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.

---

Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets

Following discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Scibaby and enablers, this section is established to list active suspected Scibaby sockpuppets. This list is merely a courtesy to other editors active in this topic area, and does not replace Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. Please remove accounts that have been blocked or were listed in error. Accounts listed here are probably sockpuppets of a banned user, and may be reverted on sight. Any editor in good standing may "adopt" an edit that in his or her considered opinion improves an article, subject to common editing norms. The utmost care should be exercised to avoid listing accounts in error, and any mistakes should be promptly recognized and rectified.

99.141.*

Someone please take a look at the recent edits of 99.141.241.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Talk:Hockey stick controversy and my talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

2over0 has blocked the ip for a week regarding personal attacks and harassment - personally I would have emphasised the BLP concerns over pa's, but there was certainly harassment of any editor who was not behind their viewpoint. Anyhoo, unless there is a block overturn I think this can be marked as resolved and archived in due course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fine with me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming (2)

closed as wrong venue as stands without prejudice on some or all issues being raised elsewhere or here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning FellGleaming 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 User claims that this source states "the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were." After I challenge this, he invites me to "click on the link" After a further challenge, points out that "It says the largest problem is mental health...", which was not the claim. FellGleaming then repeats the mischaracterization of the source. After my warning, below, then accuses me of making a personal attack, at which point I give up and come here. Diffs of prior warnings Warning by John (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) 48 hour block to prevent further disruption Additional comments This and this should also be read. Clear what this user is doing, at least to me. --John (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning FellGleaming Comments by others about the request concerning FellGleaming If every time us AGW editors get in an argument with each other on article and/or user talk pages we bring a complaint here, then complaints such as this one will start appearing in this forum every 15 minutes or so. If you feel that FellGleaming committed a personal attack on you or someone else, then say so. Otherwise, get over the fact that you and he disagree on the interpretation of what a source is saying and move on. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the advice. My concern is that right after being told not to misrepresent sources, the user is misrepresenting sources again. I have no concern over personal attacks at all; that was FG's smokescreen against two users who challenged him. Hope that makes it clearer. --John (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Cla68--Not sure where you were coming from. Where do you see that as John's complaint? All I ever saw was John question FG's misrepresentation of sources, and FG respond by accusing John of making a personal attack (though that characterization confused me as well).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Note that FG is removing content and giving specious reasons, such as this edit [1] where he removed material cited to a Guardian enviroblog, written under the aegis of the Guardian's own Environment Editor, no less, and concerning an actual interview conducted with the subject by this editor. He's also making highly contentious edits, like this one [2], in which he appends "Al-Gore trained" to a person's name in a BLP. I think this editor needs a topic ban. ► RATEL ◄ 05:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC) It's ok to remove negative information from a BLP if an editor feels that it isn't sourced adequately. As for the DeSmogBlog edit, here's the exact quote from the source, "James Hoggan has been trained by Al Gore as part of The Climate Project, an initiative designed to educate the public about climate change". I was going to remove the edit when I had a chance, but I don't think it is a violation of any policy, just not necessary to say. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC) It's not quite a touchy feely as Cla68 suggests. It's not ok to remove negative information from a blp if an editor "feels" that it isn't sourced adequately. Where are you getting that from? There has to be a legitimate concern; one can't simply scream BLP if your concern isn't facially legitimate. Nor can you go around deleting all negative references of your favorite person, just because you don't like it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Appending "Al-Gore (sic) trained" to someone's name in their biog. page, apropos of nothing, is clearly an attempt to denigrate the person, since everyone knows the "Al-Gore" tag is like a red flag to a bull to the lumpenproletariat. And on the sourcing issue, the sourcing is fine. He never made any attempt to discuss it before deleting the (long-standing) paragraph with the comment on the talk page that this factual material is being used to "impugn" the subject. ► RATEL ◄ 06:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC) "it...is clearly an attempt to denigrate the person" -- If you had clicked on the source, you would see that Hoggan has appended that very same text to his own bio. I quoted directly from his bio. Is Hoggan trying to denigrate himself? Fell Gleaming(talk) 06:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Hmmm - now it may just be me - but is "Al-Gore" the same as "Al Gore"? From what i can tell, "Al-Gore" is a specific way to write Gore's name that is chosen to denigrate. At least i've never seen that way of writing outside of the "Gore is fat.." type of discourses. And if i click the source - then i can't find "Al-Gore" mentioned anywhere, but i do find "James Hoggan has been trained by Al Gore as part of The Climate Project, an initiative designed to educate the public about climate change." This may be an interesting information regarding Hoggan in some section describing him, but to use "the "Al-Gore trained" Hoggan expresses ..."[3] in a paragraph that has nothing to do with education or Al Gore, seems to be rather blatant POV pushing. Tsk tsk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Ratel, I think this is piling on and quite inappropriate. Nothing you have mentioned here relates to this complaint. If you think there's evidence for a separate complaint against FellGleaming, you should raise it separately, rather than hijack this one IMHO. Thparkth (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC) The article in question is very obviously not covered by the climate change probation, so this is academic. Even if it was, this complaint would still be extremely weak. In fact having read all of the presented diffs and the context, I don't see any actual substance to the complaint at all. Two editors disagreed on a talk page about the interpretation of a source? If someone "formally cautioned" me for disagreeing with their opinion on such a matter, I'd probably take it as a personal attack too. There is nothing here. Given the egregious inappropriateness of this complaint on every level, it needs to be closed and the complainant admonished. Thparkth (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Well, if you were to, you would be wrong as well. (N.B.--this is not a personal attack).--Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Statements by Fell Gleaming John has brought up two incidents. I will address the second one first, as it is most clear cut. I removed from a BLP a derogatory claim that was sourced to a blog, and in my edit, described it as "blogs as sources". Brigade Harvester immediately visited my talk, with the message "Please Stop Misrepresenting Sources" [4]. I pointed out that there was not only one blog in the claim, but two. SBHB subsequently admitted they were indeed blogs (see here: [5] ) but began quibbling over whether they were reliable enough to be used. I then visited SBHB's talk page, with a polite request for him to AGF and to self-revert his allegation. He responded aggressively, asking me which one of us should "take this to the enforcement board". (See: [6]) I am unsure what exactly he intended to ask for enforcement for, however, since he already admitted the sources were indeed blogs. How can I be sanctioned for calling a blog a blog? Incident Two. John, seeing SBHB's allegation on my page, made the same claim right below it, using extremely aggressive language such as "this won't be tolerated" (see here: [7]). His complaint was not over any edit I had made, but simply a statement I made on an article's talk page, in reference to a previous statement about the seriousness of Chernobyl. John's complaint seems unfounded on two separate grounds. First, regardless of whether or not he believes I summarized the source accurately, this is what a talk page is for. To lay out a controversial position before it becomes part of an article. If you state something in error, it doesn't hurt the entry. Nor (in this case) did I even have any intention of using anything from that article in the entry, and John knew that. This was part of a tangential discussion on whether or not the entry should be renamed. John's complaint thus seems to not be made in any spirit of improving the entry, but simply to "spite me" for our disagreement in opinion. Secondly, I don't believe my statement was in any way incorrect (though admittedly being on talk page, I used more dramatic language than I would have in editing an actual entry). My statement is above. The NYT article said: Indeed, the report concludes, "The largest public health problem unleashed by the accident" is "the mental health impact." Residents of the region, who view themselves as victims of a tragedy they poorly understand, are still beset by anxiety that has prevented them from restarting their lives. "People have developed a paralyzing fatalism because they think they are at much higher risk than they are ... "Early on there were all sorts of claims being made ..." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/world/europe/05iht-nuke.html The article states (a) the problem is "mental health impact", quantifying it as anxiety. It further states it was due to "fatalism" from "all sorts of claims being made". It further states (not quoted above), that victims should be provided "with realistic information about the minimal risks they face.". I summarized that as ""the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were." I think that's a wholly accurate statement -- though again, had I been writing this in an entry, rather than a talk page, I would have used much more restrained language. Other editors might disagree with my synopsis, but I respectfully submit that is a difference of opinion, and cannot be construed a statement of fact. I pointed the above out to John and asked him to admit there was no misrepresentation. John again responded aggressively, threatening enforcement action (see here: [8]). Finally, I note that, since I began writing this entry, some other claims have been made that have nothing to do with the original sanction I am accused of violating. I will defend myself against those if an admin feels its necessary, but I believe that, for clarity if nothing else, those should be brought up in a separate issue. Fell Gleaming(talk) 06:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Comment By Mark Nutley This article is not within the CC enforcement area, this request should be chucked out mark nutley (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Wholeheartedly second this Polargeo (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I don't see the warning as limited to any area. Rather, it states -- without area limitations -- that FellGleaming is warned to exercise basic due diligence in reviewing the content of sources before making assertions about them. He is warned to be scrupulous in his representation of sources and his use of purported quotes from them. He is further required to respond directly to the substance of future concerns about his use of sources and quotations and avoid aggressive posturing." And that is a good thing, as the problem appears to be broader than any area. When we wish to limit a sanction to a specific area, we state that, as can be seen in many warnings that all experienced editors have no doubt seen.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Per Epeefleche, I brought this complaint and request for enforcement on the common-sense basis that this problem user was warned to raise his game regarding misrepresentation of sources, and by implication this would cover the entire project, not just one area of it. Are we really to give FG the impression that it is ok to misrepresent sources, so long as it isn't on an area deemed to be directly concerned with climate change, rather than peripherally, as in the Chernobyl case? Come on! --John (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC) John, your claim of "misrepresenting sources" rests on your inability to interpret one clearly written NY Times article. I understand you're upset over an opinion disagreement with me, but the text in this case is crystal clear. Fell Gleaming(talk) 22:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you for demonstrating again why I believe a block and a topic ban will be the only way to deal with you, FG. I am not in the least bit upset, but neither will I stand back and allow you to continue as you have done, as that would not be in the best interests of building our project. That you continue to maintain your view of the sources ("Crystal clear"? Really?) and that you continue to conflate content (and your dishonest treatment of sources) with user conduct, merely underlines the very real reasons for my concern with your continuing to edit any article on which you have a strong point of view. --John (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC) ?Applicability Not sure this is climate change. Anyway I have to recuse because I work for a charity which is too involved in Belarus post Chernnobyl [9], but a general issue with the topic certainly exists with a very strong political pressure to paint a particular picture (downplaying the radiation impact, at least from our perspective) so I can see the problem on getting reliable sources which do not have secondary distortion to them. --BozMo talk 06:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Absolutely not applicable. I am not a fan of FGs edits in any way but please throw this out instantly. I will strongly resist widening of the remit of CC probation/sanctions because the initial debate was not even advertised properly within the area in which these sanctions are being applied. As an active editor on certain CC articles to which the probation applies to I was not even aware of the discussion until TS started slapping the tags on talkpages. Look back at the intial debate. Seems only the absolute CC inner core and wikipedia hacks had any say and now this is called community consensus. I would laugh out loud if it wasn't so ridiculous and wasn't being policed by certain individuals who are so two faced they rival the god Janus. Polargeo (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I agree this request isn't applicable, although I too have problems with FG's edits (most recently the WP:ICANTHEARYOU stuff at Talk:Effects of global warming on Australia). Whilst admins who have taken an interest in FG's behaviour here might wish to consider this request under the general admins-can-do-what-they-like rules, this probation should not be involved William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Agree with the above, the article in question isn't in the probation area. The question that this request raises, is whether the general admonishing in the previous sanction is applicable in general, or whether it is specifically limited to the probation area. Ie. is FG under warning not to misrepresent sources in general or in this area. I too have to mirror polargeo and WMC above, that i find FG's conduct in general problematic ([10](please check page-log around this section)[11]), and his misrepresentation (or misunderstandings) of sources, and subsequent attitude when this is pointed out, as more than worrisome[12][13][14]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Yes there are plenty of grounds, as KDP has outlined, on which to sanction FG within the CC area without setting the precedent of taking into account any of his problematic edits outside of the area. However, punitve blocks are not the answer. The only sort of sanction that would be useful is to allow other editors the freedom to tidy up after him (as used to be to case) without facing any sanctions themselves for not discussing exhaustively why they are having to tidy up the edits with FellGleeming himself (a certain humorous essay comes to mind) and that isn't going to happen :) Polargeo (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Do you really think it's appropriate for other people to "clean up" FellGleaming's statements of his own opinion on a talk page? Because there's not a single edit in article space referenced in this complaint. Thparkth (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC) You are wrong. Polargeo (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your helpful comment. I would appreciate it if you could point out my error though. Thparkth (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC) At the time I made my initial comment you were wrong anyway. Sorry I hadn't realised the info had been removed pending a proper RfE [15]. Sorry again. Oh and further many of KDP's links (just above) to talkspace are actually to threads about edits FG has made to article space this edit. Polargeo (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Obviously this is only my opinion, but I don't regard issues raised by third parties in the "comments" section of enforcement requests as being part of the request itself. They might add extra weight to a complaint, or mitigate it, but they can't turn an invalid enforcement request into a valid one. Thparkth (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC) You are completely correct. I myself requested that this enforcement request be thrown out. Polargeo (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC) To keep everybody happy, and to keep the probation from appearing to overstep its terms of reference, I suggest that this request be closed and if any relevant issues remain a new request within the sanction area can be opened. I would add that while I agree that the probation should focus exclusively on conduct within the probation's scope, cases that seem to evidence problematic behavior of much broader scope may influence the types of remedy that can reasonably be considered. It would be pointless to craft a remedy that simply resulted in the refocusing of problem editing on other articles. Tasty monster (=TS ) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I agree with Tony; the edits do not concern CC article related pages. If someone were to start a RfC or other form of dispute or behaviour resolution then it would be appropriate to link to previous Probation enforcement pages or other examples of concern within CC article related space. I would be inclined to dismiss this claim, although it seems that there is some substance to SBHB's further allegations so I will see if there is any way forward. I would also prefer if some of the other admins would comment before making a definitive statement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris Please don't close this quite yet. FG's interaction with me, briefly alluded to above, was on the Ian Plimer article which definitely falls within the probation area. He not only misrepresented a source (the U.S. Geological Survey web site is a blog?) but also spun my words to mean something that I did not say, which is a continuation of the "aggressive posturing" for which he has been warned. There are other examples of his misrepresenting sources following the closure of the last enforcement request involving him; see e.g., this exchange. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC) There has been a lot of relevant information removed [16]. Please put together a new request as TS has stated. I know it is a hassle but it will be a lot cleaner and mean the sanctions are not overstepping their remit. Polargeo (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I will follow Polargeo's good advice not to mix up the two issues. Consider my request above withdrawn. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC) There is at least one open question here, and that is whether a general warning given here carries over into the rest of the project. We have at least one other case where this is (or at least have been shown to be) the case (WMC+civility+users' own talkpage). Personally i believe that such is the case, as it is comparable to any admin (outside or inside the probation area) giving warning with ultimatum- that is fully within the remit of wikipedia admins (subject to later examination of course). A ban/block is also within the remit of this area, and that certainly affects the rest of the project. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC) The trouble with this enforcement request is that it was initiated on an article that is outside of CC sanctions and I believe should remain outside of sanctions. It is a bad precedent to change this and just because something may have been done before this is not the time to reinforce incorrect procedure. KDP and SBHB could put together a much better request than this that is likely to be actioned and will in the end be stronger. Polargeo (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Per Polargeo, I also consider the initial report falls outside of the Probation enforcement area remit - these further allegations might form part of a subsequent enforcement request, if it is the consensus to close this one procedurally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Off-topic banter aka. General comments on how unfair WP and enforcement is, when WMC isn't banned yet The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. If removal of sections based on disagreements about sourcing is actionable, then should I open a request for this removal? This removal of sourced text doesn't even have the BLP defense that FG can claim for the Plimer removal. ATren (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I suppose it is too much to expect you to bother read the talk page for that article? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Is it at all possible for you ATren, not to bring up some WMC thing everytime there is an enforcement request? I think we have gotten the message that you don't like WMC. And that you will persist until he gets banned. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Or, perhaps, until he learns to collaborate with people who disagree with him... ATren (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Maybe we should get a new section in the template: "General comments on how unfair WP is, since WMC isn't banned yet for worse than this" - it would certainly reduce the amount of content in the other sections *sigh* --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by SPhilbrick I can't believe we are wasting our time with this nonsense. Let's close this and move on to some more serious.--SPhilbrickT 17:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning FellGleaming This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Hipocrite

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

Request concerning Hipocrite

User requesting enforcement

Nsaa (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hipocrite (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. 2010-04-25T18:38:31 Hipocrite (→Reception: Rm some guys blog). This is an disputed area (I even give a strong hint on participate in the discussion in the previous edit 2010-04-25T18:35:02 Nsaa (Please discuss this removal on the discussion page and make a rationale for the removal Bret Swanson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#rv_why)), discussed at [17]. It may be the case that this is not something we should write about, but just reverting others contributions like this is not Cooperative. And with a second revert in 24h the user is not following the probation rules [18]
2. 2010-04-24T22:21:21 Hipocrite (→Reception: Some guy on his blog not notable (not RS)) First removal of the same paragraph (just to verify 24h break of rule.
3. 2010-04-25T11:33:14 Hipocrite (→NPOV tag: Wifebeater!) Personal attack ... calls another user Wife beater
4. 2010-04-25T12:44:11 Hipocrite (→Violation of WP:SYN: When you assume). Personal attack again.
5. 2010-04-13T16:25:29 Hipocrite (→Talkback: Fuck talkback) Extremely bad language.
6. 2010-04-25T00:02:38 (→Climatic Research Unit emails: It's like you're all functionally unable to write for the enemy. Perhaps you should all go edit other articles until you learn how.) Battleground mentality
7. 2010-04-22T20:51:16 Hipocrite (actually, rv to me - added text has nothing to do with this book) removes most of the background section from here, no actual reason given
8. 2010-04-16T19:20:27 Hipocrite (→Request: dick) Personal attack – Calls another user Di*k

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

1. [19] Warning by nsaa (talk · contribs)

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

whatever the community decide

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It may also be wise to take a look at this User_talk:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris#What_do_you_claim.3F.

@2010-04-25T20:54:01 LessHeard vanU: As far as I see the article is under probation per this edit first edit on the talk page at 2010-04-03T10:28:17 so the 1RR restriction applies. Nsaa (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2010-04-25T19:45:24 Nsaa (→Requests_for_enforcement: new section)

Discussion concerning Hipocrite

Statement by Hipocrite

I eagerly await my vindication. Some guys blog is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, perhaps the fact that Nsaa is not fluent in English has led to his regretful lack of understanding about what "when you assume you make an ass (out of you and me!)" and "have you stopped beating your wife?" mean. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, what does this have to do with climate change?

Further, how is telling everyone they are fundamentally poor editors - and I explicitly included my "side" in that a battleground action here?

And finally, if telling someone they are being a dick when they are being a dick is a violation of these stupid rules, I'm guilty, lock me up. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Hipocrite

• Comment by Mark Nutley The "some guys blog" hipocrite refers to is in fact the blog of Seth Roberts, a Professor of Psychology at Tsinghua University in Beijing I think this guy is capable of reviewing a book :) mark nutley (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Complaining about the wife beater comment is odd. He was quoting Bertie Russell's example of the fact that questions which contain implicit assumptions are not always answerable rather than accusing another editor. --BozMo talk 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't odd. He should have used quotes, if that was his intention. If someone comes up to you in a bar and asks if you abused your family today most peoples first reaction is not to think 'ah yes, good old Bertie'. Like it or not this is an international site and if people will use such phrasing whilst maintaining a battleground mentality then the odd thing to do would be to let them carry on. The phrase 'wifebeater' is inappropriate without context, and even then it is a stretch of the imagination to see how it could be appropriate to encyclopedia building. Weakopedia (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment @ LHVU The essay you cite is quite clear. It says 'The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as "a dick".'. It also says 'Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move'. That essay isn't meant for people to quote at others, it's for them to read and try to understand themselves. There is no need to make a grey area out of something which has a disclaimer saying it is not to be considered a grey area. Weakopedia (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• comment by WMC: if WP:DICK is considered offensive, then MN, who is under civility parole, should most certainly be santioned for calling another editors opinions "bollocks". I don't think this report is in good faith - it looks to me as though this report itself is part of a battleground mentality - it is a mere trawling for diffs. actually, rv to me - added text has nothing to do with this book)] removes most of the background section from here, no actual reason given is the most obvious example: here is a diff which very clearly *does* give a reason being reported as not. This is absurd; the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure we could trawl almost anybody's edits and come up with material like this. I think a warning is reasonable as long as it is recognised that we all have to pull our socks up in this respect. Nothing Hipocrite has said, according to this filing, is extraordinarily bad, nor is his general demeanor a detriment to Wikipedia or to the articles in the probation area. --TS 22:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Thepm regarding point 6. Hipocrite's comment seemed to be expressing his frustration with the battleground mentality of the other editors (that was my interpretation anyway). I was one of the editors involved here. It had become a rather silly argument about the use of 'hacked' vs 'discovered' vs 'released'. Hipocrite made a brilliant edit that used none of those terms but still retained meaning. I meant to congratulate him at the time, but never got around to it. Thepm (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Cla68: A few hours ago Hipocrite unilaterally deleted about half the content from the Ian Plimer article, even though discussion on the talk page was making good progress. He also did basically the same thing at the Edward Wegman article, including removing most of the reliable sources from the section such as the House hearing transcript and Wegman's report. Hipocrite has ignored or responded rudely to requests to self-revert [20] [21]. I believe Hipocrite is being disruptive. Check out this remark about NSAA, for whom English is apparently a second language "Editors who speak broken English should not be editing controversial articles". If Hipocrite doesn't climb down from the Reichstag soon, I'm going to file a separate request for enforcement below this one. The AGW editors recently had shown good progress at working together in a productive manner. It would be a shame if Hipocrite was allowed to destroy this progress. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Hipocrite's edit does a lot to assuage my long term concerns about the way that article has been going, but I appreciate that it may not be to everybody's taste. If you think it's wrong, why don't you just revert it yourself and discuss it? I don't know where the fashion for demanding that editors revert their own perfectly good edits came from. We all know how to edit Wikipedia and we don't need permission to edit. --TS 23:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It was other editors who added most of the material, not me. If you read the talk page discussion, you'll see that Hipocrite didn't like it after the sources used in the "Volcano" section were attributed, which had been done to resolve (successfully) a budding content dispute. Hipocrite responded by blanking the entire thing. Not good. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a content matter which doesn't belong in an enforcement action. But while we're here, your view that the dispute had been successfully resolved is incorrect. I don't agree with Hipocrite's edit, but your implication that everything was fine until Hipocrite barged in is false. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The talk page discussion was progressing productively. When someone disrupts that because they apparently don't like the way the discussion is going, then that is a matter for this board. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Cla68, what's disruptive is your insistence that biographies of living persons be used as coat racks to discuss global warming. Hipocrite (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, don't go there please. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong that's an issue for another venue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Wsiegmund regarding point 1. My edit and edit summary provides some context for that of Hipocrite.[22] I think there are WP:COATRACK issues here and Hipocrite is following the WP guidance on this matter. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Hipocrite

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

• From a brief review of the article The Hockey Stick Illusion and the points/diffs provided, I would make the following initial observations;
  1. The article is not under a 1RR restriction that I am aware of, so points 1 and 2 in that respect fail - no opinion as to what appears to be an edit war. As for not discussing... the reverts do refer to policy, although no opinion on the validity of same, and follow the reasoning provided by another party in the discussion.
  2. re point 3; not an accusation, but a figure of speech. Not really seeing its relevance in the discussion, but that is not the point.
  3. Point 4, another saying - although it is pointed and teetering on incivility. Not optimal, but neither sanctionable.
  4. Point 5. Yup, extremely bad language and likely bad faith - but nothing to do with a CC Probation article. May be something for a WP:WQA submission, but outside the remit here (even as an example of bad language, it shows H has been holding their tongue better in this area.)
  5. Point 6. Agreed, there is some indication of battleground mentality and commenting on editors rather than contributions.
  6. Point 7. I see a rationale within the edit summary - no opinion on accuracy.
  7. Final point. A grey area, since there is WP:DICK and referring to people being dicks in regard to their actions may be considered permissible - but noting a person as a dick (without referring to the essay) is not and in any case is unlikely to improve the editing environment within the probation area.
     I am not seeing anything really substantive under which Hipocrite may be sanctioned. I think they could be warned about their manner of interaction and requested to interact more fully, and noted that persistent behavioural issues of a similar nature might lead to topic or interaction bans or short blocks, but would wish for other comments before committing even to that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley (again)

If I were less involved, I'd block for this PA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What PA is that then? Am i not allowed to comment on an editors snideness now? mark nutley (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Per the above action with respect to my comments on an editors dickishness, no, you are not. Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• To spell it out, "he must have been dragged up not brought up" is unacceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The internal irony of the sentence "I tell you, the guy is incapable of being civil, he must have been dragged up not brought up" puts the whole sanctions regime in a nutshell; i.e., the expectation of exactingly correct behavior from others while exempting oneself from the same standard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the usual suspects demanding my head and that i am in the wrong from expressing my opinion on another editors continued barrage of snide remarks. I have yet to see any of the above editors bring WMC to book here for his attacks on me, yet they are all to willing to jump all over a perceived insult. Were i come from that phrase is in common usage, it is an indicator of poor manners, which is shown in the diffs stephan did not bother to post, i`m done with this now mark nutley (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That argument ("where I come from...") is depreciated. I noted before that where I come from, calling people "fucking retarded" is fine, but to question someone's honesty or motive without strong proof is by far the most substantial slight around. Apparently, here at Wikipedia, calling people dicks is the most substantial slight around, but accusing others of dishonesty and improper motive is AOK. You'll have to abide by that strucutre if you want to edit CC articles. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Deprecated", perhaps? We wouldn't want our arguments to lose value, after all. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 13:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark has redacted the most viscous part now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm sure the conversation will flow better now. ;-) ATren (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Another personal attack, while he has an open enforcement request.[23] The attack is, as these things go, relatively mild. But to do that while he had an open enforcement request is troubling. His response [24] (edit summary hah) also suggest contempt for community norms. Guettarda (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[Turns out I misread the date; today's the 26th apparently. At the same time, I no longer see his comment as "relatively mild". It's a clear personal attack, and is clearly incompatible with his civility parole. As, for that matter, is this Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah indeed, and here was me thinking we were having a good old chat on my talk page, as i explained there that is not a personal attack, it is a question. I`m guessing english is not your mother tongue? mark nutley (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

English? Only language I speak. And, not to boast, but I speak it and write it better than most people, though I sometimes code switch inappropriately (whenever someone comes up to me on the street and asks me for money, I switch automatically to Trinidadian basilect). Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And yet you actually think asking someone if they are capable of answering a question which they are trying to avoid is a personal attack? Sheesh mark nutley (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but it wasn't a question. It was a rhetorical question. And it has only two possible meanings - either you're calling Hipocrite cognitively or mentally impaired, or you're calling him dishonest. Either way, it's a personal attack. Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

copy over from my talk page, i doubt any admin will look there

No, lets make this simple, here is what i wrote Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above? Now lets see if i can answer it.

• "Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above?" Of course i am, here it is
• "Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above?" No, i am not.

Yes, i can see how that is a rhetorical question which can`t be answered all right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 April 2010

English *is* my mother tongue and the diff looks deliberately offensive (as well as an amusing self-reference failure), as does the comment above William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes WMC, but you would of course say that. What is the self reference failure you refer to btw? O, and have you redacted your PA`s against me? mark nutley (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that MN cannot see what's wrong the comment (e.g. [25], [26]) strongly suggests that Administrator action is needed here. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Apart from Mark's questions being aggressive and rather uncivil, they suggest that he hadn't realised that Hipocrite had already answered the earlier question. A more cooperative approach would have resolved this misunderstanding without the drama. . . dave souza, talk 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (WMC)

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

Request concerning WMC

User requesting enforcement

Cla68 Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 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

1. Violation of 1RR at a BLP article under this probation- 1st revert: Revision as of 22:08, 25 April 2010; 2nd revert: Revision as of 08:34, 26 April 2010
2. Personal attacks on discussion page for same article: [27] [28]

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

1. 1RR restriction
2. [29] Previous block for 1RR violation by LessHeard vanU
3. Warning not to use demeaning or derogatory phrases or words with regard to other contributors

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

Continue with escalating series of blocks until the behavior is corrected

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Diffs speak for themselves. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Judging from some of the comments below, I guess those diffs don't speak for themselves with everyone. Not only did WMC remove reliably sourced information and violate his 1RR restriction when doing so, plus making two personal attacks during the ensuing discussion on the article talk page, but this episode illustrates the long-running double-standard employed by WMC when it comes to AGW-related BLPs, in which he adds negative or disparaging information to skeptic's BLPs and removes such information from others. He has been doing this for years, as shown by these edits to the BLP of a skeptic: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36].

Then, last month he made this edit to another skeptic's BLP. Not only did he add negative information sourced to a blog, but he did so to an author who had, only a few months before, written unflatteringly about WMC in a published book. WMC shouldn't have even been touching that article. Cla68 (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[37] Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning WMC

Statement by WMC

There are several issues here, but the major one we're talking about seems to be the 1RR, so I'll address that. I explicitly claimed a BLP exemption for my revert, so the issue is was the edit acceptable under BLP exemption. As I've said on the talk page, in my opinion the "impeccable sourcing" bit is irrelevant. The question is balance, and selective quotation. If I say "immigration is both a blessing and a curse" and you quote me as saying "immigration is... a curse" then your sources are impeccable but you have misrepresented what I said and if you did that on wiki it would be a BLP violation. This is the same issue, though less clear. The section I removed [38] was entitled "Views on Climate Change" but that section by no means represents Curry's views on climate change, instead it merely presents some recent quotes of Curry disagreeing with the IPCC. That is not her view. Curry essentially believes the GW storyline as presented by IPCC. She has a number of quibbles and concerns about the process, but those are at the margins. Her overall viewpoint (which isn't very exciting, because it is the default, and so goes under-reported) is a "warmist" if you need a term William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Cla is making an elementary logical and wiki error by asserting that because he didn't like my BLP-related edits elsewhere, I am not permitted to make BLP related edits in this area. This assertion by Cla is clearly ridiculous. More directly: even if I had made grossly BLP violating edits elsewhere (which I dispute) that doesn't affect in the slightest the existence of the BLP policy, or my (all of our) duty to remove BLP violating material; and my right to claim BLP exemption for such edits as required William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be reduced to just a slightly iffy "No, not obviously, and not yet. You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that" (NW, 23:55, 27 April 2010). I think it is obvious that that diff doesn't merit reporting on its own; indeed I don't think it merits reporting at all. Please examine the context of that comment: Tillman is trying to justify adding a pile of tittle-tattle to a scientific biography, and completely ignoring Curry's actual real work, which is why she has her current position. This is a genuine ongoing problem with this and indeed many other GW type bios.

Also, I put on record my strong objection to Lar pretending to be uninvolved: he is obviously far too biased and involved even to see his involvement. The truely uninvolved admins ought to see this and ask Lar to step back to prevent his bias biasing the results William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning WMC

• Clear BLP violation; 3RR-like restrictions don't apply. Guettarda (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Discussion entirely within the "norm" that's tolerated here. Guettarda (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Guettarda regarding the BLP issue. Cherry-picking comments from blog postings to paint a picture on an issue conforming with an editor's ideological predispositions just isn't on. I'm surprised at this, because Cla68 has often expressed concern over BLP matters. If anything, Marknutley's repeated introduction of such material should be the issue here. It's too bad there's no provision for sanctioning such edits. Oh, wait... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cherry-picking from blogs? I see references from the Times and the New York Times in there. A whittling down of the section in lieu of outright deletion would have been less disruptive.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that all of the sources were blogs. Should have been clearer, sorry. The "cherry picking" point remains: one can easily construct a BLP-violating article using only the best of sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter, that's exactly it. If WMC had just removed the information sourced to the blogs and left the info that was better sourced, then taken it to the talk page, as we're supposed to do, then there wouldn't be a problem. As the talk page discussion shows, including WMC's opposition to (and personal attack on) Tillman's proposed variation of the text in question, WMC was simply revert warring material that he didn't want in the article in any shape or form. That's a violation of the restriction and disruptive. Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:BLP, The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. And remember, a zero-tolerance policy toward any language that could be considered less polite than a Victorian tea society can go both ways. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you find a different quote? The material removed was exhaustively cited. I'll remove this comment to avoid cluttering the page if you find a relevant excerpt.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Whoever added material to a biography of a living person from the comments section of http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com , from http://wattsupwiththat.com , and from http://www.qando.net should promptly be informed that they are no about to be no-longer welcome to edit. As such, I suggest that Marknutley, who has gotten his last final last final doublesecret final warning be final warninged again and that Marknutley , who has gotten his last final last final doublesecret final warning be final final warninged again and that Tillman be given his first final warning. Hipocrite (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  Lar states "The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced." Lar, in addition to NW's question, please discuss how (using this pre-revert version of the article) the statement "She has ... [written] for example, "The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue,"" This is sourced to [39]. Please, do explain how this is impecable. It leads me to question if you are actually evaluating the requests, or merely taking sides based on your preconception of what must be true. If it turns out that you agree with me that this is, in fact, the opposite of impecable sourcing, what should be done to correct your conduct? Hipocrite (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  I see Lar has now moderated his comment. While he initially said "The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced," he didn't actually mean all the statements. The ones that were not actually by Dr. Curry were apparently not impeccably sourced. Apparently, the appropriate response to someone who puts certainly defamatory content about living persons into articles is not to revert them, but rather to piece through their edits to determine what of those edits are impeccably sourced and what parts of them are defamatory poorly sourced content about living persons. I hope Lar will update WP:BLP to reflect this new understanding. Hipocrite (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  Not particularly surprised by that comment. But disappointed just the same. You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  "The real issue here is the spin control," Lar. Why are you spin-controlling your "The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced," claptrap? Just own up to it, already. Hipocrite (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? If the NYT isn't good enough for you, what is? This isn't the first time that WMC et al. have removed NYT sourced "inconvenient truths". Regrettably it probably won't be the last. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  Interesting spin there. But we aren't talking about the New York Times. We're talking about an unverified blog comment. Which you apparently believe to be "impeccably sourced". I'd hate to imagine what you consider "so-so" sourcing. Guettarda (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? I'm not talking about blogs. I am talking about sources such as the NYT, which were also removed willy nilly. You repeating this after I've clarified it, more than once, is starting to verge on bad faith assumption. ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  "The real issue here is the spin control". Funny, I thought the real issue here was attributing controversial statements to living people based on unverified blog comments. Guettarda (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  Not particularly surprised by that comment. But disappointed just the same. The enforcement request was raised to address the spin control by WMC et al, in my view. You're using BLP as a smoke screen. ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  I must say I am particularly surprised by your comments. As for spin - yes, this is spin. Spin so single-minded that people are willing to resort to using unverified blog comments to advance their narrative. Still, given that you'd delete dozens of bios simply because they lacked sources, I'm shocked that you would place advancing your chosen narrative over our most basic rules of sourcing. "Don't put contentious words you can't verify in the mouths of living people" is far more basic than our BLP policy. Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please look through the edits under discussion. You're implying that all WMC did was remove sentences sourced to blogs [though even that is not sufficient for BLP exemption], but he also removed statements sourced by The New York Times and The Times.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not. The entire section has BLP problems. The most egregious problem was the fact that part of it was sourced to a blog comment. It's entirely in keeping with accepted practice to remove the entire section. Specifically here though I'm talking about Lar's assertion that the entire section "impeccably sourced". Which is, of course, obviously false. Guettarda (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (2) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You think BLP advocates the deletion of the entirety of sections that have sentences that are poorly sourced?--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Read MastCell's comment in the section below. I'm simply describing norms that are considered acceptable. As long as one is operating within the norms of the community, there's nothing to discuss. On the other hand, claiming that the comment was an appropriate source, as Lar and Cla68 have done ("impeccably sourced" in Lar's words), is outside of the norms of acceptable behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (3) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• random comment I was actively editing this article while much of this was going on. MN added some stuff (good stuff, but maybe too much). WMC took it off (with some justification. There was simply too much.). MN added a tag (with some justification. His good stuff had gone.) There was discussion, a sentence was added back and MN removed the tag. So everybody was happy. Well, less unhappy. Now we can move on to fight the same foolish war on yet another page (sigh). Neither MN nor WMC assume good faith of the other, but there you go. Thepm (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

@Lar: "The BLP policy is being used as a smoke screen by WMC's many defenders, who have predictably formed ranks" - please stop it with the conspiracy theories and lay off the accusations of bad faith. You are the one who's attacking an editor for removing content sourced to blog comments from a BLP. The conspiracy you see - it's called Wikipedia policy. Guettarda (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (4) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Note - you said The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced. An unverified comment on a blog is "impeccably sourced"? I realise nothing Wikipedia should be taken too seriously, but you're turning this into a real joke. Guettarda (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If WMC's intention was to protect a BLP, then why did he make edits like these: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] in the past to the BLP of a climate change skeptic? Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to play that game, first explain why you consider an unverified blog comment to be a "reliable source" for a BLP. Then you can talk about other people's actions. Guettarda (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (5) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And then you can explain how edits from two years ago are relevant in the discussion. Guettarda (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's one from last month, re-inserting material sourced to a blog into a skeptic's bio. Same pattern. What makes this worse is that Booker discusses WMC in an unflattering light in two pages in his recent book, so WMC shouldn't have been touching Booker's BLP, let alone adding negative information sourced to a blog. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, before you try to play this game, first you need to account for your own actions. In the very article we're talking about here, you assert that an unverified blog comment is a "reliable source". As far as I can tell, that's a flat-out falsehood. You need to explain that first. Otherwise how is anyone can take you seriously? Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Note that it's normal for enforcement requests to look at the behaviour of not only the subject of the complaint, but also the person bringing the complaint. And in this case, the real problem here is your assertion that unverified blog comments count as "reliable source[s]". Guettarda (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (6)... See the pattern yet? ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Lar, the pattern is that you're going to try to spin that comment you made about unverified blog comments on a no-login unmoderated comments section being impeccably reliable till you're dizzy. Hipocrite (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I was questioned about what I meant, the very first time, I clarified that I was referring to the NYT. NOT blogs. (I support Tony's thinking that we ought to completely eliminate reliance on blogs...) I clarified that the first time it was brought up. And yet, here you are, still misconstruing what I said, over and over and over. If you repeat a Big Lie enough times (or even a small one) maybe it will stick? Is that the approach? You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? Stop saying I am talking about blogs. Please. It's tiresome. Or admit that you're the one spinning here, part of the cadre. ++Lar: t/c 11:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, I'm willing to bygones your regrettable statement that unverified comments in blog comment sections are "impeccably reliable," if you'll admit that WMCs reversions of edits that insert actually defamatory facts sourced to unverified comments in blog comment sections are acceptable under WP:BLP. You can then have whatever argument you want about spinning, and others using blog sources, and whatever, but right now apparently you're saying the appropriate response to an edit that has what appears to possibly be reliably sourced information from the NYT and also obviously defamatory information sourced to unverified comments in blog comment sections is not to revert on sight as many times as it takes, but rather do do something else. Now, I know you don't think that, but sadly, when you admit the above assertion, it'll weaken your case and damage your spin here. I'm sorry that you went out on a limb about the sourcing, but you're going to have to crawl in. Hipocrite (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? Stop saying I am talking about blogs. Please. It's tiresome. Just flat out stop. No more spin, just stop. ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You just can't admit when you make a mistake can you? Stop spinning and admit that your first comment was wrong. Please. It's tiresome. Just flat out stop. No more spin, just stop. Hipocrite (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered. "I'm referring to the stuff sourced to the NYT." As explained to you over and over. Perhaps you need to be sanctioned to discontinue repeating the same tiresome assertion over and over after it has already been answered. But that might interfere with your spin... ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it midly ironic that someone who actually numbered the times they said the same thing is suggesting I be "sanctioned to discontinue repeating the same tiresome assertion over and over after it has already been answered." However, I should note that with respect to this question, since it's you who alledge that it's bee answered, and you who I am challenging, that you are certainly not, even under your tortured definition, "uninvolved," with respect to my "repeating the same tiresome assertion over and over after it has already been answered." Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What I was numbering was the number of times Guettarda raised the point AFTER it was already asked and answered. Not how many times I pointed it out (which, to be sure, is the same index value). Hope that clears up your latest confusion and that you now discontinue this fruitless line of badgering. Every time we interact I find your chosen moniker more apt. Why is that? ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably because when people are willing to stand up to you you get defensive and try to attack the motives and character of the individuals who disagree with you. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We can discuss the content dispute on the article's talk page if you like. The question here is the disruption caused by WMC to the article by revert warring, contrary to his 1RR probation, and the two personal attacks he made in the content discussion on the talk page. What is your opinion of those two personal attacks on the article talk page? If WMC's actions were meant to help facilitate a content discussion, do you think those two comments were helpful, or disruptive? Cla68 (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• (I'm "Lar-uninvolved", since I've never edited either the article not the talk page. Move my comments up if you move his up). As per the several comments above, there is nothing actionable here - indeed, WMC should be lauded for dealing with a BLP issue. If you, Cla, feel that there is a double standard, complain about the cases where BLP is violated, not about those where it is upheld. "Sorry, we executed an innocent man by accident. For fairness, we now need to eliminate all others, too" is not a good argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) (Note: I moved this up from the admin section. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
  • Sorry, you're (by far) not as uninvolved as me. You may not have edited this article but you edit in this space far more than I do (i.e. essentially not at all) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Translation: I contribute content and have demonstrated some understanding of the issues. All you do is pushing misguided and one-sided sanctions following your preconceived opinion, without either knowing the editors, the domain, nor even the particular case very well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding what was so dreadful about WMC's actions here. I've not been involved in any way with this article, but having reviewed it I think it's clear that the controversial section was "dirty" - a mixture of cherry-picked quotes from reliable and unreliable sources. As I understand it, WMC's concern, apart from the sourcing, is that the content seriously misrepresented Curry's views. The fact that some of the content was reliably sourced doesn't detract from this concern. Given that WMC has worked in the field and is familar with the work of others in that field, I don't think we can dismiss those concerns. It's not about "spin control", nor is BLP just about sourcing; it's essential that a subject's views should be reflected accurately. As others have pointed out below, BLP's toughened approach mandates a conservative approach to content. If questionable material has been added it needs to be removed.

Unfortunately think that Lar's strong reaction is affected by his evident dislike of WMC. Put it this way - if it was any editor other than WMC, does anyone think that such a severe penalty (or indeed any penalty) would have been proposed? I suggest that Lar should consider recusing himself from future WMC-related enforcement requests, given his apparent strength of feeling. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Assumes facts (in this case, feelings) not in evidence. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I have no personal animus for WMC. I just dislike the tactics he employs. You should too. ++Lar: t/c 10:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I second the request for Lar to recuse. I also ask that someone who boasts that his family owned 8 cars at one time should be removed from oversight of an area that intimately involves the topic of fuel combustion. I'm not joking. ► RATEL ◄ 09:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This request is ludicrous on the face of it, as if it's allowed to stand then we should also eliminate anyone who brags of having less than 8 cars, or who brags about riding a bike or who brags about their use of wood to heat their house instead of natural gas, or any of a number of things. The request needs to be formally rebutted and disallowed, with an admonishment not to repeat it. ++Lar: t/c 10:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Larry, I'm sorry, but the fact that you openly proclaim your love of engines and ownership of numerous vehicles destroys trust in your judgement on the issue of fossil fuel emissions for me, and I'm sure for others too. I think Bozmo's suggestion that admins be rostered off this area on some sort of schedule would be a minimalistic, but perhaps effective, remedy for these concerns. ► RATEL ◄ 11:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Even with 50 cars Lar could only drive one at once, a total climate change contribution equal to that of an editor with but one vehicle. Further since Ratel is using a variety of electricities and plastics to convey his displeasure I believe as a representative of the energy industry he should recuse himself from this debate. Weakopedia (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The probation terms state that "uninvolved" should be interpreted broadly. In my view both DrS and Lar qualify as the rules are written in this case. Involvement is not the same as neutrality. But perhaps we should all do a month-on month-off rota so that we don't get sucked into the personal stuff. Off article talk page involvement with the individuals concerned is probably not ideal. --BozMo talk 10:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that Cla68's diffs about blp and blogs are from 2008, and some of them, such as [47] are totally uncontroversial housekeeping. While Cla's last diff, using deltoid on the Booker page is troubling, how much grudge-holding should be permitted by someone who has lost perspective? Just yesterday, Cla68 was defending comments on a blog as reliable sources. I think perhaps everyone in this discussion who has inserted blog sources or defended blog sources as reliable needs a break - that would be WMC, Marknutley, Cla68 and Lar. Perhaps ban them all from the topic area for a short time to allow them to regain their balance? Say, a month, and perhaps a longer ban on all of them under BLPSE, perhaps 3 months on all BLPs? Hipocrite (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop saying I am talking about blogs. Please. It's tiresome. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then acknowledge that WMC's second revert was not only acceptable, it was actually proscribed. Hipocrite (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, your claim that this was "impeccably sourced" still stands in your comment. You have not retracted that claim. Thus, you are still claiming that the blog comment is an "impeccably source". Strike the whole section (because, of course, your conclusions follow from your outlandish claim) and we can move on. But as things stand, you're telling people to stop talking about a claim you, by all appearances, stand by. Guettarda (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I was questioned, I (two comments below the orginal) pointed out I was talking about the NYT, not blogs. If you think a strike and rephrase will help, sure. But I don't see the need if the clarification is right there next to it. And yet you go on and on about it over and over. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by ATren - Round and round we go. We're in the neighborhood of a dozen requests against WMC now, most of them credible reports, and nothing but token sanctions. Lar is the lone admin who has any interest in leveling this playing field, and like clockwork the WMC apologists are coming out of the woodwork to attack Lar, someone who not only has no involvement in this topic, but has also professed sympathy with WMC's own views on the matter.

  And WMC's defense? BLP! Laughable for anyone who knows his history. WMC has openly scorned BLP when LP is a skeptic -- just a few months ago he was warring to keep "see also: climate change denial" in a bunch of skeptic BLPs even though the denial article was primarily about fraud. But when BLP policy suits him, he's more than willing to use it.

  But really, the issue here is yet another attack on Marknutley, someone who is actually working to add content in this topic area (how many articles created now? At least 3 by my recollection) and who has been subjected to constant mocking and abuse by WMC. That first PA diff is inexcusable given their history, and it has to stop. But as long as the apologists refuse any significant sanction against an untouchable, this will continue to be a poisonous editing environment. ATren (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley. Let me say it just as it is. I have some time for Mark but that does not mean when he constructs such a poor biased BLP that every editor should congratulate him on his efforts to improve wikipedia. Why is this at enforcement? Why are we getting into this trench warfare? It was a crap attempt at a neutral BLP, now for some reason we are all here arguing about it, that is an absolute joke. Polargeo (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Why are we getting into this trench warfare?" Because admins refuse to remove the battleground editor. ATren (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Taking out MN, and you, would help. Or did you have someone else in mind? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I’m not happy with the direction this discussion is taking. If a BLP exemption can be taken for a citation to the New York Times, then the 1R restriction has no teeth. I’m sympathetic to the view that if someone posted that person X was a denier, which no sourcing, then an editor under an editing restriction can properly claim an exemption to remove the transgression. However, when the exemption, lists “biased, .. or poorly sourced” which is broad enough to drive a truck through. If the editor merely needs to claim that, in the sole opinion of the editor, the edit introduced some bias, then virtually no edit is covered. I think Cla68 is right that WMC violated the spirit of the restriction, but WMC can claim the exception. The result is that we should modify the exemption. We need to be vigilant about rooting out BLP violations, but some of the discussion ought to be carried out in the talk pages – we should narrow the scope of the exemption so that it covers only blatant examples, one’s where there’s no reasonable debate about the issue.SPhilbrickT 14:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is claiming the BLP exemption applies to the NYT. It does, however, apply to the unmoderated no-login comments section of a blog, wihch was used to shove words into Dr. Curry's mouth. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please help me understand your point. I do understand that there were multiple statements removed, one of which may have come from a blog, but one of which came from the NYT. When I see User:Guettarda state “Clear BLP violation” I don’t see any clarification that this applies only to a subset of the removed material. Are you telling me that Guettarda’s comment is limited to the blog entry?SPhilbrickT 16:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's already been clarified that even Lar agrees that "if someone inserts obviously defamatory information cited to a blog comment on a no-login unmoderated highly partisan blog, but also inserts content in the exact same edit that is purportedly attributable to the New York Times" then the best practice is to "revert first and track down sources later." Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The result is that we should modify the exemption - you can't. BLP policy is outside the scope of this probation William M. Connolley (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn’t suggesting that it should be modified within the scope of the probation, merely that it should be modified. I don’t have time to tackle that now, we’ll see if I still feel motivated to consider it this weekend.SPhilbrickT 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar's approach to this seems to be based on two assumptions - that the removal of this content was an improper act of"spin control" and that there's a "cadre" of WMC defenders. Both are faulty. There's no dispute that some of the sourcing (blogs) was bad. WMC is concerned that the section as a whole, including the NY Times-sourced material, gave a misleading impression of Curry's views. He knows Curry's work. I don't, and I'm betting Lar doesn't either. Surely it can't be wise just to dismiss WMC's concerns out of hand, given his professional knowledge?We do want experts to contribute to Wikipedia, right? Misrepresenting someone's views is a serious issue - potentially defamatory - so it's absolutely right to exercise caution.

Second, I strongly object to the implication that everyone who disagrees with Lar is a WMC "defender". I'm certainly not, and I've criticised his conduct in the past. Assessing whether or not WMC acted properly should not depend on your prior opinion of him. It's absurd to label an assessment that no improprietry occurred as a "defence" of WMC. People are capable of being objective; it's verging on an assumption of bad faith to assume that any assessment that differs from Lar's is motivated by partisanship.

Surely, as a matter of basic fairness, we can't treat WMC differently from everyone else - whether more favourably or punitively. I seriously doubt whether Lar would have reacted this way if it had been anyone else. His issue appears to be not so much with the action as with the actor. I don't think that's a healthy approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Imputing motivations seems like the essence of failure to WP:agf,do you disagree?SPhilbrickT 16:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about Lar, aren't you? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: I let this sit a while, but on reflection I think it needs to be addressed point by point. Let's start with your assumptions about my approach:

• "Removal of this content was an improper act of spin control" - I started by looking carefully at the article beforehand, and walking the diffs and checking the refs. After that, yes, that was my evaluation... there is a long history of spin control (a kind of POV pushing) in this area, and it's been done by both "sides". I and others have in the past asserted that to be the case. Nothing I have seen recently has changed my view that in general there is still a desire by both "sides" to do this. I've also asserted that while both sides try to get their innings in, the playing field is not level, that one side seems to have an easier time of it. So, then... this content. My evaluation of the matter, and I acknowledge others may not agree, is that WMC came in and removed content that was inconvenient to the narrative that he apparently wants (I say apparently, because it's based on observation of outcomes, not of knowledge of his motives) to put forth, that there is no meaningful dissent and no problems whatever with anything related to the process or output of the research around AGW. Some of that removed content was poorly sourced yes, but some was impeccably sourced. Since WMC tends to do this only in one direction, but not the other, then yes, it was a reasonable conclusion on my part that it was spin control rather than a genuine desire to uphold the principles of BLP. Others may not agree, but WMC doesn't have a long history of generic BLP work that crosses topic boundaries. His BLP work seems to be concentrated in removing things that undercut that narrative and inserting things that bolster it.
• "there's a "cadre" of WMC defenders" - I think for more background it's useful to review the recent discussion TS and I had (on my talk) about why a "cadre" is not a "conspiracy". There are a number of editors in this area, who, whenever WMC (or one of the others among them) gets into trouble, speak out in his (or the other person's) defense. That's not a bad thing in and of itself. See Meatball:DefendEachOther. No outside communication, or collusion, or coordination, is necessary or implied by me. Occasionally pointing out something that WMC does wrong isn't proof that one isn't among these folk, and pointing out that WMC is right about something isn't proof that one IS among these folk. Rather, it's a pattern of behavior. To deny that there is a group of folk who hang together (call them what you will) is to deny reality... you can see it here. It may not be changable, but it's not a good thing to have people reflexivly defending each other, especially when their tactics include attacking whoever points it out.
• "the implication that everyone who disagrees with Lar is a WMC "defender"." See above. I make no such claim, and if you read that implication, it's not correct. People disagree all the time. But there nevertheless are defenders here.
• Finally, you are implying that this issue is somehow related to me, rather than to WMC. That's attacking the messenger and completely invalid. You say you "seriously doubt" I would have "reacted this way" if it were anyone else. That is false... if it were some other person with the problematic history of WMC and with the approach to interacting with others that WMC routinely employs my reaction would be the same. It's not personal at all.

I hope this perhaps clears up some misconceptions. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar - it's very hard to believe that you "I started by looking carefully at the article beforehand, and walking the diffs and checking the refs," but didn't notice that one of the refs was to a deleted blog comment (and other links were to random blogs) and quotes attributed to a living person were not uttered by that living person, and that at least one sentence was a quote, but was not attributed. Did you miss those, or ignore them? Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I neither missed nor ignored the sources, but the source I spent the most time with was this one. But you're focusing on a side issue from the general thrust of my remarks, which are a thematic rebuttal of ChrisO, not (yet another tiresome) digression about who said what when about blogs. If that's what you want to talk about... Dunno what to tell you, then, because I consider it asked and answered. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it was the source you spent most time with, you'll have noticed that it's a blog source: it seems to be commonly described as a NYT source, but that's a little misleading. Your comment above that "clarified that I was referring to the NYT. NOT blogs" looks technically incorrect. Having said that, I've looked at the author's bio and find it credible as a WP:SPS. In my view it's worth being specific about that justification for blog sources published by such organisations as the NYT. . . dave souza, talk 22:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Mark Nutley People seem to be having an issue with the blog link, with one editor above saying the blog was putting words into DR Currys mouth. This is not the case, "What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them" This is from her open letter. New York Times For any editor to suggest that i used a blog source to put words into Dr Currys mouth is wrong, and i ask you redact your statements. mark nutley (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment by WMC, moved from below: Lar, this is twaddle, unless you regard blocks and a 1RR restriction as "at best a slap". You seem to have lost touch with what has actually occurred William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pomposity and laconicism

I hadn't read the alleged personal attacks in the msst recent Cla68 enforcement request, but Nuclear Warfare says he's iffy about one, which goes:

"You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that."

There's a certain laconic tone to that, but it's well chosen given that he's replying to a person who has stated, without shame or hesitation, that he thinks a sequence of blog postings, a write-up in The New York Times and an interview is "something of a watershed moment in [the] career" of a quite eminent and decorated scientist.

If only that were so, my old mate PZ Myers, once a mere associate professor, now a world-famous blogger, would be able to move to Harvard and trade in his blog for the Louis Agassiz chair once held by one of his heroes, Stephen Jay Gould.

As you can see, I lack William's talent for laconic humor. His comment was no personal attack, though it cut through the nonsense more surely than I could. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC frequently personalizes disputes and baits other editors on article talk pages (yes, I can back that up). When Tillman made it clear that he, understandably, didn't appreciate WMC's remark, WMC refused to back off of his statement. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

@Admins? It's not clear to me how it has been concluded that WMC acted in the right. I see how his removal of blog-sourced sentences might be covered under WP:BLP, but he removed sentences sourced by the Times and The New York Times as well. (I suppose this applies to MN's treatment too.) I posed this question to SBHB above and did not receive a response. I'd love to have this cleared up.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As I told you earlier, read MastCell's response. Short answer - it's within accepted practice to undo the entire edit that adds a serious BLP violation. Longer answer - there are issues with the remainder of the content. Just because something is referenced to a particular source doesn't mean it fairly represents the source (I don't think this does; for example, the final sentence of the first paragraph attaches the "we're experts, trust us" idea to transparency with research, when in fact the article presents is as a response to the loss of trust by the public in response to the CRU emails). And just because something is sourced doesn't mean it creates problems by distorting the person's record. And this was not the first time Mark Nutley was told that unverified blog comments cannot be used. An editor who uses an unverifed blog comment to support extraordinary accusations of "corruption" raises a huge red flag over all their contributions. Guettarda (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Dave souza, from below So adding blogs to BLPs are OK sometimes, and sanctionable other times? ATren (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Restoring balancing text and accepting that a better citation is needed differs from introducing a blog as a new source in the first place. The editor concerned at least appreciated that the source was inappropriate, and your edit which followed within minutes was appropriate in removing a now unbalanced and inappropriate paragraph. That removal has stood, without any dissent that I've found. As for blogs in general, it's been argued below that a NYT blog is an impeccable source for a BLP – the blog concerned fully meets WP:SPS, so its use seems reasonable. . . dave souza, talk 07:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Response on proposed restrictions The prohibition against WMC even commenting on the appropriateness of sourcing is frankly abhorrent. I realize that Lar and LHvU have declared open season on WMC, but this goes too far. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Lar mentions the [48] baiting of WMC which is funny because I have shown diffs on the talkpage where he has done just that. Here we have a case where certain editors created a BLP on a notable scientist who passed the Prof test and all they seem to want to do is highlight some recent criticism she made of the way fellow scientists have handled sceptics. But even this they have done in an extremely biased way using poor sourcing and misrepresenting any good sources to twist her meaning. WMC makes a perfectly legitimate and actually quite polite comment on the talkpage, which completely reflects the situation. Yes it is about the editor but last time I looked wikipedians weren't banned from making negative comments about editors actions when justified. Okay I will make a comment about certain admins down below. What sort of a totalitarian regime are we running here when Lar fails to push though heavy sanctions for a legitimate revert then he takes the ridiculous opportunity provided by LHvU's misguided civility crackdown to ban WMC from commenting on other editors. Nightmare, that is like tying his hands behind his back and in this instance for what? Lar please stop acting as an uninvolved admin before you turn this process into any more of a joke. LHvU, you are misguided here. Polargeo (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning WMC

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

WMC

Collapsing for readability. NW (Talk) 23:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I very much agree with Guettarda's comments here in that WMC's actions were correct. Indeed, WMC followed up on the talk page, initiating a discussion with the comment "The section on views on climate change is grossly one-sided and amounts to a BLP violation. I don't have time to fix it now". The proper thing to do in a case like this is to do what WMC did, move discussion of the section to the talk page. In fact, seeing this revision of the article, I am tempted to invoke BLP special enforcement (which normally I would be loath to do) and ban Marknutley from editing BLPs. Using blogs to source a quote like that is utterly unacceptable. I will, however, wait for comment from other uninvolved administrators. NW (Talk) 02:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I find this entire incident to be a canonical example of the spin control I have been talking about for some time. In the real world we have a scientist, one whose views are in accordance with the generally accepted scientific consensus on AGW, who has "dared" to point out that there are some issues with her fellow scientists approaches to AGW and presenting results... not for their science per se but for how they comport themselves and engage in spin control. start added later Some of end added later ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC) the statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced added later, including to the New York Timesend added later ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC). So what do we have here in our little world, then? A microcosm of the controversy itself! ...as our own cadre, led by WMC, is busily engaged in suppressing, or downplaying, any mention of the fact that anyone, even a scientist, even one who agrees with them on the substance, might have any issues with how things are done. I think WMC needs to be sanctioned and I suggest that he is not the only one. Claiming this is a BLP matter is disingenious in the extreme and he was edit warring to preserve his view of how the article was written, and being snarky to anyone who got in his way. I suggest that WMC be topic banned from all AGW articles for a year. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC) How does [49], which is used to source "She has also commented that the scientists motives were "indicative of “circle the wagons/point guns outward” mentality which uses “ad hominem/appeal to motive attacks; appeal to authority; isolate the enemy through lack of access to data; peer review process”"" count as 'impeccably sourced'? NW (Talk) 03:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I'm referring to the stuff sourced to the NYT. Side issue, though. The real issue here is the spin control. ++Lar: t/c 03:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I don't find it credible that Lar continues to comment in the 'uninvolved administrator' section of this probation page. While he is welcome to offer his comments above, it is inappropriate for him to represent himself as an unbiased individual. There's nothing wrong with individuals holding one point of view or another, as long as those individuals are prepared to recognize their own particular biases and recuse themselves from exercising authority in situations where they have a conflict. Lar is, regrettably, over that line. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry if you don't like my take on things, but I'm uninvolved. I do not edit in this area. At all. If we are going to tot up all the folk who someone can claim is biased, there won't be any admins left at all. Consider the source of the bias charges when evaluating them. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC) It's not that I have strong feelings about your 'take on things', nor do I feel that whether you edit in this area – or not – is the sole arbiter of what might constitute bias. My concern with your claims to lack of involvement regard the bias in your attempts to enforce this probation. Comparison between your arguments regarding WMC here with your comments on Marknutley, just up the page, is instructive. Marknutley joined Wikipedia in December as someone with no professional or educational background in the area of climate science, and immediately began edit warring. After violating WP:3RR (and drawing cautions and blocks), he eventually began filing badly-flawed 3RR complaints against other editors (including WMC). Marknutley's subsequent, ongoing, and spurious complaints targetting WMC demonstrated sufficiently severe frequency and poor judgement that he was barred from filing further complaints about WMC for three months. (Are there currently any other editors whose misuse of these sanctions has risen to the level of disruption required to draw such a restriction?) Despite this sanction, he still went on to level complaints regarding WMC. This led the enforcement request above. In response, you (Lar) first suggested that a renewal of the ban might be appropriate, and then rapidly backtracked to a one-month extension of the ban, backdated to the date of Marknutley's violation. Not only that, before the enforcement request against Marknutley closed, you decided to make an irrelevant and offtopic comment taking a cheap shot at WMC (""Admonishment to WMC is pointless" (full stop)... That about says it all, I guess..."). In contrast, in this complaint regarding WMC, there appears to have been significant concerns regarding other editors' misuse of unreliable sources to discuss living persons. You've declared that he's part of some sort of 'spin control' conspiracy, and that he and other editors need to be banned for a full year(!) from all of the articles in this area. So yes, I believe that you are biased in this area — for and against your particular view of the truth of the climate change controversy (which you're entitled to), and consequently for and against particular editors in the enforcement of these sanctions (which disqualifies you from claiming lack of involvement). Staking out a staunch editorial position here while claiming a lack of bias because you're not touching the articles themselves is gaming the system. Your comments belong in the comments section above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, no, I don't agree with your analysis. There is a pattern here. This is not the first time WMC has been brought here. Some of the complaints may not have been well founded and were properly rejected. Some even resulted in sanctions (properly so, in my view) against the complainer. But some were well founded but WMC got at best a slap, if that. There is a problem here, and it needs to stop. I am open to compromise on what to do, but I do not think that giving WMC a medal for his "BLP work" is at all appropriate as a reward. Sorry if you don't see the pattern, but I'm not involved in this area, and I do see it. ++Lar: t/c 10:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC) The question here is whether William violated 1RR on Judith Curry. The material he removed included quotes sourced to the comments section of a blog, as I think we all now understand. WP:BLP and WP:V both state unequivocally that "Posts left by [blog] readers are never acceptable as sources." William's removal of that material was consistent with policy; 1RR does not apply. If some editors are unclear about the requirements of WP:BLP, or believe the material in question to be appropriately sourced or acceptable, then we should educate them. William should have been more selective in his removal, as some of the material he removed was properly sourced. However, his actions were in line with a general trend toward an aggressive, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach to WP:BLP, championed by some commentators in this thread and endorsed repeatedly by the Arbitration Committee, and as such a sanction - particularly a severe sanction like a 1-year topic ban - seems unsupportable. MastCell Talk 04:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) The BLP policy is being used as a smoke screen by WMC's many defenders, who have predictably formed ranks. The real issue here is that this is a canonical example of spin control. If a year is too draconian, I'm open to compromise but WMC should not get away with it. The enforcement request was properly brought, and WMC's actions are sanctionable. If he gets off with nothing in this, it will validate those who say that the playing field is not level, and that WMC and others control this article space to prevent even well sourced signs of dissent. Remember who Ms. Curry is... someone who has worked hard on the science around AGW. Hardly a sceptic. But even reporting her unease is unacceptable to WMC, who removed everything. That's spin control and it should not stand. No other conclusion is possible. ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I'm familiar with who Dr. Curry is, but I don't see that it makes a huge difference to this request. WP:BLP applies to everyone. Blog comments are not acceptable sources, and their removal from a BLP is exempt from 1RR/3RR - so I don't see that WMC's actions are sanctionable. Nor am I willing to commend William, since he should have been more selective in his removal. But I see that the properly sourced material has been restored to the article and its weighting is the subject of talk-page discussion, which is the process working. I don't see a lot for us to do here, other than to encourage all involved to be more scrupulous about their sourcing in BLPs, and request that people think critically and review the actual sources before making blanket statements about them one way or the other. MastCell Talk 21:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC) (I'm "Lar-uninvolved", since I've never edited either the article not the talk page. Move my comments up if you move his up). As per the several comments above, there is nothing actionable here - indeed, WMC should be lauded for dealing with a BLP issue. If you, Cla, feel that there is a double standard, complain about the cases where BLP is violated, not about those where it is upheld. "Sorry, we executed an innocent man by accident. For fairness, we now need to eliminate all others, too" is not a good argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Agree with NW above, at least as far as these diffs are concerned. There may be an associated soap opera going on per Lar but actually the diffs do not demonstrate it and are defensible in my view. If we have spin control as a serious issue then let Lar raise it will examples and we can have a look, but claiming a POV motivation behind edits is not related to the sanctionability. --BozMo talk 07:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I concur with NW and MastCell - nothing actionable here. WMC acted appropriately in removing the content. I caution Lar regarding accusing those who do not support his view as being a clique of WMC "defenders" - this is a serious accusation, and a gross insult to those who have taken the time to review this. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I think your caution is misplaced. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• So I think we have a general agreement (though not without dissent) that WMC acted appropriately in removing the content and referring the issue to the talk page. Cla68 has brought up a comment of WMC's that he believes merits action. I would appreciate advice from other admins, as I'm a bit iffy on this one: "No, not obviously, and not yet. You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that". NW (Talk) 23:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I concur that your summary appears to be the consensus among those admins who cared to comment. As for the diff you bring up... there are plenty more where that came from. WMC's baiting continues unabated. ++Lar: t/c 00:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • At present I am still struggling with the two way track in "nasty" comments. MN versus WMC is tricky because of the parliamentary rules issue. But this particular comment accusing someone of having no interest in (missing word added later) ^^her^^ science would be less provocative and attacking in my book than Lar "That's not dishonest. Your tactics are, though". It may sound a bit extreme but I am wondering asking for no personal interactions either way between WMC and Lar as a way of improving the atmosphere, since I do not see much productive coming from them? --BozMo talk 06:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not the source of the problem here. I've never had such a restriction imposed, ever. Stop WMC's dishonest tactics and many other problems go away. ++Lar: t/c 12:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I am sorry I regard "dishonest tactics" as a serious and as yet unsubstantiated attack. I would complain if it came from from WMC and I complain equally aimed at WMC. Unsubstantiated non-specific attacks are part of the problem. A large part. --BozMo talk 22:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Everything has a first time. And I notice how your unfounded violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF continue - and that in the probation area, where we are particularly required to assume good faith... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Looks to me like LHvU gets it. Take a look at his comment ("gaming sanctions" == "dishonest tactics", in my view) and see if you change your mind. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • So: can anyone see any problem with Lar commenting as "uninvolved" on possible sanctions against himself? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • • I see rationales provided by WMC, so I think the that aspect of the request fails because we AGF that the reasoning was just that. I also think that in isolation the comments by WMC are within the terms of his civility restriction, but I am concerned that those restrictions are being gamed by WMC in that his tone and inferences create an uncomfortable environment within discussion involving him and those editors who may be considered as editing to a AGW skeptic viewpoint. I think the easiest solution would be a restriction on WMC opinionating on any such editor, or their edits, within the probation area. Any comment about another editor, their editing, the value of the sources quoted, should be regarded as a statement and thus need to be sourced or evidenced. If such comments are not, then WMC is violating his civility restriction and may be sanctioned (except possibly upon these pages). If WMC feels that this constrains his ability to comment within the probation area, then it is by his actions that this has come about. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Exactly so. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • And can we have a symmetric list of editors who are prohibited from opinionating about WMC? It seems to me that this is the elephant in the room which we are not addressing. --BozMo talk 22:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm not seeing the need for that. Handle it on a case by case basis and come down on people who bait WMC without prior provocation (which will be far less once he's prohibited from commenting on other editors) and all will be taken care of in due course. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
              • Generally I don't support that because I cannot see enough evidence that he is the one baiting in general rather than responding. If you look at bullied kids in schools they often have behavioural issues but you need to see it all. Clearly there are many cases with different editors but the general situation in my view does not warrant a one sided action. And I repeat I would prefer a voluntary agreement for a particular list of editors and WMC not to comment on each other's editing, behaviour or knowledge base. Including him on you and you on him cos its getting me down both ways. --BozMo talk 06:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley

• Invoking WP:BLPSE and WP:GS/CC, I am proposing a restriction on Marknutley for something along the lines of the following: "Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. Examples of high-quality sources that meet this exception include articles in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media." Obviously, the wording could be improved, but your thoughts? NW (Talk) 02:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a sound principle. Apply it to every article covered by the sanction and every editor, though. Why single out just one editor? ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Because so far I have only seen MN violate this principle. Point me to a number of other such cases of misuse, and I would be happy to expand this. NW (Talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, here's one. [50] (credit to Cla68 for finding it first, it's mentioned above...) ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Point of order: that wasn't a new source, it had been in the article for over a year[51] though it had lately been disputed. The edit summary "rv: please don't remove valid material, you can add a cn if you like" clearly invites questioning of the source. Not the same in principle. . . dave souza, talk 22:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... Would not a 0RR on sourcing, without talkpage consensus, be easier? MN would not be constrained in introducing a source, but could not revert its removal without consensus - or is this simply allowing any source from MN to be removed and then discussion stymied. I am thinking that the long term contributor in good standing would be one that is already regarded by some as being on "MN's side", which leaves us with the unpleasant potential of the ltc's coming under scrutiny.
  • I would also suggest that MN be placed under a "no comments on other editors" restriction as I am suggesting for WMC, as a further method of reducing some of the friction that occurs around his editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • That seems fine with me, although I think there is merit in what I proposed. I have not seen evidence that Mark realizes his misunderstanding of the RS or BLP policies, and until such time that he understands this, I see ample reason to be preventative rather than reactive. NW (Talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I think your wording could be tweaked so to not include passing the proposed sourcing via another editor if the wording as what conforms to a "reliable source" is simply made very clear - even if it appears to be echoing WP:RS. Of course, if someone volunteers to mentor MN and his use of sources then it would be beneficial but I would prefer not to have that requirement. If we place a requirement for strict application of WP:RS - as it is commonly understood, not MN's take - then violation would be a sanctionable matter. It puts the onus on the editor to comply. I do take your point regarding being proactive rather than reactive in trying to resolve this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • The level that I proposed was deliberately higher than the standard required by WP:RS. There are some cases where sources weaker than what I proposed are acceptable, but I am unsure if MN knows when to apply those. For that reason, I would like to have a mentor to advise him if at all possible (Cla68 seems like an excellent choice to help him if he would be willing). If we cannot find a mentor for Mark, then I suppose your proposal of 0RR for sourcing concerns would also work for me. NW (Talk) 23:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • I've proposed mentoring earlier, and I still think its a good idea. One problem with Mark is his strong confirmation bias. He forms his opinion based on unreliable sources, apparently seeing WP:RS as a quaint limitation to work around, not as a way to avoid, well, unreliable information. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz

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

Request concerning Atmoz

User requesting enforcement

mark nutley (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Atmoz (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. [52] Personal Attack
2. [53] Profanity and another PA.
3. [54] Another PA.
4. ...

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

1. He already knows of the probation

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

Up to you guys

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The personal attacks are pretty nasty, attacking an editor just because his English is not perfect is just plain mean.

[55]

Discussion concerning Atmoz

Statement by Atmoz

• I'm sorry, but I don't see any personal attacks in the first or third diffs. Telling someone that they may not be as fluent in English as they thought is not a personal attack. The "profanity" (fuck) is not in the second diff. The second diff wasn't very nice, but Nsaa accused me of deleting content by redirecting the article to another article. This is flatly false, as I showed with diffs. I completely merged the Climate Audit page into the Stephen McIntyre page. All of it. The fact that there was no prior discussion does not mean there was no consensus to do so. The fact that the merge stood for over a year shows there was consensus for the merge. That consensus might have changed, I don't care. But please don't accuse me of something I didn't do. I consider that a personal attack. -Atmoz (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Atmoz

• Completely spurious request. We might consider to expand Mark's ban from initiating enforcement requests in general - he seems to have trouble to distinguish between serious and trivial issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is this "completely spurious"? Take me through the logic that led you to that conclusion, if you would. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • See your own comment below - and that's generous to Mark. Even WQA is overkill. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • • Doesn't follow. Can you try again explaining why you concluded it is "completely spurious". If I thought it was completely spurious I woulud have said words to that effect instead of what I said, which was that WQA might be the better place. NOT that there was no merit in raising the issue. ++Lar: t/c 02:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
      • What`s WQA? mark nutley (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Hang on a minute Stephan, you say Now be a good lad and do bugger off on my talk page is a clear personal attack. Yet atmoz attacking another editor because his english is not perfect is a non issue? Strange logic indeed mark nutley (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Are you sure you are talking about me? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:WQA#Atmoz "your_English_sucks" -Atmoz (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• The terms of the climate change probation explicitly cover personal attacks and incivility. The diffs provided clearly demonstrate incivility at the very least. The probation covers "pages related to climate change (broadly construed)." The page in question is an AfD page for a climate change article. I would suggest that it is within the scope of the climate change probation "broadly construed". Of course it would not have been tagged as such, and Atmoz may legitimately not have realized that his behavior there might be reviewed under the probation. Nevertheless it is very obviously against the explicit terms of the climate change probation for one climate-change editor to behave so uncivilly to another climate-change editor in a climate-change-related area. Having said all that, it's a fairly trivial case with no real harm done to anyone. I believe a warning would be sufficient and appropriate. Thparkth (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Don't give a flying fuck" is well within range of language the community finds acceptable. See Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism, for example, and all the pages thank link to {{User DGAF}}. The rest of it is less than polite, but context is everything - the fact that Nsaa's English, while good, isn't up to the level of someone like Kim or Stephan (recall the "have you stopped beating you wife" complaint recently) does make the comment rather more hurtful if Atmoz intentionally threw that in his face. On the other hand, encountering someone who appears to be fluent but just doesn't quite get "plain English" is likely to provoke that (unfortunate) response. Guettarda (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur that "don't give a flying fuck" is a non-event and shouldn't be considered here. Thparkth (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Concur as well. Non-event, non-issue. (Was anyone else tempted to say "Don't give a flying fuck that Atmoz doesn't give a flying fuck", or was it just me?) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• I made an Wikiquette alert on this already, and a finding and warning for personal attacks was made. If you admins would like to put some teeth into that finding so that Atmoz understands that there are consequences for his behavior and should correct it, I think that would be very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but a single opinion by one editor does not a finding make, and the comment is not "a warning". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That was an independent opinion by an uninvolved editor with experience looking at these types of edits at the Wikiquette board. Again, if you admins are serious about improving the level of discourse and civility in this topic area, you need to take a stand on editors belittling each other like this. Like I've said before, I think AGW is the worst area in Wikipedia for the way in which the editors treat each other, and it has been going on for years. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Nsaa

This is so bad. I have no word for it. Why the heck should my language be subject to Atmoz comments at all? Why not just keep the discussion about what was discussed? I find it totally counterproductive and it harms Wikipedia. So yes give him a long block or a long topic ban for this so other people can start working. What do Atmoz try to achieve? Getting people angry so they make "mistakes" and can get them blocked/topic banned? Nsaa (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Atmoz

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

• While the diffs show Atmoz was not being very polite, at all, this may not be the right forum. Suggest this be taken to WQA. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oh dear lord, no. Its a non-issue, why drag it off to the WQA to complain there about what we all agree is a non-issue? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure "we all agree" that it's a non issue. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley

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

Request concerning Marknutley

User requesting enforcement

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation (1RR parole)

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

On Bishop Hill (blog):

1. [56] Removes merge tags. Not explicitly marked as a revert, but clearly is.
2. [57] Marked as a revert

On The Hockey Stick Illusion

1. [58]
2. [59] (note that this revert is *after* the report here about the BH blog 1RR violation. Note further that this edit warring is to restore a blog/twitter reference)

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

1. He is on 1RR parole

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

Std type of 1RR block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User denies that any violation occurs; see his talk

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[60] (note: MN has reverted the notification [61])

Discussion concerning Marknutley

Statement by Marknutley

On The Hockey Stick Illusion Tags were removed per talk page consensus for no merge. The review which i reinserted had been removed under the claim the guy was not an expert book reviewer, However i found a source showing he has reviewed books in the past [62] so i put the review back.

On the Bishop Hill (Blog) I removed the tags per talk page consensus for no merge. I reverted the removal of reliably sourced material. Mainly the BBC and The Guardian which had been removed by a person who wants to delete the article.

I had not realized the removal of tags per consensus counted as a revert. mark nutley (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley

I see no attempts to talk to MN before filing this request. It may have been an honest mistake. The disputed edit is also extremely recent. So I suggest WMC (or the enforcement 'committee') simply asks MN to self-revert to restore the merge tag, and if he agrees, collapse this thread. It'd save everybody a lot of time.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not possible, wmc has already reverted me on the tags, against the talk page consensus i might add. Same with the other diff, as soon as someone adds content to the Bishop Hill (blog) article it gets reverted straight back out by the same guys who are trying to get the page deleted. After all being mentioned by the BBC and The Guardian are obviously not good enough for an article. mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean Guettarda (diff).

Perhaps we can assume with GF that you were aiming to self-revert, and treat Guettarda's edit as your own w.r.t. his 3RR restrictions? Just a thought. I'm going to leave this to the discretion of the CC admins now. Happy editing.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Nsaa

I've just learn something new about the English word blogs. Mark nutley has shown great willingness here to self revert if he had got the chance. Nsaa (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Marknutley

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

Polargeo

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

Request concerning Polargeo

User requesting enforcement

Polargeo (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Polargeo (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. [63] I inappropriately acted against Lar’s comment in the uninvolved admin section. I am involved and I believed that Lar was also involved. Both our comments were moved as inappropriate but I should know better this was the wrong way to protest.
2. [64] My comment was “Please move my comment it appears to be in the wrong section. This is the section where "uninvolved" admins become more imortant than other editors based on, well nothing really.” This was pure disruption per WP:POINT. I firmly stand by this as I believe this is a terrible situation to put on this section of Wikipedia but as I seem to be the only person who agrees with myself this is not good. This comment was also moved per my request.

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

There are no prior warnings. I understand the situation.

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

I should be banned from ever adding a comment to the section for uninvolved admins on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. If admins wish to take this further and ban me from ever editing the page Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement then that would be acceptable to me and I would not complain, in fact I think it would help.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is not a joke or a disruption. It is a genuine attempt by myself to resolve this situation. ATren was confused about my involvement from the comments I made and assumed I was genuinely trying to comment as an involved admin.

I disagree passionately with this probation. I believe it was initially not advertised wide enough to be a proper consensus. I think it is a joke where every small issue that would otherwise go unnoticed now invites every nutcase (including myself) to come and have some sort of partisan say on it. The very idea that three or four self appointed high sheriffs could ever police this area is a joke and goes against my core feelings about what Wikipedia should be. My comments in the admin sections are largely to do with a protest against Lar’s involvement but that is not the motivation for this request. The motivation is to bring about a sanction on myself which clears up my involvement status and in extreme prevents me from commenting in the enforcements area altogether which is an area I fundamentally disagree with.

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.

Result concerning Polargeo

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