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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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).

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)

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).

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)

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)