User talk:Cwmacdougall

ARBCC

Hi, Per WP:DISRUPT, failure to answer simple direct questions is indicative of disruptive editing, and that is something which is expressly prohibited by the arbitrators. In the arbs' WP:ARBCC ruling, they placed all climate articles "broadly construed" under discretionary sanctions. This edit of yours just repeats your earlier naked assertion that there is a dispute. Will you please, at the article talk page, tell us the substance of the dispute and the reliable sources on which you base your reasoning? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you make such an accusation of disruptive editing? An editor tried to suppress discussion on a talk page by collapsing the discussion on false premises. I rightly pointed this out! And if you want to continue this discussion, do so on the article talk page. cwmacdougall 1:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

NewsGuy deleted from his talk page the following, as is his right, so I will repost here:

Regarding your ridiculous unfounded complaint about me, on Christmas Morning you asked for sources. I provided them on Boxing day. I don't think your complaint has a leg to stand on, especially as we are discussing my "I agree" comment on the Talk page, not the article itself, and moreover a comment which was mainly complaining of your collapsing of the article on false grounds. Re my complaint about you, the note on your talk page is a warning, and I understand we are supposed to warn, and give an opportunity for reform, before filing formal complaints. cwmacdougall 14:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

Your recent editing history at Global warming shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — TPX

Recently we had an EW at a climate page article, and in the Monday morning debrief some who probably know more than me about enforcement issues said the proper forum for an article under discretionary sanctions under an Arb ruling would be at WP:Arbitration enforcement. Beats me which is the preferred venue, but this user already knows about ARBCC so notice shouldn't be an issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TPX thinks I'm involved in an edit war? How do I prove POV and insert a POV tag, except as I've done it? The edit warriors are those like NewsAndEventsGuy refusing to engage on the talk page, even deleting and hiding contrary views... cwmacdougall 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a good idea to reboot the conversation, raising concerns individually, so editors can fully address them in a manner you find satisfactory. Begin by highlighting all references you say are substandard and can be improved, and proceed from there. Once the issue has been sorted, you can move to the next problem. — TPX 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I think I agree that rebooting, with a short summary of my position would make sense. I propose doing that when I have time to revisit the issue. cwmacdougall 13:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Climate change. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Please note: this template is given in an advisory capacity and does not necessarily imply wrongdoing or continued wrongdoing. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting discussion on Talk:Global warming

The assertions of a criminal conspiracy that is being managed sounds much like the language currently working its way thru the courts with respect to one of the specific players in the CRU email flap, Michael Mann. For example, you can read excerpts of a recent District of Washington court decision for yourself. It is OK for us to cite a reliable source that says "so-and-so insists there was a criminal conspiracy" and we have articles for that such as Global warming conspiracy theory and Climatic Research Unit email controversy.

Your restoration of the RS-free text makes you the adopted parent of those claims there is a "criminal conspiracy" is being "managed". Read the court case. It's libel/defamation of the scientists involved. But of course [{WP:TALK]] also allows the deletion of harmful attack posts and SOAP like most new RS-free new threads such as that one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of a talk page discussion is simply outrageous, yet another example of your blatantly biased editing; are we not allowed to discuss Climategate on the Talk page? As for the "libel", it can't be libel if there is no named individual, and if it was it would be sufficient to delete the word criminal. And you are being libellous in suggesting I have libelled anyone. cwmacdougall 13:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The deletion was completely within policy (WP:TALK item #3,4 and 5). And Yes - We are not allowed to discuss "Climategate" on the talk-page unless specific text is proposed for the article. (see WP:FORUM) - nothing of the kind was done in that posting/thread, it was entirely polemic, which is against policy (see WP:SOAP). And at the abstraction level of the global warming article, a minor thing such as "climategate" is simply off-topic, specific article proposals or discussions on content should be on our article on the topic Climatic Research Unit email controversy. --Kim D. Petersen 13:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where in WP:TALK this kind of bulk deletion is permitted, on the contrary it appears prohibited: "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". I have never seen such blatantly biased editing, suppressing live discussions, in Wikipedia before. cwmacdougall 15:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:TPO item #3,4 and 5 - for the 3 pertinent reasons for removal. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion. You may want to read through WP:NOT in general, to figure out what is, and what isn't, allowed here. --Kim D. Petersen 16:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Item 3 is about "User talk pages", so not relevant. 4 and 5 even less so. Of course it's not for discussion in general, but the Article Talk pages are there to discuss what should be done on the article. If you bias those discussions by excluding views you don't like, and you bias the article. Conduct affects content. cwmacdougall 16:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

WP:3RR at Talk:Global warming

Please revert your latest edit[1] on Talk:Global warming as you have passed WP:3RR [2][3][4][5] - you are in clear breach here. --Kim D. Petersen 17:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have violated the 3RR rule, but in any case the edits I was reverting were in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. There is no excuse for hiding or deleting live Talk page discussions. cwmacdougall 23:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwmacdougall. Thank you.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Global warming. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 06:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cwmacdougall (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was reverting Obvious Vandalism on the article Talk page, as is permitted under exemption 4 of the [3R Rule]. A new editor's comment was first deleted, then hidden, meeting the definition of [Talk Page Vandalism]: "Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments". This was done even after I removed the only conceivably libellous word from his comment. cwmacdougall 08:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Obvious vandalism? Nonsense. Evidently you disagree with the editors whose edits you reverted, but to suggest that those edits were intended as vandalism is absurd. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Cwmacdougall (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why absurd? You think deleting comments from the Talk page is not vandalism, contrary to the definition on [Talk Page Vandalism]? As to intentions, the editors concerned have a history of deleting talk page comments they disagree with, which rather suggests biased intent. I don't necessarily disagree with the editors; I disagree with their suppressing talk page comments they don't like. cwmacdougall 13:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Why absurd?  You think deleting comments from the Talk page is not vandalism, contrary to the definition on [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Talk_page_vandalism Talk Page Vandalism]]? As to intentions, the editors concerned have a history of deleting talk page comments they disagree with, which rather suggests biased intent.  I don't necessarily disagree with the editors; I disagree with their suppressing talk page comments they don't like. cwmacdougall 13:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Why absurd?  You think deleting comments from the Talk page is not vandalism, contrary to the definition on [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Talk_page_vandalism Talk Page Vandalism]]? As to intentions, the editors concerned have a history of deleting talk page comments they disagree with, which rather suggests biased intent.  I don't necessarily disagree with the editors; I disagree with their suppressing talk page comments they don't like. cwmacdougall 13:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Why absurd?  You think deleting comments from the Talk page is not vandalism, contrary to the definition on [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Talk_page_vandalism Talk Page Vandalism]]? As to intentions, the editors concerned have a history of deleting talk page comments they disagree with, which rather suggests biased intent.  I don't necessarily disagree with the editors; I disagree with their suppressing talk page comments they don't like. cwmacdougall 13:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

.

Arbitration enforcement page ban: Climate change

I read the complaint made against you at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, but I was not able to act on it before another administrator blocked you and closed the thread.

Based on the evidence offered in the complaint, I conclude that you engaged in disruptive conduct as described in the complaint. In brief, if you have neutrality concerns about an article, you should make specific and actionable suggestions about how to improve it, and seek consensus for these. Making broad allegations of bias, and edit-warring to add a "POV" tag to the article, or seeking to prolong unproductive, similarly broad discussions, is not a mode of conduct that can help improve the article.

Based on your response to the complaint, and your facetious claims, above, that you reverted vandalism, I further conclude that you still do not understand or are not willing to comply with Wikipedia's conduct rules as applied to the article Global warming. Consequently, in addition to the block, and to prevent further similar disruption:

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from editing the article "Global warming" and its talk page.

You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) provided above.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions and the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 14:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]