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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:14, 26 January 2010

WP:GS/CC/RE

This board is for users to request enforcement under the terms of the climate change article probation. Requests should take the following format:

{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request

| User against whom enforcement is requested          
  = <Username>

| Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
  = [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation]]

| Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so 
  <!-- When providing several diffs, please use a numbered list as in this example. -->
=<p>
# [<Diff>] <Explanation>
# [<Diff>] <Explanation>
# [<Diff>] <Explanation>
# ...

| Diffs of prior warnings
=<p>
# [<Diff>] Warning by {{user|<Username>}}
# [<Diff>] Warning by {{admin|<Username>}}
# ...

| Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) 
  = <Your text>

| Additional comments 
  = <Your text>
}}

This will generate a structure for managing the request including a second level header. Please place requests underneath the following divider, with new requests at the bottom of the page. For instructions on generating diff links, see Help:Diff.

For Requests for refactoring of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines violations only, comments by parties other than the requester, the other party involved, and the reviewing/actioning/archiving editor will be removed.

Biosequestration dispute

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

Immediately this move took place disruptive editing against Hansen's ideas occurred by the two anti-Hansen editors above (William M. Connolley and Arthur Rubin) at the 'carbon tax' "Kyoto Protocol" AND 'biosequestration' articles. I would like to appeal the transfer of this enforcement dispute to the biosequestration talk page. We are clearly dealing with an attack on Hansen's ideas in multiple aricles.NimbusWeb (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC) William M Connolley has now attempted to remove the entire paragaph (with over six references) with Hansen's ideas about carbon sequestration at coal plants from the biosequestration article. This was after a recent edit by me attempted to clarify by highlighting use of algal biosequestration at coal plants in the Garnaut Report immediately above the Hansen ref.NimbusWeb (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC) ARthur Rubin has now attempted to remove the same fully referenced paragraph from from the biosequestration article. How can this sort of disruptive editing be allowed to occur? These editors are providing no justification fro rmoving this material, but by simultanous attack they are making it hard for me to keep it in the article (although it is directly on point) without having to constantly revert them. Help, this is unfair.NimbusWeb (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling WMC an anti-Hansen editor is absurd. In addition, it's not fully referenced and it wouldn't be relevant, even if referenced, as noted on the talk page. Please continue the discussion there, and don't edit against consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions are reached on the basis of evidence available. All that is necessary is to examine the edit history of you two in relation to Hansen comments. 'Absurd' is just an irrelevant appeal to a negative emotion. Why should you assume that your point of view represents consensus, especially when what you are trying to do is remove referenced material and make ideas hard to understand? The discussion board has been used extensively to try and prevent your disruptive edits. It appears to have failed. Higher level scrutiny is now requiredNimbusWeb (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd is quite correct. WMC has added other Hansen comments to other articles, where I consider them problematic in terms of relevance, although not as bad as this one. Furthermore, this (and other comments) constitute a severe WP:AGF violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoto Protocol, Carbon tax, Biosequestration

Kyoto Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Carbon tax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biosequestration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Administrator attention to recent very acrimonious edit warring on these articles might be merited. --TS 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I won't edit again unless consensus can be obtained somewhere unless any of the parties reports a clearly improper edit reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If all involved will similarly down tools pending the achievement of consensus, no further action will be necessary. --TS 20:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it appears I was forced to break my assertion. Tags indicating my concerns as to why NW's edits were inappropriate were removed. It seems to me that removing tags without a clear consensus to do so, or a previous discussion leading to the conclusion that the tags were inappropriate then, is disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree provided the disruptive edits on 'biosequestration' 'carbon tax' and "Kyoto Protocol' can be reverted to where they were before this blew up.NimbusWeb (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using that argument as a pretext to carry out further edit warring, as you have just done[1] [2], is rather inflammatory. --TS 20:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But TS-look at what they did at 'carbon tax' they replaced the words 'carbon sequestration' at coal plants with 'sequestration' at coal plants-making the idea unintelligible. Sequestration of what? Carbon? Well why not say it-except that it creates an unpalatable precedent for teh coal industry. Why should that sort of disruptive editing be allowed to stand indefinitely. This is why formal dispute resolution should commence here. This is not a small issue for the coal industry NimbusWeb (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the curse of Plaxico. --TS 20:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beware editors that have retainers from the coal industry to make sure ideas requiring them to sequester carbon as a condition of operating never see the light of day.NimbusWeb (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm requesting enforcement. NW is now over 3RR, despite warnings about 3RR. I've reported this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:NimbusWeb_reported_by_User:William_M._Connolley_.28Result:_.29. However it would be desirable to deal with it here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC? Retainers from the coal industry? I think the coal industry is libeled by that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: NW has now removed the 3RR warning, and the notification of the AN3 report from his talk page [3] with the edit comment "minor edit". I don't think this looks like good faith any more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of the warning but think it should be applied to WMC and AR. Please note I placed a similar warning on WMC's talk page which he also deleted. Such editing is allowed on your own talk page. So let's get this right. You two gang up and start deleting whole paragraphs of referenced material on Hansen's ideas (see biosequestration-policy implications section) and making them unintelligible (replacing 'carbon sequestration with 'sequestration). This is despite the sections being changed being fully justified on the discussion page. Particular references include Hansen writing in his open letter to Obama and his book that power plants need 'carbon sequestration'. You allege that can't refer to algal biosequestration despite Garnaut amongst others specifically making that connection. When I try to stand up to your disruptive editing you invoke 3RR and try to bully me into submission. You call me a 'noob' claim I am 'spamming'. I'm the editor who is trying to write sentences with full references. You two are the editors who are trying to delete them or make them unintelligible. It will be interesting to see who is censored and no doubt also somewhat revealing about the internal administration at wikipedia and how this climate change probation system works and who runs it.NimbusWeb (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will be interesting to see who is censored - I *think* you mean censured. In which case, we've now got an answer: you William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to review recent editing and conduct issues relating to the above, by Tony Sidaway

It is my conclusion that Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), NimbusWeb (talk · contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) are all in violation of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, relating to edit warring (I am not concerned with the technicalities of 3RR or team tagging) and WP:NPA (again, I am not concerned who is the most egregious practitioner). If I were not of the opinion that any short sanction would simply pause the continuation of these violations I would have sanctioned all three named editors for 24 hours, so no "advantage" may accrue to either side of the dispute. Under the circumstances, I am now warning all the above editors that any infraction of the Climate Change Probation by any party will result in a 72 hour block for all three - possibly disrupting the other WP activities of all concerned. I would ask Tony Sidaway to notify me of any infraction, although I would comment that I shall take sole responsibility to the blocks imposed, after notifying the parties concerned and reviewing any response/appeal. While drastic, I feel my actions are permissible under the Probation and are designed to impress upon the editors the necessity of keeping within the restrictions. The above will apply as soon as Tony Sidaway agrees to referee the application of this warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Everybody be nice, please. --TS 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your (crossed with TS, so to be clear: LHVU's) non-neutrality in this is obvious; your ignoring a blatant 3RR violation is also obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<facepalm> --TS 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LHvU and TS. If AR and WMC disagree with what Hansen is saying or writing then non-disruptive editing should see them inserting referenced criticism of Hansen's ideas and not simply trying to delete them or render them unintelligible wherever reference to them appears. What's going to happen if they team up to launch another attack on Hansen's ideas later?NimbusWeb (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WMC, except as to the obviousness of LHvU's non-neutrality. (Note, this is a rare occurance; don't take it as a trend.) Ignoring a 3RR violation after warning while censuring 1RR "violations" made without warning of 1RR is questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make this more bloody than it need be. All three of you got into an out-of-control edit war across three articles. Less Heard van U is giving you the chance to knock it off and handle it the Wikipedia way. This doesn't make him biased. All of you have to stop engaging in personal attacks (you know who I'm referring to here) and all of you have to stop edit warring (and that applies to all). NimbusWeb has far less experience than the other two, so Please do not bite the newcomers applies. Now be nice, all of you. --TS 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the {{syn}} and related tags that I've added restored pending discussion of the material. It seems obvious that the tags are at least nominally appropriate, and there certainly isn't consensus against the tags. In fact, a previous version of Hansen's comments were previously removed from one of the article per consensus at one of the notice boards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those tags were clearly disruptive given the talk page of the article has extensive discussion in which multiple editors have attempted to answer AR's pedantic and disruptive views on Hansen's use of the word "biosequestration' instead of the synonym 'carbon sequestration'. Reinsertion would only reopen the dispute.NimbusWeb (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "discussion", only IPs' arguments that it's important, but without even assertions of relevance. Hansen never said "biosequestration" or "geosequestration", and doesn't appear to have said "proportional", so those words should not be in the articles as Hansen's opinion unless sourced to others referring to Hansen's comments. In fact, on one of the articles, the section was previously removed as not being sourced, per comments on one of the noticeboards. It's still (mostly) not sourced, even if it were relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To TS, above. I don't think he's technically a newcomer, as the questioned paragraphs had been inserted by IPs for about a month previous to the creation of NW, and he takes credit for the "arguments" made by those IPs.

And (to NW) "carbon sequestration" is not "biosequestration". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs could the same user - all from AU hosts, two from Sydney, two from Canberra. Similar styles too. Ravensfire (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences AR and WMC seek to either delete or qualify have direct quotes where Hansen expresses the idea that coal-fired power stations should no longer be approved or allowed to operate unless they have what he terms 'carbon captture' or 'carbon sequestration.' Both these quotes are referenced-to Hansen's Open Letter to Obama and to his book. So the question for AR is what does Hansen mean by 'carbon capture' or 'carbon sequestration' at power plants. It can only mean geosequestration or algal biosequestration. There are no other alternatives currently being debated in the scientific literature. Clearly this is what Hansen is referring to. What else could he be referring to when he uses the terms 'carbon capture' and 'carbon sequestration' in relation to on-site use at coal-fired power stations? Answer that. There is a reference to Garnaut discussing algal biosequestration at power plants in the sentence above. This is another attempt at disruptive editing. Claims that only one editor is opposing AR and WMC are also clearly ploys to attack process rather than deal with the substance of the dispute.NimbusWeb (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you weren't continually attacking those with whom you disagree, they'd be more motivated to address your points. You are new to Wikipedia but not so new as to be unaware of the No personal attacks policy. Please address the arguments and not the person. --TS 02:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I apologise. But isn't the claim above my most recent entry above a personal attack on me?NimbusWeb (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove the references to biosequestration, including the paragraph in that article, and replace it by carbon sequestration, then almost everything would be sourced. ("Proportional" still isn't sourced, possible, or likely to be relevant.) The relevance and undue weight would still be subject to discussion, but I'd probably stay out of it. Deal? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended as a personal attack; if you did edit under those IPs, and if those IPs were warned of inappropriate behaviour (which I don't remember doing), then you are considered to have been warned. But I'm willing to work with you in cleaning up the unsourced sections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AR, I believe it is reasonable and still maintains the sense of what Hansen is arguing to replace the word 'biosequestration' the two times it appears in the Hansen paragraph in the biosequestration article with "carbon sequestration'. I'm relying on your good faith in agreeing to this. I order that the agreement not be violated I suggest that either TS or LHvU make the changes. It still seems unusually pedantic to meNimbusWeb (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the biosequestration article; it's in all the places it's been added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly bizarre

This is utterly bizarre. There is an absolutely clear 3RR violation by NW, correctly reported, and we have a pile of admins (yes I know you're watching) saying "la la la I can't see it". Regardless of the article probation, that should lead to a simple block on NW. TS is saying "This is a train wreck" - no, it isn't. This is a very simple situation which had it been handled in the normal way would have caused no problems at all William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is sanity in the world after all: [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I gave the appearance of being very indulgent towards NimbusWeb, it's because I was--and deliberately so. He gives all the appearance of being a sincere and relatively inexperienced editor. I would have liked to see the content dispute resolved without the need to block him or anybody. My efforts were directed towards restraining the edit warring tendency to which, as a newcomer of little experience, he easily succumbed.

There was a suggestion that he might be the same editor as some of the IPs who adopted a similar stance and tone. I haven't investigated but I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. If so I think he should be commended and applauded for registering an account and thus giving all of his edits a single name. This fellow is obviously not here to cause harm but to fix what he perceives as an error in Wikipedia's coverage of biosequestration. He has made some accusations and attacks, but that is not perhaps surprising since he has probably read such attacks on related talk pages and may well have convinced himself that such conduct is acceptable.

This isn't to excuse his attacks or edit warring. He has had an opportunity to learn some of our community norms, and has failed to do so. But his errors are those of a beginner. He commits the beginner's solecism of characterizing edits he disagrees with as "disruptive" (some newcomers misuse the word "vandalism" in a similar context). I had hopes that you would both be prepared to back off and give the fellow some breathing space, which would have made your words arguing against his edits all the more persuasive and permitted him a glimpse of how we do things (at least, on a good day) on Wikipedia. --TS 11:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NW had all the hallmarks of a very overenthusiastic beginner who was not going to listen to any warnings. And indeed that is exactly what happened: he got plenty of warnings, and deleted them all (which in fact is *not* the hallmark of an inexperienced editor, so there is a little puzzle there, but never mind). However, all those warnings were from me, doing my humble duty in sharing the meaning of wiki. But perhaps he dismissed them as blustering from an involved party. Arguably, he *might* have listened to a strong warning from you or LHVU that breaking 3RR was not acceptable and he needed to self revert (let alone pay some attention to the article probabtion). Alas you, and more particularly LHVU, declined to do this, instead preferring "a plague on all your houses" type warnings, which NW mistook for license to ignore my valid warnings. I would hope that you, and more particularly LHVU, might take a lesson from this: being excessively soft on overenthusiastic noobs does not do them any favours in the long run William M. Connolley (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC deleted the warnings I placed on his talk page. He doesn't refer to that. I guess he lives to different rules. He claims there were 'more like 15 articles' which is a blatant three fold exaggeration designed to impugn my credibility. Hopefully the real lesson the wiki editing community learns is to watch the edits of AR and WMC very closely particularly in relation to Hansen's ideas that 1) on-site carbon sequestration should be a legal operating condition of coal plants and that 2) coal, gas and oil should be taxed and the dividend returned to people at a rate depending on their carbon footprint. No doubt also, more objective editors will see through what is going on here. Why do AR and WMC turn up in certain articles only to remove or distort comments Hansen has made? Who knows, my favoured hypothesis is that they simply don't like the way Hansen dresses. But if there are senior editors in wikipedia who are allowed to go around deleting whatever referenced sentences they feel like on dubious excuses which we have seen in this dispute like links are dead (when they are not), people aren't notable (when they are), precise words aren't used (when the meaning is otherwise clear) etc etc, then expect the rest of us to play catch up and seek consensus before reverting them, those senior editors should only get such privileges if they are prepared to disclose their actual identities to an internal wiki hierarchy and have any conflicts of interest fully disclosed. Otherwise the ongoing credibility of the system will be in jeopardy. This will be particularly important in areas where the coal or pharmaceutical industries or, religious organisations, multinational corporations or political parties are likely to view wikipedia as a form of advertising or campaign promotionNimbusWeb (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley

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

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

Request concerning William M. Connolley

User requesting enforcement: mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~[5] First Revert on 19:08, 17 January 2010.~~

~~[6] Second revert on 20:15, 17 January 2010.~~ Mistake, not under 1R rule
[7] Two reverts in under 24 hours in breach of the probation.
[8]
...

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

[9] Warning by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) This diff is just to show WMC was well aware of the probation.

...

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Topic ban for a minimum of 48 hours on all articles currently under the probation.(putting this here as in preview this does not appear above in the enforcement section)mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [10]

Discussion concerning William M. Connolley

Statement by William M. Connolley

I'm baffled. What does an edit that happened 11 days ago [11] at Rajendra K. Pachauri made by MN not me have to do with me? (or indeed this [12]? Has MN fouled up his diffs, or am I missing the point?) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm missing and an explanation how these edits violate it from MN's diffs. This looks just like pointless disruption on his part William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the wrong diff, sorry about that. [13] look to the left of that one and you will see your revert. Hope this clears up your confusion.

What are you on, old fruit? Your current #3 points to [14], which is an edit by you; and your #4 points to [15] which is an edit by GR. Both of them are antique, and I don't think you'll now be sanctioned for them, but I really can't see *why* you're bringing up your previous poor edits, and those of GR, in a complaint about me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you unable to move your head or eyes to the left of your screen? You can clearly see your reverts, two in under 24hrs. I had not realized that ten days made something antique. But lets wait for the admins to decide that one. --mark nutley (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want anyone to take this seriously, you need to give diffs of *my* edits, not someone else's. Fix them and I'll pay attention. At the moment this bizarre request has two struck out diffs and two meaningless diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, however the original diffs did show your reverts so i fail to see how it`s a problem. mark nutley (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, you got there in the end. Why is 2R an intrinsic breach of probation, though? The article isn't under 1RR sanction, and the edits were extensively discussed on the talk page. And this is all ancient history - why are you bothering? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your condescending words. The pachauri article is under 1R is it not? I was brought to book for it at any rate, either way you were edit warring and the discussion on the talk page was most certainly for it`s inclusion. However that is not an argument for here is it. --mark nutley (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to be condescended to, I suggest you stop making quite so many mistakes. "The pachauri article is under 1R is it not"? Good grief, have we got all this way and you really haven't even bothered to check? The page header gives no hint of a 1RR restriction, neither does Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log#Log_of_sanctions William M. Connolley (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley

Unless this article was specifically under 1RR, this is inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the assumption that all the article tagged with the probation were under 1R --mark nutley (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. 1RR has to be imposed by an uninvolved admin on an article-by-article basis and logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Log of sanctions. It is not automatically applicable. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're wrong, aren't you, cos if you were right the article probation would say so William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No i`m not, it does not say that on the pachauri talk page, just the same article probation notice as everywere else. I have struck those diffs as i appear to have made a mistake. --mark nutley (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss biosequestration in the preceding section

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

Arthur Rubin and WMC have been edit warring and disruptively editing in tandem against Hansen's ideas at Biosequestration Carbon tax and Kyoto Protocol. The discussion pages of these articles have extensive comments in relation to the disruptive editing of both editors. They have removed an entire paragraph of referenced material from biosequestration on the basis that Hansen doesn't use the word 'biosequestration". Instead, as is fully referenced, Hansen's idea is for what he calls 'carbon sequestration' at coal plants. This can only refer to on-site "algal biosequestration" (a policy option for coal plants that Garnaut mentions (referenced and fully discussed in the same section of the biosequestration article) or geosequetration. Despite this being made clear on the discussion page, they continue to delete the whole paragraph. In carbon tax they replaced the phrase 'carbon sequestration' with the unintelligible 'sequestration' at power plants.NimbusWeb (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify the specific nature of your accusations, preferably without going into content issues? For example WMC has made precisely one (1) edit to Kyoto Protocol in the past two months, and two (2) edits to Carbon tax in the past year. That's not much of an edit war. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no indication of a 1RR restriction on this article. The request appears to be malformed: diffs 1 and 2 show two very different edits by William M. Connolley, diffs 3 and 4 are ten days earlier and showed mark nutley apparently reverting twice within 24 hours, arguably edit warring. As amended after I wrote the above, diff 4 now shows GoRight reverting, and perhaps ironically accusing William of edit warring. Clarification needed, but tacking two edits from 6 and 7 January after two edits from today looks stale. . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to point out that diffs 3 & 4 with regards to me were already dealt with here. And even though it was brought up in that enforcement request WMC was not sanctioned, so no it is not stale. I have been reading up on how to actually do one of these things as i messed up the last one so badly. Is there a time limit on infractions? First and second diffs, my mistake, i assumed all articles under the probation were 1R only. So i will withdraw them now.

I'm frankly baffled as to what this complaint is all about. I don't see evidence of a violation, even if we make the assumption that the listed articles are under the 1RR restriction. Furthermore, the disputed text appears to be an obvious piece of synthesis. Since this synthesis relates to a living person, it might also fall under the auspices of WP:BLP; therefore, the reversion of original research pertaining to a living person wouldn't count toward any sort of reversion restriction. Looks more like a case of gaming the system on the part of the reporting editor to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss biosequestration in the preceding section.

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

WMC has the following disruptive edits at Biosequestration all done today in which he is trying to delete an entire paragraph of referenced material:
1# (cur) (prev) 20:42, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (32,194 bytes) (→The importance of plants in storing atmospheric carbon dioxide: rm apparently unjustofied assertion) (undo)
2# (cur) (prev) 20:15, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (32,571 bytes) (rv: clearly no consensus for re-adding this material, which looks off topic. Please discuss on talk first) (undo)
3# (cur) (prev) 19:29, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (32,571 bytes) (→Biosequestration and climate change policy: agreeing with AR - this strays too far off topic - rm) (undo)
4# (cur) (prev) 19:08, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (34,821 bytes) (rv: please don't do this) (undo)203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An "entire paragraph" of synthesis, actually. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claim it is 'synthesis' is a blatant misrepresentation. Direct quotes are referenced and on the discussion page the entire cited paragraph is reproduced for comparison.203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am missing the "synthesis" too, (perhaps Scjessey could be specific with an excerpt somewhere else); however this request is about a pattern of WMC disruptive reverting in General Sanction articles. A truly productive editor could guide the proposed text (sourced and cited in the diffs) to a meaningful outcome without reverting. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC also has these two edits today at carbon tax:
1# (cur) (prev) 19:06, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (48,714 bytes) (rv per Talk:Biosequestration#Biosequestration_dispute_on_multiple_articles) (undo)
2# (cur) (prev) 10:54, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (48,714 bytes) (remove incorrect ref to bioseq) (undo).203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC also has this edit today at Kyoto Protocol:
(cur) (prev) 19:05, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) m (116,146 bytes) (Reverted edits by NimbusWeb (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (undo).203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed by the complaint and the response. This is classic battleground behavior. Over the course of a few hours, a content dispute has grown into trench warfare, with no chance of consensus or resolution. Please, everybody, look at LessHeard vanU's warning above, and take it to heart. Drop the attitude and step away, all of you. --TS 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is going on here? why is there a content dispute in the middle of this request? If it keeps up i would ask the whole lot be archived, what a mess. mark nutley (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have collapsed that portion of the thread above. Please keep the disputes separate.

Sanctions are imposed to prevent current disruption to the project of building a free high quality encyclopedia, not as indefinitely enforceable traffic infractions. The section above may contain evidence that a sanction on WMC would be warranted, but at least for now I really like LHvU's idea. Please keep discussion of that issue at the appropriate thread, though. Since there seems to have been some confusion at the outset here, perhaps this thread could be archived with encouragement to MN to prepare a new request? It may be helpful to read Help:Diff for advice in preparing the links in such a way as to facilitate easy review. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 2/0 but to redo it would seem pointless, it has been pointed out above that using diff`s over ten days old is stale and that I am gaming the system. I actually waited to do this as i was trying to ensure i got it right this time around but still managed to make a mistake :). If the diff`s which show WMC breaking the pachauri probation are not enough or are to old then just strike the lot. mark nutley (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we close this with a general note that multiple reverts aren't an entitlement and the terms of the probation entail an obligation to responsible engagement. The healing of the climate change articles is more important and should be given a higher priority than any one edit. --TS 12:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not happy with that. the terms of the probation entail an obligation to responsible engagement - of course, we all agree that. But doing so rather suggests that didn't occur in this case. I don't think that's true. I'd accept 'the terms of the probation entail an obligation to responsible engagement (responsible engagement did occur in this case), though that would make your closure odd. Also, MN opened this complaint with Two reverts in under 24 hours in breach of the probation. - I'd like it made clear in the close that this is an error by MN: at the moment, his last edit indicates that he doesn't accept this. As far as I can tell this entire filing is based on an error by MN, and the close should reflect that William M. Connolley (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mark did get it ridiculously wrong. Perhaps singling out this case for that proposed concluding statement (which I think is generally true) sends the wrong message. A null close would be okay with me. --TS 12:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That will do fine by me William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i did get it wrong, i was under the assumption that the pachuari article was under a 1R restriction as i was reported for breaking it if you recall. I must however disagree with WMC`s statement that responsible engagement did occur in this case as it most certainly did not, look at the diffs and tell me which WP Rule says you can revert well sourced material on "monckton is a wacko"? That is disruptive editing and pushing a POV. I believe WMC should be warned at the least for this. I have no problem with the closing statement saying i has made an error with this case. --mark nutley (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Material on global warming sourced to Monckton or giving any weight to Monckton's opinion on matters of global warming, except on Monckton's own bio or a related article such as "Global warming conspiracy theory" where it can be presented in context, should of course not appear in Wikipedia article--much less the biographies of others. But the place for such discussions is not here. --TS 12:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning William M. Connolley

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

Scjessey

No action taken. Misunderstanding of 1RR provision.

I'm worried I'm misinterpreting the rules here, so I figured I'd pull a Hipocrite and lay down the request without using the template. It seems to me that Scjessey violated the 1RR rule with this edit, which reversed three unrelated, recent edits. I'd like the editor to self-revert. --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, you can find a short discussion (prior to this request) of one of the edits Scjessey reverted here: User talk:Heyitspeter#Self-revert.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting the rules. One reversion is one reversion. In fact, per WP:3RR I could've performed the same changes as a series of concurrent reversions if I wanted to, but there was no need. If you had sought consensus before making such controversial changes, a reversion like this would never had been necessary. You must, for example, had been fully aware of the total lack of support for using the word "leaked". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Scjessey's edit here demonstrates, he knows that this article is on 1RR restriction. He could not have made the same changes as a series of concurrent revisions. Can I get an outside opinion on whether the edit should be (self-)reverted? Thank you. --Heyitspeter (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(In regards to the "leaked" word choice, this isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. I will say that a) I didn't know 'leaked' would be contentious, and b) as an editor you can easily change that word without making a broader revert. I'm still not clear why that wasn't done.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the diff, but I can tell you absolutely that a single edit can never be a violation of 1RR. As Scjessey correctly notes, even a series of consecutive edits – all reverting – would not violate 1RR if there were no intervening edits; they would be taken together and count as a single revert. A revert is simply any edit which undoes the effect of one or more other edits; it doesn't matter how many intervening edits are undone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh okay cool! Had no idea that was the case.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Talk:Global warming

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

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

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

Hello, here is the comment I removed [16]. It seemed to me to be pretty obviously against the talk pages discussion policies and that's why I removed it. Was I wrong ?--McSly (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO SIMPLY STOP USERS MCSLY AND KENOSIS FROM ENDLESSLY REMOVING DISCUSSION FROM THE DISCUSSION PAGE?

I am really sorry to use all caps there but it seems incredibly hard to get any clear points across in the utter fog of confusion which seems to be DELIBERATELY sown here.

IN the name of God, can we NOT AGAIN HAVE THE COMMENT "THE TALK PAGE IS FOR IMPROVING THE ARTICLE". YES of course the talk page is for improving the article. OF COURSE. OBVIOUSLY. What happens is there is discussion on the talk page, (IE, DISCUSSION ABOUT IMPROVING THE ARTICLE) and McSly / Kenosis simply REMOVE THE DISCUSSION and then slap on the cover-all comment "THE TALK PAGE IS FOR IMPROVING THE ARTICLE". YES, THATS RIGHT, THE TALK PAGE IS FOR IMPROVING THE ARTICLE --- THE STUFF YOU ARE DELETING IS COMMENTARY DIRECTLY ABOUT IMPROVING THE ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It becomes incredibly ridiculous if every single time you remove something (McSly and Kenosis) you just blandly say "oh, the talk page is only for improving the article, that's why we deleted your comments" OVER AND OVER, when you are deleting comments directly about improving the article!!!!!!!!!!

Astonishingly you even deleted my comments (and others) ABOUT HOW YOU ARE DELETING COMMENTS which is THUS THE EXPLICIT REASON IT IS MAKING IT VERY HARD TO IMPROV THE ARTICLE!!!!! Can anyone see the irony here??

Can someone just get to the point and simply STOP mcsly and kenosis from endlessly removing ALMOST EVERYTHING from the talk pages????

Also you might want to actually READ MY PROPOSAL about this (which astonishingly - of course - THEY DELETED ... IN TWO INSTANCES WITHIN A FEW ******SECONDS******* OF IT APPEARING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I gabbed about this for ages at User_talk:MalcolmMcDonald#GlobalWarmingAd . For what it's worth I for one am in the category of simply CAN NOT BE BOTHERED ANY MORE as you will see is the only possible outcome any sane person would have, when they suffer this sort of "deletion insanity" from these two administrators (or whatever they are

I urge you, someone, anyone to just STOP Mcsly and Kenosis from this endless deletion frenzy. It is nuts. It is weird. It is bizarre.

83.203.210.23 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony's protocol

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note, I took this proposal for additional comment [17] here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What LessHeard VanU suggested--and it is well within the WP:TALK guideline too--is that off-topic material should be promptly moved to an archive page and the originator notified that this is not the purpose for which the talk page exists. Accordingly I have removed an off-topic item from talk:global warming [18], archived it [19], and notified the originator.[20] I hope we can move towards more orderly use of the talk space. Needless to say, any edit warring over such archiving will probably end badly for all participants. Please raise issues arising from inappropriate archiving or unarchiving on this page. --TS 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minor sanity

It is good to see that off-topic cruft is finally being removed [21]. This is exactly what we've been asking for for ages, over the screams of "censorship" and "suppression of dissent" from the ignorant. Its also what poor K has got blocked for doing; apparently what is "egregious edit warring" one day becomes highly laudable behaviour the next William M. Connolley (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, TS had better watch out. According to LHVU's personal rules, which he doesn't seem to worry about enforcing willy-nilly, TS's edit was against policy and presumably a blockable offence [22] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

To repeat what I said at your talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The damage to Wikipedia:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ChyranandChloe's protocol

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

This is for individual comments:

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

This is for threads:

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

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

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

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

Zulupapa, you got to realize that most threads don't start with good faith, especially when it begins along the lines "IPCC fun and games"[23] or a commentary about how the editors are jokes.[24] Discussion is a covenant often broken before we begin, and there isn't much we can do. This is why the first step is ask, people don't like being told what to do, and it is inherently their decision. Ask them in order to remind good faith.

Ludwigs2, hijacked? Yes, I know what you mean. Too often. But refactoring isn't a silver bullet, use for "personal attacks, trolling and vandalism" under WP:TPG. Round in circles I don't think will be solved by tag your it, or a collapse-a-ton. I often want to blame the person's bad writing, or some people for raising PoV (all the time) and filling our heads with straw on some Amazon, rain-forest, or flames. I told the person that he was siding, that it was unwise tie up his comments like that, and most importantly to restart the thread with a clearer proposal. I think the person blew me off.[25] When a thread gets off-topic and I care about it, I being my comment "My central point is... address this point." And if they fail to do so, I keep my comment short and say "You are not addressing my central point." When the person can put your central argument in their own words, that's when you know they're listening, and you're in an actual discussion. I don't know if I've answered your question on this one Ludwigs2, I'm sorry, feel free to blow it off and ask again. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Kenosis

I'd like to request that this thread be kept open for a week. I've received several emails encouraging me to reconsider my response to the block by LVHU. LVHU's block might have been hasty--perhaps erroneous-- but so was my response to it. As it happens, I've gone four years and 20,000-plus edits--many in controversial topic areas--with a clean block log, something I happen to value a lot. Unfortunately I'm quite busy at present and will need to wait until I'm finished with the pile of RL work that's currently on my plate.
..... As soon as I have several hours to get back to this, I'd like an opportunity to present a perspective that might possibly be useful to the ongoing discussion about WP procedures for the more out-of-control pages including heavy-traffic talk pages on controversial topics such as GW. It would also be appreciated to allow me a brief opportunity to comment on my own actions prior to the "1RR" block, the speculative way they were characterized above (e.g. as having removed or userfied comments "simply because they do not agree with them"), and about a couple procedural issues relating to a block-without-prior-notice under terms that were not part of the terms of the climate-change article probation. I expect to have an opportunity to spend adequate time on this later this week... Kenosis (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri

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

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

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

I had approached one of the worst offenders and he agreed to remove some of the worst material, in which he advanced positions rather than discussing the content of sources. There isn't an intrinsic problem on that talk page, and discussion is reasonably orderly considering the inflammatory material being advanced by some newspapers. --TS 21:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley refactoring and interjecting his comments in those of others and engaging in antagonistic attacks on fellow editors

[26]. Even after another editor objects to his interjecting his comments within those of another editor, [PA redacted - WMC] continues to revert to his version. He also tells the other editor "How many times are you going to get this wrong?" and to "stop whinging" in user talk page discussion.

I also think the attack page he keeps in his talk space needs addressing.

Given his COI on climate change issues and his past involvements with RealClimate I think a topic ban would be a good solution at this point to stop the disruption he continues to cause. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[27]--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His edit comments also leave a great deal to be desired [28] --mark nutley (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're you blocked for this kind of harassment just recently? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley, your comments and edit summaries both here and elsewhere leave something to be desired in terms of civility. Please refrain from disparaging, or even veiled remarks - it is not constructive in such controversial areas. Prodego ^talk 20:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think it should be dismissed, not even formatted correctly, and only one diff? And depending on others to argue the case for you? Don't assume accusations are self-evident. This feels like it's here only to attract attention. If you're going to go through with this ChildofMidnight, could you please take it more seriously? ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What like this you mean C&C [29] damn near deleted half my post there. mark nutley (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't delete anything there. What are you talking about? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? He didn't delete anything in that diff, except for excess linebreaks. Are you giving a wrong diff? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right diff, wrong interpretation. Apparently Marknutley can't read diffs. Sigh. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry chris :) and yes i do still have issues with diffs :) Actually what i meant was WMC`s edit comment weird also gratuitously refactor MN's errors And the fact that he messed up my post when he stuck his text in along with mine. I should have been clearer :) --mark nutley (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, "messing up with text" here is removing excess linebreaks from your comment, it didn't change anything [except for a strange extra linebreak which (imho) doesn't make sense]. And when "he stuck his text in along with mine" he was replying to your comment, with the correct indentation, so that it was clear what he was replying to. This is not unusual when replying to long comments, or comments with more than one argument. On the other hand, you did delete WMC's comment [30]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I've noticed that certain arbitrator(s) seem to be unable to read diffs as well, so you're hardly alone... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MN, you're still a noob in some ways. You've only just realised that bare url's don't take double brackets, because I finally got bored of your repeated errors and told you: User_talk:Marknutley#.5B.5B_and_.5B. Your edit to that talk page was broken: by failing to remove the line breaks you messed up the indentation of your quote. I fixed it for you. There is no need to thank me William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, address your issues, this isn't about the complainer. Suggest you consider [31] as a guide. Your edit summaries and comments could be less antagonistic. Not everyone is entertained by them. It's due for a block time if not a serious warning. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC could perhaps be less adversarial in his comments and edit summaries, but I suggest that you and others should also refrain from harassing him. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is good advice for everyone, but I think as this process continues, people who haven't stepped up their game on the civility front are going to find that they are the tall poppies remaining after the more egregious issues are resolved. WMC really needs to take a hint here, there are few taller poppies remaining I think, if any... ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be a report, it needs to be refactored into standard form, no? Else perhaps moved to the talk page? ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move it to the talk page. Just close this as resolved, requiring no action; it was a badly formatted request for a non-issue. The talk page has had enough use already as a forum for lobbing kitchen sinks at William Connolley; it's not a dumping ground for general complaining about one's (perceived) opponents and shouldn't be used as such. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about civility, I want TS's description of Kenosis as an "egregious edit warrior" discussed. Does no-one else find that somewhat incivil? I've raised this with TS; it just bounced off.

Also, I've redacted a PA from CoM's initial statement - it may look like trivia to you but CoM is well aware of what he is doing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connolly is obviously not taking this seriously. Instead of apologizing for his abusive behavior and incivility he continues to refactor comments. I do not appreciate having my notice to him about this discussion refactored to indicate I made a personal attack. His claims that I am harassing him are also totally specious. I am required to notify him when his abusive behavior is being discussed and if I hadn't done so he would be complaining about that. Misrepresenting other people's comments is WP:Civility violation. We can't allow [PA redacted - WMC] incivility to continue, he's been causing disruption and pushing his POV for far too long. His COI with Lawrence Solomon who he posts about on his blog and is in a personal feud with and his past involvements with RealClimate also makes his involvement in editing climate articles improper. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that just sounds like a rant. Look, if you want to be taken seriously, reactor this thread correctly as prescribed by the template in the lead and provide the diffs to justify COI and POV. Anything less, and I think you've given him permission to blow you off. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to take seriously a complaint at least partly about incivility that itself contains deliberate incivility. Yor claim of "abusive behaviour" based on that one diff is indeed not credible. I've redacted yet another PA from you - please learn William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CoM, your "COI" claim was discussed at length on the COI noticeboard and rejected. You don't get a second bite at this cherry. Please drop this and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or ... close this and restart with many diffs. COI can be brought up again when things change. 22:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I said above "refrain from harassing him". I think you will find that ignoring that advice would not be a good idea. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there is some discussion of this matter on CoM's talk page. However what remains there as of this moment is partial, because CoM has been deleting my comments with a rather deceptive edit summary [32]. Which is a bit ironic, given that CoM is complaining about refactoring William M. Connolley (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your comments from my page after you removed mine from yours. Please try to be less hypocritical and disingenuous in making false accusations about behaviors you engage in enthusiastically. Also, if I am required to refer to your per your preferences then I ask you to obey my parallel request. Do not refer to me as anything other than ChildofMidnight. If you are unable to do so then I certainly don't feel it necessary to abide by your whims of the same nature. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several diffs of his abusive behavior have already been provided. Among them: Diffs [33], [34] and [35]. I know he has friends and allies, but this report should not be disrupted with mirespresentations about what is a clear pattern of abusive behavior, incivility, refactoring, remocing of comments, and making false allegations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This problem has been goin on for a long time. I think the diffs showing abusive refactoring, referring to other editors as incompetents needing spoon feeding, misreperesnting the comments of others, the making of false allegations are enough to warrant action, but here are some more examples per repeated requests for more evidence of William's abusive behavior.

Here's one of his abusive talk pages titled "whinging" [36] Please note that if this is allowed I'm going to start a page on WMC with a diff noting that this kind of attack page was endorsed per this discussion. I don't want to be maligned in his talk space space and view this type of abuse as a clear example of his harassment and disruptive attempts to intimidate other editors.
You are dense. Nevermind, I'm sure you'll get there in the end William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
"He is clearly to busy to review the actual terms of the article probation; he is clearly to proud to undo his errors; please DO NOT invite him back in again, we do not need his elephant-like blundering in this situation William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)" (Sorry about the grammatical errors, but I don't want to refactor someone else's quote.
[37] Irrelevant digression to call someone a noob. Per William's declaration that calling someone named William, Will is a personal attack, this must be taken as the worst sort of slander!
Another attack page titled "curse of the gnome" [38]
And here's one of the many instances where he dishonestly refactors my comments to make it look like I made personal attack [39]. If he's allowed to do that then I expect I will be allowed to do the same to him when he doesn't use another editors full name.
Here's an example where he uses his blog to engage in a personal feud with Lawrence Solomon [40]. Clearly this COI involvement in a dispute of this type should prevent him from editing related article subjects since his involvement is not neutral. The same issues are involved with his editing of climategate subjects because he was a named party in the RealClimate advocacy website where he had a biography page included (it might still be there, I haven't looked). Wikipedia should not be used as an extension of his personal and professional interests in advocating a certain point of view. I certainly hope this is obvious to the vast majority of editors here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And another example where he discusses a climate scientist he disagrees with under the cateogry "general stupidity" [41] You'll not that he does not use the individual's full name, let alone his title, once again demonstrating a level of hypocrisy that is fairly awesome. His edits to that article include edit warring to include a photo that he says on his blog "makes Lord M look like a bit of a wacko". ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that the off-wiki links are a complete waste of time? WP:CIV applies on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob

Since civility is a Big Thing, could someone have a quiet word with O2RR about this [42], please? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's supposed to be 'sceptic'. to you actually have a habit of calling people that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

This thread was improperly closed by Prodego who repeatedly asked me for more evidence of William Connolley's COI, incivility, and refactoring. After I spent time gathering diffs he has now collapsed the discussion hiding them. In response to Stephan Schulz's comment about off-wiki links, I'm sure he's aware that COI by definition applies to conflicts of interest that involve off-wiki interests. This discussion needs to be reopened so we can establish whether editors with clear conflicts of interest who have been involved with advocacy groups and run a blog disparaging article subjects are allowed to extend their efforts to POV pushing on Wikipedia. The incivility, refactoring, and misrepresentations also need to be addressed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this has been improperly closed. I see no admin consensus for either conclusion; furthermore, O2RR's incivility has become mixed into this and needs to be considered. I request that this be re-opened and properly closed William M. Connolley (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With no-one commenting, I've undone the close William M. Connolley (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to only a bit of the section, here it is all...

name calling

As William M. Connolley repeatedly uses the derogatory expression of septic to refer to people with opposing views to his would it be OK to refer to him as a climate whiner ? (Off2riorob)

Neither would be ok. (Prodego)

Thats what I thought. (Off2riorob)

My question and comment to Prodego was not uncivil at all, it was a question that was meant to point out how repeated long term name calling by WMC of the people with opposing views is wrong and needs to be stopped, he repeatedly calls people septic this is not a nice way to repeatedly refer to other editors at all, especially editors you are in content disputes with, I was pointing out to Prodego how poor it was that WMC repeatedly does this is and that someone doing a similar name calling to him would not be ok and WMC accusing me of incivility for this is ridiculous in the extreme. My comment was made to Prodego in his capacity as Administrator on his talkpage at a time when he was dealing with WMC's incivility issues in his administrator capacity. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Around the same time as this, an editor asked WMC a question regarding the same issue...I don`t know if that`s an insult or praise :), might i ask you though WMC is it an error when you write septic`s instead of sceptic? Given one is oozing pus and the other is about questioning things? --mark nutley ....well.., clearly it isn't praise, is it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the only reason WMC is bringing this up is as a smoke screen in an attempt to distract from the real issue here, which is his long term general incivility in discussion and in edit summaries at multiple climate change articles. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "septic" is an intentional smear, see this ATren (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it clearly is a repeated intentional smear of good faith editors with a differing opinion to his. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Proposed close: William M. Connolley is requested to refrain from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done; he is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, and to promptly refactor any unintentional typos. ChildofMidnight is admonished to disengage from personal involvement with other editors, and to concentrate instead solely on improving the articles. off2riorob is reminded to be especially careful to abide by the terms of the probation.

I am a little uncomfortable that the first result is setting up a heckler's veto, but WMC remains free to point out instances of incivility at articletalk and usertalk. Personal attacks are, of course, unacceptable and may lead to blocking or other restrictions, particularly in the probation topic area. If another uninvolved administrator agrees, can we please log the sanctions, close this thread, and move on with improving the encyclopedia? - 2/0 (cont.) 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley

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

Request concerning William M. Connolley

User requesting enforcement: TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[43] Connolley refers to skeptics as "septics," while I was initially suspicious about this given his past behavior I assumed good faith and said nothing about this apparent typo. However, he later linked his own blog from his talk page where he brags about denigrating skeptics in this manner saying that it describes their manner of debate quite well - implying, since "septic" has to do with sewage, that they are essentially shit.
[44] Connolley controversially and against consensus removes a section that has been in the article for quite some time. He describes it as "boring" and not "sexy" enough in the edit summary. Note, he removes this and adds in the glacier criticism after I point out that his and KDP's refusal to allow the glacier criticism into the article is inconsistent - they were saying it can't go in since it refers to a specific report, but the article already contained at least two criticisms that were report specific.
[45] This is his first reversion - re-deleting a section that has been in the article since February of 2005 in what honestly comes off as some sort of "revenge" edit for having to concede the inclusion of the glacier information.
[46] Connolley breaks the 1rr rule for the IPCC article, while a skeptic would've been immediately banned for such an infraction, Connolley's edit stands for 3 hours without any admin action. Only when a skeptic asks him to self-revert does he do it.
[47] Connolley essentially tells another poster that he is foolish - again, by linking to his blog where he explains that "no light can help the foolish see better."
[48] Connolley's "spoon feeding for the hard of understanding" where he explains that when reliable sources are "wrong" we shouldn't include them. The problem (besides civility) is that "wrong" is a judgement call - wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth (Wikipedia:Verifiability), and despite being a wikipedia editor for many years, he is arguing against core wikipedia policy. In fact, when Connolley was explaining how the newspapers were wrong and he was right, he claimed the IPCC had not broken its policies, but Connolley "proved" they had not by pointing to small section of their rules and said the rule wasn't there. He used this same argument when he first shot down the glacier segment(this diff is only a small part of the argument to confirm what I've said). Unfortunately for him, wikipedia policy was proven to be the correct way to go, the newspapers were proven correct, and Connolley was proven incorrect when the IPCC itself admitted they didn't follow their rules properly.
[49] Connolley putting in a picture of a prominent climate skeptic. WMC says on his blog that, "The problem, of course, is that the picture makes Lord M look like a bit of a wacko." But that apparently doesn't stop him and his friends from attempting to insert it.

~~[50] Connolley edit wars with a global warming skeptic on the article about that same climate skeptic - he ends up banning him [51].~~

[52] Connolly edits a climate skeptic's article to make it look like he believes in martians - an obvious attempt to discredit. When someone attempts to insert that he denied believing this, that it was mere speculation, Connolley's friend removes the reference [53] and that edit also shows the current version, which doesn't even quote Singer, but does an even better job of making him out to be some crazy dude.

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

[54] Warning by Prodego (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Connolley had a six month topic parole on this very subject and is well aware of wikipedia policy. He continually ignores wikipedia policy when it disagrees with his viewpoint, is constantly uncivil, has a habit of BLP violations against skeptics and most importantly he has had free license to do this.

He has been doing this for years and encouraging the same behavior both through his actions and through demonstrating that the rules don't apply to him. He thinks those that disagree with his worldview are sewage - anyone with a bias like that is incapable of editing this group of articles in compliance with wikipedia policy, and, even more importantly, in the spirit of wikipedia.

If any more evidence is required then feel free to do a wikipedia or google search of his username - or just start here [55].

Oh, and the reason I included some older diffs towards the end was to demonstrate that this problem is systemic, long-term and incurable. In fact, I honestly think it'd be good for his mental health to quit editing these articles and I really mean that without malice.

Cheers, TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I: Oren recently posted to the original research noticeboard about Connolley's behavior in these articles and this seems highly pertinent to this discussion.

Addendum II: A longstanding page that contains BLP violations against 6-7 climate skeptics. Connolley's denigrating epithet (septics) has a long and consistent use.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [56]

Discussion concerning William M. Connolley

Statement by William M. Connolley

[57] Your reasons are spurious at best (User:Marknutley)
[58] For the same reason that the Hitler article mentions that he was a dictator and that he was mentally erratic (possibly due to syphillus) - it is the truth, it is verifiable (User:Thegoodlocust)

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley

Please could you explain specifically how you think any of the above diffs violation probation? --BozMo talk 06:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, incivility, BLP violations, tendentious editing - the diffs explain it pretty well don't they? Do you think I should take this to another forum considering the other problems involved? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the diffs had explained it "pretty well" I would not have asked for further explanation. So, lets try to assume good faith with your list and start at the beginning. Where exactly are you claiming "edit warring", and with which diffs? I have been through the above list twice now and I am struggling to see what accusation, with support, you are making. --BozMo talk 10:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith? Why are you saying I'm not? I believe policy states that telling people to assume good faith can be a sign of not showing it oneself. Anyway, look at diffs 2 and 3 - he is removing a section that's been in the article for 5 years, and he did it twice and without consensus. I understand that the pattern is usually "tag team action" so 3rr isn't broken, but no matter how obvious such a pattern is it will always be disputed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. WMC says he uses "septic" because he doesn't like the fact that the term 'denialist' lumps them with Holocaust deniers. It's not like you can really expect people to use the misleading branding "skeptic". And it's more than a little misleading to use an arbcomm decision that was later voided by the arbcomm. Guettarda (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He complains because it won't "catch on" due to that. Refering to someone as "shit" rather than genocidal is hardly an improvement - and doing it on wikipedia, while bragging about it on his talk page is hardly good behavior. Oh, and if nobody minds, can any facebook friends please identify themselves as such when defending him in the future? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not use Facebook and have no intention to do so in the foreseeable future, if ever. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, if you disagree with WMC, you should also disclose that. Or, better yet, utterly ignore such a stupid request as "facebook friends please identify themselves". Ravensfire (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My disagreement with him is both obvious and irrelevant. But when his facebook friends show up to defend him out of the blue or edit war with him on his behalf then I think that is relevant and should be disclosed. In this case, the second person who showed up to defend him is such a "facebook friend" (and I've noticed a pattern where they will occasionally show up to defend each other). TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WMC's revert parole that you cite, you of course considered this, did you not? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So one of his friends makes an appeal for leniency and arbcom makes a mistake? What of it? He's been shown so much leniency that AGW advocates now accept that the rules don't apply to them. This has to stop. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Heyitspeter: Even WMC's comments on this page have been very uncivil (e.g., a few highlights, NimbusWeb an "over-enthusiastic noob"..."What are you on, old fruit?"..."@MN:noob"..."If you don't want to be condescended to, I suggest you stop making quite so many mistakes.") I think it would help if he stepped away from the GW articles. The tenor of the discussion surrounding them has suffered as a result of his additions/subtractions. --Heyitspeter (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, isn't this comment by WMC (second of two at this diff), from the same page, a WP:BLP violation? I'm not clear on that, but other warnings I've seen around (e.g.) would suggest it is.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From EngineerFromVega: WMC has been acting as an owner of page IPCC and straight away dismissed my proposal for a change as 'silly games' [59]. If I were him, I'd have taken a comment on a talk page with good faith.EngineerFromVega (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From MalcolmMcDonald: even as people discuss WMCs editing he has just removed 2 more of the key-words ("McIntyre" and "Balling") that readers need to navigate the GW topic and inform themselves. As the number of skeptics peaks post-Copenhagen and Climategate, the sacrosanct section on them (quaintly named "Debate and Skepticism") has lost more than half the names that were there yesterday. We know that "search" is the way to find things, William told us so: Good grief, how much spoon-feeding do you need? - surely it can't be right to remove the means to do so. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Scjessey: While it is clear that WMC may have been a bit short on civility a few times (and this was noted and acknowledged in another thread), it is also clear that this is nothing more than gaming and harassment in an attempt to seek the upper hand in content disputes within this topic. It is important that any administrator reviewing this discussion examines the diffs, and not accept the spin that accompanies them. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From ATren: If I recall correctly, this is the third or fourth complaint filed against WMC on this page, all from different editors. This one in particular is both detailed and rationally presented, yet the "WMC is being harassed" meme still persists. How many well-presented and evidence-filled reports do there need to be before people stop blaming the complainant? Here we have evidence of WMC labeling people "septic", clearly a personal attack when one reads his blog entry specifically dealing with that smear. Then we have multiple cases where he's called editors foolish or a waste of time (see also ZuluPapa's evidence on talk, which WMC himself removed (!!)), the 1RR violation listed above, editing against consensus, and removal of talk page comments. And this is all from the probationary period -- I can dig up dozens of diffs from before the probation which demonstrate the same behavior.
Now, earlier on this page, JPat was article banned for an entire month for making two reverts. That was overturned on appeal (though only after extensive explanation and apology by JPat) but it demonstrates the double standard of enforcement of this probation when editors like WMC get away with much worse for much longer. It's time for admins to take a close look at the evidence above, the disruption it causes, and take action once and for all against WMC. I suggest a lengthy topic ban, several months at the very least.
If no action is taken here, then this entire "probation" is meaningless and should be dissolved. ATren (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ATren, In all honesty the problem is that the complaints, as this one I am afraid, are incoherent, and not rationally presented. People are vaguely unhappy but no one seems capable of putting their finger on anything concrete which is specifically forbidden. What is the headline problem here? Perhaps there is some kind of general conduct complaint which is valid as an aggregation of these complaints none of which is good enough to stand on its own? Otherwise how is saying "septic" instead of "sceptic" or "skeptic" forbidden exactly? I objected to that ages back but couldn't really find a good policy reason to insist on it. AFAIK WMC is allowed to imply that an edit is foolish or that someone is being foolish because that is about the behaviour/action not about the person. He does not appear to make a personal attack. None of the edits quite look like an edit war. And glaring or facing off is apparently not a crime... --BozMo talk 15:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current request was made because, in the editor's words, WMC "is constantly uncivil, has a habit of BLP violations against skeptics and most importantly he has had free license to do this." Remember the terms of the probation: "any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith." Civility is extremely important for increasing productivity and the likelihood of consensus, as opposed to the current battleground mentality we've seen on the articles in question.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@BozMo: You should consider the fact that not all editors complaining here have a one-to-one link to discuss and post. All complains are indeed coming from different editors and there is a genuine possibility of them being incoherent. Arguing on this basis is somewhat analogues to hiding oneself from the broader truth. EngineerFromVega (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@EFV I was not, I am afraid, talking about incoherence between complaints but that no editor had yet come up with a coherent complaint. This complaint will almost certainly get struck off because it fails to state a problem and demonstrate it. It is too much to expect busy admins to go fishing through all the edits of an individual to see if there is a transgression. Someone needs to pinpoint a problem, explain it and demonstrate it. --BozMo talk 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@BozMo: TheGoodLocust has already given detailed description of complaints in the first post. All other editors are presenting supporting arguments, which are bound to be a collection of isolated complaints. If you can kindly point out actual problems with the original post, others will be happy to discuss them. EngineerFromVega (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@EFV AFAICT he has given a list of diffs with his interpretation of them but not even attempted to give "an explanation how these edits violate" probation which we put in bold letters at the top of this page. He needs to pick a violating behaviour (e.g. editwarring, the first on his list) and then produce his evidence of edit warring. If he is not sure how to present this kind of argument he needs to go and find someone to help him. At present this is not a valid request for enforcement. --BozMo talk 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BozMo, for JPat's article ban, there were two diffs presented and little more, and you recommended strong action. Here, TheGoodLocust provides a whole list of diffs, along with discussion as to their relevance to this probation, and you're left wanting for more. OK, here it is specifically: personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith present in most of those diffs. In particular, calling opposing editors "septic" which is basically akin to calling them a piece of shit. The other diffs provide more examples. What more do you need? ATren (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If WMC was calling editors "septic," that would be problematic. However, in the list of diffs presented, I'm hard pressed to find that because the diffs are not clearly presented. If you would like to file a clear request, that would probably be helpful. I would note that I was strongly admonished for my reports earlier lacking substantial evidence by the same admin who restricted Mr. Patterson, so I assume he did more research than just clicking on my two diffs. Of course, since Mr. Patterson, at that time, had edited only two articles (and one of them he had not edited for over three(?) years) it was reasonably easy to follow all of his edits. I assume that the fact that WMC edits lots of articles makes it far more imperitive to file clear reports. Plese do so. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ATren: He presented a list of complaints, but they were incoherent and more than a little dishonest. His evidence included a sanction from several years ago, that was voided. His evidence included evidence of WMC's decision to not use the (eminently acceptable) term "denialist" (and note, he's not using this for editors) because he thought it was unfair to tar them with associations to Holocaust denial. And so on. How can you defend that sort of nonsense? Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"he is last years (or the year before that's) stale pie. It was never notable, but pushed in by the septics at the time." - (emphasis mine) - this was TGL's first diff. Are you defending WMC calling editors who oppose him "septic", which is another way of saying they're shit? ATren (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Someone should probably tell him that's incivil, and to stop being incivil. Perhaps even put him on a civility parole for a limited period of time. It's a shame this shotgun complaint was focused on all kinds of things and proposed an irrelevent topic ban. Throwabunchofshitseewhatsticks is not appropriate. Redraft the complaint if you'd like.Hipocrite (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility is a violation of the probation. ATren (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Nonsequitor. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if the beholder is you, Hipocrite, "WMC could be more civil." (see below). So why is this not a violation of the civility clause of this probation? ATren (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Uh, it is? We don't topic ban people for one shot of incivility. We tell them to stop being incivil. I'd happily tell WMC this if doing so wouldn't be adding support to the other bullshit in this shotgun complaint. I might even have done it if the complainer had any level of capital with me that I'd be willing to assume my reminder about civility wouldn't be used as ammo to further diminish the scientific accuracy of an encyclopedia. However, since the proposer, and every single one of the people arguing here (except, ironically, me), has merely lined up on their sides, I don't quite feel like giving an inch to be taken for a mile, yet again. Hipocrite (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC) From TenOfAllTrades. I'd be a snappish too, if there were such a concerted, ongoing effort to harrass me and smear my name on- and off-project. Forum-shopping and abuse of Wikipedia dispute resolution boards is just not on. I count three threads just on this page aimed at sanctioning WMC, two of which have aleady been closed as unactionable. There's another pair of threads on the talk page (action, deemed unactionable and/or misplaced), with a third section removed in its entirety as being a platform for a personal attack on WMC. There have been a couple of misguided attempts to use WP:COIN (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 39) which were again unactionable bordering on vexatious. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Hipocrite WMC could be more civil. Of course, all of the SPA's who have been following him around could stop following him around. Hipocrite (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly recommend that anyone concerned over the ownership issues, incivility, and other problems displayed by WMC and others at the GW-related pages simply disengage. Let it become the echo chamber that many seem to wish it were. Let the embarrassment that it causes the project build, until it reaches the breaking point. Nothing is going to be done here. No one has the stomach to sanction WMC for his behavior. And he's adept enough at what he does, to be able to walk a fine line, in which he maintains a somewhat plausible deniability with regards to the practical effect of his actions. Reporting his behavior here is an utter waste of time. Unit Anode 16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Mark Nutley Interesting defence from WMC there. Get people to look else were by posting diffs to anyone but himself. I fail to see how what i wrote has any bearing on this case? --mark nutley (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence that GoodLocust, I and other editors have worked up is more than adequate to demonstrate a clear COI, abusive POV editing, a long pattern of incivility, a BLP violating approach to smearing article subjects, wikilawyering over content, and abuse of editing privileges to keep attack pages in user space in an effort to harass and intimidate good faith contributors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, please, present it and show us what you only claim you can show (so far).--BozMo talk 18:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous diffs have already been supplied. Which examples of William's COI, improper refactoring, wikilawyering over content, abusive POV pushing, incivility, and abuse of userspace for attack pages aren't you seeing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From ChrisO: I have to say that I, like BozMo, really don't see the gist of this complaint. It comes across as a grab-bag of disputable diffs and some frankly weird assertions (clue for ATren, "septic" does not mean "shit" - get a better dictionary). I've already said that I think WMC could stand to be less adversarial. On the other hand, this complaint looks like a pile-on by editors with a common POV who are seeking to relitigate issues endlessly in an attempt to get WMC topic-banned. It looks to me like a harassment campaign, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry chris but your wrong there :)

Pronunciation: \ˈsep-tik\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Latin septicus, from Greek sēptikos, from sēpein to putrefy

Date: 1605

1 : of, relating to, or causing putrefaction

2 : relating to, involving, caused by, or affected with sepsis <septic patients>

3 : used for sewage treatment and disposal <a septic system>; also : of or relating to a septic system <septic effluents>

As the diffs presented occured in the last few days Chris, your argument that your fellow editors are trying to relitigate is demonstrably false. Also, you need to stop making improper insinuations about those who are working in good faith to address William's disruptive behaviors. His incivility, refactoring, attack pages in user space, wikilawyering over content, abusive POV pushing, and COI are all evident in these recent diffs from the last several days that have been presented by several editors, and the problem needs to be addressed. Should editors be allowed to carry out personal feuds with their personal and professional adversaries? Should editors be allowed to use Wikipedia to promote their personal POV? Is the continuation of William's long history of personal attacks, including the numerous examples from the last few days, something that should be allowed to continue? Should we allow editors to keep attack pages in their user space where they go after editors they disagree with? Let's stay focused on the core issues here and avoid disrupting discussion with irrelevant insinuations ascribing motives to those trying to deal with this problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Should editors be allowed to use Wikipedia to promote their personal POV?" I dunno, what do you think? Hipocrite (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisO: Once again, the "WMC is being harassed" meme. Where are the diffs of this supposed harassment from TheGoodLocust? Why aren't they being presented here? ATren (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you insist - "Honestly, the best thing to do in reponse is to play dirty. They break wikipedia rules all the time and know how to game the system with socks, email lists, and wiki-lawyering. A coordinated attempt to correct the bias on wikipedia is the only way to counter them – they’ve been doing it for years." - TheGoodLocust thegoo t [60].
"For example, the blog “real climate” is constantly used by Connolley et all as a “reliable source” to alter articles. And so we have an interesting situation where a (co)author of a blog can quote himself (or people with whom he has input) in order to make his own case on wikipedia. Hell, he can just make up or order any source he needs if he wants to – it is ridiculous." - TheGoodLocust [61]
"Correct, he finally got booted off his own article and now relegates cleaning duty to two of his biggest lackeys – Stephan Schulz and Kim Dabelstein Petersen. Sorry, but having your friends on facebook constantly editting your article is just as bad but more subtle." - TheGoodLocust [62]
"Let's test that out Connolley, we can topic ban SPAs for a few months and then see if that calms things down a bit. Besides, I think you'd welcome the break. " - TheGoodLocust [63]

But hey, you know, orchestrating an off-wiki harassment campaign isn't haras... wait, yes it is! Hipocrite (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Okay, I think that counts as wikistalking since I never posted any links to my comments at WUWT, but I encourage anyone to actually look at those links to get the full context on some of them. The situation is obviously frustrating and I thought I could vent at a "safe place" without being harassed for it. However, the one diff you provide for me to wikipedia, the last thing you mention, is blatant misrepresentation which is shown by this diff. However, if you don't mind bringing up links from off-wiki websites I noticed one a few days ago that accused you of being a sock account of another person on this page (also defending Connolley) - mind if we checkuser you to make sure? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were in the above does TGL actually encourage people to harass WMC? What you have posted is not harassment it is someone speaking in a manner born of frustration mark nutley (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where he says "A coordinated attempt to correct the bias on wikipedia is the only way to counter them," you know, because off-wiki coordination is A+! Hipocrite (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so we're bringing off-wiki evidence into this? OK, then, I'll start digging for WMC's off-wiki incivility too. Here's a start:

"the wacko POV-pushers lost... I've been busy with the wacko's on wiki, as you'll see if you visit Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident."

I'm busy right now, but I'll try to find more tonight. ATren (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that it's ok if the other guy does it? That's an interesting take, I guess. You asked for examples of harassment from TGL. I gave you them, in off (and on) wiki spades. You responded not with a "thanks," but rather with a "Oh yeah? Well, well, well, here's some minor incivility not directed at any individual off wiki by WMC." Do you understand why I think you're fully engaged us vs. them at this point? Have you commented negatively about TGL's offwiki harassment campaign, or onwiki incivility? Have I commented negatively about WMC? And with that, I take my leave. Hipocrite (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, TGL's evidence is all on-wiki. You brought in off-wiki evidence, to which I responded with similar off-wiki evidence from WMC, but this doesn't change the fact that TGL's evidence is right there for all of us to examine. WMC calls editors "septic", he calls them a waste of time, he removes talk page comments, he edits aggressively and condescendingly on both articles and talk. It's all there, regardless of who reported it. Would you prefer if I took the same diffs and start a new report? Would that disarm the "harassment" charge? ATren (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> My "offwiki harrassment campaign?" You posted comments I made to articles about Connolley's abuse. I comment all the time at WUWT and he has been the subject of a few articles. Hell, he's been in all sorts of publications as examples of wikipedia's problems. For crying out loud how could I have harrassed him when he wasn't anywhere near the conversation? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "topic parole" is a phrase I've never seen before. What is more relevant (but a full click away) is that the revert parole was revoked as an unnecessary move. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting that you never heard of it Schulz since you are the one that appealed for it to be removed from Connolley. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading that Arb thing, again, i'm joining Stephan in never having heard of "topic parole". Could it be that you are misreading something? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that is my mistake, I thought "topic parole" was an adequate enough description, but if you insist, not that it really matters, I guess we can call it "revert parole on global warming-related articles," but I don't think that really flows off the tongue as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now that we agree on the name, can you explain why you harp on a revoked parole? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Verbal: A stop should be put to this pathetic and continued (unorchestrated but pernicious) campaign of harassment against WMC, by block and sanctions against those responsible. Enough is enough, and those behind this are not only damaging the encyclopaedia by harassing a valuable editor, they are attempting to subvert a whole area of the project to suit a fringe POV. Verbal chat 21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you feel it is appropriate to refer to other editors as "septic", as in "of, relating to, or causing putrefaction"? ATren (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From ChrisO (second comment): I recommend that this be closed. Nothing actionable has been posted, WMC has already been advised to take a non-adversarial approach, and the other editors have already been advised not to harass WMC. Nothing new has come up and this discussion is clearly going to produce nothing more than further bickering. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Advise" him all you want. WMC is who he is, and acts how he acts. He's not going to change, and he's not going to magically start treating those who disagree with his POV with respect. He doesn't need to be "advised", he needs to be "warned" that if he continues to engage in his own brand of disrespect and incivility, he'll simply be blocked. That's, perhaps, a message he would understand. Unit Anode 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had privately emailed Dr. Connolley last night asking him to slow down. His recent bitey and uncivil behavior has impacted the efforts to lower the temperature of discussion quite severely. He agreed to slow down somewhat. I recommend no further action as long as he keeps his word. --TS 21:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed that TS should have chosen to give a rather partial account of a private email conversation. I shall not be trusting TS to keep private conversations private in future. You may take it that whatever promises TS may have chosen to make on my behalf are entirely void William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, there's no promise. There needs to be an enforcement provision. ATren (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I say below: you should ignore TS's rather regrettable text entirely William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that's far less than is warranted for his history of abuse; but, if it must be that, then let's formalize it: the next time WMC uses condescending terms, removes talk page comments, bites new users, edits divisively, or engages in any other uncivil behavior, he is topic-banned for 6 months. Given his long history of aggression on these articles, that's a slap on the hand, but it gives him one more chance to reform his behavior. ATren (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be utterly ridiculous. Quite OTT. --TS 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not at all ridiculous. It's putting some teeth into the agreement, that's all, as is done all the time when editors don't abide by the rules. If he keeps to his word, it's an irrelevant provision, so where's the harm? ATren (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns have been raised, he's promised to address them. If he doesn't then we discuss whether we need teeth. --TS 22:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this comment from WMC as regards his promise to address these issues? Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore TS's text, which is only muddying the waters William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance , or not, action or not, the wiki has become well aware of this issue and whatever happens here , it is over, the wiki has had enough,multiple articles locked by edit warring and clear repeated incivility, that is the reason for this probation pages existence and if individual editors and groups of editors believe they can continue with the line walking on policy and civility that they have been doing for a long time they are living in the past, people are not blind and they can see exactly what is going on. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ATren, Could you accurately raise what the issue is first? If the issue is "uses condescending terms, removes talk page comments, bites new users, edits divisively, or engages in any other uncivil behavior" then first complain clearly that this is the issue and justify that it is true. Then we can discuss which parts of it are against the rules. Then we can enforce it. For example the state of the talk pages (full of stuff irrelevant to the article) means removing talk page comments is not absolutely prohibited. Condescension is hard to define. Biting is clear, has he done this? etc. You might well succeed but at present what some people feel is recognised and other feel is simply asserted. --BozMo talk 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BozMo, let's start with TGL's first piece of evidence: is calling someone "septic" considered civil? ATren (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling somone a septic is uncivil. Since I haven't done it, I'm not sure what your point is. Calling someone a member of a pro-GW cabal is... well, what is it, in your opinion? Incivil, perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, discounting the diff I already provided, and the blog you provided from your talk page, anyone can do a wikipedia search of your use of the term septic and judge your actions from the results. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, you even created a section devoted to "septics" for the articles you edit. NPOV? There were quite a few results in that search - and they weren't flattering of your attitude. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think about it, that link shows you committing BLP violations against 6-7 individuals. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With WMC's latest mini-speech, can we please finally deal with WMC's incivility. He's made it clear that either (A) he refused to agree to stop being uncivil, and what TS reported is untrue; or (B) he did agree to that, but he's so angry about TS revealing that he agreed to it, that he's taking back that pledge. Either way, it seems we can expect more of the same from him on this particular set of articles. Unit Anode 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be civil? What is this "mini-speech" nonsense. You haven't got a clue what I said to TS. You should ignore entirely his partial account of the conversation and make no deductions whatsoever from what he said: this has been a very regrettable lapse of manners by TS that has done nothing but muddy the waters William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What tony was doing was trying to help you, you should apologise for what you wrote not compound it with further rudeness --mark nutley (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that TS would even dare to mention this to Connoelly considering they share the same ideological perspective - kudos on that TS. His response to this revelation, as with the "revenge edit" I posted on my evidence, indicates a pattern of lashing out against perceived slights in unproductive ways. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, WMC, it's already out there. Requesting it be "ignored" now is a bit of locking the barn door after the horse already ran away. Either you made some sort of pledge, and you're upset that TS told us, or you didn't make the pledge, and TS is being untruthful. Unit Anode 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, Connolley could've given TS the mistaken impression that he was going to cool off - a breakdown of communication could've conceivably occurred at either end. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

There's only good solution here. Give the tools back to WMC and bar all the harassers per Verbal. We've already lost Kenosis, we cannot let the climate change articles fall to the "skeptics". --- 32.173.35.150 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give tools back to a guy who edit warred with people and then banned them? Including in climate change articles? Who are you exactly and were you being sarcastic?TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC notified us off-wiki that he was in trouble. Our forums have been watching and we are going to stop people like you from bothering him. Kenosis is already gone, we cannot lose another. -- 32.173.243.1 (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TGL, ignore this, it's just someone trying to make a point. ATren (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What point? Every week or so somebody comes around complaining about WMC. Either he's the most unlucky guy in the world or we need to stop the harassment. He knows who's harassing him and what quicker way to stop it than letting him block them? Fine someone else block the harassers.

Where there is smoke there is usually fire. I've already demonstrated around 10 BLP violations against climate skeptics perpetrated by him (and there are certainly far more out there). It is clear that he can't edit these articles neutrally. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many prior warnings

I counted three sections on this enforcement project aimed at sanctioning WMC, two of which closed to no benefit and further WMC bickering. There's another thread on the talk page which he abused to harass another editor [64], and a talk section that WMC removed in entirety from the talk page by edit waring. When will the offender get the warning message that his behavior is creating unproductive attention and long disruptive complaint sessions. If many warnings will not avail, then it may be time to remove the source for a while. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of throwing as much mud as possible in the hope that some of it will stick. By repeating the same complaints over and over again, complaints largely without merit, you are effectively trying to hound WMC out of the topic so that you can have a free reign. This sort of behavior is totally unacceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I plan on taking a long break after this is settled. Wikipedia certainly doesn't need me to improve articles nor does it need Connolley. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have that partly right, I suppose. Besides, you aren't really a prolific editor of article space anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I prefer to persuade people that certain edits are the right way to go instead of tag-teaming my version with friends until everyone else gets fed up and moves on. I've editted many science-based articles without incident - only when I encounter certain groups do I get hassled about them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning William M. Connolley

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

@@ Line 474: / Line 474: @@
 == William M. Connolley ==
-{{cot|No action. Some of these issues are treated in the preceding section. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 00:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)}}
 ''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.''
 ===Request concerning William M. Connolley===
@@ Line 687: / Line 687: @@
 <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
 <!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.-->
-{{cob}}