar's point is quite legitimate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You think the block of K was good? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My above comment was specifically addressing concerns I have about your recent civility, and was intended as a subtle warning from a sympathetic editor. I have not been involved in this discussion, or the events that preceded it; however, after a cursory review of what went on I would have to say that the block of Kenosis (if that is the one you are referring to) did not seem appropriate to me. I do not see any evidence of fair warning about the probation, although I suppose I could be mistaken (it was a very quick review, after all). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. And how does my civility stack up in the great scales of justice against the person who blocked K, and the person who defended that block on the grounds that K had indulged in "egregious edit warring"? Why are you commenting on my tone, when you ignore these very real offences elsewhere? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Because I noticed it, and I know that you are quite capable of rising above all that sort of thing. Two wrongs... -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, you are right William M. Connolley (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The damage to Wikipedia:

I think people should look at this Google thread to see how many people believe Wikipedia has been hijacked by realclimate.org: http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1ACAWCENCA362&q=wikipedia+climate+change+propaganda&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=

Oh yes, we're really going to pay attention to the opinions of www.taxpayer.com, Frank Luntz, climategate.com, climatechangefraud.com and a whole pile of other fools William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If any of the above are quoted in reliable, third party sources then "Yes". If not, "No". There is no suspension of proper Wikipedia practice regarding WP:RS, along with all the other relevant policies (including WP:NPA). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Our anon is not proposing any changes to any articles, so WP:RS is irrelevant. The anon is proposing that we modify our discussion based on what other people think of us. Since the sources that the anons link throws up are all obviously unusable, the anons point fails on its own terms, let alone any others William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There's already a wiki that caters to the likes of those people. Perhaps they should be directed towards Conservapedia? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(resp to WMC) If that is what the anon is going on about, then fine - we answered them; we stay with the consensus now existing. We can say that without evidencing our opinions upon the validity of the sources provided by the anon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ChyranandChloe's protocol

WP:TPG encourages "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." Now, if WMC or MalcolmMcDonald posted a rant like this, we'd take him right up to ANI. Newcomers are naive. Tony said we should develop a protocol, a way of dealing with newcomers without biting them. I think this is just saving the remove until they're informed and warned. Because to remove a comment without, they're likely to conclude, however unjust, that this is censorship.

This is for individual comments:

1. Ask. tag over their comment, and ask them on their user talk to be more constructive.
2. Admonish. collapse their comment, warn them on their user talk.
3. Abolish. If they duplicate a post, it's vandalism, repeating characters, revert. If it's something new, but still trolling or a PA, collapse and ignore. If edit war, block.

This is for threads:

1. Ask. State that the thread is unconstructive and ask the proposer to discuss an edit to the article.
2. Admonish. Tag the thread as unconstructive and warn the proposer on user talk to discuss an edit to the article.
3. Abolish. Archive, collapse, or remove as we've done before. If it's disputed, take it to WP:AN or here, article talk is not for meta-discussion.

TPG encourages remove, but some of you guys don't like that, especially when we get a round in circles discussion. LessHeard said remove should only be used on "NPA, BLP, and the like." I think this can be agreed upon. Roung in circles? I think this is where the discussion would be. What do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, removing should be a later stage option (for disruption) and tagging an earlier one. We must consider this too Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages ... what is important for civility is maintaining good faith and remember some infractions can be easily corrected and the Template can be removed. (Like when PA can be redacted or when the offender self-removes the distraction by being made aware.) In addition, what I notice about the tool, is that it seems simple to extend the initial tag to a whole thread by moving the close code, when things get really out of control. Appreciate your work. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I'd prefer if there was some option to partially refactor and refocus. My concern here (well-justified by what I've seen) is that some thread will have a potentially useful core idea that gets hijacked by a lot of cross-talk, and then the entire thread gets archived, leaving the person who started the thread feeling abused. ham-handed removals like that do more to promote conspiratorial talk than just about anything I can think of. --Ludwigs2 22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Zulupapa, you got to realize that most threads don't start with good faith, especially when it begins along the lines "IPCC fun and games"[29] or a commentary about how the editors are jokes.[30] Discussion is a covenant often broken before we begin, and there isn't much we can do. This is why the first step is ask, people don't like being told what to do, and it is inherently their decision. Ask them in order to remind good faith.

Ludwigs2, hijacked? Yes, I know what you mean. Too often. But refactoring isn't a silver bullet, use for "personal attacks, trolling and vandalism" under WP:TPG. Round in circles I don't think will be solved by tag your it, or a collapse-a-ton. I often want to blame the person's bad writing, or some people for raising PoV (all the time) and filling our heads with straw on some Amazon, rain-forest, or flames. I told the person that he was siding, that it was unwise tie up his comments like that, and most importantly to restart the thread with a clearer proposal. I think the person blew me off.[31] When a thread gets off-topic and I care about it, I being my comment "My central point is... address this point." And if they fail to do so, I keep my comment short and say "You are not addressing my central point." When the person can put your central argument in their own words, that's when you know they're listening, and you're in an actual discussion. I don't know if I've answered your question on this one Ludwigs2, I'm sorry, feel free to blow it off and ask again. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri

• Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

The article in question is protected due to BLP concerns, but a feeding frenzy continues on talk. I would appreciate it if uninvolved admins would take a look at the talk page and ensure that the BLP is being complied with fully. --TS 16:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything terrible - some people are attempting to conflate the head of an organisation for the body, and that is being resisted. The claims that a mistake was made by the group are acknowledged, and so claims that the individual is responsible for the mistake is a simple case of misunderstanding. Of possible concern is that there what may be an attempt to have the acknowledged mistake noted in more articles than those properly relevant, but it isn't one that has been advanced on the talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)