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

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

{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request

| User against whom enforcement is requested          
  = <Username>

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

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

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

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

| Additional comments 
  = <Your text>
}}

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

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

---

IP disruption

Something needs to be done about the disruption being created by the anonymous IP editor "142.x" who was previously discussed in this archive. The individual is currently using the following IP:

• 142.177.158.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'd like serious consideration to be given to a range block, since blocking this individual's IP addresses has been ineffective thus far. I have become a favored target, with vandalism of my user talk page and disgraceful personal attacks being the current problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the current addy, but only for a short while - since they hop addresses, longer is pointless. I suggest you form up an SPI report, and let someone see if there can be an effective rangeblock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Either that or seek another CU to do the same sort of checks I did. With the assumption of Ombudsmanship, I no longer can run routine CUs so someone else will need to. However,n I stand by what I said before though, I don't think a short range block is that damaging. Yes it loses some IP editing that isn't part of this problem, but not shedfuls. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to get some help at WP:SPI but received none, so I opened this ANI thread, which resulted in week-long range blocks being applied. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda

Guettarda warned in regard to repeating allegations when refuted, outside of dispute resolution process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd asked Geni about whether this was actionable, who suggested I bring it to this page rather than ask him/her: User_talk:Geni#Is_this_actionable.3F. Over the past 1-2 days (and counting) Guettarda has made repeated allegations of a WP:Canvass violation (w.r.t. a vote in an RFC), and has continued to post more or less unmodified versions of this complaint on various pages despite explications of the policy and requests for diffs. This is disruptive, clutters talkpages, and generally instigates further comments designed to address the concerns raised only to be ignored (i.e., WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), distracting discussion. Allegations [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Answers [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] If I'm the one misinterpreting policy here I'd like to be informed. If not, I'd like a request that Guettarda desist in raising this contention outside his/her own talkpage with respect to this particular alleged violation. It's disrupting discussion across these various pages. Thank you. (Guettarda was notified of this request here)--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Discussion related to Guettarda I invited Guettarda to take this up on ANI, but he did not do so, leading me to think that his allegations are not an honest attempt at dispute resolution. Instead, in my opinion, it appears to be an attempt to bully, intimidate, distract, or delay discussion about an article page move that he does not agree with. By any measure, his behavior is extremely unhelpful. If Guettarda's personal feelings on the subject in question are too strong to allow him to participate in an NPOV and collaborative manner, perhaps he should stay away from that article. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC) I have echoed the request to bring the complaint here, together with a request not to use the term without supporting diffs elsewhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Maybe that's enough, though I see Guettarda making the same problematic edits to this section so I don't know. Whatever works.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC) That is a lot of diffs. Shouldn't be tolerated. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC) I'm at a loss here. I strongly support the attempts to get agreement for a new name for the article, in the spirit of Ignore all rules, and I'm very impressed that GoRight, who I had initially imagined had been banished from the topic for several months, had reinvented himself as a peacemaker. At the same time. I don't think it's normally a good idea to try this kind of thing. It definitely needs to be justified, and rejustified. I could find myself swayed by Guettarda's arguments, despite my long and heartfelt support for "Ignore all rules." I think Guettarda's opinion that the user talk canvassing was intentionally aimed at swaying talk page discussion is tenable. There was certainly a strong bias to the canvassing, and the usual route of an RFC was avoided (though possibly for defensible reasons). So complaining about a prima facie abuse, even in the face of insistence by the participants that they did not conduct that abuse, is defensible, and we'd have to have strong evidence that Guettarda was trying to cause harm or was reckless in his use of his editing privileges. I don't see that here. I see a dispute about a laudable, but failed, attempt to handle the endless bickering about the article's name. Guettarda's complaints have merit in policy, even if they do not carry the day. In short, dispute resolution is not optional. Selecting a group of supporters, either on or off wiki, and then marshalling them to overwhelm opposition, isn't a very good way to behave. Guettarda is right to highlight the concerns he has here and he does deserve a proper response. --TS 23:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC) So we're clear, there are two different instances where canvassing has been alleged. One is regarding the petition at User_talk:GoRight#CRU_hacking_incident_article_name. This was canvassed by any definition and shouldn't be provided much if any weight in rename discussions. The second is regarding my alleged canvassing for the renaming RfC. For background, there was an RfC asking "Should the article be renamed? If so, what should it be called?" There were lots of respondents to this with varying opinions; a slim majority supported renaming the page but they disagreed on what it should be named. I opened up a new section in the RfC proposing a specific name. I then neutrally notified all of the participants in the previous RfC section regardless of their positions that a new discussion was taking place (sample diff). Not only did Guettarda close the section immediately claiming I had violated the RfC rules (diff) but he has since accused me of inappropriate canvassing at least 10 times despite repeated explanations why what I did was OK and misquoted my statements about the RfC (the latter may be a miscommunication rather than malicious). I invite any uninvolved experienced user to review my conduct and determine whether I have inappropriately canvassed. If anyone including Guettarda believes I have, please open up a section on me here. Otherwise, I ask that Guetterda stops making these accusations and stops attempting to speak for me. Oren0 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, I do think what was done was defensible. But that doesn't mean we should regard people who (as Guettarda has done) strongly disagree with that position, and state it repeatedly, are doing the wrong thing. In fact until Guettarda pointed it out, I'm now ashamed to admit, I thought nothing but good could come of this, and I still admire those who made the attempt. But no, this attempt to forge union seems to have spread a little more division, and I don't think it's wrong to admit it. The use of talk pages, which is well known. The use (you now say) of a vaguely worded RFC as a stalking horse for a move proposal--all of these strike me as legitimate applications of "Ignore all rules", and laudable at that. Thank you. It's the claim that Guettarda was in the wrong for complaining that I don't agree with. It's always legitimate to raise such concerns. If "Ignore all rules" leads you to ask for another editor to be sanctioned for disagreeing with you, then you've ignored some of the most basic, unignorable rules. We used to refer to such meta-rules, in aggregate, as "Don't be a dick", until some clever-dick realised that all such references were self-defining. --Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 01:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Raise the matter, sure, no problem. But how many times, in how many places, before it's considered tendentious, or even disruptive? That's the question in my view. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC) The basic principle that underlies WP:CANVASS is that you shouldn't canvass votes for discussion. The norm is to let interested editors find there way there on their own. WP:CANVASS outlines some exceptions to this idea. One acceptable use, according to WP:CANVASS is to notify "editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion". Who among the "interested" editors weren't notified? Well, lots of people. A list that just so happens to include: User:William M. Connolley User:KimDabelsteinPetersen User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris User:Stephan Schulz User:Tony Sidaway (the #1 editor to the talk page) User:Hipocrite The "article related to the discussion" is the CRU hacking article, not the RFC. People make mistakes, of course. Oren0 may have meant well. But that's beside the point. By selectively leaving out a large number of interested editors, Oren0 created a poll that appeared tainted. And it goes matter of who you notify. Canvasses are also read by other editors. Although the RFC was not listed anywhere, within a couple hours it attracted input from several editors who have never edited either the CRU hacking page or its talk page. Like-minded people read each others talk pages. Favouring one "side" and neglecting the other reverberates beyond the actual pages you edit. Canvassing is never a zero-sum game, even when it's done properly. That's why it's never a good idea. It's not about Oren0's intent. Selective notification taints discussions, especially when (like this one) most of the canvassed editors simply vote and leave. Guettarda (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Remember that I disengaged from that article some time ago when accused of ownership, and more recently I disengaged more overtly for a while, renouncing the entire topic for a couple of weeks that happen to have coincided with this affair, so I can believe that failure to canvass me was appropriate, and even most considerate. But the failure to canvass the other editors listed above, all of them very much reputable editors whose good faith is unimpeachable, is worrying. There is legitimate cause for concern that cannot be wiped away by trying to blame the person who happens to make the complaint. Please understand that I don't think anybody has done anything sanctionable. My only beef is with those who are saying that Guettarda's expression of concern, annoying as it may be, is sanctionable. It ain't. --TS 02:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Oren0 systematically notified every editor who had voted in the attached "Should this article be renamed?" poll regardless of their vote. Additionally, Oren0 added a notification to the parent article's talkpage indicating that the vote was occuring. That page is watched and/or monitored by everyone making significant edits to the article or its talkpage. A move request template was also posted to the talkpage (here) with a link to the vote. This is canvassing, but it's the right kind of canvassing. That's indisputable, and though I'm not surprised you don't know the details (as you aren't actively editing that page), Guettarda does know them because he or she has had them pointed out to him or her repeatedly, and yet he or she still continues to post the same allegations, as shown here, just above us. It's misleading for people who don't follow the page closely (as with you in this case) and it disrupts discussion, cluttering the page.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC) One more thought in passing. It's telling that Heyitspeter bring, among the diffs of my "misbehaviour", my responses to Oren0 and Cla68 on my talk page. It's also telling that it's only when I stopped responding that they chose to escalate. So isn't that a classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation? Guettarda (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I thought about leaving those two diffs out (note that we would still be left with eleven diffs), but figured I should keep them as indicating more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. That's a valid concern, though. I'm still not sure it was the right decision.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC) (ec) You keep accusing me of engaging in disruptive editing by "refusing to get the point". If you're going to accuse me of that, doesn't someone have to come up with a more convincing argument than "you're wrong"? Isn't the onus on you to explain why a canvass for a page move that leaves out the editors mentioned above, is appropriate, or explain how such a discussion isn't tainted? Guettarda (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC) This is getting really meta. In a thread about your refusal to get the point, you're refusing to get the point, despite its being explained to you (again) in this very section. (I could reasonably add your comments on this request to the request.) Other attempts at addressing your concerns are shown in the sampling of diffs I provided above (and it was just a sampling). I'm going to disengage now because I'm frustrated (I hope not too obviously). I've said all I want to say, administrators can sort out the rest if they see fit.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I think it would be fair to remark that Guettarda isn't the only person not getting the point here. I really am not trying to avoid getting it, and I don't get the impression that he is, either. What is the point, exactly? --TS 04:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC) In this case? specifically? Guettarda stated, "If you're going to accuse me of that, doesn't someone have to come up with a more convincing argument than 'you're wrong'?" Arguments have consisted of far more than that, as shown in this talkpage. That is to say, Guettarda's statement (just quoted) is an example of a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT violation, viz. "refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error."--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC) No. I want you to stop saying that Guettarda isn't getting the point that your argument is that he isn't getting the point. I don't get the point. I want you to explain what the point is. Whatever it is that Guettarda and I are not getting. Explain it. --TS 04:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC) here (repeated)--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I don't doubt that the editors in question made efforts to contact editors who had an opinion. But it really isn't at all wrong for Guettarda to point out, repeatedly and possibly annoyingly to you, that whoever did it didn't do a very good job of it. As for involvement in the RFC, the thing was so ridiculously vaguely worded that, after a quick glance to confirm that there was no consensus for any one name, my first edit was to close it, and my second was to move it--all 50k of pointless arguing--onto a separate page. How many other people with an opinion simply passed over the mess without comment? We will never know. I do think you all did a great job and I think you acted on good faith, but there are enough problems for me to be doubtful that are only multiplied by this misconceived attempt to sanction somebody who objects to the way you did it. --TS 03:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Tony, please try to stay on topic here. Guettarda sprayed bad-faith accusations of canvassing, because, IMO, he was unhappy about the consensus that developed in the RfC to rename the article, and then a second consensus which developed on the new name. He declined to take his accusations to ANI or to this forum, which are the forums we use to settle editor behavior issues. In other words, he disrupted a content dispute resolution process, videlicet, the RfC and its associated discussion, and has been called on it here. That's it. An admin (LHVU) has agreed that his behavior was problematic and has apparently taken some action and hopefully that will correct the behavior in question. End of story for the moment. Cla68 (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I am not advocating for any sort of sanctions against anybody. What I'm asking for is for someone uninvolved to decide whether what I did was OK or not. If it wasn't, explain why. If it was, Guettarda should stop complaining about it. All of these repeated complaints serve to derail and undermine the discussion, and one wonders if that's the point. As for the list of editors above, if they neither participated in the RfC nor saw the multiple messages on the talk page then clearly they weren't interested in participating. Oren0 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Asking for an evaluation (and elaboration on the opinion given) strikes me as a reasonable request, as at first glance Guettarda's activities certainly do raise eyebrows, but perhaps there is more to it. ObDisclose: Guetterda recently opposed my stewardship reconfirmation, and among other canards, claimed I'm not an uninvolved admin w/r/t AGW. That's nonsense "just, like, his opinion, man", of course, but there you are. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Comment by Scjessey I also have repeatedly complained about the canvassing problem, and I referred to the matter as "procedural shenanigans" from the very start. Canvassing should never be used to solicit votes, and RfCs are supposed to seek comments to promote discussion, not votes. I support Guettarda's statements completely about how the "vote" was tainted, so if Guettarda is to receive some sort of sanction for stating the obvious you had better clap me in irons as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Comment by slightly involved Wikidemon I don't think we can separate the behavioral / procedural issues from the underlying fact that there is no clear consensus after many attempts to find conensus on what to call the article. My colleague Scjessey probably thinks I'm nuts for saying so, but I think we should just rename the article "Climategate" and be done with it. Nevertheless, we do have to respect that there is good faith disagreement, and underlying that, a lot of reasonable uncertainty, on what the article is about and how to name it. Going about it again and again, in different forums and with different methods, yields different results. I doubt that anyone is intentionally process gaming, that's just a fact of how consensus works. At some point, all the repeated proposals and attempts to discuss the matter become a huge distracting time sink, whether done in IAR fashion or completely according to the rules. Perhaps a brilliant mediator will come along and propose a solution involving sister articles, redirects, and wording in the lede that makes everyone happy. Failing that, I think we just need to accept that we have a provisional article name for now, put a lid on it, and revisit it later rather than in continuous serial fashion. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Comment by LessHeard vanU This has expanded quite a bit since I last looked. I made a proposal at Guettarda's talkpage, upon which I am waiting a response. If the response is agreement, I would be looking to conclude the matter on that basis. I think that this is not about whether WP:CANVASS violations took place, and upon which I have no opinion, but whether it is proper to make those allegations without seeming intent to address the issue. Other editors with similar concerns, and those refuting those concerns, might also consider whether they are prepared to instigate some process to determine the matter, or to let it drop and move forward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Not quite sure what you mean?--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC) If G agrees that referring to claims of canvassing without proceeding to resolve the matter was inappropriate, and promises to not repeat the claims outside of such a process, then we can shut up this request. Plus, all other parties might consider doing the same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Ahh, okay. Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Result Guettarda warned in regard to repeating allegations when refuted, outside of dispute resolution process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark Nutley (2)

Both editors blocked 24 hours; both editors subsequently unblocked by reviewing admin per Hipocrites appeal and various undertakings given.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Marknutley User requesting enforcement Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation edit warring despite warnings, and earlier probational restrictions. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [21] first insertion of content [22] first revert [23] second revert [24] third revert Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) The specific sanction that Mark is violating is this: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2#Result_concerning_TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC, he was informed about the sanctions here [25] I warned Mark here [26] as well as here [27]. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Enforcement per the earlier probation warning. Additional comments by editor filing complaint In addition to this is should be mentioned that Mark has previously been edit-warring in contradiction to his (and my) sanctions, which i warned him about here [28]. That previous episode was handled by 2over0 amicably. I've tried to resolve this in private with Mark, by asking him to self-revert - but unfortunately he hasn't been cooperative. Note: I will be off-line for most of the evening. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [29] Other involved party Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[30] Added by Wikidemon per discussion below - Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning Marknutley Statement by Marknutley Sorry it`s taken so long to get to this, work has been mental. I was not edit warring, every edit i made was backed up with ever more ref`s each and every time. WMC says i am POV pushing, no i am not, the majority of the refs show the MWP was global, from europe to china to new zealand. Stephen also accuses me of synthesizing, this is untrue as two of the refs used actually state the MWP was a global event. This is not me making connections, it is written in the papers i used as ref`s. mark nutley (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Statement by WMC [This is wrong, 'cos I misread the parole. Rather than striking it all I'll just put this here - William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)] [31] and [32] is one violation of the 1RR parole (re-inserts "worldwide", which is but one word but is the substance of discussion). [33] is the second violation of the parole. [34] is the third. Why isn't this an open-and-shut case? Three violations of the parole and an explicit rejection of warnings: You are aware that this is a breach of the probationary restrictions that we are under - correct? And that the consequences may be a 1RR permanent restriction for you? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, however i do not believe i am edit warring. If you feel otherwise you know what to do :) See you on the RFE board mark nutley (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Doesn't look like MN is prepared to listen to "friendly warnings". William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC) You said that the editor continued "despite" and in "explicit rejection" of warnings. Where are those warnings? The two you mention were done after the last revert. Given that, and the fact that the person giving the warnings is a non-admin and an involved party, I think it would be useful for an uninvolved administrator to formally endorse / repeat that warning before taking any action. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC) A note on the substance: MN has been been engaging is tendentious discussion on the talk page, asserting that http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm is a RS. It blantantly is unreliable. Comments like Not according to the ref`s i just used to rewrite the lead, it was global the proof is there, it is pointless to deny it are unhelpful; MN is blantantly POV pushing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Everyone has their POV. It looks like a legitimate good faith argument to me. Whether it is a correct argument is a content matter, and should be met with courteous discussion on the article talk page, not behavioral complaints. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC) @WMC AFAIK MN is not on a 1RR parole, or if he is then it isn't what is linked to above? --BozMo talk 20:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC) As far as I can tell, he is not, though barely not. Marknutley is warned that further participation in any edit war in the probation area will lead to a one-revert restriction or similar sanctions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC) OK, I agree: apologies. Only TGL and I are. So, given that this *is* clear participation on an edit war, the obvious santiocn is to put him onto 1RR, as per the parole, yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC) @LHVU: fine by me (not often you hear that, worth it for the novelty alone :-) though of course I'm not in charge here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley If this is to result in any sanction, Steven Schulz will have to suffer the same fate since he is just as guilty of edit waring. 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd Revert Arzel (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Hmmm, as far as i can tell, Stephan isn't under special probation like Mark and I are. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC) So he has a licence to edit war? I sorry, but it is this kind of crap that makes people believe there is a double standard with regards to these articles. His actions we no less egregious than MN from a purely reverting point of view. Arzel (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Well, if you reduce everything to spelling, The Communist Manifesto is as correct as On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Fact is that Mark has been reverted by several editors by now. He is trying to insert scientific nonsense, originally sourced to a self-published skeptic web site, then by synthesizing several sources, none of which supported his edit, and which did not even support it collectively. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC) "Fact is that Mark has been reverted by several editors by now" maybe BUT during the actual sequence of reverts listed above the only other editor who reverted him said it was specifically for a wording error which Mark simply corrected after agreement on talk. So aside the probation thing (and of course the question of who has right on their side) it was a pretty even handed dispute. Since two or three other editors have sided with you but perhaps you should have waited for them to arrive first (in an ideal world). --BozMo talk 19:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)j If the sanctions are going to mean anything we have to enforce the restriction on edit warring. Edit warring by both sides is wrong, but per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, as the proposer of new content it's Marknutley's responsibility to gain consensus if his change is disputed in good faith. Nevertheless, this is a flawed report in that the warning came after, not before, the last revert shown. Asking that he self-revert or face a report / sanctions is a little heavy handed. I would suggest a caution to both parties, and a warning to take it to the talk page rather than continue reverting, or face blocks on either / both sides. I have no opinion and admittedly no background to judge whose version seems better supported, but that's besides the point as long as one side is not clearly vandalism, bad faith, copyvio, against a firm longstanding consensus, or any of the other edit warring excuses. We may have the "wrong version" in place, but that's the nature of the process. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Also, noting the "mitigating circumstances" BozMo describes below.[35] Although approaching the line and perhaps being too aggressive, I think this is worth a friendly caution at best. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Wikidemon, your point about 'a firm longstanding consensus' above has weight - even back in 2004, there was no doubt in this article about the non-worldwide aspects of the subject. The statement had migrated into the first few sentences by July 2005 and, as far as I can see has been there ever since. To anyone with any knowledge in this area of science, there has been no doubt about this for a decade. In know we're not here to debate content or facts, but this degree of background provides some context. This isn't a 50/50 argument. --Nigelj (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Erm? How is this a flawed report? Both Mark and I are under strict orders/warnings against edit-warring, that was the result of WP:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2#Result_concerning_TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC. I used rather a long time trying to persuade Mark to self-revert his last edit, so that he wouldn't be violating the probationary sanction (it is linked above). I only filed this when Mark's reply was: If you feel otherwise you know what to do :) See you on the RFE board, which to me states 2 things: 1) Mark is well aware of the restriction 2) He doesn't care - since he is enforcing his version of WP:TRUTH (and thus cannot be edit-warring). I would also like to note that in the case where Mark and I where put on "parole", we were both actively talking, and none of us were above 2RR - so it is rather clear that both of us know what edit-warring is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC) It should also be noted, despite the fact that i believe that this is one case where the content issue is minimal, since both Mark and I are under strict orders not to editwar, that while the last section on the talk-page seems as if the content hasn't been discussed, it was already discussed in Talk:Medieval_Warm_Period#Proposed_article_update, which Mark initialized, so Mark, wasn't unaware of the lack of consensus for his addition - and the problem with his sourcing (which is basically original research, by cherry-picking sources, that are in contradiction to the article text and later references by the same authors) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC) 'Comment regarding Lar's "expand 1RR whenever someone clashes" proposal. Interesting..... So that means that instead of playing nice, and not edit-warring - i should keep my peace until at some point i can use edit-warring as a WMD, by engaging someone whom i do not like, and ensure that they will also be restricted. Hmmmm, seems to me to be a rather strange proposal. Please do check the facts: Mark was editwarring despite warnings, despite previous talk-page discussions, he still doesn't accept that he was edit-warring, since apparently he holds the WP:TRUTH. Mark is/was on 3RR - Stephan despite claims above is at 2RR (one revert per day btw.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) You could look at it that way, if trying to look at things in the most combative way possible was your intent, or you could look at it as an attempt to level the playing field. 2RR is 2RR too many. ++Lar: t/c Doesn't that depend on content? Mark is trying to insert something that is actually contradicted by the references in the text. He is concocting a synthesis of references... by cherry-picking references that go back to the early 90's, he ends up with a conclusion that is in opposition to what the same scientists conclude later. And btw. i'm not trying to look at it combatively - as i said to Mark in talk, i could have "won" that particular edit-war by 1RR, but i didn't, and i won't... it was already an edit-war by Mark, and i am going to stick to not to engage in such, if i recognize it as such .... no matter how correct or incorrect the content issue is, and i am going to hold to that. There are to my eyes three things that make this case rather clear-cut (to my eyes). The first is that Mark and I are under special warning not to edit-war (no matter what the content is), the second is that Mark already had done so and been warned for it (on the IPCC page (see my links), and the third is that Mark ignored well-meant advice on this, and in fact is convinced that because he knows the WP:TRUTH he can't be edit-warring. If you are going to make "preemptive" strikes - then make the 1RR restriction for all articles and all editors. I'd support it 100% - and as far as i can tell, most of us do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC) I could support 1RR for articles on probation (usual exceptions) but I would want to include an exception for someone new to the page. If they haven't edited since the page went on probation, it is unreasonable to assume they know different rules apply. As soon as they are warned, the rule can apply.--SPhilbrickT 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Comments Re. Lar's suggestion I find no more polite way to to say it, but "I think it's come to that, but failing that I think whenever we have a situation of someone ON 1RR engaged with someone who isn't and it's brought here, we ought to consider extending the 1RR to whoever it is that isn't (in the interests of leveling the field)" has to be the stupidest thing somebody has said in this discussion for a long time. I can hardly imagine a better way of reducing Wikipedia's quality than to "level the playing field" between uninformed and already sanction POV pushers and scientifically literate editors in good standing. If you hand out sanctions indiscriminately, the best possible outcome is that you loose all the more experienced editors and get left with socks and single-purpose accounts. "The Romans make a dessert and call it peace" - let's not forget the ultimate purpose here: To create a good encyclopedia that reflects the best published sources. Everything else is secondary. Civility is only important because it furthers that goal. Making new editors feel welcome is only important in so far as it furthers that goal. ---Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC) I really don't understand this "level the playing field" proposal either. To my mind, it exposes how utterly retarded the 1RR approach is. Essentially, it rewards troublemakers (who are now legion, thanks to off-wiki recruitment) by hamstringing good faith contributors. Wikipedia needs editors who are experienced (and often experts in the topic in which they edit) more than in needs troublemakers. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Aside from the above language, which I think skates pretty close to what shouldn't be accepted here, I tend to agree that 1RR all around may not be the best approach. It seems to me that 1RR should be applied to editors when they misuse the discretion that editors are given as a default. This way overly combative editors are limited, but editors who show discretion can have a little more leeway. They shouldn't have much more leeway, but I think a little more in situations like this where there is a lot of socking going on is warranted. Mackan79 (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Stephan, could you clarify what you are saying? Are you saying the Mr. nutley is a "uninformed and already sanction POV pushers" while you, in contrast, are a "scientifically literate editors in good standing"? Am I correct in that this is what you are asserting? Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Well, it doesn't add up. The fact is you can't say "this revert replaced superior content, therefore it was ok." If we said that, then it wouldn't be about revert rules in the first place; we would simply decide who writes better content and kick out whoever annoyed them ("You've been blocked for lowering the quality of this article. You can appeal this block by stating why your edits were an improvement.") Ultimately it has to be about editors' ability to comply with policy (if we're not content just to assume that more editors will support the better content). I guess you can say to hell with consistency if a sham system works, but a.) that will widely be considered unethical, and b.) it therefore probably won't work very well. You want to avoid sanctioning good editors, but to some extent it takes convincing them that they need to play within the system. Mackan79 (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC) It does appear that Mr. Schulz is saying that some editors are better or "more equal" than others here in the wiki. I hope he will be coming by here soon and stating clearly that he is not alleging that and that he is committed to the Wikipedia principles of cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC) On the real life planet where I live, with its admittedly antiquated university system, it is indeed the case that different inhabitants of the planet (some of whom contribute to the writing of this online encyclopedia) have different levels of intelligence, different levels of training in science and different aptitudes for understanding science. Wikipedia principles will alas not change that. Nor is it a secret that there are expert editors on wikipedia. Surely Cla68 is vaguely aware of that? Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC) So maybe we should say that on science articles, science experts are given two reverts to others' one. I'd be fine with that where the experts could all be documented as such, although, come to think of it, it would probably be better then not to let the rest of us edit at all. We might have to change the name.... Mackan79 (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC) More significantly, on science articles we should comply with undue weight policy, and not give undue prominence to fringe positions being persistently pushed by some editors. There seems to be an unfortunate idea that by labelling a science article "controversy about this science subject" then fringe views should be given priority, without any evaluation of the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of the sources. . . dave souza, talk 09:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC) That's specious. Unit 731 was a scientific endeavor. This does not mean that scientists are uniquely qualified to comment on the controversy surrounding it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Nor does it mean that Wikipedia has any obligation to show every contrarian fringe theory about it. The controversy should be sourced to reliable historians, not to polemics written by campaigners, though they can be cited for their own views if reliable third party sources show them to be historically significant. . . dave souza, talk 10:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC) And, indeed, that article is about a breach of scientific and medical ethics which scientists and doctors would have more training and knowledge in than unqualified newspaper columnists. . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I was talking on the general principle of Lar's statement, not on the concrete case. However, it is certainly true that while all editors have an equal opportunity to contribute, not all editors and not all contributions are equal, and not all editors should be treated equal. If it were otherwise, we could just block all editors (so they are all equal to User:Licorne). In particular, sanctioning editors who are in a dispute with already sanctioned editors to "level the playing field" without looking at the substance of the conflict is, and I'll (not gladly, but freely) repeat this, a stupid idea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I'm ok with you thinking it's a stupid idea. That doesn't mean that it actually is. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Lar is wrong, obviously. Stephan is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Perhaps we could just nominate Napoleon and Snowball to decide who amongst us is more equal than the others. Or maybe Stephan and William would suffice. Scottaka UnitAnode 10:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I see no policy that those infringing policies should be treated equally with others, but do note that WP:NOTANARCHY. . . dave souza, talk 10:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Stephan, I propose that all editors are treated equally, unless the issue at hand is a violation of Wikipedia's rules, such as revert warring and POV-pushing. As Mackan points out above, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and I believe the assumption is that everyone should have equal opportunity to do so unless they're breaking the rules. You seem to be saying that your contributions are more valuable than other editors who have been sanctioned under the AGW article probation, and therefore you don't deserve sanction even though you have been caught engaging in the same behavior for which the others were sanctioned. Is that what you're saying? Cla68 (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Cla, this shows up the problem with BozMo's point "(2) he added more references each time and sought to address the arguments raised". Looking at the three edits Stephan reverted, in the first instance Marknutley changed the lead on a scientific article to a minority view, adding a reference to the website of the fringe non-scientist John Lawrence Daly,[36] in the second he did not add a new source but argued Daly was a reliable source,[37] and in the third case did add references in a synthesis to reach the same fringe position. Blatant pov pushing contravening undue weight, and you seem to want to "level the playing field" to favour fringe pov pushing changes to a science article. NPOV is a basic rule. . dave souza, talk 12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Right dave, i`m pissed off with your the constant lie about this being wp:synth. As i pointed out in my statement above two of the refs state the MWP was GLOBAL. So stop pushing the line about synthesis ok GLACIAL GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD and The Medieval warm period mark nutley (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Wow i was wrong three of the refs said it was global Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period still going to stick with your spin about synth? mark nutley (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Mark, content issues belong on the article talk-page. But you may still want to ponder the difference between "global event" and "global warm event". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I know content issues belong on the article talk page kim, but if dave peddles his spin about wp:synth i kinda have to point out he is flat out wrong mark nutley (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Mark, you really don't seem to understand that synthesis requires you to reflect sources accurately, and not combine them to reach a novel conclusion. You were edit warring for the lead that "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of Worldwide warm climate,"[38] yet your references say nothing so definite. The first and third are the same 1993 paper by Grove and Switsur, which "hypothesised" that "The results suggest that it was a global event". Your second reference, p. 134 of a 1994 book by Hughes and Diaz, describes the Grove and Switsur argument, but concludes on pages 136–7 that the evidence "does not constitute compelling evidence for a global 'Medieval Warm Period'" and the concept "is no longer supported by the available evidence." Classic synthesis, advancing a position not supported by the sources. I'm sure your edit was a mistake rather than intentional pov pushing and quote mining was inadvertent, due to carelessness rather than design. I do take exception to your personal attack, calling me a liar, and expect you to strike that immediately. (thanks for striking the accusation) . . dave souza, talk 17:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC) unsolicited clarification, and thanks for action taken. . dave souza, talk 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Will i bollocks, Now you accuse me of POV pushing and quote mining because i am careless, am i fuck as like. The paper by mann et al, currently used in the article is also a hypothesis right? perhaps we should remove that, after all a few trees in yamal can`t really be enough to declare it was just confined to the NA can it? If i find sources which say this was a global event then they are just as good as the current sources, get over it mark nutley (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Don't you realise that WP:WEIGHT requires us to show well sourced viewpoints proportionately to their predominance in the expert literature? If there are significant minority opinions, we show them as such, but we don't overturn current science with a tentative 1993 paper. . . dave souza, talk 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC) (ec)With respect, I think the points here would be clearer if there was an attempt to tone them down. I don't know that this is synthesis, but it does seem to me an overly strong statement based on the sources if Souza's summary is correct, whereas I notice that the competing language does note that it "may" have been broader.[39] Is there a focused discussion on this issue on the talk page? When it comes to enforcement I think that's the kind of thing that should matter. Mackan79 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Here's the talk page. An accurate summary based on the above sources would be that a global warm period has been hypothesised, but the evidence is not strong and there could have been local warm events at various times. That's just based on these sources, and more modern sources are cited in the article. The current state of the article isn't satisfactory, my hope would be that it could be improved to show the current state of scientific ideas more clearly, with a more cooperative approach on the talk page to reflecting majority as well as minority views, . . dave souza, talk 19:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I guess it's a lot to ask, but I was just hoping I'd look and see a very clear refutation of one position or the other. I see some of that from Stephan Schulz, but mostly I see curt and dismissive retorts going back and forth. It would be nice if one could convince editors that it's worth their time to clearly explain their stances so that they might actually resolve some of these disputes, at least for a time. I don't know if there's more to this, anyway, but I would say in that particular discussion mark nutley isn't representing his views especially well to have kept reverting. Mackan79 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Yup, don't think it was ideal. Unfortunately, mark seems to have been convinced of The Truth and given the bad advice that all sources are equal if they are published by a reputable publisher, no matter whether or not the author has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You're right that the focus should be on explaining as much as possible. Unfortunately some editors don't want to hear about weight, so it's a learning process. . . . dave souza, talk 22:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Question about content Perhaps others see it differently, but it seems to me that if someone presented a clear analysis of how one or another editor was adding material that clearly misrepresented the source, or clearly went beyond the source, and kept inserting it despite this being explained clearly by other editors in a fully reasonable manner, that it would be grounds for sanctioning the offending editor without having to focus only on who reverted how many times. Basically, if it is quite easy to show that one editor's position is completely unreasonable based on the given sources, but they keep reverting, I think others here would respond to that. I believe it's under the presumption that there are reasonable views on both sides that we would generally say editors should not be reverting. Personally I don't respond to the idea that one person is an expert and the other isn't, for several reasons, but I would respond to clear evidence that someone is not doing an adequate job with the sources. Perhaps some feel that issues of content shouldn't be raised here, but I'd like to suggest that if done very clearly and succinctly, focusing on evidence that discussion was not working, it could be persuasive and useful. Mackan79 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Personally I don't respond to the idea that one person is an expert and the other isn't - curious. In the real world, the concept of "expert" is widely recognised. People go to "experts" to have their medical conditions treated, for example William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, but in the "real world" the experts would be chosen via a deliberative process, and certainly the public wouldn't be involved. The issue isn't that the public knows as well as experts, but simply that Wikipedia isn't set up to be expert-controlled. It has its strong points, nonetheless. But of course experts should be in a strong position to explain to competent non-experts why someone is simply not doing an adequate job of editing in the area, which is one of the many reasons expertise is needed. Mackan79 (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC) The difficulty in this area is that mainstream media are convincing many editors that all scientists have been caught lying and The Truth comes from contrarian bloggers. Too many non-experts are incompetent and won't listen. Disclaimer – I'm not an expert, and make no claim to competence but I will listen and investigate. . . dave souza, talk 22:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC) You may not be an expert in climate science, but you might be an expert in spotting incompetence :) -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Response to Lar's 1RR confusion The sanction that both Mark and I are under is this: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2#Result_concerning_TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC, it should be clearly marked in my filing for enforcement - which i assume is being read in full? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Comment to LHvU Stephan is to my knowledge not under any warning that further editwarring would result in 1RR.[striken, was corrected by LHvU from Stephan => KDP] Further, your "gaming" comment here seems to ignore that a status-quo/prev-consensus version always does exist, and that the onus of gaining consensus lies on the contributer of new content. Had the roles been reversed - Stephan trying to push content, and Mark reverting to SQ/pC - then your comment would have some merit (my 2¢ on this), otherwise you end up with reverse "gaming", by the person already under restrictions (as i pointed out to Lar). Please note that the reason that i'm persistent here is that Marks and my restrictions are the same, and thus this particular discussion has direct relevance to my own situation, by setting precedence as to what is and what isn't part of the expanded probation enforcement warning that we both got --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your clarification. See below... I'm proposing that as a result of this enforcement action, MN be taken to the next level (which in MN's case I think means from: warning that the next infraction means he's on 1RR, to: actually being on 1RR) and that other participants also be taken to the next level (which in the case of SS I think is from: general abjuration to play nice to: warning that the next infraction means he's on 1RR)... If I have people's levels wrong I'm subject to correction of course, but that's the general idea. All participants ratchet up. Which levels the playing field in the long run. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC) If you think that three edits over a period of 3 three days, two removing an acknowledged bad source (with a descriptive edit summary) and the third removing unqualified OR, all supported by a discussion on talk that started before the first of my reverts, constitute "edit warring", we have very different definitions of edit warring, and you seems to be very selectively eager to enforce yours. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I think that last bit is an unhelpful comment. ++Lar: t/c 16:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC) It depends on wether it gets you to do some introspection. In the meantime, can we discuss the part that you don't seem to think is unhelpful? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Response(s) by LHvU (not part of "Result" consideration) To KDP; This seems part of the dichotomy of having two apparently sometimes conflicting policies - WP:BRD and WP:3RR. The latter should not need exist were the former strictly adhered to, but there seems to be this dispensation allowed for "editors in good standing" to edit war in good faith for a bit before trying to see if there can be a consensus. Reverting (either within BRD or 3RR) to the previous version because it "had consensus" is not always sufficient, references to policy or related discussion is preferable. It is the use of ones ability to revert under 3RR, when the other disputant is under restriction, without further explanation or rationale that gives the appearance of "gaming" the situation. In your case, thoughtful/nuanced edit summaries indicating why you are reverting someone again, regardless whether they are under a restriction or not, may preclude you from being restricted under the existing warning. As long as you can show you are not "warring", then you are permitted some reverts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC) But that doesn't scan with the case where Mark and I were warned/enforcement restricted. Nor does it scan with the comments in the admin section for this case. Nb: Please check and verify the talk-page for MWP for the content issue - while it seems as if this hasn't been discussed, there are previous discussions (with Mark) on exactly the same issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Do you mean this kim? [40] were both yourself and short brigade harvester agreed the MWP was global? mark nutley (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Mark, this is not the place for content issues. But you may want to ponder whether agreeing that the MWP was a global event, is the same as saying that the MWP was a global warm event. The trouble is that you are missing the nuances. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I have amended my comments in the admin section, to better reflect my views above. Does this suffice? As for the specifics of the TGL/WMC case, I didn't comment on the particulars then since, as I noted, I came late to the matter. Upon review, I note that BozMo states we deal with matters on a case by case basis - and I agree that if an admin feels the current case is served best in a manner which ignores or modifies a part of an earlier decision, then they should advance that proposal. As said, WP is not a court of law where precedence forms part of a legal framework - and while it is useful in consistent application of sanctions and restrictions the nature of a Wiki is that as soon as something that indicates a better way of doing things appears then we are at liberty to try that option. The previous conclusion still applies to that matter, but might not hold us to the next (although it may be decided that it will in a subsequent matter). It does make things complicated, I realise, but perhaps if everyone edited to the idealised ethos of WP we would not need to tie ourselves into these knots? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC) New problem: serious incivility The problems with this editor just jumped up an order of magnitude. Please note these edit summaries: "piss off" "stop editing my post you twat" "and again piss off" "moron" "still being a moron" "stop editing my fucking post you shit" I recommend an immediate block. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Hmm, i see you don`t bother to say why i got angry? If my post had not been edited and when i reverted with "do not edit another users posts" only to have my post edited again, and again, and again even when hippocrite is told to stop editing my posts mark nutley (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC) There's no possible excuse for that kind of behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Just a brief note that Mark has now apologized for his outburst after what he felt was a provocation. Perhaps a review of of Scjessey's own mental state in that same thread ([41] and [42]) would be in order? --GoRight (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC) You have to be kidding, right? The diffs you present against me are perfectly acceptable. I suggest you are trying to deflect criticism of Mark's egregious behavior by attacking me instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Hang on a minute, this is being dealt with [here] so why is it also being brought up here? mark nutley (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Because this is the appropriate place for it, and because I was already deep in the processes of compiling the diffs before I noticed (and added) the Wikiquette alert. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC) If he had not kept messing with my post for no reason other than "I don`t like that blog" then this would not have happened. Especially after i had requested him not to. mark nutley (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC) NOTICE: This notice provided as a service for those who may have missed my previous attempts to close this section. Please note that this section is off topic with respect to this enforcement request, as such it violates this request, and that Scjessey is willing to edit war over it. Please take this into account and take whatever actions you deem appropriate under these circumstances. --GoRight (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC) In your opinion. I interpret it differently. Plus you made 1 attempt, so my 1 revert is hardly "edit warring". It's not clear why you have felt the need to insert yourself into this discussion anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC) My interest is simple. I saw that Mark was heading in a bad direction, I told him so on his talk page, as a result he apologized which was the right thing to do, and so I think that should be the end of it. Hence my note above about the apology and my subsequent attempt to close this section. --GoRight (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, you are attempting to close this section, but you should not be. No-one views you as neutral in this. Leave closing, or not, to the neutral admins William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Both parties blocked, per my rationale at Result concerning Marknultey and Hipocrite blog post dispute at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Since the incivility was dealt with a WP:WQA I feel that aspect may be closed - brickbats and buckets of flour regarding my actions regarding the revert war may be thrown there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (as nonadmin) I commend you for taking action, and certainly think this was something blockable... or turning it around, that both editors need a cool down. Best if they can self-administer their own cup of tea. I'm wondering if it's a little stale, though - how long has it been since the last objectionable edits? Oh, well. I think if either or both say they're over it and won't resume, there shouldn't be any problem with unblocking. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Although not supported by policy, I think sometimes it is appropriate to use blocks for punitive reasons, rather than just for prevention. The goal, of course, is to correct the behavior of the editors in question, which I guess then makes the block preventative, doesn't it? Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Even if the matter is stale, a block is preventative because the parties will realise that violations will be sanctioned and not be deprecated by the passage of time - thus providing a reason not to do it next time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Marknutley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Hmm. There are a lot of mitigating circumstances (1) it was over a few days (2) he added more references each time and sought to address the arguments raised (3) he was on talk (4) one of the reinsertions appeared to follow agreement by the person on talk who had reverted him, since the reason given was only ambiguity. --BozMo talk 19:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Would it be sufficient to place him on the same 1RR limitation, as previously warned, as other editors are already under? WMC appears to think this would be appropriate, and I consider it fairer to keep those who are in dispute with editors already under restriction to the same prohibitions - without necessarily determining who is the more wronged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Please forgive the naive comment, but shouldn't everyone be on 1RR (per article, or at least per specific content passage)? Why don't we just ask that of everyone who has been properly notified? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Personally I would support blanket 1RR for all articles on probation, with the usual exemption for obvious vandalism, bad faith, socks. --BozMo talk 14:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC) I think it's come to that, but failing that I think whenever we have a situation of someone ON 1RR engaged with someone who isn't and it's brought here, we ought to consider extending the 1RR to whoever it is that isn't (in the interests of leveling the field). In this case, Steven Schulz probably should be added, if we don't go to a blanket 1RR. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC) @Lar. AFAIK neither were on 1RR. --BozMo talk 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Mark Nutley wasn't on 1RR? I'm confused by what KDP is saying in the case presentation, then. There seems to be an assertion that they were. ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC) He is under warning that further edit warring would result in 1RR - same as with KDP - per here . LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Then I revise my suggestion.... look at all the participants in this war. Then, take MN (and whoever else was warring that was warned alrady) to 1RR and take whoever was warring who HASN'T been warned already to "you've been warned, next time it's 1RR" state. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Only MN of those warned (i.e. not KDP) was edit warring, so I think my proposed wording - including bringing new accounts up to speed promptly - satisfies your suggestion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Or.. We could simply rewrite WP:3RR... I don't think we can, per WP:AGF, place anyone under the 1RR limitation without an evidenced complaint that they have edit warred - but if that complaint does indicate that they warred with someone who is already restricted then they get the same restriction by default; even with the best AGF over intent, using your own ability to simply revert when the other party cannot appears as gaming the system. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I am withdrawing from this one: basically I don't have time to look at Nutley's behaviour properly. --BozMo talk 13:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Proposed wording Until 2010-(date)-03 Marknutley is restricted from making more than one revert to any article in the probation area in any 24 hour period. All current and past editors of the articles under prohibition and not under restriction are advised that any further edit warring will result in the imposition of a similar restriction. New editors found to be edit warring are to be warned of this restriction as soon as possible. I prefer dealing with the named individuals in a request for enforcement, and am only willing to expand it generally to others. If there is another account that is felt to be also needing enforcement, then there should be a further request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Note re "edit warring" and 3RR - my view that blind or reflex reverting is edit warring, whereas a revert with a good rationale noting policy or consensus is permissible - although it is recognised even this AGF interpretation can be abused. If found so, then it is edit warring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I strongly support including analysis of talkpage and other discussions in any examination of edit warring. A 3 month 1RR restriction across the probation area for Marknutley is warranted in this case. I am not sure about the phrasing of the rest of the proposed close - do we intend to make a 1RR restriction the standard response to edit warring (absent mitigating or exacerbating circumstances), or is there something more here? - 2/0 (cont.) 07:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Defaulting to 1RR restriction in the advent of further edit warring by the editor concerned is my intent, mostly to discourage reflex reverting of any party who is already restricted (because sanctions are preventative and not punishment, so we are not here to allow "naughty" editors to be reverted with impunity) but to require properly rationalised reverts for those not restricted. By limiting the opportunity to "edit war, even in good faith," it might be hoped that editors will attempt further discussion before changing the text again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Any chance of some yea's and nae's as regards this? I am heartened that there are more third parties on this page, so I am hoping there will be a definitive answer within 24 hours? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I like the "widening ripple" idea that if a 1RR warned gets in an edit war with an unsanctioned, the unsanctioned gets a ratchet too (so they get a 1RR warning), and the 1RR warned goes to 1RR. But that doesn't seem to have clear support so if your proposal is what has consensus I won't object. ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Marknultey and Hipocrite blog post dispute at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident Both editors blocked 24 hours. Hipocrite for part removing/replacing another editors talkpage comments, in violation of WP:TPOC, without permission, notice to the other editor, or discussion/consensus. Fuller rationale provided with block notice at editors talkpage. Marknutley for edit warring on the same issue, while aware they are imminently to be placed under 1RR restriction for the same issue. I consider my actions appropriate under the provisions of the Probation, but will not contest any other admin amending or reversing them - I only request that both parties be dealt with equally in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Note, both editors subsequently unblocked by reviewing admin per Hipocrites appeal and various undertakings given. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

Consensus appears to be that this particular comment is not actionable, debate has refocused on a potential course of more general action which is now raised separately. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Reopening .. for additional diffs of "particular comments" related to this issue to be submitted. Will close after 24 hrs, if no additional diffs on WMC behavior are submitted. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:11, 26 February 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 User requesting enforcement Cla68 (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [43] personal attack in an AGW article talk page discussion Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [44] [45] Warning by 2over0 [46] Warning by LessHeard vanU [47] Reminder to be civil by Cla68 (not an admin) [48] Reminder to be civil by Enric Naval (not an admin) [49] Request to be more civil by Thegoodlocust (not an admin) [50] Request to be more civil by Prodego [51] Request to be more civil by Tony Sideaway (not an admin) [52] Request to be more civil by Nsaa (not an admin) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Whatever admin action will correct the behavior in question. Additional comments by editor filing complaint WMC has been asked to strike the comment in question, but has refused. I listed all of the diffs in the "prior warnings" section above to show that William M. Connolley (WMC) has a problem with following the civility policy. Those warnings and requests above are only for the last two months. I expect that if I was to go further back in his talk page history, I would find a similar pattern repeating itself. Besides the recent PA by WMC that made me decide to bring this to admin attention, WMC has personalized other talk page discussions recently [53] and [54]. To state the obvious, personalizing talk page discussions and denigrating other editors is against our civility policy. The reason we have that policy is to facilitate collaboration, cooperation, and compromise, which is how a wiki is supposed to work. WMC's inability or unwillingness to follow this policy is unfortunate, as it causes uneccessary hostility in article talk page discussions and inhibits collaboration. I didn't react to his baiting on the Lawrence Solomon page, but I found that comment, and other similar personal comments that he makes about me and others, extremely counterproductive. Cla68 (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning William M. Connolley Statement by William M. Connolley This action is ill-conceived. The problem is ZP5; I think you should learn to make coherent valuable content edits is valuable advice, which he (and indeed other people watching here) should ponder. A glance at ZP5's contributions shows a *total* (and I really do mean total) absence of useful article-space Cl Ch contributions from ZP5, but an awful lot of barely coherent talk page chatter. In fact, even anyone can find even *one* unambiguously valuable climate-change related article space contribution by ZP5 (even something as trivial as reverting vandalism) I'll be happy to strike my comment. William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Addendum: I've just noticed some more weirdness in Cla's statement: I didn't react is a link to... Cla reacting. Shurely Shome Mishtake? But that comment by Cla is instructive: it shows how a perfectly good-faith edit can be mistakenly inperreted as baiting. Look at the context: LS complains about his bean business being mentioned. AH says it is embarassing (why? don't know; never mind) and Cla says the only source for is is LS. I agree; the only source *is* LS. So what? Is LS not a RS about his own activities? Perhaps not. But for Cla to interpret my comment as "personalising" the issue is very odd indeed. Note also taht Cla is double-counting in an effort to get the "bad comment" count up; he has linked to that twice. Similar comments reply to his other "personalising" diff [55] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC) @ZP5: was there something about User:William M. Connolley/For me/RFC-ZP5 that you found offensive? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC) @World: if you're interested in gobbledegook, try User:ZuluPapa5/WMC-RFC Statement by ZP5* WMC has chosen to add further injury to insult. Normally, I would gladly accept a simple apology in suffice to avoid this specific PA enforcement request. (Even after many others have confirmed prior PA toward me my by this editor, in an wiki etiquette complaint and with WMC talk page warnings). My talk page and block log are littered with the examples of this editor's attempt to collaborate by waring. Any attempt, I make at contribution to the Climate Change articles is quickly reverted and then the talk pages turn into bickering with PA. It's called POV ownership obstruction. This whole General Sanction was created because of this indignant reverting behavior by WMC and team. It's a distraction and has the unnecessary effect of prohibiting content creation. I said elsewhere it's time to consider ZERO RR sanction for this editor. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Post note ... I welcome constructive criticism on my article contributions elsewhere. This is not the place right now. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Prior WP:WQA complaint on WMC's PA toward me. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive77#Personal_attack_advice suggestion was STUCK. Use ANI or RfC/U. This forum is the equivalent. It should stay here, unless an RFC on the editor is in order. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC) @Admins - Thanks for tagging the inappropriate talk. What is relevant here is where WP:NPA says " Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." I perhaps could have responded better to the PA myself and have considered correction. However, how many times does WMC talk with PA have to be disruptive to be actionable? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Closing this without addressing the "repeated" PA issue (on me and others) would seem to invite it to happen again. I appreciate the new rules proposal ... however, the root cause may return again. When there is cancer, a surgeon carefully removes it, while a drug may only set up boundaries (like a rule) and in doing so the whole body may suffer the rules imposed by the drug. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley Cla68's complaint seems without merit and not the correct way to use this noticeboard. Cla68 must surely be aware that there have been numerous requests on this page concerning WMC, many of which have been dismissed. Why did he use the language "proverbial straw" in discussions with ZuluPapa5? [56] Mathsci (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC) The complaint most certainly is the correct use of this noticeboard. It is a specific issue with diffs to support it. It may be that no action is taken but that should not be used to stifle debate. Weakopedia (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC) See below. I agree this is an apppropriate use of this noticeboard, and the complaint has enough merit to bear investigation. Cla68 does not bring matters up frivolously. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC) I disagree with what you write about Cla68, who does seem to have a POV in the content dispute underlying this request and is acting as some kind of enabler of Zulu Papa 5 ☆. That seems to be what other administrators below have written. I hope that you'll bear this in mind in the future. Your outspoken comments in the section below indicate that you have currently formed too strong a personal point of view - where minor failings in conduct are placed above matters of content - to help in administrating this page. Sorry, but that's how it looks. Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC) And I disagree with you that this is about content, at all. It's about conduct. Nor is it correct that I've formed a personal point of view, other than a distaste for gaming tactics, as employed by all sides. I think you may be the person who is too close here. ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I don't know what you mean by "too close", since I don't edit remotely near this area. I agree that there are problems on all sides (unreasonable POV-pushing resulting in low level incivility). I think that the cautious discussion you've started with Atama, MastCell, et al, is clearly the right way to go. I also think that what Zulu Papa 5 ☆ has written below about WMC goes way over the line ("dirty hands", "WMC makes Wikipedia weaker", etc). I assume Cla68 will distance himself from these personal attacks, which cannot be described as either low level or borderline.Mathsci (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC) As I advised WMC, his reply to Zulu Papa 5 ☆ was inappropriate. It was badly phrased and lacked supporting evidence, and did not allow for the possibility that ZP5 makes useful contributions to other areas ZP5 edits. Having said that, dealing with ZP5's persistent refusal to accept policies is frustrating. For some time now, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ has been pushing for the inclusion in the main IPCC article of an unwarranted promotion of an unreliable fringe book.[57] Cla68 has supported that inclusion, see this and subsequent sections, and despite being shown that its author is unreliable, has stated his intention to add citations to the book in various AGW articles.[58] Cla has repeatedly and tendentiously argued that "The book is published by a reputable publishing house. That's all that is required."[59][60][61][62] As I've now pointed out shortly before this complaint was filed, Cla appears to have forgotten the opening paragraph of the policy he repeatedly asked others to read.[63] He's an experienced editor and I'm surprised at his persistent misunderstanding. He even seems to argue that an unreliable source has to be shown defective in every specific claim.[64] This has been enabling Zulu Papa 5 ☆'s actions which are of the kind described in Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Uninvolved administrators are requested to bear that essay in mind when dealing with these allegations of incivility. . . dave souza, talk 10:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC) amended 10:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Not that there isn't a problem with Dr. Connolley's civility, which is exemplified by the attack on Zulu Papa 5 on talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the debate that provides the context was a very frustrating one. Some editors were convinced that the verifiability and neutral point of view criteria could be satisfied by any book published by a reputable publisher, and steadfastly rejected cogent arguments on undue weight and the documented unreliability of the author as a scholar of science (including a reprimand from the Press Complaints Commission on his reporting on exactly the issue of climate change), labelling this as "obstructionism." So I want this to be taken into account: My own less than tactful descriptions of the author's failings (comparison to a creationist scholar was bound to inflame and I should have realised this). Cla68's repetitive dismissal of objections to inclusion based in policy as "personal opinion" Zulu Papa 5's repeated dismissal of objections to inclusion based in policy as "obstruction", "source suppression" and "duplicity" Zulu Papa 5's extraordinary reaction to the discovery that the author admitted to lifting a quotation falsely attributed to John Houghton from some website on the internet, and included it prominently on page 1 of his own book with the false attribution, despite searching his own copy of the attributed source volume and being unable to find it. The author grudgingly admitted his error after being asked to do so by the editors of his newspaper, which he had used to promote his book. The author's excuse was that he had been "misled by the internet", which alone raises worries about his commitment to scholarship. Zulu Papa 5's frustrating response: "[I]t's confirmed he checks his facts for accuracy. The quality process is not perfect but it exists for continous improvement. We can have faith in it to be reliable" The final straw: Jprw and Zulu Papa 5 claim that criticisms of the author's unreliable scholarship--which came from, amongst others, the Press Complaints Commission, the Health and Safety Executive, and some qualified and reputable mainstream science journalists who reviewed the book--amounted to a biographies of living persons violation. None of us come out of this looking good. I suggest that we look at the thread and try to work out how it came to be such a sick mess. --TS 10:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Support The general sanctions are there for a reason. Nowhere do they say that an editor may ignore those sanctions if they feel the other guy did so first. WMC has violated those sanctions. Open a section about ZP5s comments if you wish but do not use them as an excuse for ignoring this complaint. Weakopedia (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC) What are you supporting? Please note that nobody is excusing Connolley, but there is a lot of context that points at other problem behavior. --TS 11:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Well, let's see. This is a section about the enforcement of sanctions. So I would be supporting the enforcement of sanctions. If nobody is excusing WMC then there is no need to negate the sanction enforcement in his case just because there may be 'other problem behaviour'. Deal with the matter in hand and then move on to the other behaviour. The sanctions don't say 'these sanctions don't apply if you feel someone else started it'. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC) This probation is supposedly about improving the editing environment, and enabling pov pushing while cracking down on the civility of those trying to maintain article content policies will increasingly poison the editing environment. I value politeness, but remember that incivility includes "lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information". Repeatedly asserting false information despite being shown that it is false has the same uncivil effect, but of course assuming good faith we must accept that editors doing that do so unknowingly. Doesn't help the editing environment, and wastes a lot of time. . . dave souza, talk 17:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is about WP:V with WP:RS ... true or false comes from that. Now WP:CIVIL is how the verification should proceed. And WP:OWN stemming from copy-write concerns is an issue too. This discussion is about how WMC's incivility and potential POV ownership are disrupting reliable source verification. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Your repeated refusal to abide by policies of verification and weight has been disruptive, your accusations of ownership are uncivil and unwarranted. That forms the background, I hope your future approach will not cause repeated problems. . . dave souza, talk 18:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC) "Your repeated refusal to abide by policies of verification and weight has been disruptive ..." - These are serious allegations. Are you asserting them as indisputable facts that are generally recognized, or are these merely your opinion? --GoRight (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC) See my comments above, read the linked discussion and see TS's comments. All my statements are my opinion. Don't you think it's a bit uncivil to say "merely"? . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Comment While I haven't read all of the diffs provided by dave souza or by TS, and it is easy to be sympathetic with the frustration, virtually all the points are content disputes. Those content disputes may require the help of univolved editors, mediators or sysops, but this is not the forum for that. I recognize that TS is intending to put the alleged incivility in context, but let's not lose sight of the mandate of this forum - addressing alleged violations of probation. "incivility" is covered - while strongly worded content discussions, even one's that might misunderstand policy, are not covered.--SPhilbrickT 13:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Do not support sanctions - as to the substance of the incivil remarks - weak beer. In another context, worth ignoring or possibly a note to user talk. In this probation environment, WMC should know better. Not worth any formal sanction, but maybe a friend could whisper in his ear - "You know, this isn't helpful".--SPhilbrickT 13:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Comment (realising that doing so may mean that I am not permitted to edit the admin section below...) Why not take it to WP:WQA like Hipocrite and Marknutley did? If they determine a PA or at least incivility, then that finding can be brought back and a determination made per the probation and WMC's extended civility restriction (am I correct in thinking there is one? This is an aspect that makes these pages so tiring to patrol) and if they say no then there is nothing to review. If they refuse or cannot make a determination, at that point some admin will have to review the case fully. Is this a worthwhile course of action? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC) I'd be disappointed if you were not permitted to edit the admin section, particularly as Lar has also edited this section showing a supportive attitude for Cla68 in bringing this matter up. . . dave souza, talk 17:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Nice try, Dave. LHvU: I see no reason why your comment here disqualifies you from commenting in the admin section. I think taking this to WQA might work, if the matter can get an objective review. ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Comment re Lar[65]. Rather than taking a 'no smoke without fire' stance, isn't it more likely that this is an organised campaign by anti-science bloggers and many right-wing political commentators to help to rid WP of its science bias?[66] The question then is, do we want WP to have a science bias, or a science-denial bias? Or even a 'balanced' viewpoint that maybe science is tosh, or maybe its not? --Nigelj (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Pardon me for interrupting, "political science" sources indicate (as experts in methodicaly studied corruption), that the "science view" may have been corrupted. That this corruption may extend to WMC uncivil behavior here with a disruptive pattern of PA, would be no surprise except to deniers. I suspect you may have a narrow view about what science includes. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC) It would also be helpful to have clarification on the "shooting the messenger" comment. I've not seen any proposals to shoot or sanction anyone other than WMC, though I'd hope that others will also be encouraged to improve their behaviour. . . dave souza, talk 17:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC) clarified 18:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC) By "others" you mean to include WMC too, which this request is about, right? @Nigelj - you present a false dichotomy. I see no reason why we can't have both a civil editing environment and a proper deference to established science and indeed there are separate policies in place to ensure both. Regarding your accusations they are irrelevant to this case. Both Cla68 and ZP5 are long time editors who contribute outside of the AGW space. JPatterson (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC) @ JPatterson: Good point, sorry my intention was unclear – I've added clarification accordingly. . dave souza, talk 18:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC) @Nigelj, the organization originates from a consistent pattern of PA behavior from WMC. If this request is to be organized, it must stay focused on that pattern of disruptive organization. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC) My point was that there is reasonable evidence that the concentration of recent sanction requests against WMC may not be purely the result of WMC's recent actions, but are just as likely (as a whole, with no specific case in mind) to be the result of off-wiki campaigns to alter WP's perceived pro-science bias. I only offer this as Lar is "tired of seeing complaints about WMC" and so concludes that "there is a problem here". The problem may be external to WP. --Nigelj (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Do you have any evidence for that? But even so, WMC has been cautioned about his approach in discussions, repeatedly. It doesn't seem to be "taking". ++Lar: t/c 00:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC) There's evidence of off-wiki campaigns against WMC all over the internet. This one features the "call to arms" that is partially responsible for the recent influx in skeptical editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I have faith if we properly address the WMC problem here, any external WMC problem will go away too. Experts treat the root cause not the symptoms. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Comment: I am tired of seeing complaints about WMC - so am I. But what is happening here is not a substantial civility problem. Many of the complainants happily propagate vicious attacks and throw terms like 'stooge', 'lackey' or 'fraud' around. These are not shrinking violets hurt by hard words, this is an attempt to get rid of an inconveniently competent editor to gain the upper hand in a content conflict. Dismiss as "unclean hands". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Object ... clean up WMC's dirty hands as the proximate cause for disruption to restore equity in WP:FIVE as a higher power above the editor. WMC makes Wikipedia weaker. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC) What? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Breaks parole again in reverting what is not vandalism by any measure w/ no talkpage discussion. Also, "accused of possibly being a sock puppet" =/= "sock puppet." I'm sick of this.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC) "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Scibaby." See User:Phermion and note that the editor expressing concern wasn't WMC. You appear to have misunderstood the situation, easily done. Suggest you strike your comment. . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC) No, Dave. You appear only to have read the key words of mine. I checked the sock puppet situation and read the comment given in the checkuser request before writing the above. Please reread what I wrote. I'm fine with you deleting this comment and yours afterwards. Anything to reduce the huge number of superfluous comments to this thread.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Well then thats three time he has broken his parole, [67] mark nutley (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Comment: Nothing will be done in regards to this complaint. There are too many who are willing to shoot the messengers, and even the victims, regarding complaints about Connolley. Jehochman's recent wildly premature close is simply the latest (and newest) example. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC) To the admins...from what I've observed, the way to correct a contributor's behavior is by steady, consistent, escalation of corrective actions. In most cases, that means a series of topic bans or blocks that escalate in duration each time a violation occurs. A general editing block probably isn't necessary, but perhaps a temporary topic ban would achive the desired result. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Comment re "strike them out as the admins acting, leaving the strike in place with a note it was stricken as an enforcement action": Apart from the hyperbolic "egregious" (unless Lar thinks that means "true"), this is one of the more intelligent comments in this thread. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Oddly, I do know what "egregious" means, I used the word for a reason. But your sarcasm is noted. Common tactic... and that's part of the problem. ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Well, if you chose the word advisedly, you have a very low threshold for "egregious". And where was I sarcastic? I do think yours is a reasonable suggestion. It's not punitive and it treats the (perceived) problem directly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC) So "unless Lar thinks that means 'true'" was not sarcasm? You really believe Lar thinks egregious == true? ATren (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Ummm....no. Do you know what sarcasm is? Do you know there are other forms of humor? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Comment and a suggestion: if it is brought to WP:WQA then both bandwagons are going to flood that page with arguments that spiral out of control, just like they do in article talk, user talk, and pages like this. Maybe editors that are involved in climate change articles should not be allowed to comment on it in WQA? The list of notified editors on the probation page seems pretty complete to me. It just turns into such an ugly mess that any wise or sane editor stays away from it. Ignignot (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Comment I'm surprised reading the above discussion that no one has picked up on the fact that Zulu Papa 5 is a non-native speaker of English (I'm pretty sure that that is the case) and that as a result he may experience difficulty in getting his points across clearly, which is doubly to be expected in AGW discussions, which are hardly straightforward and contain numerous complex concepts and terminology, etc. For that reason I found WMC's comment towards him as high handed and very unseemly, and an open and shut case of a bad violation of WP: CIVIL. Surely we should be exercising additional patience, offering encouragement and making allowances with respect to contributors for whom English is not their native tongue. Jprw (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC) You came to this conclusion how? Above looks like he has the English language down pretty well. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, you're right, he's an advanced user, but when you are in the thick of making edits quickly or under stress the fact that English is not your native tongue comes into play. I for example consider myself fluent in one foreign language but that 'fluency' suffers if I am tired, angry or have had too much to drink. It's that principle. And added to the fact that AGW discussions contain numerous complex concepts and terminology, communication can become a problem. Jprw (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Comment From what I have seen, there are a handful of editors who seem to be taking turns bringing WMC here to complain, even about minor infractions, which is what I think the above it. I would hope that the off site attacks against him (WMC) will be considered in all of this. Looking at the article talk page, you will see the discussions going in circles which I think is part of the problem. By now it should be obvious that some editors will only be happy when WMC is banned from editing GW articles. Above there are comments like "POV ownership obstruction" (a PA by the standards of this complaint), "This whole General Sanction was created because of this indignant reverting behavior by WMC and team" (The sanctions created because of WMC and team, really, I think not. PA also with indignant reverting behavior by WMC and team, italics added.), and " clean up WMC's dirty hands as the proximate cause for disruption to restore equity in WP:FIVE as a higher power above the editor. WMC makes Wikipedia weaker'. I think these examples, taken directly from this compaint, are just as bad, maybe worse than what this complaint is about. This comment I think says it all about these continued compaints about WMC, "I have faith if we properly address the WMC problem here, any external WMC problem will go away too. Experts treat the root cause not the symptoms. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 8:44 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)" There are blogging going on off site that I'm sure everyone here is aware of. I think these continued complaints are a big factor about those complaints. We can't, at least we shouldn't, allow the improper behavior and incorrect comments that are floating around the net effect with how we deal with GW articles. It's very disppointing to see what has been going on here. I say that there should be no sanctions from with what the difs show as WMC PA's. It's time for editors and administrators to read the talk page discussions and put a stop to the circular comments going on. If the talk page behaviors is stopped I'll bet the complaints here also stop or at least slow down. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC) WMC has done some things that skirt the boundaries of what's acceptable but this just isn't one of them. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC) This highlights a problem, as I suggested above, that is bigger than William M. Connolley. Discussions on some talk pages have become sick, and perhaps we need to impose stricter rules of discussion. The circular nature of that discussion, and the way it focussed on differences over matters of policy on which there should be, I would have thought, universal agreement, are very worrying, the introduction of the notion of the BLP as applied to well sourced problems with Booker's scholarship, also a little worrying. Perhaps this could be viewed as a case of genuine differences over unsettled policy, but I doubt it. The verification policy has long required sources to be reliable and emphasized fact-checking. A (writer) source that has been repeatedly reproved for major inaccuracies by authoritative bodies (Health and Safety Exec and Press Complaints Commission in this case), and further has admitted to being "misled by the internet" on a simple matter of quote attribution on page 1 of his most recent work, should not be cited as a reliable source on science. A (book) source that presents a novel minority synthesis--a fringe view--should not normally be considered for inclusion on an article about a scientific subject because this is not consistent with the neutral point of view. It seems to me that those going out of their way to construct new interpretations of policy to permit such an inclusion have a duty to defend them, but, further, a duty not to inflame a problem area by repeatedly insisting on the new interpretations against substantial opposition. --TS 14:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC) TS, you're right about the misuse of WP:BLP above, and it can be quickly cleared up here. My complaints should have centred around WP:NPV and WP:CIVIL. I'll make a change over there as well. I think the real point is that making progress in an argument becomes problematic if there are widespread vioaltions of WP:CIVIL Jprw (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Tony, the content and source debate that was ongoing on that article talk page is not the issue here. The issue here is whether a personal attack violation occurred, if it is part of a repeated pattern of behavior, and, if so, what to do about it. Please discuss content issues on the article talk pages. Cla68 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Tony makes a valid point. When taken into the context of the dispute outlined by Tony, WMC's comment does not appear to be a personal attack at all. It seems like a typical response to tendentious editing. Virtually all of the civility-related RfE filings seem to arise over disputes of this nature, and until the root cause of the problem (agenda-driven editing) is resolved we are likely to see this sort of thing continue. And yes, most (but not all) of the agenda-driven editing is being done by advocates of the so-called "skeptical" position. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Do you have stats on that? Perhaps it's my natural sympathy for the underdog (the skeptics have a rather hard row to hoe given the forces arrayed against them here and out in reality) but my observations (anecdotal at best) don't seem to bear that out. Could be your confirmation bias. Could be mine. Could be true. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC) There really isn't any need for statistics here. Wikipedia is quite clear about matters concerning neutrality with respect to fringe positions. Any comments/proposals put forward that advocate the fringe position (denying/ignoring the overwhelming scientific consensus) are problematic, quite frankly. Unfortunately, the mainstream media (in the pursuit of sales/viewers) will tend to report only on issues that have a sensational flavor to them; however, the so-called "skeptics" point to this MSM coverage and attempt to propagate it to support their position, even when it so obviously a fringe position. A recent example would be the recent "report" by Jim Inhofe. It was nothing more than a meaningless, toothless, change-nothing press release to support his fringe view, yet it was extensively trumpeted by the so-called "skeptics" as if it was important in some way. Attempts were made to get this fringe stuff shoehorned into the CRU incident article, and this kind of thing is happening constantly. That's pure, agenda-driven editing. It has nothing whatsoever to do with contributing and improving the Wikipedia project. It has everything to do with trying to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Given this constant barrage of fringe editing, it is no wonder that good faith Wikipedians get frustrated by the so-called "skeptics'" lack of respect for neutrality and it is easy to see how patience can wear thin. Also, I must say a word about "sympathy for the underdog" - you are confusing it with "sympathy for the fringe view". Many of your administrative actions here seem to unnecessarily prolong debates like this where there is a clear case of vexatious wikilawyering going on, and without diff-diving it seems to happen mostly in favor of the so-called "skeptics". From where I'm standing, your "uninvolved" label is starting to look misplaced. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC) It's interesting that you should say that. I noticed that all the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPV issues were coming from certain editors of the opposite persuasion (but not all, which, crucially, would seem to suggest that debates on AGW can be held in an atmosphere of civility). Jprw (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Scjessey: I reject your thesis. Stats are indeed needed to support your claim, you don't get to just assert that the other side, being wrong, is at fault. I also reject your attempt to claim I'm uninvolved. Nice try, though. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Er.. Lar, did you mean "claim I'm involved" there? If your sympathies are with what you perceive as the underdog, then maybe you can't really act neutrally here. Think on that a bit please. Vsmith (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Typo. Struck, thanks. As for my sympathies lying with the perceived underdogs, I've not made a secret of my views before. If anyone with any view on this matter whatever is ineligible, we are going to strike rather a lot of folks (including, for example, Jehochman just to pick one, who has commented that he sees WMC unfairly beset upon (thats a paraphrase based on my interpretation, not a verbatim)...) So no, I remain uninvolved. I do not edit in this area at all. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Scjessey, by "agenda-driven editing", would you include editors who have a clear POV on this issue by virtue of having been a long time participant on a blog which condemned one side of the debate? Do agendas only exist on one side? ATren (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Comment Regarding discussions of policing uncivil behavior - I am extremely worried that adding new avenues of bureaucratic action will only lead to more arguments in more places. People will argue over what the definition of uncivil behavior is, what the threshold for punishment is, why example A was not punished but example B was, and so on. The talk and arguments here are expanding to fill any space that will hold them. Adding more places to argue only results in more argument. A general (tentative) suggestion comes to mind then: draconian punishment for uncivil behavior, with little arbitration. If the punishment is severe, people will avoid coming even close to violating it, and the process has to be quick. Negative feedback is the most potent teaching tool in the universe. We're all grownups here, and civility violations can only come from either an inability to control impulses, or a disregard for rules because the punishment lacks enough force. I don't think anything can be done about the former, except eventual topic banning, but the second can be done relatively quickly. Ignignot (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Actually most studies show that people learn better from positive feedback than negative feedback. Not that there's much room for applying that round here I'm afraid, perhaps wikipedia needs more means of positive reinforcement. Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC) By Demorgan's Law of learning good, positively reinforcing someone not doing an action is equal to negatively reinforcing someone doing the same action. Ignignot (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I am now beginning to see why Jehochman says that arbitration is required. This page has broken down and the administrators are edit warring. That can only make things worse. Meanwhile Lar's innovative suggestion of having an uninvolved admin strike out the offending words has been implemented and seems to have resolved the immediate problem. I'd still like to address the problem of tendentious editing at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and elsewhere, but that should perhaps be left for the future. --TS 18:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Arbitration seem inevitable, especially if the community is not handling this General Sanction effectively (admin feedback on this welcomed). ArbCom has the best process for fair evidence collection and I would not expect to muckraked as much there. With regards to WMC repeated PA behavior, the question seems to be is an RfC nesscary before ArbCom or is there sufficient cause to go to ArbCom from here? If an RfC on WMC goes forth ... I now announce my intention to canvass all that commented on WMC ArbCom election for fair input. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC) We admins can only act on what we are brought. What has been brought here, time and again, are complaints about civility, and allegations of edit warring. Frankly, I think those miss the point. But they're easy to bring, collect a few diffs of your opponents and away you go. I would much rather see someone make the case, if it's makeable, that there is ownership/control/POVpushing going on here. Or if it's not makeable, for the best case that could be made to be well and thoroughly debunked. Whether that can be done here, in a lightweight process, subject to any given issue being closed down at the whim of the first admin to come along, is unclear. But these civility complaints are a distraction, valid or invalid as they may be. It's as if we insisted that two mortal enemies, fighting to the death, used Marquis of Queensbury rules but otherwise did nothing to resolve the serious matters that caused them to be fighting in the first place. Sorry for the overwrought analogy. ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC) No one's 'fighting to the death' here - we're trying to maintain and extend useful, informative encyclopedia articles. Why try to escalate bad feeling? --Nigelj (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC) It's an analogy. Even an overwrought one. But it's trying to make a point. When you say "escalate bad feeling" that suggests that you missed the point, and that I need a better analogy. How about "slapping sticky plasters on the mosquito bites of someone who seems to have come down with malaria and actually needs strong medicine". Better? ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I agree that the civility issue is relatively minor. Admins ought to always look at the complainant before looking at the complainee. Cla68 has an excellent editing record. ZuluPapa5, not so much. If there is serious wrongdoing by WMC, which in my book means harming of articles, then make a case at WP:RFC or WP:RFAR. I think an arbitration case would readily be accepted because this here process is a pretty extreme and advanced form of community dispute resolution. This noticeboard thread cannot provide a fair and detailed analysis of such voluminous evidence as WMC's editing history. That's why this thread should be closed. It is not converging on any sort of consensus. Jehochman Brrr 22:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Except that it actually did make progress, and is converging. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Oh really? There's edit warring over the close again, in part thanks to the very poor example you yourself set by unilaterally overturning the actions of another administrator. Shame on you. Jehochman Brrr 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Nice. YOU come in and upset apple carts, twice, and now it's my fault... somehow. I have no idea why ZP5 wants this matter open still, it looks to me like the admins ... (you know, the ones who decide if it is closable or not) had reached consensus. No thanks to you, frankly, but nevertheless it happened, and we are getting some novel ideals out of the discussion. ZP5 needs to be reverted again, and if necessary warned to desist, since he's not an admin. ++Lar: t/c 03:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC) OK, I am going to be blunt here. Any admin on this page who feels that incivility is not enough for sanctions, needs to leave and never edit the remedies again. Everyone can see the pretty link at the top to the probation terms, I will leave it to each of you to count the number of times incivility shows up. I get it, and kinda sorta agree that in general incivility is no biggie, but this probation was setup for a reason, and agreed upon by many when it was implemented. This is not the time to try to rewrite what is ok and what is not ok. Arkon (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Result concerning William M. Connolley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I am tired of seeing complaints about WMC. I realize that some of the admins that frequent this board tend to think that the many complaints are primarily due to some fault with the complainers, rather than with WMC (although many do acknowledge various issues with WMC's behavior). I am afraid I do not agree with that viewpoint, given the sheer number of complaints and the wide variety of folk bringing them... and I think that if WMC can't play strictly within the rules, sterner measures are called for. What that means exactly I am not sure but there is a problem here. And it won't be solved by shooting the messenger. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC) I think we're all tired of seeing complaints, many of which are vexatious and founded on the complainers not liking the fac t that WMC is a well-informed and eloquent advocate for the scientific consensus position. The idea of this process was to manage these sorts of things. It's not clear that is working in every case. It is probably mainly a matter of more and different eyes, but we are rapidly running out of uninvolved admins. I get a hint of "who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" about it. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Closed, no sanction I am rejecting and closing this complaint. Sanctions are not a means to continue a content dispute. There are a number of unhelpful, single-purpose accounts swarming this topic. Rather than going after educated, good-faith editors, we should be clearing out the POV warriors. If you feel WMC is not as civil as he should be, follow the path of WP:WQA and then WP:RFC. I don't see any incivility here serious enough to result in a sanction at this time. Jehochman Brrr 19:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC) I've undone that close. I don't think you've established consensus among uninvolved admins that no sanction is called for here. I want to hear from more uninvolved admins before something is decided, and I do not want to see things closed unilaterally. I beleive I've made that point before. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I think I've made the point above that I actually think that trying to go for consensus hurts us more than it helps. But if we are going to do it: WMC is again pushing the line. He has been warned for his low level incivility several times, but continues to engage in it. The issue that I see is that it is clearly not entirely his fault, and indeed I would submit that we should be applying sanctions to more than one party in this case. But I'm not really sure what we can do. A block would simply be punitive, a one-sided topic ban wouldn't fit either. NW (Talk) 00:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I know you did make that point. The thing is, I've been deliberately holding back, giving my view and not rushing to close right away, because I think talking things through, finding agreement, etc. is goodness. But if we are going to go on a model where the first admin to arrive, closes things, then I guess when I see things first, I should act (and darn whoever gets there second that might have disagreed, too bad for them). And that just seems wrong. Like we're racing to get to the scene of the accident first. Maybe we need to talk this through on the talk page more but that's my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I've said before I wouldn't touch climate change articles with a ten foot pole (as an editor or an admin). But uninvolved admins seem in short supply right now. I've "defended" WMC a couple of times at WP:COIN and I appreciate his content contributions, in general, so I certainly have no grudge against him. What bothers me in this case is less the remark, which is a borderline attack and not terribly uncivil, but his refusal to remove, refactor, or strike out the remark. I'd call this a non-issue if it wasn't for that. I don't like the disregard for the terms of the probation and I feel that there should be some repercussions for that, though like NuclearWarfare, I'm not sure what they should be. I also don't like swinging around WP:BLP carelessly like a baseball bat (calling an author an unreliable source is a BLP violation now?!) but that doesn't warrant the attack in my opinion. -- Atama頭 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Maybe the thing to do, short of banning, or blocking which I agree may be too much here, is to find the egregious remarks that were not removed when pointed out (by whatever party) and strike them out as the admins acting, leaving the strike in place with a note it was stricken as an enforcement action. It's a violation of the norm that you never mod someone else's words to do that but it maybe would send a message? And no, it's not just WMC that is at fault here, and I'm not opposed to doing that (or whatever we decide on) to more folk than just WMC. This may be a place we don't want to go though. Civility policing doesn't work, usually. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC) No, civility policing doesn't work. It always, always ends up in a sad death spiral that looks like... well, sort of like this, actually. But somehow the idea never seems to lose its theoretical appeal. MastCell Talk 04:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC) There is a fine line between To call a spade a spade and incivility. However I admit I rather like the line which Lar is taking: can we have either an agreement on strikethrough by uninvolved admins or a tag "unnecessarily uncivil: please reword" or similar just for use on climate change? The biggest risk is perhaps the strikethrough or tag being used to inflame an argument by someone just copying the syntax and not understanding the rules. --BozMo talk 12:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Some comments made by all parties could and should be "returned to sender" by an uninvolved admin, but some of those parties will then enter a war over their peerless insights. As long as we're prepared for that... Guy (Help!) 13:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I quite like the idea of a third party admin striking through comment when the request to the writer has been declined. I don't think the request should be made to the admin in the first place, giving the originating editor the chance to redact, strike through or amend will hopefully allow the chance for parties to resolve it first. Of course, the knowledge that it might be struck by a independent sysop if not by them might encourage the action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, I think the key here is that it's a request that was declined by the author. Not just admins watching over and pouncing on whatever they don't think is nice enough. THAT clearly won't work. ++Lar: t/c 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I've used the Template:Inappropriate comment here as an alternative to a strikethru following the user ignoring a refactoring request. It has a more clearly visual effect. Vsmith (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC) This page has become useless. It is time to request arbitration. Rather than edit warring and disrupting the GW pages, the parties are now engaged in strategies to bait and sanction each other. It is time for a thorough review of everybody's behavior. Enforcement should not be arbitrary based on which admin responds to the complaint. Lar, you wanted to sanction. I did not. The default should be no sanction. No other admin has come forward suggesting to place a sanction, and by now any short term sanction would be punitive. This short noticeboard thread cannot fairly evaluate the long contribution history of WMC. If he is persistently incivil, WP:RFC or WP:RFAR are much more appropriate venues to address the problem, and establish consensus. Jehochman Brrr 17:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I have, again, reverted your close. There are more admins engaged her than just you and I and there is a consensus possibly forming that a strikeout approach might work. Or that some other approach might work. Do not close this again without first seeking a consensus to do so or at least without first engaging in discussion of why a close is appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I think the strikeout or a similar action would be an appropriate response. On the one hand, the incivility was mild enough that harsh penalties shouldn't occur, but on the other hand it shouldn't be ignored either. -- Atama頭 18:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Well I agree to close if we can take this conversation somewhere else. but the conversation is very live. --BozMo talk 18:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I'm going to have to go with closing without sanction on this as well. As an infrequent visitor to this page, I read over WMC's past complaints with great interest. I'm afraid I came to a similar conclusion as Guy does above: there's lots of frustration expressed in those complaints, but I don't see a pattern of meritorious complaints. While I don't see the complaints as dilatory or made in bad faith, they do seem to fall into fairly minor issues. The number of complaints is not as important as their merits, in my view. And I don't see the specifics of this as rising to a level which requires any action whatsoever. As far as the discussion to have administrative strikouts of perceived incivility, I don't see this as an issue with WMC's comment per se, as much as a discussion of how to deal with these in the future (certainly whatever damage the single WMC comment has done is well past, so a long retroactive strikeout is more punitive than protective, something I think we should avoid). I concur we close with no action, and move the strikeout discussion elsewhere. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I concur with closing this, noting to WMC and all other parties to these articles and the probation that when someone asks for comment to be struck and it is refused that uninvolved admins may in future do so - and that that is an action under the remedies of the probation and may not be reverted. If, as alleged, there are problems with WMC's apparent courtesy to those whose views he does not share, then there will be another opportunity to review those comments and possibly to enact the new option. It is, of course, hoped that such a scenario will not occur. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I concur as well, with the inclusion of this new feature, although I do not concur with a straight "close no action" ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC) The action is that we are looking to adopt a method by which material which may have provoked a complaint not found to be sanctionable - which may be the case as complained of - may be removed if the originating editor refuses to do so. It means that it was concluded that there was a case to reviewed, but not of sufficient severity to require sanction under the existing options. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I support the close, and the wording of the close, that Guy did a bit ago. It incorporated LHvUs thematics, seems to fit BozMo's comments, and addressed the concerns TeaDrinker raised as well, I feel. I see no reason to leave this open. If there are new matters, a new item can be opened. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC) I do not support the closing of this appeal without sanctions being imposed. All Wikipedia editors are expected to edit civilly. Due to a lack of civility at climate related articles these were put on probation, with sanctions to apply if the terms of the probation should be violated. For that process to have been worthwhile sanctions need to apply. Consensus seems to be that WMCs comments were out of line with the civility expected at climate articles with opinion varying as to how serious or actionable an infraction that is. However despite the terms of the article probation and despite being alerted to the inappropriateness of his remarks WMC has refused to refactor them. Now the proposal is that if WMC is unwilling to abide by the sanctions that uninvolved editors should have to go in and clean up any comments that violate the sanctions. This is like a get-out-of-jail-free card for those who wish to violate the sanctions which were imposed to avoid this type of thing. The sanctions say '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.'. They do not say 'Any editor is free to ignore civility and assume bad faith if they genuinely feel it is appropriate and rather than impose sanctions we will just clean up their comments for them'. The sanctions were already decided. It is up to the editors contributing to climate change related topics to abide by them. It shouldn't become the responsibility of everyone else to refactor those editors comments to bring them into line, the editors themselves are responsible for what they write. WMC has framed his refusal to refactor based on how her perceives ZP5s comments, but this is only an argument to bring ZP5 to this sanction enforcement area, not for WMC himself to ignore sanctions. The sanctions exist for a reason and while they exist this is not the forum for discussion of their validity. Having violated the sanctions WMC is liable to be sanctioned. His subsequent refusal to abide by consensus and refactor his comments is a refusal to accept the sanction process. Sanctioning WMC now is the only way for the entire sanction process to have any validity. Cleaning up his remarks for him does not address the problem of incivility and shows other editors that the sanctions were of no value. In addition this process became much more difficult with the contributions of Jehochman. Closing once without consensus was unwise but doing so twice despite an ongoing debate was disruptive. Weakopedia (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC) You are in a minority. A better solution has been suggested. Move on. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment refactoring

Based on the discussion above I propose the following extension to the general probationary arrangements for climate change articles:

• Comments made in discussion which appear, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator or other uninvolved user in good standing, to violate the talk page guidelines, should be brought to the attention of the user making the comment with a polite note to the effect that refactoring or removal would be appreciated.
• If the user refuses, or does not respond within a reasonable time, an uninvolved administrator or other uninvolved user may tag the comments using {{Inappropriate comment}} or some other generally acceptable means.
• Deliberate reinsertion of refactored comments, by any party, will be regarded as disruption and may be sanctioned appropriately.
• Brief requests to review potentially inappropriate comments may be posted here. Debate regarding the degree of inappropriateness, results of review by uninvolved individuals or responses to those individuals on their talk pages, is strongly discouraged.
• This is not designed to deal with repeated or egregious violations.

Discussion

• Proposed Distilled from commentary above. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Well, technically I proposed it first, :) so yes, absolutely. See the talk for a sketch of a process to implement this, it's in a reply to Dave souza I think. ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Honour satisfied now? ;-) Guy (Help!) 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Quite. Except you spell funny :) ++Lar: t/c 23:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, humour. So different from humor... :o) Guy (Help!) 09:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Good idea but needs to be worded more specifically. For example, does it apply to all pages, article talk only, article and user talk, process-oriented pages, (etc)? Does it apply to all editors, or only those who have been notified of the sanctions applying to this topic area? Does it apply to (gulp) admins as well as ordinary editors? Granted all this is a bit nit-picky but we've seen that some are willing to exploit any real or imagined ambiguity. My preference is that it would apply to everyone, everywhere, always, but you guys are in charge. The only bits I find really troublesome are the mentions of "other uninvolved user" -- that's too open to deliberate or accidental misinterpretation. Best leave it to the admins. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Good clarifications. Since you asked for views here are mine... I'd favor this applying to everyone who participates in any of the articles covered by this general sanctions area, admin or no, and the coverage area where it applies is any talk page of any of the articles (are there any projects that should be included? I don't think so...) User talk?? hmmm. My own talk page is a pretty lax area, if you're snarky you just get snark back rather than asked to redact. At first I would say no. I could see expanding it to include the user talks of anyone who is under a warning or more (any post by anyone there, to cut down on the "let's bait this guy into doing something stupid") or posts to any user talk at all by any one already on warning or more. But I'm leery of user talk. I'd rather try to see if we could keep it narrow. As for the process steps I think anyone in good standing can ask (step 1) but only uninvolved admins should "redact by force" (step 2), so I think a tweak is needed there. Which is why I favor using a quick and dirty template or boilerplate for this as I outlined to Dave souza somewhere or another. ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@Lar, As you proposed, I've (at last!) moved the info to a new section at WT:GS/CC/RE#Proposed procedure for dealing with uncivil comments. . . dave souza, talk 06:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Boris, I'm mainly concerned that we don't build a false perception of hierarchy and bureaucracy. Admins are just folks, any user in good standing who is not involved in the dispute can surely help out here - no tools are required to do the work and I would rather we were inclusive rather than exclusive. Let's separate issues requiring tools (which enforcement usually will at some point) from issues requiring sound knowledge of Wikipedia and a willingness to help with a difficult situation. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Can't support in this form. Sanctions already exist. If there have been strikeable comments the editor making that is like 'strike 1', a violation of the article sanctions. Maybe not yet enough to get them banned or anything, but that is what the reminder is for. Once they have been alerted to the sanctions and their behaviour they have an opportunity to come back into line and refactor those comments. If they refuse to do so it is now 'strike 2' - refusing to abide by article sanctions having been alerted to those sanctions and their transgression. These are articles under probation - two strikes should be enough for someone to enact those sanctions. Refactoring other peoples comments shows that the comments were out of line and the commentor refused to abide by sanctions even when given the chance and this is too much leeway on articles already in a bad enough shape to need probation. Weakopedia (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia has already commented once [68] in a section labeled "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators". AFAICT Weakopedia is not an admin. I assume good faith and note that the thread was rather long and the notice a long way up from that comment and have left it as the section is collapsed. This discussion however was taken from that section; could we have rapid agreement on whether this is for uninvolved admins or anyone with an opinion? I don't care but we should try to be clear. --BozMo talk 09:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Phew, thought you meant me for a minute! My impression was that this section is for uninvolved administrators, and my edits were carefully confined to providing a link to information being discussed. Weakopedia's comment being here is rather confusing, and it would be useful to explicitly state who can edit this section. These other comments could be moved to the talk page or into a new discussion section here. . . dave souza, talk 10:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As my comment to Boris above, uninvolved is more important than admin. Weakopedia definitely fails the test of uninvolvement. It is reasonable to use a similar rule in such cases: an uninvolved admin or other uninvolved user in good standing should first request and, if declined, perform a move of comments from "uninvolved outsider" sections to other parts of the debate. The idea of this process is, to my mind, to facilitate independent review of conduct around these articles, yes? Guy (Help!) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you number sections (and you should) Section 4.3 was labeled for uninvolved admins. This is not part of that subsection, or even section, it is an entirely new section 5. If it is to be limited to uninvolved admins, it needs to be explicitly noted. (As an aside, I mistyped "univolved" and my spelling checker suggested "unevolved". What was it trying to tell me? :) )--SPhilbrickT 12:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. The "admin only" section is currently hidden in the collapsed box above. This is a separate section, started outside of usual procedure, which probably needs to have its rules put in writing if it was intended to have any. Cla68 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine. So can we delete (or if you prefer, move to talk) everything here from Weako's comment downwards, including this? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to be picky about admin/non-admin status you shouldn't forget to take note of [69], and now me of course. Also, WMC, please refer to other editors by their full chosen names or their approved abbreviation unless you are willing to grant others the same privilege of taking liberties with yours. I think that might help to incrementally improve the way we all interact. Thanks for understanding. --GoRight (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't waste space here with chatter - take it to the talk page. As for abbrv - no; if people object, they'll let you know I'm suire. I do, as you know, but Certain Editors ignore that. Looks to me as though Weako chose his name deliberately William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to your call to delete non-admin material and noted one that you missed. As to the other point, your lack of willingness to play nice with others even when requested to do so is duly noted. Thanks for your consideration. --GoRight (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If W wants to complain, I'm sure he will. I don't think you complaining for him is very constructive William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's ok Willy, I don't mind abbreviated names if you don't. Weakopedia (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

My response to this begins with "F" and ends with "uck process". Anyone who is not obviously one of the warring parties should feel free to separate out the two threads of debate and move one to talk or to another section, whichever seems more appropriate. I don't think that's contentious, there is no intent here to do anything other than fix the identified issue with problematic comments. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a proposal for a new process, to be (if my variant is accepted) done by admins. I don't care where we talk about it, here or in the section Dave just carved out. We can all talk about it here. We can move the whole thing to the talk page too. Whatever works. To be clear, this is a new section, separated from the WMC enforcement request, now closed, just preceding it and I don't see it as restricted to admins only.I think all stakeholders should be able to comment on this process and help shape it, admins or no, involved or not. But it's up to the uninvolved admins to carry it out once it's agreed on (I was about to type it's up to just the uninvolved admins to decide what the final form of it is, as that's my view... but it may be a bit of an overreach, so I didn't). ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I support the wording as proposed, but suggest adding a final bullet saying, "Editors who repeatedly make comments which require 'inappropriate' tagging by administrators may be subject to sanction, namely, topic bans of increasing duration." Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is not designed to deal with repeated or egregious violations. would appear to be the answer to that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

First test of the glorious new policy

Bickering cannot conceivably resolve disputes

Comment [70]. Request for removal [71]. Refusal [72] William M. Connolley. Notification of this report [73] (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Erm, were is the refusal william? I asked you a question i did not refuse, but lets see what others have to say then mark nutley (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Please consider this comment extended to here as well. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Is the diff you cite in reference to mark nutley's use of "William," or his reference to WMC's "dotage"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Well boris on my talk page he said it was the "get a sense of humour :)" which was the uncivil comment, i mean come on, how is that uncivil it`s a joke for gods sake mark nutley (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Even still, has the absurdity surrounding this topic space now gotten so out of hand that addressing someone by their first name is considered uncivil? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC) I have no idea what's going on here. I thought I did, but I was wrong. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC) See this regarding WMC's preferences relating to being addressed. I have no idea how widely known it is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC) My comment was only addressing Mark's use of William when he is aware of how WMC wishes to be addressed. Since I called WMC on this point above I felt it only fair to be consistent in both directions. AQFK is correct that the use of first names is not generally considered uncivil, but in this case WMC has made a specific request which is reasonably widely known and I see no good reason not to honor it as long as he is willing to adhere to the same standard with respect to other editors. I take no particular stance on the dotage comment or the accusations of being humor challenged in any direction and I prefer to let others debate that issue. --GoRight (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC) I guess I was only assuming that MN knew of WMC's request, so if he was unaware before he certainly is now and should still refactor his comments, strictly IMHO mind you, in the interests of raising the level of debate in general. --GoRight (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC) What is the specific request? That the entire entry be removed, or just the first sentence? If the latter, that is reasonable - if the former then it would be more appropriate, IMO, to request it be rephrased. This option of having admins refactor comment is for terms or phrases which may be considered insensitive, irritating, or designed to provoke - not questions or statements generally. As reqards same, I would echo GoRight's request - Dr Connolley prefers to be addressed by his title and surname, per the aforegoing, or WMC, and (as I understand it) only as William by invitation. This should be respected (and, yes, I am aware of Weakopedia (talk · contribs)'s deliberate use of a diminutive - as I am of WMC use of a diminutive, and possibly insulting, of Weakopedia's handle; I really don't need to be exposed to such arsery) when interacting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Just the first sentence will do, as I said on MN's talk William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC) I shall do so, drekkly, if not already done so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Ok i struck out william and replaced it with wmc, i really thought it was "Will" he objected to [74] and the first line [75] mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj

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

Request concerning Nigelj

User requesting enforcement

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation The Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article is under a 1RR restriction:[76]

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

1. [77] First revert of material
2. [78] Second revert of same material

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

1. [79] Warning by A_Quest_For_Knowledge (talk · contribs)

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

I'll leave it to the admins to decide what is appropriate.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Pretty self-explanatory. Nigelj reverted the same content twice in a manner of hours. I asked Nigelj to self-revert but he hasn't.[80]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[81]

Discussion concerning Nigelj

Comments by others about the request concerning Nigelj

I suggest that the content involved here is much too new to be discussed in an encyclopedia. There are various attempts at reading crystal balls, but all that can and should be said, with respect to the BLP, is that several investigations are ongoing. We're not a gossip factory, and we should explicitly recognize that this article in question has become little more than a funnel for press gossip. There is no deadline and we will look a lot less silly if we wait for the independent investigations to deliver their conclusions. --TS 00:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be making a content argument here which is unrelated to the determination of an outcome in this RfC. This discussion would be more properly addressed to the talk page in question. Please consider collapsing this comment and any replies to it to avoid further disruption of this discussion. --GoRight (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• "[W]e will look a lot less silly..."? Sidaway, it would be hard for our GW-related articles to look any more "silly" than they already do. The content AQFK was adding was well-sourced, and not gossipy at all. These attempts to whitewash articles need to stop. And, while I doubt it will happen, Nigelj should have sanctions levied against him. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  You can call me Tony. Do you think you could try to stop bringing POV-pushing of the most extreme kind to this page? Our science articles have been compared to Britannica's and fared well, and the global warming article has been singled out for praise by experts. Please give a good reason for sanctioning this editor, and in doing so try not to express extreme points of view. --TS 00:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  I call my friends by their first name. You're not that. You're about as far from that as I could imagine an on-Wiki person being. And I'm wholly unperturbed by your accusations that my contributions here are POV-pushing. Nigelj is removing sourced material multiple times. He should be sanctioned. It really is as simple as that, Sidaway. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:53, 28

  Hi, Scott. If you cannot address me as Tony then you cannot at address me at all without giving offence. But that's okay. I'll swallow it. --TS 01:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  Seriously? Calling you by your surname is not uncivil in any way. You're offended by it? You must have some very thin skin, then, good sir. Scottaka UnitAnode 01:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  Unitanode: Please call people by either their entire username or by whatever abbreviation or short form they themselves specify is acceptable. "TS", and "Tony" are, I believe, acceptable short forms (TS because it's how Tony Sidaway signs, and Tony because he said it was OK to use) for "Tony Sidaway" but "Sidaway" is not. Because he said so... that is a good enough reason. This is just giving people basic respect under the forms and norms we use here. You don't have to actually respect them personally if you do not want to, but polite discourse requires that readers can't tell that, at least not at first glance. We are none of us perfect in this regard but let's do better if we can. ++Lar: t/c 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• "The content AQFK was adding was well-sourced" Actually, I did not add that content. But that doesn't give Nigelj the right to violate the article's 1RR restriction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• The first diff listed does not seem to be a reversion. It removes material, but it does not return the article to a previous state. Therefore, I can see no violation of 1RR. Recommend reporting editor withdraws this report with an appropriate apology to Nigelj. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  The first edit reverted Rumping's edit[82]. He deleted the same paragraph twice in a matter of hours. Clearly a 1RR violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing Nigelj's edit as far more complex - a process that included rewriting the previous paragraph. Re-editing is not the same as reverting. Seems like a frivolous complaint to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:3RR which provides the controlling langauge related to revert counting:

A "page" is any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. (This differs from the definition of "revert" used elsewhere in the project.)

--GoRight (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Virtually any edit that makes changes to an article "reverses actions of other editors". Nigelj rewrote the section, and it is unreasonable to classify that action as a reversion. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is true he did not make a bald revert but that is not the standard applied to counting reverts. If you don't like the standard arguing here or with me will be futile in effecting any sort of change. Propose your change on the talk page of the policy itself. --GoRight (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument. Nigelj's actions didn't violate anything. Heyitspeter's revert is a far worse crime, since he is obviously aware of some sort of edit war and yet chose to perpetuate it. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• What 1RR restriction? Is there a specific one for Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, or one which Nigelj is under? The Marknultey request, where a general 1RR warning was promoted, was closed without such an agreement, and anyhoo without a prior case and notice Nigelj would not be under restriction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC) ps. My comments should not indicate that there isn't a 1RR restriction in place, just that I need to be guided to it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that Climatic Research Unit hacking incident is under a 1RR restriction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See the second listing under [83]. The article is under 1RR. --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Any chance of noting it on the article talkpage? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I can take care of that. I just looked it up in response to your query. I am surprised it is not there already. --GoRight (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made a crude textual attempt to note it after the probation template on both CRU and IPCC talk pages. If there is a more proper way to do it let me know. Otherwise I will look into making a proper template tomorrow. --GoRight (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much that the 1RR wasn't noted, I assume we're all aware of it. It's the whole "let's go after the Dalai Lama" thing that makes this so weird. It isn't as if NigelJ had any history of naughtiness. --TS 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I for one was not aware of it. This game of "gotcha" is why I've quit editing these articles altogether. It's too easy to accidentally run afoul of sanctions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's largely academic, since 1RR hasn't actually been violated (as I point out above). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

[84] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that block is entirely inappropriate. I do not see a violation. A troubling development. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's moot since I notified him that he had violated 1RR here[85] and he still would not revert his edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If no violation was made, then I cannot see how he would be required to revert. I think you've misrepresented what has happened and gone and got him blocked. Not good, AQFK, not good. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Moved from section below reserved for uninvolved admins.

See Nigelj, you got off with only a slap on the wrist. You can continue to be as disruptive as you want to be so long as it you're civil. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines.

Result concerning Nigelj

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

• Nigelj blocked for 24 hours for violating the 1RR restriction, per request. I note the argument that this was not a "technical" revert, but the probation is in place to stop edit warring and Nigelj did not use the option of requesting the second editor to self revert.
  Unitanode is warned to use any of the formal, common and agreed forms of address when interacting with other editors, when requested. Both actions logged as required. As ever, review invited and amendments may be made without further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter

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

Request concerning Heyitspeter

User requesting enforcement

Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [86] - Perpetuates an existing edit war.

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

• Not applicable.

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

24-hour block, per 1RR rules on the article in question and/or clarification of 1RR and edit warring in general.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

With the edit summary of "reverted 1RR violation", Heyitspeter is clearly aware that an edit war is taking place (or has taken place). While not a technical violation of 1RR, it certainly violates its spirit. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Heyitspeter

Statement by Heyitspeter

Scjessey and I discussed this here: User_talk:Heyitspeter#February_2010. I think we may have been talking past each other but you get the gist. I asked that he file this request or get input from an administrator so that I could hear more definitive feedback (e.g.). My edit seemed perfectly alright to me, but I'm not an expert on wikipedia policy. I'd be happy to defer to the input given here (i.e., self-revert or stick with it as needed).

Finally, I probably won't be able to edit here until late tomorrow as I'm off visiting friends. If before that time an administrator decides my edit was in the wrong he or she has my best wishes to revert it before I have a chance to do so myself, and can count on my explicit endorsement (see previous paragraph).--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Heyitspeter

• There is no 1RR violation on this page by Heyitspeter. The edit provided was made at 01:50, 28 February 2010. His next most recent edit was made at 01:15, 27 February 2010. As far as 1RR is concerned case closed. --GoRight (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  As I said above, we are not talking about a technical violation here. The reversion in question is a violation of the spirit of the rule in that it perpetuates the existing edit war. Consider the firestorm that would result if someone were to revert Heyitspeter's edit right now. I haven't edited the article for two weeks, but I certainly wouldn't dream of reverting Heyitspeter even if I think the current version is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• This request appears to be in retaliation for the request above against Nigelj as far as I can tell. --GoRight (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  Absolute nonsense. I discussed this matter with LHvU and Heyitspeter and I was encouraged to file the RfE. Please consider withdrawing your accusation. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  Per this which I was unaware of and Heyitspeter's comment below I withdraw this erroneous conclusion and apologize for having jumped to it. --GoRight (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume this was a reversion related to the previous request. In the circumstances, page protection might be merited. Further edit warring like this obviously doesn't help and Heyitspeter should be told off for being a silly sausage. --TS 02:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is little more than a tit-for-tat request. It should be speedily closed, with the only action being warning the editor who called his colleague a "silly sausage" that such insults aren't acceptable. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• WP:3RR states 3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Yes, the bolding is in the original, so this appears to be an important qualifier. The question then becomes whether 1RR is meant to be applied in the same spirit as 3RR. If so 1RR is "not an 'entitlement'" and restarting the revert cycle at 24 hours + ε (where ε = 35 minutes in the present instance) would be looked upon no more favorably than doing the same under 3RR. I have no opinion on whether 1RR in this probation is a rule unto itself or is meant to be in parallel to 3RR, and leave that decision to the admins who have taken on the easy and pleasant job of enforcing these sanctions. But I think it would be helpful to clarify the intent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with SBHB that this would be an important clarification. Even so, however, I don't believe that HiP's previous edit was a simple reversion of that same content, so I don't think it probably matters to this specific case. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I certainly hope this page isn't fully protected, especially given the "scale" of the issue at hand.

That said I suppose I'm generally against full protection as antithetical to Wikipedia's principles and advantages so my opinion isn't likely to change even if the scale were to increase. Do they have userpage infoboxes for that philosophy, like they do for "inclusionist"/"exclusionist" editors? Maybe I'll make that my first.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I withdraw, and have struck out, a thoughtless and unhelpful characterization. My thanks go to Unit Anode for pointing out my error. --TS 02:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be rather freaked out by any suggestion that protection would be a bad idea, If there is edit warring even in the presence of a probation and a 1RR, then the only way to go is an edit restriction--full protection--until there is consensus. --TS 03:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The present tense is what I take issue with. Nsaa reverted, Nigelj broke his 1RR, I restored to the version prior to the violation. I viewed myself as reverting vandalism in that sense. Content wasn't at issue for me at all, you're not talking to a loose cannon that has to be restrained. I asked that this request be filed so I could figure out whether the kind of action I made was appropriate. I just want to make that clear.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am dismayed at the continued reverting found here; while Nigelj was found to be in violation of 1RR it does not hold that the edit was otherwise incorrect. I haven't reviewed, but it would not have been inappropriate for someone else to take ownership of Nigelj's second edit as their own. Of course, this would have made this an multi user edit war which is as bad or worse than 1RR violation. I am sure that Heyitspeter acted in good faith, but so did Nigelj. My view is that the 1RR restriction is in place in relation to this article as a means to stop edit warring. Reflex reverting even of a 1RR violation appears contrary to the spirit of the placing of the 1RR restriction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Where someone's refusal to self-revert led to sanctions it seemed appropriate to make the revert manually. I'm still not clear as to your opinion on that - obviously a series of reverts isn't inherently warring.

It seems to me this 'edit war' consisted of Nsaa's revert followed by bureaucracy. Perhaps you disagree but I can't tell whether or why yet. Reexplicate?--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Upon review of the talkpage, I cannot see the consensus for the inclusion of the text twice removed by Nigelj. The reverting of Nigelj's 1RR violating edit brings the disputed text back into the article - where the correct application of policy is to allow the basis of the edit and continue trying to achieve consensus. It might be argued that the 1RR violation was otherwise made correctly, and should not have been a matter of a sanction request had it been made by anyone other than Nigelj (outside of a general edit warring complaint). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I'll open a discussion on the talkpage now to make sure people are okay with its inclusion. Seeing as no one has done so yet I doubt there will be an issue, but who knows.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

[87]--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If Heyitspeter is guilty of "Perpetuat[ing] an existing edit war" as Scjessey claims, then so are the following editors:

1. ChrisO[88]
2. WMC[89]
3. Nigelj[90]

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a nonsensical assertion. You added a paragraph on an issue totally unrelated to the article in this diff. I removed that paragraph two diffs later.[91] As far as I know you hadn't added it before and I don't think anyone's restored it since. How is that evidence of an "edit war"? I don't think you're making that claim in good faith. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you had deleted the same paragraph as the others. After taking a second look at the diff, I see that it was a different paragraph that you deleted. I've struck through your name above. My comment regarding WMC and Nigelj stands. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to find who WMC previously reverted. It seems to me he just edited the same paragraph as Nigelj did, but Nigelj did a different edit than WMC had done and Nigelj has been sanctioned for the edit war. So I don't see where is the edit warring of WMC and Nigelj's edits have already been brought up and sanctioned.83.86.0.74 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Both Nigelj and WMC edit-warred. But you are correct, neither have been sanctioned in this particular instance. Whatever action against Heyitspeter should also be taken against the other editors who did the same thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj has been sanctioned in the request above. Blocked for 24 hours? About WMC here is how I read the history, WMC makes an edit to UK government, Rumping adds a paragraph, Nigelj deletes it and rewrites the one above it and the edit war has started. WMC's edit is not a revert as far as I have seen.83.86.0.74 (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Heyitspeter

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

My 2¢: without commenting on Nigelj (I am willing to trust LHvU that the material was inserted recently enough and the rewrite was not substantial enough that the first diff up there counts as a revert for 1RR purposes), I think that Heyitspeter acted appropriately here. His revert noted that he was restoring the pre mini-edit war version, and was performed after the block. I would agree with Scjessey in most other circumstances - perpetuating an edit war is a Bad Thing, and could be sanctionable under the probation. I would even venture that this should not count as a revert at all for the 1RR for that page, though following SBHB above, any time we get into counting reverts something has probably gone wrong already. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this view. ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey

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

Request concerning Scjessey

User requesting enforcement

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [92] Uncivil, assumes bad faith, addresses editor personally
2. [93] Personal attack, accuses me of "becoming quite adept at spin."
3. [94] Uncivil, assumes bad faith, addresses editor personally.
4. [95] Launches another personal attack against me.

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

1. [96] Politely asked Scjessey to remove comments
2. [97] Asked again.

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

I leave it to the admins to decide what action is appropriate. However, I do ask that Scjessey's history of misconduct be taken into account and the fact that Scjessey refused to remove his comments even when asked politely.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Scjessey's edits show repeated assumptions of bad faith, lack of civility and personal attacks. I twice asked him politely that he remove his comments[98][99] and he refused both times. [100][101] In fact, rather than removing or refactoring his comments, he launched another personal attack against me.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[102]

Discussion concerning Scjessey

Statement by Scjessey

Hardly worth the effort. AQFK continues to misrepresent my comments, and now tops off the disgraceful behavior with wikilawyering after baiting me at every conceivable opportunity. Recommend AQFK receives a 24-hour block per WP:PLAXICO for filing yet another frivolous RfE. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to comments by administrators, I feel that the accusations of "bad faith" are totally unwarranted. Examine the diffs in context, and you will see that what AQFK describes as "bad faith" comments are appropriate responses to unequivocal trolling by an SPA. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by WMC

These edits, supposedly showing Bad Faith, don't. #1 is in response to a very unhelpful comment by Oiler99 (which begins Nonsense. You must be joking... By AQFK's standards this should represent an attack, but AQFK doesn't bother report it; this is evidence of partisanship). Oiler99 is arguing GW science, very badly, in a inappropriate page; Scj's response, whilst a little heated, correctly recognises the (null) value of Oiler99's post. #2 is in response to an attack by AQFK. #3 is again in response to trolling by Oiler99; #4 asks AQFK to do something useufl instead of baiting; that seems quite fair.

The Bad Faith is on AQFK's side. I ask the admins here to look at Oiler99, with a view to a block from these pages - he appears to be nothing but a troll William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to expand on WMC's train of thought here, how should I be expected to respond to this disguised accusation that I am a racist by Oiler99? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize the accusation as "disguised." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor would i boris, i have asked Oiler to remove that post. My advice to Scjessey is to ignore this. mark nutley (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional Statement by A Quest For Knowledge

It should be noted that the conditions of this article's probation state "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. " Even according to LessHeard vanU and BozMo's assessment (which I don't agree with), Scjessey violated assumptions of bad faith and uncivil commentary. It seems to me that we have a disconnect between the article's probation and its enforcement. If the article's enforcement is correct, then Scjessey should be sanctioned. If these violations are acceptable, then I request that the article's probation be amended to state that disruptive edits, including including incivility and assumptions of bad faith are now allowed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My only statement was that the diffs were not actionable. Your assumption that I agree he violated anything is only an assumption. While you felt you needed to put this assumption on my talk page as well as here is also unclear to me. --BozMo talk 06:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Scjessey

This is the second request by AQFK in 24 hours. Some of the diffs he provides do not look like personal attacks, as the term is normally applied on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Are these on topic comments? Scjessey comments would seem to be more appropriate for a user talk page than the article talk page. I fail to see how they are productive with regards to article content value. It would seem they may inflame an already off topic discussion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The comments are completely appropriate when viewed in the proper context. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, repeated uncivil comments, assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks are not "completely appropriate". The probation rules specifically state that this is not acceptable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you misrepresent my comments. Your claims of bad faith, personal attacks and incivility are bogus. And now that you have been caught trying to influence one of the presiding uninvolved administrators inappropriately, it is becoming clear that you are more interested in seeking sanctions against me than actually improving the atmosphere. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I politely asked you to remove the comments twice. All you had to do was to remove them. You have no one to blame but yourself. BTW, false accusations aren't going to help your case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

When I got up this morning, I decided to review my comments with an open mind as a "sanity check" on myself. Maybe they were a little acerbic or terse, but in context they seem perfectly acceptable. "Simon of Today" agrees that "Simon of Yesterday" was right to refuse to comply with your inappropriate demand. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Scjessey

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

I do not see personal attacks by Scjessey in the diffs; I do see assumptions of bad faith, with regard to both the motives of the other parties and their contribution toward the subject - it is not "wrong" to hold a contrary opinion, and nor to wish to edit an article to reflect that opinion, because it is the distillation of differing pov's referenced to good sources that create NPOV. It is my view that personal attacks might be subject to sanction, but that bad faith does not unless it is particularly egregious - and they are not to that level. I would invite comment from other admins whether there should be a request made to not repeat ones opinion of another parties' stance and concentrate solely upon the issues raised. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the diffs presented are not actionable/. --BozMo talk 23:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been reminded that the wording of the probation does mention accusations of bad faith as being prohibited, so I am inclined to "up" the remedy to a formal warning to Scjessey to desist, and a general reminder to all parties about the need to AGF. Whether this warning should be a notification of the result here, or whether it should be listed in the warnings section of the enforcement log, is something I would request further comment upon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit confused here about whether we mean assumptions of bad faith or accusations of bad faith and exactly which diff contains these. --BozMo talk 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I read the above diffs [103] contains nothing about faith, it seems to be about flawed methodology, and in answer to a comment of similar tone ("nonsense") and [104] may or may not be a personal attack or a reasonable comment depending on the substance of the edits which preceded it [105] looks like a de-escalation to more provocative comments by Oiler99 and [106] does not look to me any worse in content than the actions of Quest for Knowledge in bringing these accusations. All in all these edits do not look like nice tea-room banter but they are not clearly differentiable from the rest of the conversation and do not look worse than the sharp comments some of them are answering. --BozMo talk 14:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley

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

Request concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley

User requesting enforcement

ATren (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [107] - PA; edit summary "clueless", directed at Mark Nutley. Text: "Face it, you really don't know what is going on here but are determined to push your POV anyway"
2. [108] - incivility, directed at MN: "you should find an arera to edit that you understand"
3. [109] - removal of MN's comment on enforcement page. MN was actually supporting WMC in a thread. Full text of removed comment: "Nor would i boris, i have asked Oiler to remove that post. My advice to Scjessey is to ignore this." (agreeing with Boris' condemnation of Oiler)

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

From the sanctions log page:

1. "User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 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. Exceptions are made for archiving discussions that have received no comments for at least one week, and for whole removal of comments from his own talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)" - violated in third diff (see my rationale below)
2. "User:William M. Connolley warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, and to promptly refactor any unintentional typos." - violated in first diff ("clueless")

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

I suggest a month-long topic ban for repeated refusal to adhere to this probation.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is, what, the ninth request against WMC? I'm at least the 6th to raise a request (CoM, HiP, MN, AQFK, Cla68 have all filed before me - all editors in good standing). The three diffs I supplied are from today, so this is continuing behavior.

@WMC: WMC has claimed below that the RFE page is not a talk page, therefore the sanction was not violated when he removed MN's comment there. But this RFE is a discussion venue, so WMC certainly violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the sanction. In addition, there was nothing whatsoever offensive or abusive in MN's comment, which was part of a larger thread involving 2 other editors. Such a comment removal would be suspect in any context, let alone on a probation enforcement page, let alone from an editor who has already been sanctioned for similar removals. ATren (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@WMC: what about the "clueless" diff? Perhaps you can claim a technicality on the the comment removal (dubious, IMO), but you still haven't said a word on calling another editor clueless. Do you concede that violation? ATren (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@Jehochman, do you have evidence of which member of this so called "viscous campaign by right wing bloggers" hijacked WMC's account and posted those offending diffs? We all put up with unfounded accusations (both on and off wiki), but that's no excuse to lash out at others. If editors can't be held responsible for their own actions, they shouldn't be editing. If an editor can't participate in a debate without insulting other editors, he should be banned. An example: my contribution history and motives have been repeatedly attacked on this page. The accusations are completely unsupported (and unsupportable). Does that make me a victim of a "vicious campaign", and by virtue of that, can I start calling people clueless and removing their comments? Where does it end? Do my "victims" then get a free pass, ad infinitum? It has to stop. Mark Nutley may not agree with WMC, he may even be wrong, but once WMC starts belittling him and hurling insults, it becomes WMC's problem regardless what disagreement started it. WMC must learn to be less disruptive even in the face of what he believes are hostile elements. It's his responsibility alone to control his behavior. ATren (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[110]

Discussion concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley

Statement by User:William M. Connolley

I'm baffled by #3. But apparently retrospective re-interpretation of the rules forbids this, so I've restored it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As to 1, 2: there is a distressing lack of connection to reality about all this. No-one, it seems, cares that MN has got this completely wrong; that his timeline is simply incorrect; that he has been indulging in blatant OR and SYN. Face it, MN isn't listening to rational argument. But then again, neither are the admins here, sigh.

So, lets go through it. MN wanted to say Pachauri defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035 based on [111]. Well, you can read that for yourself - it says no such thing. Moreover, it *can't* say any such thing, because of the timeline.

• 2009/11/09. RKP calls an Indian glacio report junk [112]
• At the start of December 2009. J. Graham Cogley notices that there is a problem with the 2035 date in AR4 WG II Criticism of the IPCC AR4#Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers.

So there you are. MN is well aware of the Dec '09 date, as he has spent plenty of time edit warring over that bit. Which is why I suggested he was clueless. Because he didn't even know the dates of events he himself has been edit warring over.

MN is *still* refusing to learn, and obsinacy at this level really is clueless: as his latest "evidence" says itself [113] Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”. The Indian "voodoo" report has *nothing at all* to do with the 2035 claim; MN is so blinded by his POV that he is unable to recognise this William M. Connolley (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ZP5

This diff history showing a disruptive pattern is here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC Request for Enforcement History showing disruptive and egregious behavior.

This must demonstrate a pattern of disruptive and egregious behavior in the Enforcement Project for WMC. Request concerning William M. Connolley [114] William M. Connolley [115] William M. Connolley: on refactoring comments and civility [116] William M. Connolley [117] William M. Connolley [118] TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC [119] More incivility from William [120] William M. Connolley [121] William M. Connolley [122] William M. Connolley [123] William M. Connolley [124] Tentative disruptive request [125]

Comments by others about the request concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley

This idea of ATren (talk · contribs) [126] was much more reasonable than the current request. This is needless escalation. That ATren is trying to precipitate a month long topic-ban is not particularly surprising. Mathsci (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"That ATren is trying to precipitate a month long topic-ban is not particularly surprising." - I am unclear on your meaning here. Could you please clarify what you mean by this statement? Specifically, why do you feel it is not particularly surprising? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I had specifically requested that MathSci explain his comment above to make his meaning plain. It was a simple and polite request. This was his response. I can only assume that if his meaning was constructive that he would have been more than willing to come and make it more clear here. His bald dismissal of my request suggests, IMHO of course, the opposite. If I am wrong on that point I welcome MathSci to come and correct the record. --GoRight (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It was lucky that I was asleep so that I could ignore what appears to have been WP:BAITing and your own extraordinarily rude interpretation of my sleeping. Your message in a headline on my talk page, with its split infinitive, did not seem "simple and polite". Are you contesting my right to remove that message or are you claiming that my edit summary contravened certain wikipedia rules? At present you seem to be repeating the disruptive behaviour which resulted in an indefinite block before, lifted subject to assurances from you. Have you ever thought of trying to improve your article edit count, GoRight? That would be more helpful for this encyclopedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I did in fact ask WMC to self revert after he removed my comment, as he obviously did not then i believe he has in fact broken his parole mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Given the fact that WMC has a long history of misconduct dating back at least five years.[127], a one month topic ban seems too lenient to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  I vote we chain him to a fence and throw rotten cabbages at him. That's no less an absurd suggestion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Again, might I suggest a remedy here? I propose topic bans of increasing duration. If LHVU wants to start out at 72 hours or whatever, that's fine. I suggest, however, that the lengths of any future bans for this editor, if they occur, increase drastically in duration, from 3 days to one week, followed by one month, followed by two months, and so on until the behavior in question has been corrected. Obviously, the behavior is in need of correction. Note the vindictive motion by WMC in response below for an indication of his desire to self-correct. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment from clueless over here, WMC is once again wrong, please note the following Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen, and was asked about it in november He already knew the 2035 date was rubbish but stuck with it. mark nutley (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, you are playing word games WMC, Again please note the following, Ramesh recalled how IPCC chief R K Pachauri had scornfully dismissed doubts raised by a government agency about the veracity of the UN body's sensational projection about melting of glaciers. "In fact, we had issued a report by scientist V K Raina that the glaciers have not retreated abnormally. At the time, we were dismissed, saying it was based on voodoo science. But the new report has clearly vindicated our position I want a personal apology from the IPCC chairperson R.K. Pachauri who had described my research as voodoo science,” Mr. Raina told The Hindu over phone from Panchkula. “Forget IPCC, Dr. Pachauri has not even expressed regret over what he said after my report -- Himalayan Glaciers: a state-of-art review of glacial studies, glacial retreat and climate change -- was released in November last year So he knew in november the ipcc had cocked up, and still he called this guys work voodoo science, were exactly is this wrong in your eyes? mark nutley (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@Jehochman, how do you manage to post a paragraph in a remedy section about WMC, and only mention the diffs provided of his behavior as "a mountain out of a molehill". You consistently fail to apply the probation as it exists, which has served only to enable this to continue. After your previous GBCW [128] to this page, I doubt your impartiality. If you have complaints about other editors on those pages, open a request like everyone else. Arkon (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley

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

I am certainly minded to add "clueless" and similar to the banned expressions list for WMC, including in edit summaries. It is hard to see how this can lead to constructive dialogue. As for what's a talk page etc someone involved in the last lot is going have to answer that. And is it time for a "come off it and behave like and ordinary mortal" type action... hmm. Probably not from this diff list. --BozMo talk 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I feel we cannot allow the refactoring of another editors talkpage comments to pass unsanctioned, since it was not under one of the exceptions noted in WMC's restriction - and the argument that Enforcement pages do not fall under the ambit of the probation is simple Wikilawyering; personal attacks, and the like, would not be permitted either. However, I am not minded to remove WMC from editing for any extended period because I believe that such silencing of one of the major contributors would become (more) of the intended purpose of requests on the page than trying to return to a collegiate editing environment. My suggestion would be, following the 24 hour sanction previously, of a tariff of not less than 48 hours and not more than 96. It must be made clear to WMC and all those who are not willing to work within the terms of the probation toward a good working environment that they are the architects of their own sanctions - and thus they should be incremental but not punitive. There needs to be the probability of a return to editing within the near future. Frankly, 1 month blocks would be counter productive since some accounts may decide that they will attempt to destroy what little co-operation currently exists if they cannot be part of the editing team. Everyone should be, and is, welcome to edit here in good faith. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Calling a person clueless makes an assessment of their mental state and should not be done, especially in edit summaries which cannot be retracted. Describing on-wiki behaviour as lacking in WP:CLUE is different, but if you are involved in the dispute you shouldn't need to do it anyway, other editors who do have clue will be able to spot clueless behaviour without you having to put it on a banner for them. The usage in this case seems to be aimed at the person, so yeah, add "clueless" and whatever variants to the no-type list.
• Suggesting that an editor find a different topic area where they are more knowledgable can be OK at times, but needs to be done with care. For one thing, it's like saying you're the toughest guy in the bar - you never know who will come in the door next. For another, a currently banned editor made a habit of telling other people they didn't know enough to edit "his" areas and this became part of the evidence. In this case, the suggestion seems not unreasonable. MN always has the option to acquire the requisite knowledge.
• Removing someone else's post from a discussion page, whatever the prefix, when you are in a dispute should not be done unless it's something egregious. Uninvolved observers are perfectly capable of evaluating and if necessary removing posts. Since WMC is currently under a restriction on removing posts at all, let's just clarify that it applies to all discussion-style pages (generally anywhere where you end your post with tildes) and move on.

Does that about cover it? Franamax (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Does that about cover it>> I think so. I think maximum clarity is lowest stress for us and whether what LHVU says was deliberate wikilawyer was in fact congenital pedantry is perhaps a benefit of doubt thing --BozMo talk 21:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, could you run that last bit past me again? :~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it means that if there's a choice between deliberate rules-lawyering on whether the page starts with Talk: or not, or confusion on exactly what the sanction meant, then we go with confusion and make things more clear. Some words may have got lost in the inter-tubes there, or actually just the "ing" is missing from "wikilawyer". As a congenital pedant myself, I always like to get the benefit of the doubt. ;) Franamax (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If folk are saying, "Let's make things clear" then I agree. If folk are saying, "Let's make things clear only" then I demur. WMC removed a comment by someone they are in dispute with, generally, over CC - and they are under notice that they may not do so. Comment removal, and the chosen adjectives, appear to violate the restriction placed upon WMC the last time he indulged in such practices. Let us make things clear, and enact a sanction under the restrictions noted for the reasons given. 48 hours only, since there might have been some confusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that WMC is relying on the "but I'm right" defence, which everyone knows is not wikpedish at all even if you are right, and also know is not well-expressed with "you're an idiot"-style edit summaries, I'm forced to agree with you. The regime also seems to be designed with escalating sanctions in mind. I would easily accept a 24-hours-plus-one-minute or 31 on this, though I quail at a double-up given the ambiguities involved. Franamax (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mostly I agree with you, (your summary, above, was very helpful and spot on) but if the last block was 24 hours, I think 24 hours plus 1 minute, or even 31, sends the wrong message. Either it is sanctionable, or it isn't, and if it is, escalation is appropriate, because there have been a fair number of warnings. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How would you feel about an RFC/U instead? Rather than nipping at the edges of a problem, why not deal with it completely? Jehochman ^Brrr 04:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they work. I've seen a fair number that blunder on for a month or so, during which much heat is generated, and at the end the user blithely ignores the findings (the fact that some dissenting views are generated appears to enable them to ignore the larger consensus that they have a problem that needs addressing) and continues with the disruptive pattern of behavior. For example, this one. I suspect that an RfC/U on WMC would be worse. We have an enforcement regime here and I think it is actually doing some good. Slowly, but it is. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• The account filing this request does not appear to have engaged in any worthwhile article building in the area. Their contributions appear to be more properly characterized as disruptive. The request itself is overblown--making a mountain out of a molehill. Therefore, I oppose any sanction, as this would encourage further rules lawyering, and baiting. WMC's contributions in the area, while not perfect have been substantial and serious. Wikipedia:Content matters. Please discuss rather than imposing a sanction that is not supported by a consensus. Jehochman ^Brrr 02:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that comprise a separate request then? (Like the one just below?) This system seems designed to consider individuals and individual articles, one-by-one, to get the mess sorted. WMC is a big boy, he can withstand a sanction or two in the process of getting his stuff together to the point where he's not crossing lines in dealing with what he deals with. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Franamax (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The one below is being rejected. It does not make sense to sanction the one expert who knows the most about the subject while giving a variety of tendentious accounts a free pass, and encouraging them to further their attacks against WMC. He's the target of a viscous campaign by right wing bloggers. We should not condone that. A warning should suffice here, then we need to turn to the primary sources of disruption and drop the hammer. Jehochman ^Brrr 03:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The lone expert is smart enough to be capable of cleaning up his act. Given that, targeting the gunsights becomes much easier. Consider that it takes some serious skiing to even get to where you can aim the rifle. (Sorry for the biathlon analogy, I could see one of the venues from my front door - what I mean is that it takes a whole lot of reading to get a handle on all this. :) No-one gets a free pass, this is just the first request where I chose to weigh in. My assessment was a warning result too, but if LHvU sees need for a sanction, I'll defer as noted above. One miscreant at a time. I've observed the serial provocation and I'm not unaware of the possibility of off-site exhortations, though when you say it's "viscous" I do have to ask what the Reynolds number is. :) Franamax (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarify that the little riff on "viscous" was much more a comment on my own obession with detail and interest in opportunities for wry, dark, or downright sick humour than it was with Jehochman's single typo/grammo. Franamax (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I really WP:DGAF. You guys do what you must. I personally dislike using short blocks on established contributors. People should be treated as adults. An RFC would be more likely to change WMC's behavior for the better. A short block is unlikely to do much except stir up drama. As I said, do what you must. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Franamax: Yes. WMC needs to tone down the abrasiveness. I know he can do it if he wants to. So far I don't think he's been motivated enough to want to.

Jehochman: Escalating blocks will eventually get through. Or they will be escalated to the point that the disruption will cease. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ZP5, AQFK, ATren

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

Request concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren

User requesting enforcement

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ATren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [129] ZP5 contrib history: no contributions of any value to articlespace on climate change
2. [130] ATren contribution history: ditto
3. [131] A_Quest_For_Knowledge contribution history: ditto
4. Another one: [132] Spoonkymonkey contrib history: ditto

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

See complaint above etc etc.

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

Ban from climate change articles under probabtion until they are prepared to actually improve wikipedia.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Climate change is fraught enough without kibitzers circling like flies around a corpse.

@ATren: I have no defense, because, frankly, I have no idea what I'm defending - err yes: that is indeed the point: you have no contributions of any value to defend.

@Cla68, Arzel: the silence of your inability to demonstrate valuable contributions from these editors is deafening.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren

Statement by ZP5, AQFK, ATren

I have no defense, because, frankly, I have no idea what I'm defending. ATren (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Me too, defenseless where there is no offense. If you would like to contribute to something more valuable, I invite you here: User:ZuluPapa5/CAUC in exile as I ... while we patiently wait for peaceful times in these articles to avoid disruptive warriors. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge

The claimed violation is not listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Therefore, it should be immediately dismissed. Further, this request appears to be in retaliation for the above requests. I recommend that WMC be sanctioned for disruptively filing frivolous complaints and abusing the system. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren

• This motion appears to be of a retaliatory nature. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Clearly a retaliation. Arzel (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• It seems simple to disprove the request: just find some edits to climate change articles that you have made that are indisputably constructive. Ignignot (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well here`s some for ZP5 [133] [134] [135] some for AQFK [136] [137] I`ll look up some others if the guys are not online by tommorow but i`m tired and away to bed mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me amend my statement to include that the edits should be more than a typo fix, unless there are a whole lot of typo fixes. I don't think this is unreasonable - I think 2 of ZP5's qualify. Ignignot (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ATren helped fix Fred Singer's BLP, to which WMC, among others, had tried to make negative. ATren deserves a thank you for doing that, especially since, perhaps as a result, he has been subjected to retaliation by one of the editors who opposed him on that article. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We are volunteers. We volunteer what we wish, when we can. Should I begin to find an area of Wikipedia that I think you don't contribute enough to, then ask you to be banned from it? This is a dangerous road. Arkon (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you (or anyone on this list) are or are not a "good editor". I'm just saying that it would be easy to disprove with a few diffs, which would lay this to rest quickly and quietly, although it looks like this might not be within probation scope, pending admin consensus. In any case - I don't think you can dispute that we all spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about climate change articles, and that not all of it is necessary. I have long been of the opinion that stopping the endless arguments is impossible, but keeping it to a dull roar is within reach. However, every day I believe that it might require some extreme measures to make that a reality. But as you said, I'm just a volunteer - some guy on the internet - and the only weight that my opinion carries is how much people assign to it themselves. I like to think that I am reasonable. Ignignot (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

2 other things came to mind. First: I think that one possible (although perhaps not correct or fair) solution is to ban some problem editors to reduce arguments, and then hopefully experience an increase in time spent actually editing articles instead of talk pages. Second: That I end too many comments with the word reasonable. Ignignot (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My contributions can be found here:

• Climatic Research Unit hacking incident: [138]
• Patrick Michaels: [139]
• Phil Jones (climatologist): [140]
• Lawrence Solomon: [141] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Editors have been blocked for disruptive enforcement requests such as this. Arkon (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. Like many other RfE's, this is bollocks. WMC should be whacked with the proverbial wet fish and the request should be dismissed. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• What violation of the probation is being alleged here? I can't discern any from the request. Lacking any discernible claim of a violation of the probation there seems little need to waste valuable time looking through the contribution histories WMC has pointed us to. Perhaps a simple warning concerning the filing of frivolous requests and wasting the community's time is in order. I leave it to the administrators to determine if this is the case. --GoRight (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren

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

• I do not believe this to be a legitimate request, within the scope of the probation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• I don't either. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• This board is not capable of reviewing an editor's entire contribution history. If you want to make a case that they are politely disruptive by engaging in circular discussion, please point out specific threads using permanent links. Please also consider whether it would be useful to start an RFC on each editor. Before you do that, find a second party to review each editor's contribution history, and if necessary approach each editor and try to coax them towards productive contributions. Jehochman ^Brrr 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Suggest that WMC be warned not to file frivolous requests or requests that give the appearance of revenge, and that WMC be further warned that the next such may result in sanctions, such as, for example, disallowance of further filings, as we have done to other editors when adjudged to have been filing requests unreasonably. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming talk-page discussion shutdown

There's been an arbitrary shut-down of a discussion regarding the British Institute of Physics and the Information Commission discussion of the CRU's science. It may well be that the discussion for on another page, but Tony Sidaway's decision to archive an ongoing discussion without any attempt at consensus seems true to pattern and high-handed. I believe Global Warming is as good a place as any for this discussion, and, if there is a better place, the people engaged in the discussion should be notified and the discussion moved to a more appropriate page. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I collapsed two recent discussions that appeared to relate to an ongoing Commons Select Committee Inquiry, and seemed to have little or no direct relevance to the article Global warming. In the hatnote for the collapse I directed further discussion to a more appropriate talk page, the intention being not to close discussion but to prevent duplication, and to keep discussion on talk pages focussed on improving the article in question. In my opinion this was the correct thing to do.

I have asked the above user to explain what relevance the matter has to the article Global warming, and his response suggests to me that he genuinely believes that this matter relates to the entire subject and affects many articles; I think this view is unlikely to win consensus and suggest that he set more modest objectives and continue to make his case until there is adequate support for his ambitious premise. There are more appropriate pages on which to do this--arguing for the item to be discussed in the article to which I directed him, or a related article, should be easy and should quickly gain support. On that he may build.

It isn't unusual for articles on general subjects to attract off-topic discussion. It's extremely common on this article, and I think this is the correct way to deal with it: gently but firmly direct discussion to the talk page of a more appropriate article. --TS 01:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the sanctions regime is that we are not supposed to interfere in any way with discussion by others, no matter how inappropriate or off-topic. Someone can correct me if that's wrong. (Personally I find the best thing to do with unconstructive discussion is simply to ignore it; responding in any way only encourages such things.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• This epitomises the problems with this large array of articles, persistent pov pushing on the basis of emerging news. Uncorrected Evidence 39 from the Institute of Physics states –
  1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
  2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner.
  This sounds damning, and in good faith, editors feel that this new information is so important that it must be put in main articles about global warming. One problem – the Information Commissioner (ICO) has issued no finding, it made an (as yet undisclosed) statement to one persistent reporter that there was strong evidence sufficient to make a case that the university had failed to respond properly to a request to release private emails, but the ICO would not pursue that case as it was time-barred. The reporter misrepresented it as "hiding data", and the IOP seems to have fallen for that misrepresentation.
  There's a vocal lobby claiming that climate change science is an international conspiracy and fraud, and it's not widely appreciated that by "American standards, all British newspapers are tabloids because they don’t distinguish between what is true and what they make up."[142][143] There's an understandable lack of critical analysis about such news claims, particularly when WP:V is interpreted to mean that if something appears in a reliable source like a newspaper, we should add it without any further research or cross-checking, These sanctions by focussing on etiquette enable such pov pushing. Enforcement of content policies isn't on the agenda, should it be? . .dave souza, talk 07:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be, but I suspect it will be harder to get to clear cut resolution of matters brought. Especially when sources are subject to a litmus test as you seem to be suggesting be done. I'm not sure I agree with that view. If a widely read newspaper reports something and doing so is significant to the overall perception of the issue, it is not our place to denigrate the paper as being too tabloid.

I'm not opposed to trying to enforce content policies, properly interpreted, but that may just be because I'm "domineering", "tend to dismiss reasoned argument" and my "judgement appears to be poor" who shows "little evidence that he's really there to contribute to building an encyclopaedia" rather than because it's actually a good idea. If you can't win on strength of argument, attack the folk doing the enforcement in whatever venue offers itself. Right, Dave? ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)