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

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

{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request

| User against whom enforcement is requested          
  = <Username>

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

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

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

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

| Additional comments 
  = <Your text>
}}

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

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

---

Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets

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

ChrisO

No further action needed. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:52, 15 May 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 ChrisO User requesting enforcement Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, videlicet, disruptive editing, personal attacks, and POV advocacy in climate change articles, but especially in the Bishop Hill (blog) article Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it votes in AfD to "Delete" Bishop Hill removes reliably sourced text from Bishop Hill while AfD ongoing Does so again while AfD still ongoing revert wars on same material from Bishop Hill article again removes the material while AfD still ongoing removes reliably sourced material from Bishop Hill revert wars at Bishop Hill blanks entire section from another article (DeSmogBlog) which had recently passed Good Article revew by an independent, uninvolved editor after that article was used to counter his argument on sources in the Bishop Hill article redirects Bishop Hill article against consensus from AfD is blocked for the redirect removes link to Bishop Hill from a related article personalizes dispute and misrepresents source (newspaper blogs, as pointed out here are reliable sources) grossly exaggerates result of AfD discussion (more accurate observation) personal attack extended personal attack calls editor an "incompetent researcher" attacks edits by new editor personal attack- unsubstantiated accusation of off-wiki collusion personal attack (note edit summary) personal attack personalizes dispute pushes POV opinion personal attack (in context with previous comments) unhelpful attitude Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Please correct the behavior. Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Not at this time. Note, however, that I was blocked for 24-hours for this edit which, in part, reversed ChrisO's redirect of the article Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [1] (and response) Discussion concerning ChrisO Statement by ChrisO This is an extremely selective and misleading presentation, which is simply nonsensical in some regards. It's a grab-bag of misrepresentations, out-of-context quotes and vague insinuations of wrongdoing. Given the deceptive and partial nature of Cla68's claims, I honestly can't interpret this as anything other than retaliation by an editor who recently got blocked. Let's go through these diffs: 1) Voting to delete is not a violation of any sanction or remedy. No explanation of how this is a violation - it's absurd to claim this as some sort of violation. 2-7) Editing an article that is before AfD is not a violation of any sanction or remedy. AfD is meant to encourage a focus on resolving problems with articles, if they can be resolved. An ongoing AfD does not preclude editors from working on articles, and that necessarily includes removing poorly sourced material and material of questionable relevance. Articles are often greatly improved as a result of this process - either by being expanded or by being cleaned up. 8) I removed content in DeSmogBlog that I felt was trivial and crufty. This problem was pointed out by two other editors before I edited it, so it was certainly not in response to a counter-argument. See Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)#Blanking of cited content from "Please read DeSmogBlog" onwards. 9-10) I redirected the Bishop Hill (blog) article after it had been reduced by another editor to a single sentence which contained no more content than was already in the destination article.[2] I made this clear in my edit summary.[3] Cla68 reverted me [4], was blocked and then falsely claimed that he was reverting vandalism.[5] 11) Removing a single link from an unrelated article is not a violation of any sanction or remedy. No explanation of how this is a violation. 12) False claim by Cla68 - I was in no way "misrepresenting" a source as non-reliable. I was pointing out to Marknutley that the source was not "in a national newspaper" as he had claimed but was a blog hosted by a national newspaper's website. The nature of a source is an entirely different question to whether the source is reliable or not. 14) Not a personal attack - I was pointing out that editors who are regular contributors to blogs that are the topic of articles may not be best placed to assess its importance objectively. 15-16) Misrepresentation of context by Cla68. He unaccountably fails to mention that Marknutley is currently blocked for an extended period after being caught plagiarising copyrighted material in multiple articles - this is being discussed at the moment at User talk:Marknutley#Block. Cla68 is certainly aware of this, since he's posted in that discussion. Marknutley is also the subject of a copyright investigation at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100506. My comments about Marknutley's editing being problematic were posted shortly before he was blocked for exactly the kind of problematic behaviour I was identifying, and is the basis of a draft RfC/U that I'm writing up. Criticism of an editor's conduct and contributions is entirely on-topic for the purposes of an RfC/U. 17) Criticism of material that had been added. Comments focused on content not the contributor; not a violation of any sanction or remedy, and no explanation of how this is a violation. 19) Criticism of material that had been added. Comments focused on content not the contributor; not a violation of any sanction or remedy, and no explanation of how this is a violation. 20) Misrepresentation of context by Cla68. Another editor had posted: "Its just a harmless little stub about a silly blog, its not going to change anything at all in the real world at all, one of the things I find is a good thing to remember is that what is written on this wikipedia is more or less irrelevant, no one puts any store on it, why not just take it off your watchlist if you don't like it?" I replied: "So why are you here, if you think it's so unimportant?" This is, at worst, no more than a sarcastic response - clearly not a personal attack. 21) Misrepresentation of context by Cla68. I asked SlimVirgin why she was apparently unaware of the previous discussions or the consensus-building work which was going on, which has been completely disrupted. She subsequently acknowledged that she was not aware of the contentiousness of the material that she had added/restored. 22) Misrepresentation of context by Cla68. I offered my assessment of the disputed content. That's what a talk page is for. Not a violation of any sanction or remedy and no explanation of how this is a violation. 23) Misrepresentation of context by Cla68. Not a personal attack. Numerous editors on the talk page (Guettarda, Yilloslime, William M. Connolley, Kim D. Petersen, dave souza, ScottyBerg) have repeatedly criticised Marknutley's approach of filling out the article with trivial passing mentions of the subject, some of which had been unreliably sourced, rather than reliably sourced substantive coverage. I was thinking of Marknutley in that comment, but carefully avoiding mentioning him by name, precisely to avoid it being interpreted as a personal attack on a specific editor. 24) Offering an assessment of the poor quality of an article is, needless to say, not a violation of any sanction or remedy. Saying that I think an article is too poor to reach GA status is not so much an "unhelpful response" as, apparently, an unwanted one. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning ChrisO Comment by Ratel Let me get this straight: ChrisO is being carpeted here basically for opposing the existence of an article about a blog written by a British accountant about his untrained and inexpert scepticism of global warming. I can see nothing wrong with what he's done, even given Cla68's long list of arguable transgressions. This is just wikilawyering, IMO. No doubt this statement will now be used against me as an example of a heinous "personal attack". ► RATEL ◄ 02:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Actually, Ratel, this one of the few forums where the rules on personalizing disputes are relaxed to some degree. Cla68 (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC) ChrisO deserves a medal for services to Wikipedia. If this article is allowed to exist, why can't I start a blog about global warming, get a few mentions in the blogosphere and local press, then start a wikipedia article about it? Hey, maybe I'll do just that! ► RATEL ◄ 06:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC) How about helping expand these articles and thereby improve the 'pedia? You made significant contributions to DeSmogBlog which enabled it to get to Good Article level, which I really appreciate. So, why not help out the same way on these other blog articles, such as RealClimate, Watts Up With That, Climate Audit (coming soon), and Bishop Hill? Remember, we, as encyclopedia editors, don't make value judgements on the subjects we cover, we just report what the sources are saying. Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by Stephan Schulz Cla68 is clearly off the rail. Having an opinion on the quality of a fringy editorial on a talk page is now POV-pushing? This is a personal attack? Only if you twist WP:AGF until it says the opposite. Between this spurious request and Cla's "oh, someone posted in what I think is the wrong section, let's go to ArbCom!", I'd think he needs to find some perspective. I'd suggest to offer him the option to withdraw this harassment quietly or be banned from CC probation enforcement for 4 weeks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by William M. Connolley This request is mad. It starts off: Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 1. votes in AfD to "Delete" Bishop Hill - yes, that's right. Cla really is asserting that a vote for deleting this NN blog is a violation of the probation. Cla is clearly pissed off that he got blocked for edit warring and wants to get someone beaten up in revenge, which is very bad faith William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC) @ATren: And yes, I said it -- group! Cadre, cabal, group, whatever you want to call it, it's there - only in the imagination of the paranoid. You're descending down to Abd levels now. Climb back up before it is too late William M. Connolley (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC) There's more fun Cla stuff at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible BLP violation William M. Connolley (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris I am concerned that this is the second time Cla68 has recently tried the "shovel in a massive number of diffs and maybe some of them will be relevant" approach as he also did this in his statement on Lar's RfC. Granted that's not in the enforcement area, but it shows unexpected behavior from a prolific and highly regarded editor. It would be most unfortunate if Cla68 should continue along this path as he is one of our premier content contributors and one of Wikipedia's real assets. For his own sake as well as the project's I would like to encourage him to step back and gain some perspective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by ATren Clearly, Cla68 presented that first diff (the vote to delete an article) as context for the following actions, all of occurred in relation to that article. So, ChrisO voted to delete; and then soon after the AFD was closed as keep, he blanked it to a redirect (for which he was blocked); and then when a completely unrelated editor came to the article, ChrisO made outlandish accusations of collusion. The list of edits are intended to present a sequence of behavior all relating to that one article. Of course, the commentors above would rather ignore everything else and focus on that first diff in isolation, spinning this as a spurious report in which Cla is reporting ChrisO for simply voting delete. That's really ironic because in the Lar RFC Cla68 presented a long list of isolated offending diffs (most of which stood as abusive on their own) and was accused of pulling diffs out of context. So if he ignores context he's criticized, and if he provides it they accuse him of reporting a "delete" as a violation. There's no pleasing this group. And yes, I said it -- group! Cadre, cabal, group, whatever you want to call it, it's there. If SlimVirgin can be accused of off-wiki collusion with a group which includes Lar and Cla68, then any accusation of group behavior is on the table. Jeez, not only do SV, Cla, Lar, Marknutley, me, etc, share virtually no shared editing history before getting involved in this conflict 6 months ago, but there is actually a long history of arbcom-level conflict between several of these purported colluders! Furthermore, they want to talk about Cla filing a "revenge" request -- how about these allegations of collusion as a "revenge" tactic against those of us who have criticized the long-time CC editors? They've acting in tandem over a long period of time to squelch opposing views and intimidate newbies, and we've skirted around that issue because it's taboo to accuse long time contributors of such actions. But now that ChrisO has brought it to the surface with these revenge accusations, brazenly accusing long-time editors of collusion, I think it's time to openly talk about the real cabal here (hint: see the list of commentors above) ATren (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Wrong venue. And wrong insinuations, but that's a different topic.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by Thepm I had previously commented on this post at the talk page here. I was disappointed insofar as ChrisO's responses appeared to focus on MN's behaviour (which was not the subject there or here). The consensus of several other posters was probably best summed up by WMC, who said that I was "pushing this too hard," although he noted that "we're all agreed that the place for an RFC isn't an article talk page, so yes you have a point." I let it go there, but the problem I have with ChrisO's post was not that it was in the wrong place, but that it was completely inappropriate. Referring to an editor's "pig-headed obstinacy" is just not civil. Calling for other editors to provide "diffs of particularly egregious conduct" is bullying. Whether or not ChrisO was entitled to complain about MN is not the point. It was the way he went about it. I think that ChrisO is a valuable contributor to wikipedia generally and to the climate related articles particularly, but the battleground mentality has got to stop. Thepm (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Agreed. We will disagree, but we need to disagree without being disagreeable. Everyone involved here needs to do a better job of holding their temper and staying on point. (And yes, I include myself in "everyone".) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Questions Cla, please do explain your reasoning that this is a personal attack. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC) If I may interject, "looks bad, smells bad" - this was just after his accusation of collusion, and "smells bad" further implies suspicion. That's how I would interpret "smells bad", but if there is a more reasonable explanation I'd be open to hearing it. ATren (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC) You are reading far too much into a comment that's purely about content. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC) And what about the earlier comment, where you explicitly mentioned off-wiki collaboration? ATren (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC) You know what is a personal attack? calling good-faith edits, however mistaken they were or were not, vandalism. That's a personal attack. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC) To be fair to Cla, he was squirming to get a block lifted and desperately searching for some reason why his edit warring was Good Edit Warring William M. Connolley (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC) From Heyitspeter @Lar & 2/0: ChrisO was blocked for a spate of edit warring precisely one edit, not for the WP:AGF and WP:NPA violations mentioned here. I do not see how that block suffices to address the concerns raised. @2/0: You are suggesting that we deal with this issue by copying some of the text from the Climate change probation page and pasting it here, once again, as you put it. That obviously isn't an effective way to deal with disruptive editing.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC) You're wrong. ChrisO, and Cla, were both blocked for precisely one edit (well, ChrisO definitely for one, Cla maybe for two), which LHVU interpreted as edit warring. Your "a spate of edit warring" is twaddle incorrect, as you've subsequently admitted William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you, assuming you're right. That makes my point all the more forceful; I hadn't realized how little of the present request had been dealt with by that block. I've refactored my comment appropriately. In return I request that you refactor yours to exclude the final sentence per WP:CIVIL.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC) So, now the "spate of edit warring" has proved a mirage. Closer inspection shows that the "concerns raised", whilst not quite totally vapid, simply aren't enough to merit raising at this page. The block doesn't address those concerns because they don't need to be addressed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC) More comments What everyone needs to remember is that in a contentious topic area, collaboration, cooperation, and compromise are necessary in order to make progress on building complete, balanced, neutral articles. Were ChrisO's edits helpful in achieving this? I think clearly they were not. It appears that an admin has decided to point this out to ChrisO. If this corrects the behavior, and I sincerely hope it does, then we can move forward and hopefully continue making some progress on building up and expanding Bishop Hill (blog) and related articles. I have invited several of the editors who have commented here to expand and improve the Watts Up With That article as was done with DeSmogBlog. I would like to invite them to do the same with Bishop Hill (blog). I look forward to helping them out with both articles. I appreciate the well-thought and reasoned comments by the admins below. Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Expand Bishop Hill (blog) with what? It is already a coatrack. Each of the few peripheral mentions of the blog in the very few sources is used to coatrack Montford's views into the article. Your backing of this article appears to be classic POV pushing and now you are advocating expanding it here? Polargeo (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe editors should be more polite with you but you should not wikilawyer to get your way whilst ignoring policy designed to improve the quality of articles. Polargeo (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Polargeo, if you don't feel that the sources support Bishop Hill, will you instead commit to helping me improve RealClimate, Climate Audit, and Watts Up With That with the goal of getting all three to Good Article? Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC) A great example for you to follow Cla. I don't see the article on the blog RealClimate being used to push its content and POV. Also there is no obvious place to merge RC. Polargeo (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Oh and Climate Audit is a redirect to Stephen McIntyre#ClimateAudit.org. Just as this Bishop Hill (blog) should be a clear merge to Andrew Montford. Something I believe you have been blocked for trying to prevent. Polargeo (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC) As for Watts Up With That, feel free to improve it because it has some of the same issues Bishop hill has but it has much more significant RS coverage than Bishop Hill. Polargeo (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC) If your work on these articles and fighting for them by every method (including using enforcement to attempt to win content debates) is designed to "level the playing field" I feel you are very misguided. Polargeo (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC) All I asked Polargeo, is if you would be willing and able to help improve and expand those three articles with the goal of getting them to Good Article. Do your four responses above constitute a "yes" or a "no?" Cla68 (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Further discussion on talkpage Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC) "no further action needed" The caption to this collapse implies that action has been taken. Care to explain? I'd like this thread to be reopened if no one's opposed.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Result concerning ChrisO I shall be recusing from this area, since I have been involved in endeavouring to directly admin the article, have previously indef protected (and lifted) the article, and have blocked ChrisO and Cla68 for unilaterally redirecting and reverting the redirect upon protection being lifted. Since some aspect of the above may involve my actions and decisions I feel I cannot comment as an uninvolved sysop. I shall, of course, respond to direct questions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Had I been monitoring Bishop Hill (blog), I would have acted pretty much as LHvU has done. I see nothing else that needs to be resolved here, other than urging once again that everyone editing in this topic area up their game. There should be no insurmountable barrier to collaborating civilly and productively. When someone introduces a questionable source, introduce a better one; when someone comments more on the contributor than the content, focus on the content; when someone reverts you, explain your edit at the talkpage and engage in discussion; when you revert someone's edit, explain why and actively seek a source-based compromise. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC) I'm inclined to agree with 2/0. I would also like to note that while LHvU has my support for recusing, if he feels he should, I personally feel that what he has done has been within admin, not editing, purview and no recusal is indicated. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Those accusing Cla68 of having brought this here unnecessarily are off base. It's a valid thing to raise. If this had been brought here prior to the blocks imposed, I'd probably think a sanction for ChrisO was appropriate. But it's after the fact, the block was served out, done. An admonishment to "up your game" for ChrisO (and whoever else deemed necessary) is all I'd advocate, this time. Agree with KC that LHvU doesn't need to recuse, but bonus points for deciding to. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU

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

Request concerning LessHeard vanU

User requesting enforcement

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Basic tenets of noninvolvement of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [6], [7]. These two, taken together, show LHVU reverting the page to his, and by "co-incidence" Cla68's, favoured version. This is not permissible.

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

1. None

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

LHVU to step away from admin action over the Cl Ch sanctions for one of the usual periods, perhaps a month or two.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Me asking LHVU to either withdraw the prot or the revert is at User_talk:LessHeard_vanU#Blog_again, as is his refusal

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

Discussion concerning LessHeard vanU

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I have already requested review and comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of actions, and noted the same on this pages talkpage and - after getting a little lost with the redirected talkpage - the article talkpage. Since this is an Climate Change Probation related article, I think this request is valid - but the input on the ANI page needs taken into account also in participants consideration. Plus, there is discussion at User talk:LessHeard vanU#Blog again that bears review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Re action requested; I fail to see why an issue in respect of one article that I am trying to admin unilaterally (per my understanding of both the admins remit and the Climate Change Probation allowances for admin supervision) should, if I were found to have exceeded my duties, extend to disbarring me from CCPe generally - unless it is found I acted so egregiously as to place my sysop status at risk. My actions generally within the CC Probation area are not being examined (yet) so I don't see why there might be good reason consider restrictions in that space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Casting an eye over the proposed wording of a close, and some of the earlier comments, I would note that there is an aspect of the move to merge the article that I had forgotten to mention. The article had previously been put to an AfD with arguments to either delete or merge; the article was closed as no consensus. My understanding is that editors who had participated in the AfD discussion(edit comment - not all editors had been involved in the earlier AfD, so striking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)) are not permitted to subsequently decide the closing admin was wrong, that they think it should be merged, and that they have consensus to do so. Another formal gathering of opinion, such as a RfC, is needed to establish whether the finding of the AfD should be put aside. That is my opinion of how process works in such matters. Therefore I submit that I was correct in undoing redirects to merge, since there could not be consensus without another form of consensus gathering, and it was appropriate to protect the article from being redirected out of process. I apologise for not bringing up this rationale for my actions earlier on this page, although I had clarified them previously at other venues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. An AfD is only really a reflection on whether an article should be deleted or not. A no consensus is exactly that, no consensus to delete or keep. The merge discussion is not in any way invalidated by a no consensus at AfD. I came to adminship through my knowledge of AfD. This appears like a desperate attempt to justify your actions. Polargeo (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Look, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but you are completely wrong. Ask an experienced AFD closer if an article that was closed as "no consensus" can be subsequently merged without a "formal gathering of opinion." Any of them. Hipocrite (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • As noted, that was/is my understanding - the AfD did not provide a consensus (which is based on policy). Forming a new consensus should not be a matter of those who desire the merge agreeing that policy supports them, you need to establish it - and with editors disagreeing there was no consensus. So, SV creating an RfC was appropriate and making the merge on the basis that some advocates believed they had found consensus is faulty. If the merge had consensus it would not have previously been recently reverted. There was no consensus, and a RfC seeking to establish it should not have been pre-empted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So we are back to the beginning. An RfC (informal request for outside comment) was started by SV after a fairly clear merge consensus had already emerged. You tried to enforce a block on the consensus and cited the Rfc (informal procedure) and used your admin tools which was wrong. Polargeo (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You then suggested that these were not against me (even though they blatantly were) even though I had never had any sort of previous warning. Lar then forces me to apologise because of wheel warring. I would very much appreciate it if you would absolve me from that. I am not an edit warrior, whatever else I may be. Polargeo (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There was not a consensus. ChrisO had redirected the article on 5th May, which Cla68 reverted as not having consensus, and for which both were blocked along with Dave souza, all for taking actions where there was no apparent agreement on the talkpage - yet you say that there was consensus forming over that period, and that SV's rfc, after she also had raised concerns whether there was an established consensus, was a late effort to derail what you indicate was an established fact. I would have to ask what you thought Mark nutley and Cla68 (and others) were objecting to when they were at the same time attempting to provide reliable sources that gave the subject evidence of its own notability. Did they concede that the article should be merged, because their actions seemed to indicate otherwise? To respond to your last point, you are certainly no edit warrior and you hold yourself strongly to your understanding of policy and practice - I absolve you of any need to apologise to me for being topic banned, that was my decision solely - but I am not sure that in the area of AGW/CC that you are able to balance your understanding of the truth with the need for WP to be neutral in its reporting of the issues. I am pretty certain that is exactly the issue you find with me, since you are convinced that I persuaded by a different truth than the one you hold - and I have made my comments upon that point and will not repeat them again. I did not see a consensus, I saw a slow edit war and my actions were to enforce the formation of a consensus that was apparent to all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Point of information! "Lar then forces me to apologise" is false. I suggested that you needed to say you were wrong. You then freely chose to do so. That is diffferent than forcing an apology. Forced apologies are worth nothing... but more importantly, how exactly was I going to "force" you to do anything? Really, I think you need to stop playing so fast and loose with the facts, Polargeo. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning LessHeard vanU

Comment by SlimVirgin

LHvU is acting as an uninvolved admin here, trying to get everyone to abide by the content policies and best practice, and so far as I can tell he is doing it without fear or favour.

In the latest incident, William Connolley and Polargeo were trying to pre-empt the results of an RfC posted a few days ago. The RfC asked for fresh input to decide whether Bishop Hill (blog) (a climate-scepticism blog) should be merged into Andrew Montford (the person who runs the blog), or vice versa—or neither. Comments are still arriving, but WMC and Polargeo decided the RfC wasn't necessary and they've twice in the last 24 hours or so made the merge of their choice. LHvU reverted their latest effort, [9] protected the page, and has asked that the RfC be allowed to run its course. If any action needs to be taken it's against the editors trying to close the RfC prematurely. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Fell Gleaming

It looks like LHVD stopped an edit war, reverted out a page blanking that a user performed without consensus while a merger discussion was still ongoing, then protected the page. I don't see a problem? You're seriously asking for a ban for doing good work like this?

Also, it appears WMC voted for this article to be deleted then, when that failed, voted for a merge and then attempted improperly to merge it while discussion was still ongoing. It appears he's simply upset over the outcome here. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Its 13-3 in favour of merge. So unless your definition of consensus is "decision I agree with" you're simply wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears the "straw poll" vote section started all of four days ago? And you're already trying to close it out, to the point of starting an edit war over it? And you're surprised an admin stepped in to halt the shenanigans?

Also, I count at least 5 people against merging this article into the biography. I also don't see 13 people voting for it to happen, unless their comments are outside the actual "straw poll" section. However, that all is moot. Trying to close out a merge discussion after just four days is a clear violation of policy. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 22:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The RfC currently stands at 10 in favour of the proposed merge, and six against. Of the six, three favour a merge in the other direction, and three want no merge at all. That's why it needs to be allowed to continue. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, as I'm sure WMC knows, the process is about more than counting noses. It's about the most compelling argument. Even a cursory look at the situation sees that this article is more notable than the one they're trying to merge it into...and the people voting to merge it are mostly those who recently attempted to delete it. It seems clear this is an attempt to bury information the editors find unfavorable to their views. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 23:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The merge argument had been made ad nauseum over several talkpage sections including on the article where the merge was requested to. Nobody is counting noses. The RfC can run and run but it has no power to prevent edits or stop a merge that has consensus. We are never going to get 100 % consensus on this (now there is a shock) but I think from all arguments to date it is a clear merge to Montford. Now if you wish for all of those previous discussions to be cut and pasted into the RfC to show this is about more than just votes then I will do that. Polargeo (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Ratel

Can we please have some rotation on the admins who oversee this area? Currently, we have at least 2 admins here who have quite strong feelings about the content. I infer this from their actions, although I'm sure they'll claim otherwise. Isn't there some way we can roster on other admins? Uninvolved, —I mean truly uninvolved— admins are sorely needed. My previous call for climate expert admins was derided as unworkable, so this would be the next best thing. ► RATEL ◄ 00:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd need to provide evidence of LhvU having strong feelings (or any feelings) on the content issue. I've only been involved in this for a few days, but I see an admin doing his best to uphold the policies and best practice, and let the chips fall where they may. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As are we all but I would relish a break from this somewhat thankless task and if we can find some more admins to play a rota is a good plan. --BozMo talk 12:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ZP5*

This admin rightfully blocked WMC on March 2nd and April 2nd. As one of the few willing to stand up to WMC. By the other comments here, I am suspicious of WMC's motives. I've seen past cases were WMC rakes admins who make him realize the pain his caustic approach causes others. This request may be bordering on an abuse of this page, for which if WMC's past requests are examined closer, a recurring pattern may be seen. [10], [11], [12]. This admin has also closed many of WMC's meandering complains here. Outside admins should review the complainer's evasive history and unwarranted RFEs in this project when considering the issue raised. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Polargeo

Give LessHeard a break. He thinks he was doing the right thing. Although he appears to be as misguided as Lar and Cla are on this. If he will undo his actions then that is fine end of story. As for banning me [13] from editing Bishop Hill after I made a single edit which followed consensus, I just feel a little sorry for him. The only thing I give a fuck about is making sure wikipedia follows consensus. If he is now banning me when I have never even been warned, never edit warred etc. etc. it just shows how much he has lost the plot. Polargeo (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh and my action was a simple edit, a single edit to merge the article which attempted to enforce a consensus which had existed before someone stuck an RfC note above everyone's talkpage comments. I didn't close the RfC. I would not do that, did I merge the talkpage? No. If the RfC came to a different conclusion I would have been behind it all the way, yes of course.

Please note Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input it is not an excuse to prevent edits merges etc. etc. etc. and LHvU is using it to do this completely against policy. He is using his admin tools against policy. Polargeo (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo is just being a transparent meat puppet for Connolley. His opinion should not be counted separately from Willie's. LHvU is doing a good job. --204.11.245.200 (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockery. Plus not true. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think LHvU is doing a great job too Polargeo (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

According to the regulation RfCs usually end after 30 days. The reg states that the nominator can close it earlier. WMC is not the nominator of this RfC. WMC used to be an admin and should know better. There probably should be an enforcement action against WMC. Cla68 (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Make my day. But you are deliberately obscuring the point: LHVU is entirely welcome to revert the page - or protect it - but not both William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC, did you violate the RfC rules by closing an RfC and taking action before 30 days in which you were not the nominator? Cla68 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty straight forward misuse of admin tools. You don't revert and then protect except in extreme cases like major BLP violations. Guettarda (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's standard practice to revert and protect when there's been an abuse of process. It's clearly inappropriate for two involved editors with strong views to close or ignore an RfC that someone else posted just a few days earlier, and while comments are still arriving. The whole point of an RfC is to ask for fresh input, which can take time to arrive. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Per below but to allow response here: starting an RFC has just as much potential for gaming and being an abuse of process as closing one. RFCs do not give a divine right to a sufficient number of editors to Filibuster. In this case the RFC was marginal, the going ahead on some consensus against an open RFC was marginal, doing a revert and protect in these circumstances was marginal. Very hard to call any of them as definitively in or out. And opinion here and on AN/I is divided on each of these three aspects. --BozMo talk 10:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that even when taking into account the RfC there appears to be a merge consensus. If there had not been I would not have made the edits. However, the RfC should not override conensus. Particularly when it was introduced when the argument against merge was lost and when the RfC to the point of making my edits only appeared to enforce the consensus that already existed. I cannot comprehend how this could be used to stagnate the article via LessHeard's admin tools. Polargeo (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the hurry? Since WMC tried to prematurely close the RfC and during the time that you tried to do so, the RfC has received nine additional votes. Of those, four were for the merge and five against, considerably narrowing the "consensus". I would say, just based on that, that this RfC definitely needs to run its full course. Again, what's the hurry? Cla68 (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not try to close the RfC. I would not try to close the RfC. What WMC does is his own issue, I am not a backer of WMC only of consensus. Starting an RfC is not a carte blanche to keep an article in stagnation for a month even if LHvU seems to think it is. Polargeo (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am missing something here. The linked RFC above seems to stand at 15 merge and 4 don't merge. So presumably I am looking in the wrong place for these 5 recent don't merge votes? Link please --BozMo talk 12:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC) @Guettarda: Not true. "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Arkon (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. You either act as an admin or an editor. You can't revert and protect. Not over something as trivial as this. Guettarda (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Read my quote, it contradicts your statement directly. Arkon (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No more than IAR contradicts any policy. LHvU is clearly involved in this article - he protected the article for "edit warring" when there was no edit war ongoing. He one editor after a single edit, with no warning. And he advocated in favour of SV's stalling tactics. He did everything he could to prevent the merge, despite consensus. Then he reverted to his preferred version and protected the page. LHvU was one of the edit warriors here. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And "abuse of process"? Seriously? You've never read WP:BURO? Guettarda (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Any enforcement involving WMC. Even one requested by WMC, wouldn't be right without Lar popping up as an uninvolved admin and requesting major sanctions against WMC. Sadly very predictable Polargeo (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the cutoff for major? Is 9 trouts minor and 10 major then? Or is just one trout major and you'd only accept a minnow as minor? You're being ridiculous. Sadly very predictable. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar I thought there was an RfC running about you not acting as an uninvolved admin in cases connected to WMC. Going by LHvU's novel interpretation of RfC you should stay well clear for 30 days or LHvU will use his tools on you. Polargeo (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh and which part of your statement Alternatively, some sort of sanction against WMC for mucking around could be proposed., is about just trouts? It would be funny if you hadn't already shown that you want WMC topic banned for a year. The fact that you even use the opportunity of WMC bringing a legitimate complaint to call for sanctions against him is really very sad. Polargeo (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What Lar wants is for climate change articles to cease being a war zone, and his suggestion to ban WMC is pursuant to that goal. When you say stuff like Lar "want(s) WMC topic banned", that's a very bad faith assumption because it implies Lar is acting on some interpersonal motive, rather than for the good of the project. That needs to stop. There is no indication that Lar has any ulterior motive in wanting WMC banned, other than he believes that WMC's actions are disruptive enough to warrant a long term ban -- and in fact, unlike your assumptions about Lar's motivations, WMC's disruptive actions are quite well documented (see, for example, his long list of enforcement requests). ATren (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe what Lar wants are several editors like yourself to follow him about and win his arguments for him. Several of the diffs at the RfC do show Lar encourages this sort of behaviour. Polargeo (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

[14] Macai (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by me

Shouldn't this request be viewed as disruptive since Willie obviously knew that it was already being discussed here? Persistent abuse of the community's time like this is deserves a reasonably long block since Willie obviously knows this already. --204.11.245.201 (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)</ obvious sock of 204.11.245.200 in any case --BozMo talk 19:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we have a CU for this sock? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree although I am fairly sure that Cla, Lar or LHvU would not be this silly. Polargeo (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Missoula, Montanna? Does this ring any bells? Polargeo (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aside from being a sock, is this a valid point? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What???? This is an obvious sock of an editor with a grudge don't be so silly Polargeo (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. WMC has a history of filing frivolous complaints. The question that was asked was whether this request is disruptive given that it was already being discussed at Ani[15]. I note although you replied to my post, Polargeo, you failed to answer this question. If you don't know, no response is necessary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ATren

How many frivolous requests does WMC get to file before he gets a ban on filing RFEs? ATren (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. Irrelevant here, since this is anything but frivolous. Are you going to use every enforcement request to engage in off-topic attacks on WMC? Guettarda (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please ask on on-topic question Guettarda. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment (2) by SlimVirgin

I'd like to make clear here that this was not a frivolous RfC. The very best way to deal with the situation at these articles is to request fresh eyes as often as possible, and RfCs provide a structure with some basic rules that allow a calm decision to be made. I wouldn't want to see admins say anything to discourage that. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to ask a question about what counts as "involvement." I see BozMo commenting below as an uninvolved admin, yet today he commented as an editor on the talk page of one of the key climate-change skeptics. [16] [17] People engaged as editors in that area really shouldn't be acting as admins in it too. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually meant to say "frivolous complaints." I am amending my statement. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You put an RfC on top of a merge discussion that had being going on long enough, had already had plenty of participation and had already reached as much consensus as was ever likely. Putting the RfC notice was therefore disruptive. The RfC appears to be largely gaming because you were losing the argument. Also I wasn't aware that simply placing an RfC stopped consensus edits in any way. Does an RfC put consensus on hold? I wasn't even aware that you could suddenly turn several editors' comments or !votes into an RfC. Now you have invented a new rule that any admin who has ever edited a climate change article is involved. Polargeo (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

@SV. Reasonable question. FWIW I do occasionally not only engage in talk but also edit some Climate Change pages, at least in the last year or so only BLPs where I have some concerns and almost always delete marginal or disrespectful material. I have edited Singer in that time. I would count myself as involved in a probation issue if I had been involved in an episode which ended up here. But per the definitions there is no blanket involved and uninvolved, you, SV are obviously uninvolved in most of Climate Change but on the opening and closing of this particular RfC, you were involved I think. No big deal, just a technical thing as I see it. Some admins like vary between above and below the line depending on the micro-issue. That ok? --BozMo talk 19:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

When I started editing WP, the rule (in general) was that we couldn't use the tools on any article we were involved in, but we didn't extend that to whole areas. But over the years it has come to be extended when dealing with contentious issues, so that now if someone is editing Israel-Palestine articles, for example, they're expected not to use the tools in that area, even in articles they've never edited. Because I've now edited a few climate change articles, I would see myself as not able to act as an admin in this area for a long time, even though I've never edited the vast majority of them. Given that you're involved as an occasional editor, BozMo, I don't think you can wear the uninvolved hat too. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That opinion is worthy and I understand it. However it is not in line with the way the Climate Change probation is drawn up. Tools is another issue but I do give "uninvolved" opinions here as do other admins with varying degrees of "involvement", by your definition. I have not had another uninvolved admin ask me to withdraw from a particular discussion as yet, and my involvement in terms of edits is well known to all. As I say, my edits are limited to BLPs and I would have to look back to find the last article edit (which was probably [18] in Dec last year). --BozMo talk 20:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

BM, I don't know what the climate probation says that would make it okay for admins editing in the area to wear their admin hats sometimes and their editor hats at other times. It just doesn't work. There have been very limited areas in which the ArbCom has allowed this in the past, and it's still allowed in BLP emergencies, but in general it's not a good idea, because even when we genuinely feel we're being neutral, if we're involved in editing that area, POV creeps in without us realizing. You were saying you were desperate for a break from adminning the dispute anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It says "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute)." Perhaps we should review the wording, but as written both you and I are uninvolved in most of the topic area. --BozMo talk 21:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then as an uninvolved admin, I'm saying I feel you're involved. :) Seriously, you commented yesterday on me indirectly, in the section for uninvolved admins, when you said that users should be warned that posting RfCs might be seen as gaming the system. That position is exactly the opposite of what's required. We want more RfCs, more eyes, more input—the more, the better. For an admin to regard dispute resolution as gaming the system is really quite worrying. And today you turn up on the talk page of a CC article I'm editing, but this time as an editor. And then you go back to commenting in the uninvolved admin section here. It looks odd, and I don't feel comfortable with it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that my impression with regard to the other sysop's adminning this area is that we generally work really well together, that the few disagreements we have are respectfully made and concluded, and are quite effective. I think that there is an understanding that the differing admins are "unbiased to a differing viewpoint", but that provides us with a breadth of options when dealing with these matters. I, for one, would be reluctant to see BozMo's input withdrawn. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We have around 1,500 admins now. There's therefore no need for anyone editing in this area to be adminning too, LH. If you look at BM's uninvolved comment yesterday, it included users who bring RfCs to be regarded as gaming the system when there are other editors involved already (even when those editors are behaving entirely predictably?); that you were too involved and another admin should take over the Bishop Hill page; and that admins shouldn't use revert and protect against editors in good standing (no matter what those editors do?). Those views, combined with my seeing BM arrive as an editor on a CC talk page today, make me uncomfortable with his approach, and I am asking him to withdraw. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We may have ~1500 admins (is this counting the inactive ones?), but I would guess that a large number of them, probably somewhere around 1,490, are afraid to go anywhere near climate change articles or the disputes that take place in that topic. With good reason, too. It seems that getting involved in this area is the fast track to having your own conduct put under a microscope and people constantly calling for your tools. It is a good thing that LHVU, BozMo, myself and the other admins here aren't afraid of that sort of thing. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Seeing unactioned items languish here for many days does not encourage withdrawl. Also my comment on the talk page (which was finding a reference to support whether Professor Emeritus was an enduring position) was on a talk page and pretty innocuous. I don't even think I disagreed with anyone (but I would on a BLP). I think if anything a stronger grounds for uninvolvement might have been previous disagreement with you about an (unnecessary I thought) RFC but that was a long time ago, can you even remember it? Aside that and being completely over you voting against my adminship three years four months 23 days 3 hours and 20 minutes ago which I am completely over honest and do not obsess about at all, really, I do think I have even been on differing sides of an argument with you either? --BozMo talk 06:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I share SV's concern in general -- admins must be mostly uninvolved in order to participate here -- but not regarding BozMo specifically. I don't particularly agree with many of BozMo's opinions on enforcement, but he does not act rashly and he respects consensus, so a small level of involvement on talk pages does not overly concern me. My greater concern is with 2/0, who is much more quick to act unilaterally (e.g. his recent block of FellGleaming) and who seems to enforce unevenly. ATren (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think we can escape having admins who are humans and who privately have opinions on some of these issues and the value of different editors (although to be honest I don't have time to keep up with much of the content here) but I do think that there is a good mix of courteous and respectful disagreement amongst the admins here which is as good as it gets frankly. This thread is a bit off topic, can we collapse or better continue on talk? --BozMo talk 06:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think The Wordsmith has vocalised the perception of CC articles and adminning of same within the sysop community - and I can honestly say I feel the same way about BLP; I won't touch them until flagged revisions and BLP AfD's default to delete are in place. It may be that this issue with CC articles was recognised when the wording of "uninvolved" was made, since it clearly indicates that the prime requirement is not to have recent article interaction with the individuals named in an enforcement request. I would also note that I was recruited - I did not volunteer or come across this area and decide to lend a hand - to assist in handling Probation enforcement. There are too few admins currently working this area for us to get too choosy in deciding who should withdraw or recuse. I think we should allow the sysops to decide that themselves, on a case to case basis - which may also be the situation where someone feels there is too much previous recent history for an admin to comment as an uninvolved party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wordsmith is a useful demo of how not having a clue can be a waste of time; see the mediation request William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Some parties (on both sides of the science issue) would love if there were too few admins to police this area, so that they could run unchecked. It is a good thing that a few of us have the testicular fortitude to stay and help where we can, and the integrity to not respond to the personal attacks (such as the one immediately above). The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You just *have* responded. To those wondering what this is about, (almost) the full debacle is at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-08/Global Warming William M. Connolley (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And how is a months-old mediation case that never happened relevant to anything, whatsoever? Are you saying that I am involved? The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying you got badly burned by that mediation case. You opened a pointless case and wasted various people's time, including mine. You are not here as the history-free noob you're pretending to be William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider that case to have burned me. I apologize for the five minutes of your time that were wasted, but its really no different than any of the hundreds of medcab cases that were filed but for which other parties declined mediation. I also never claimed to be a "history-free noob." I am a junior admin, sure, but i'm here as an administrator who wants to help, like the others here. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment (2) by Polargeo

• Let us have a look at the facts.

1. My only edit to the article was the redirect [19] my edit summary was The RfC can keep running for 30 days. It does not override current consensus for a merger in any way
2. Before making this edit I noted on the talkpage [20] that the RfC (belatedly initiated) could continue running quite happily and if it came to a different conclusion then that was fine.
3. At the time I did the merge it had the backing of 10 editors (opposition was that two wanted the merge the other way and three said there was no need for a merge).
4. I did a full merge [21] of all contentious content with no attempt to remove any content whatsoever.
5. LessHeard immediately reverted my action, fully protected the article and then banned me from editing it [22].
6. I thought his actions were so utterly wrong that I immediately undid his protection [23] (look at my edit summary) but not his edit. When he explaind to me that he was just reinstating an earlier protection and the protection was not against me (which would have been very silly) I immediately reinstated the protection on his request. I disagreed with his protection but was not prepared to disrupt wikipedia over the matter.
7. LessHeard is still trying to prevent a merge [24]. He seems to think he has a monopoly on consensus judgement. He also seems to think that someone can slap an RfC on something to delay a minor decision for 30 days. Polargeo (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on proposed closure wording

NW has written The edits of William M. Conolley and Polargeo, who had both only edited Bishop Hill (blog) once This is incorrect, please check the article history, WMC has edited it 11 times that i see in the article history mark nutley (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are indeed correct; I have clarified my wording to better indicate what I meant. NW (Talk) 11:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

Until we get Jell-O Instant Consensus, we are stuck with the existing rules - the 30 day rule is one of them. And, last I checked, there is always WP:DEADLINE as an essay. Moreover admins who opine here should also note if they routinely agree or disagree with any participants, to be sure. Collect (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that *any* decision can suddenly be paralysed for 30 days by one editor slapping an RFC on it? That is ridiculous William M. Connolley (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wken in doubt, deride those who adhere to reasonable processes arrived at by consensus, and considered to be WP rules and policies. Boojums are rife. Collect (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That was almost as good as one of ZP5s! William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WTH is "ZP5"? I have held the same position re: WP:IAR and procedures on WP, on WV, on Commons and Meta, as well as in Strategy now. Collect (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

An excellent question. I can't help you, I'm afraid William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

ZP5 is User:ZuluPapa5 I think. ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I rather gathered as much - more to the point is WMC's use of boojums here. Collect (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if WMC, who turned the phrase, can't help clarify what he meant by it (as you requested he do), I would say I certainly can't. I could certainly speculate as to what he was trying to do, but I'll pass. It is unfortunate that WMC apparently doesn't have time for clarifying what he means by things even when directly asked. I ran into it too and it's frustrating, if you let it be frustrating. So don't. But there you are. ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I said I really can't help; see previous reports. What are these boojums, though? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by dave souza

WP:PREFER policy is that admins normally protect to the current version, but "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Under this policy, LessHeard vanU's reversion is clearly justifiable. However, it's arguable if there was such a clear point, and there's a sound tradition of protecting The Wrong Version. There was an emerging consensus, or at least a clear majority view, which made the merge and redirect (without any loss of information) justifiable. The RfC itself was valid, and could have continued whether or not the article was at present a redirect. On reviewing the circumstances, NW's proposed closure gives sound guidance for any similar situation in the future.
The statement "The edits of William M. Conolley and Polargeo, who had both only edited Bishop Hill (blog) once, did not merit reverting and fully protecting the page." is technically incorrect as WMC had edited the page some time previously, but only once in the dispute in question. I'd suggest that it should be struck, or modified to cover that point and make it clear that this is an opinion in retrospect which does not invalidate LessHeard vanU's reasonable judgement call while focussed on stopping edit warring. . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Modified. NW (Talk) 11:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Move stuff by ATren

[Moved from the wrong section - WMC]

Commenting here because the above is a mess and I would like to make two points before closing. Admins, feel free to remove when you've read it

• The second bullet item is inappropriate in that it implies that the RFC itself was bad. Seeking more uninvolved input is never a bad idea. Perhaps a case could be made that LHvU acted too strongly by revert/blocking, but it can also be said that WMC/Polargeo were subverting a process by reverting while the RFC continued. A better approach would have been to suggest an early close on talk before reverting. So there was strong action on all sides here, but the RFC itself was not improper.
• Shouldn't there be an admonishment against Polargeo for wheel warring? That's more serious than LHvU's revert/prot, and even though he reversed it (after some coaxing) I think it merits a warning in this close. ATren (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I strongly disagree with RFC's always being a good thing. There is a track record of abuse of RFCs on Climate Change articles (was it Gavin somebody who was blocked for this, I don't remember) and I think a reminder than procedure is not king is appropriate. --BozMo talk 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course RFC can be gamed, but there's no evidence of that here, and the wording implies that filing an RFC is inappropriate even when done in good faith. Or is bad faith being assumed here? ATren (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Good faith does not make a bad decision good, whereas a warning here might induce more thought and deflect a bad decision on an RFC. --BozMo talk 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning LessHeard vanU

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above.

This looks genuinely marginal to me. The irony that WMC is complaining when LHvU does appear to care about content is inescapable. So anyway here is my view (1) Revert and protect should really be reserved for vandalism and a request would have been better than using tools (especially against an admin where it invites wheel warring). (2) Polargeo and WMC do seem to be being rather impatient. (3) At the same time starting an RFC should not "gamed" by a minority against the consensus: RFCs are not very credible processes when there are already many editors on a topic (although SV and a few others are obvious fans of them) and the RFC process is not intended to give a right to filibuster. My suggestion is (1) for another uninvolved admin to take over the closer supervision which this page seems to need (2) that we give a general warning that starting an RFC on Probation pages where a sufficient pool of editors are involved is something we look at from a gaming aspect (3) that we clarify uninvolved admins using revert and protect against editors of good standing is undesirable. What do others think? --BozMo talk 10:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and we might add something about Polargeo and WMC eating less red meat and drinking less coffee. [25] --BozMo talk 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think, viewed standalone, this is one of the more ridiculous enforcement requests in a long time, and one would wonder what WMC was actually thinking. Viewed in a larger context, though, his starting it here and now actually makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately. (insert comment about me being "delusional" here) Close with a commendation to LHvU and 10 trouts to WMC, Guettarda, et al. With an admonishment not to do it again and this time we really mean it. No, really, we do. And we're going to be very very cross next time. So cross we may actually say we really REALLY mean it. Alternatively, some sort of sanction against WMC for mucking around could be proposed. ++Lar: t/c 19:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed closure (see below where I discuss with NW):

• That SlimVirgin be encouraged to work the discussion process at the talk page a bit longer before moving to an RfC.
• That all editors who are considering filing requests for probation enforcement are encouraged to first speak with an uninvolved administrator.
• That those objecting to an RfC make the case against it rather than revert warring to remove it
• That LHvU be absolved of any wrongdoing in this matter, his actions be endorsed, and he be commended for his efforts to resolve the matter.
• That no further action be taken.

That's what I've got now, after further reflection and review of material. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see anything sanctionable here, certainly not the sanction that WMC has proposed. Protection policy seems to permit reverting to the version of the page immediately before the controversy, and then protecting it. While RFC cannot be used to filibuster, it also appears to fall outside the domain of WP:SNOW, so going ahead with the merge anyway was certainly a bad idea. I suggest trouts all around and a word of caution to those who file frivolous RFCscomplaints. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, as I implied I did not think it was sanctionable. But agreeing principles for next time would be good too. --BozMo talk 17:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing all the evidence, I cannot find fault with Polargeo's edits, and as such, I don't believe that LHvU's action was necessary. I fear that the administrator tools have been employed a bit too much on this article. Blocks and page protection were handed out a bit too liberally for my taste, and I would prefer that the use of them be scaled back. I generally agree with Bozmo's views (especially numbers 1 and 3) and his conclusions, and feel that several general reminders do need to be issued. At this time however, I cannot support the involuntary removal of LHvU from the probation process. Perhaps he has made some marginal calls (at least, ones I would have not made), but I don't believe that he is sufficiently biased enough at this time to need to recuse himself. NW (Talk) 19:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree to close this case with a result of trouts all around? The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty vague closing summary. I'd prefer something a bit more concrete. NW (Talk) 01:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please propose one, then? ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Proposed closure below:

• All administrators are encouraged to only revert and fully protect a page only in cases of obvious vandalism or BLP violations.
• When a number of editors have already commented on an issue, starting an RFC and insisting that it run the full thirty days before any action on a page can be taken is unnecessary. The edits of William M. Conolley and Polargeo, who had both only edited Bishop Hill (blog) once in relation to the current dispute, did not merit reverting and fully protecting the page.
• All editors who are considering filing requests for probation enforcement are encouraged to first speak with an uninvolved administrator.

• LessHeard vanU is understood to have only been trying to resolve the dispute to the best of his abilities. This is an close done with the benefits of hindsight, and should not be taken to construe as any harsh criticism of LHvU's attempts to resolve the matter.

NW (Talk) 21:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll have to propose a different one, I guess, as I am not seeing consensus for that view. It is sharply different than mine, I'm afraid. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine with me. NW (Talk) 00:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See above. I adopted one of your points. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think on balance I would go with NW's close. --BozMo talk 15:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have updated my proposed closure slightly[26] NW (Talk) 11:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you could go further and remove "harsh". No one doubts that Lvuh was acting in good faith and that a case could be made for it being appropriate decisive action, but my own view was that it was slightly over the line and we should call is as "out" for future guidance more than anything else. --BozMo talk 11:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would ask that admins, before closing, give "more stuff by ATren" above, a read. He makes some good points. I am completely uncomfortable with a result that admonishes LHvU in any way. He was right to do what he did. I recognise that consensus may go against me but I strenuously object. Further, I suggest that going forward we not allow Polargeo to comment in any uninvolved admin section of any future enforcement request, as by edit warring (and wheel warring) in the topic area he has completely scotched any notion that he is uninvolved. ++Lar: t/c 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have answered one of ATrens points above though: no way do RFCs deserve a "Get out of jail free card". There have been other abusive ones in the past and we should discourage inappropriate RFCs. On LHvU I am happy not admonishing LHvU as long as we agreed he shouldn't do it again. On Polargeo, if you want to raise a request for enforcement on him then do but please do not try to shoehorn him in here. As the probation terms are written he may be uninvolved but perhaps those need review. --BozMo talk 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have several concerns. First, my review of this led me to a far different conclusion, that an RfC was an appropriate thing to initiate in this case. SV and I do not often see eye to eye but this is one of those times. Second, that same review led me to conclude that LHvU is not only not admonishable, but actually to be commended for his actions in this matter in disallowing gaming and brinksmanship by those trying to thwart discussion. Finally, as to PG, well, no worries, he will be dealt with soon enough I expect, see the talk of this page just now. But on the first two points, what exactly would convince you that the view I and others espouse fits the facts better? I'm willing to try to convince you but I'm not sure why exactly you don't see things this way, so some place to start might help. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

PoV tag and Fred Singer

Proxy blocked. Related issue in next thread. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to fill out the template because this is a minor matter. 94.136.50.63 has reverted two different people on Fred Singer - both attempts to add a PoV tag. There is a long and distinguished history in this area of adding content tags on the request of a minority of participants - in fact, even through full protection - while an issue is discussed (diffs on request). I would appreciate an uninvolved admin, or even an involved admin stating that I will not get in trouble for reverting more than once on the article, or just ruling that the PoV tag must be on the article while the dispute is discussed on the talk page. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I thought once a pov tag was up it was not to be removed until a consensus was reached in talk? If that is the case then how can you get in trouble for putting it back mark nutley (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC) That was my understanding as well, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC) William C. Connolley added the POV tag as soon as he found he couldn't get his own way today. Tags aren't meant to be used in this way, and WMC seems to be the only one who wants it. Hipocrite, as I understand it, does not particularly want it himself. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC) He started a discussion on talk. You refused to respond to that discussion - you still have not responded to it, actually, yet you are supporting the removal of a tag pointing to an unfinished discussion. I take no position on the underlying issue, but it does appear that you are fillibustering WMC. He has raised a PoV point - that you provide undue weight to something. You are obliged to respond, to allow him to have his preferred version, or at the very least allow him to tag your preferred version. You (and the disruptive, multiply blocked anonip who is the real problem here) are not permitted to not respond, revert attempts to add the tag or edit the article. Hipocrite (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC) It's not true that I refused to discuss it, and I don't know why you'd say such a thing. There was a discussion on my talk page (started by WMC) and another on article talk, though I still don't understand his points; discussions with William tend to involve lots of snide remarks, so it can be hard to work out what the substantive issue is. And I have not reverted tag. I just don't think it's a correct use of it. More broadly, I'm concerned that he is still allowed to edit this BLP. He was accused (rightly or wrongly) in an article in The National Post in 2008 of using the article to smear Singer, and he does indeed seem to want to make negative edits to it. Once an allegation like that is made in a serious newspaper, it's not in anyone's interests, WMC's included, to allow even the perception of something inappropriate with a BLP to continue. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Slim, not to shoot myself in the foot here because I'm on the other side on all of the issues I'm thinking, but are you sure you want to play that card? I mean, if you want to play that card, we'll need to discuss how it applies to others editing this section. But, we don't need to, since I'm taking ownership of exactly one of WMCs edits - it was right, you were wrong, now discuss on the talk page with me. Hipocrite (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Not sure what you mean about playing that card (more BATTLE language; sorry, can't deal with it). I care about the BLP policy, and I've several times as an admin over the years asked over-involved editors to step away, once it becomes clear that they have a real problem with a BLP, or where serious allegations are made of involvement, COI, or anything similar. Yet here I find WMC allowed to continue editing this BLP after a serious complaint was made in a serious newspaper about that editing. In his own interests as much as anything else, he should have taken that page off his watchlist at that point. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC) The Solomon article to which you refer is no more credible than The Register. I strongly suggest you stop walking down this path. Hipocrite (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I'm going to start looking at the diffs from this article and any related BLPs. If there are recent worrying edits I'll ask for further action. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I'm completly on board with dealing with problem edits. I'm not comfortable with banning an editor from editing on something because a totally unreliable source has declared them to be something. Hipocrite (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC) @SlimVirgin, you seem to be claiming that there is rule that a wikipedian cannot edit in a topic area if accusations about his or her editing in that topic have been published off-wiki. I do not believe that we have such a rule, and I believe that such a rule, if adopted, would harm the wiki. One reason why it would be harmful is that it would enable a wikipedian, who is in a dispute with another wikipedian, to topic - ban that other wikipedian just by publishing untruths about him or her off-wiki. I note that the original source of the accusations about WMC is a blog posting, containing several obviously false statements, by an individual who has disagreed with WMC on Wikipedia. Cardamon (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I didn't say that, C; please read what I said. There's a difference between claims like that appearing on some website and in The National Post, one of Canada's two national newspapers. In any event, as I said, I'll look through the history. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC) One of the things that drew attention from the National Post had to do with Fred Singer and Martians. WMC and others (including Raul654) had edit-warred to prominently included loaded language on a minor issue from 1960s involving Singer theorizing on the existence of intelligent life on Mars. They insisted on adding that material to Singer's intro, even though it was unduly embarrassing to Singer because the belief in "Martians" has become somewhat of a pop-cultural joke in the 40 years since Singer expressed the view -- in 1960, such a view was far less embarrassing. Despite this, WMC warred to keep the Martian claim in the lead, and he explicitly admonished another editor who moved it out of the lead with an edit summary of "rv: if you're going to try to bury embarassing stuff, at least be honest enough to include an edit summary", which seems to speak to the motives of WMC in editing Singer's bio. Certainly, a brief 40-year-old speculation on alien life is not something we would include in the intro of a scientist's BLP unless we're trying to accentuate embarrassing facts, which WMC's edit comment confirms. So others may try to discredit Solomon and National Post, but on this particular issue they were correct. ATren (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC) That diff (and others near it) is very disturbing. However, it is also from 2008. Is there anything more recent that might warrant a ban from that article? In lieu of evidence that this is still a current problem, a ban would be unnecessarily punitive (rather than preventative). The WordsmithCommunicate 16:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Really, it was in a blog associated with The National Post. Cardamon (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC) No, it was more than that, but in any case, do you agree with the point that this was intended to embarrass Singer? If so, why should it matter where it was reported? ATren (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I now see that I was talking about a different Solomon attack piece than the one you were talking about. Cardamon (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Can we have someone block the sock User:94.136.50.63 and semi the page please? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC) It's not a sock, it's an open proxy. Hipocrite (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure I see the distinction. No matter, can someone close it please? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC) @SV: If you're having trouble spelling my name (and you are) just use WMC; it is much easier William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

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

Request concerning William M. Connolley

User requesting enforcement

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:10, 15 May 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

{{{Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so}}}

• [27] - WMC edited the article to say that Singer is a global warming skeptic
• [28] - WMC added (restored?) a POV tag

This section needs to be expanded if this request is not to be declined without further action. As per the rules, it needs an explanation how these (or other yet to be added) diffs constitute "disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith". Ben Aveling 06:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

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

{{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}

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

That he be topic banned from editing Fred Singer

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Would one of the admins who oversee the climate change probation please topic-ban William M. Connolley from editing Fred Singer? Singer is a very distinguished American physicist, 85 years old. He argues that there's no evidence that the increase in carbon dioxide produced by human beings causes global warming. As such he has become a target of WMC, who has been editing his article very poorly for years. WMC has made the most edits (103 since 2004), followed by me (101 since a few days ago), and then KimDabelsteinPetersen (98 since 2006). [29]

Singer complained about the poor editing of the article in The American Thinker in February 2010, writing "In my own case, my Wiki bio also carried additional malicious accusations; the most bizarre one was that I believed in the existence of Martians." [30] Canadian writer Lawrence Solomon has written about Connolley's editing of Singer's bio several times, alleging that WMC was trying to smear Singer—in The National Post in April 2008, [31] again in May 2008 [32] and in the National Review in July 2008. [33]

I recently found the article in very poor shape. Singer has had a long and very varied career, yet a great deal of it isn't even mentioned in the article, so I've been working since May 13 to try to fix it. This was how I found it; this is how I left it before Connolley arrived again today.

WMC now wants the article to say that Singer is a global warming skeptic before we even say he is a physicist. [34] When I reverted and left a note on talk, [35] he added the POV tag and six citation-needed tags to the lead, [36] all for material that is already sourced after the paragraph, and which he anyway knows is correct. He also removed material that was sourced to The New York Times. If a new editor had done this, we'd have little hesitation in calling it vandalism.

Bear in mind that this is a BLP; that WMC has been criticized in the mainstream press for his editing of it; and that the article is under climate change probation. And yet still he behaves this way. I find that very arrogant and aggressive, and I don't think it's fair to the subject of the bio that an editor with that attitude is allowed to have anything to do with the page after so many complaints about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In case admins are willing to consider topic banning WMC from all climate-change BLPs, please consider this sequence of events.

WMC and some others were engaged for a long time in shoddy editing of Fred Singer. Lawrence Solomon, a fairly well-known Canadian writer, first pointed this out in two articles in The National Post, one of Canada's two national newspapers, in April and May 2008; the second article names Connolley. [37] [38] In the first one Solomon wrote:

The page that Wikipedia devotes to what is ostensibly Fred Singer’s biography is designed to trivialize his long and outstanding scientific career ... Honest accounts of Fred Singer and his accomplishments have been available on Wikipedia, and on hundreds of occasions. Those occasions don’t last long, however — often just minutes — before the honest accounts are discovered and reverted by Wikipedians who troll the site.

Solomon's BLP then became a target too. WMC's first edit to Lawrence Solomon was in June 2008. [39] And there WMC engaged in exactly the same editing as he engaged in today at Fred Singer—moving into the first sentence that Solomon is best known as a denier of global warming, and adding several citation-needed tags to the lead. [40] Here for comparison's sake are WMC's edits today to Singer's article. [41] [42]

It's worth pointing out that Solomon's criticism of WMC has not been allowed to appear in William Connolley's biography (which has no secondary source material showing why he might be notable), where WMC's wikifriends [43] have made sure it stays out on BLP grounds. Would that they were so considerate of others. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your implied statement that User:Reddi, User:ChildofMidnight, User:Nsaa, and User:UBeR are "wikifriends" of WMC is puzzling. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

I don't see that SlimVirgin says anything like that (and my edits on this page is mainly technical like fixing references and so on), but "It's worth pointing out that Solomon's criticism of WMC has not been allowed to appear in William Connolley's biography". And I'm not a friend of him, but iff I go to Britain we can off course go out and drink a beer :-). If you have differences nothing is better :-). Looking at the history is quit interesting removes blog[44], Vsmith removes a sourced paragraph, Atmoz removes blog (ok), Removed a fact, but the sourcing is questionable, spectator.org removed as source etc. Nsaa (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply to 2/0

I did go to the talk page, [45] but when I saw WMC add six citation tags to the lead for Singer's career description—which was sourced and has been in the article for a long time—I felt he was playing games, and I have no desire to get involved in it. He baits, he insults, he harries, he feigns surprise, he tries to make people look and feel foolish. It's not honest debate and there's just no point in it. This is a BLP issue that's been going on for years. It needs to be sorted out, and I can't do that alone, so I came here. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem continues

Even as this is being discussed, WMC continues with the same kind of editing at Fred Singer. [46] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A request

For the admins looking at this, a decision fairly soon would be appreciated. WMC has now taken to, in effect, vandalizing the article by removing the entire further reading section and the categories. [47] He posted on talk that the articles in FR looked like spam. [48] But they were just regular articles from the NYT, Guardian etc, some by Singer, some about him.

This was shortly after he removed material in the lead from The New York Times that he think is "rubbish," [49] added his own unsourced opinion to the lead about Singer's early research, [50] and accused me of "writing lies" in edit summaries. [51]

There's no point in trying to improve the article with this kind of thing going on. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To avoid splintering this over 20 articles, see Talk:Fred_Singer#Stopping_for_now and Talk:Fred_Singer#Further_Reading. As for "no point" - is this an improvement or not? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This really would be better discussed on the article talk page, instead of spewing allegations of vandalism.

For the further reading, there is even section for it Talk:Fred_Singer#Further_Reading - SV could join in instead of throwing her toys out of the pram. The objection, as given there, is that the FR section was vast, and apparently pointless, and SV appeared to be using it as a workspace.

As to the NYT: yes, it is rubbish. We don't have to add junk to articles merely because someone says it. I've already covoered this in my statement, above: He also removed material that was sourced to The New York Times. Indeed I did. Here is the diff [54]. I removed what looked like hyperbole to me. Shall we google it to see if it is true? [55]. 1,120 hits, looks good doesn't it? But actually there seem to be only 11, and they are *all* reprints of the NYT article. Which is to say that *no-one* calls him the DoCC, except Revkin, once. Is SV not bothering to read any of this stuff?

Lies in edit summaries? Most certainly: SV persistently reverts under deceptive edit summaries, for example [52]

William M. Connolley (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The rule is WP:V and not WP:IKNOWWHATSTRUE. The NYT is generally RS per the founding policies of WP, and calling it "rubbish" does not help any discussion. Collect (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Even usually reliable sources make errors. We are in no way obligated to repeat them, especially in such a irrelevant matter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@C: so you really are arguing that we should not only insert a known false statement into a BLP, but that removing that false statement should be a sanctionable offence? If so, you are lost. Policy should not get in the way of sanity. But, if you are interested in this issue, why not discuss it in the correct place: Talk:Fred_Singer#Dean_of... William M. Connolley (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:V It is not up tp edotprs tp use "truth" as a rationale for rejecting what a RS says. Nor is suggesting the NYT is somehow insane going to help much. Ever.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Seems quite clear as WP policy. Not "If WMC knows something then it is usable, and if he knows it is false it may not be used." Collect (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That specifies a lower threshold. We do not include everything that can be reliably sourced - that's editorial discretion. And including something, if printed in a RS or not, that is verifiably false harms the encyclopedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Or if Stephan Schulz knows something is wrong then it can not be used" is also not in any WP policy I found. See also WP:NPOV wherein it states that the solution for disagreeing with a claim is to add claims from other RSs. It does not say "If something is false according to an editor, it can not be in the article." This is, indeed, a core policy of WP. WP:Josh Billings Collect (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning William M. Connolley

Statement by William M. Connolley

This [53] is the state of the FS talk page when SV filed this request. Notice how little attempt SV has made to discuss these problems. Notice the attempt by me to discuss the issues. This request is premature and should be dismissed as such.

But the usual suspects won't, so let us look at SV's complaints.

The main one appears to be that I edited the article to say that Singer is a global warming skeptic before we even say he is a physicist. To anyone at all familiar with FS, this is a very odd complaint indeed. Indeed, SEPP's own tagline is Founded by atmospheric physicist and global-warming skeptic S. Fred Singer; press releases, news articles, scientific studies and other materials available. - so even Singer admits that AP and GWS belong on the first line, and all we disagree about is the order of terms. SV insists that even mentionning GWS is bad. Does anyone really think that Singer is better know for his atmospheric physics? Try looking at what-links-to-Singer [54] and see what wiki uses him for.

SV notes that this is a BLP, yet she has added a large number of claims that are sourced to nothing but Singer's self-publsihed biog. These are all dubious; they may well be correct, but who knows. SV asserts that which he anyway knows is correct - I'm sorry, but mid-reading is not a RS, and in this case SV's mind-reading is wrong, anyway. I don't know those things to be correct.

Let us take one of SV's claims: He was later the founding dean of the University of Miami's School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences. This appears to be sourced only so FS's selfpub bio [55]. I'm very doubtful that is a good enough source, ince contested. I could be wrong of course - in which case, the correct course of action is a polite discussion on the article talk page, rather than "going nuclear" so quickly.

He also removed material that was sourced to The New York Times. Indeed I did. Here is the diff [56]. I removed what looked like hyperbole to me. Shall we google it to see if it is true? [57]. 1,120 hits, looks good doesn't it? But actually there seem to be only 11, and they are *all* reprints of the NYT article. Which is to say that *no-one* calls him the DoCC, except Revkin, once.

This looks to me like a clear case of SV fouling up this article with junk. I ask that *she* be topic banned for polluting a BLP with wrongness William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and can someone revert the sock [58] and maybe semi the page? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Done in the course of reviewing background to this RE. Proxycheck or CU might not go amiss. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I object to the assertion of "only partial defence". The indictment section contains 2 diffs:

• [59] - WMC edited the article to say that Singer is a global warming skeptic
• [60] - WMC added (restored?) a POV tag

Of those, the second is absurd - the assertion that adding a POV tag is sanctionable is manifest nonsense. The first is also absurd: the current version of the article, as protected by Bozmo, also includes this text, so it really can't be so terrible. The rest is just mud-flinging. And your consenus is what: you, Lar, LHVU? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley

Sorry, but the claim that Solomon's column's represent "the mainstream press" already shows that this complaint has no basis in fact. This has been to WP:COIN when Solomon's misrepresentations (to be generous) were fresh, and no problem was found. Singer has, for the last 20 years, been best known for SEPP and his stance against the scientific consensus on global warming. This is a significant source of his notability, and it has to be covered adequately in the article. The way to achieve that is to work with, not against, knowledgeable editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

While The American Thinker is a blog, so not acceptable as a source, it is hardly a fringe site. One should never over-react to any criticism of Wikipedia in outside venues, but neither should it be dismissed simply because it isn't the NYT. Similarly, the National Review, while not the favorite reading of some, is a well-respected journal, and comments therein should not be cavalierly dismissed. The reputation of WP should be important to all of us, and it is my view that the state of climate change articles does not represent the best of WP by a long shot.--SPhilbrickT 21:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

When someone can show us the 8000 climate change articles that WMC edited, and the 200 editors (or whatever the number is) he blocked because of their edits to climate change pages, we might consider taking Solomon seriously. And arguing that saying Singer is better known as a physicist than a "skeptic" is ban-worthy is just plain silly. Singer is better known as a "skeptic". Guettarda (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Solomon wrote: "When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions." [61] For what it may be worth, I notice that Solomon has edited Wikipedia and in April 2008 he complained about WMC. Cardamon (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: What Solomon did was copying misleading numbers from the EditCounter without any understanding. 2000 (if even that number is correct) is the total number of all blocks WMCs ever imposed. Nearly all of them were standard short-term WP:3RR enforcement blocks following the then-standard policy (24 hours for a first violation). There are essentially no long-term blocks, and there are essentially no blocks related to climate change articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point in that Solomon seems to not understand or exaggerate on some minor statements. Not many outside journalist understands Wikipedia well as have been shown over and over again. But his main point is seems to be extremely valid unhappily. Nsaa (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Solomon did not get anything factual right in that article except maybe the spelling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not about Solomon, it's about Singer and WMC. Two years ago I gave up on the Singer BLP because there was no room for debate with editors like WMC and Raul654, who insisted on emphasizing "embarrassing" (WMC's own words) claims that Singer believed in life on Mars (among other smear tactics). Raul has long since left this topic area, but WMC is still here fighting any efforts to fix Singer's bio. WMC's history on Singer's bio is there for all to examine, regardless of what Solomon says, and continued emphasis on Solomon distracts from the real issue here. WMC should be banned from Singer. In fact, WMC should be banned from all BLPs in this topic area because he's written extensively (and often derisively) about many of these people on his blog, and he seems incapable of putting aside his antipathy towards them in his activities here. Some recent examples: he recently fought to add the unqualified "Plimer is wrong" [62] to Ian Plimer's BLP based on opinion pieces, even though others (including ChrisO [63]) argued for more encyclopedic wording and better sourcing; he also added an association with Lyndon LaRouche in a skeptic's BLP, sourced to his friend Tim Lambert's climate blog [64]. I can find more if necessary. As SV says, these are the kinds of activities that get other editors banned, yet WMC gets away with it. ATren (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Looking over the article history for the last few months, I don't see any edits by WMC that stand out as obviously and blatantly improper. He obviously brings a certain point of view to BLPs in the climate change space, but he's hardly alone in that. There may be the appearance of a conflict of interest here, and WMC might consider voluntarily withdrawing from editing the article for the sake of appearances, but I don't believe anyone can point to any edit of the article and say "There, that one. That's where he demonstrates his conflict of interest." Thparkth (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I looked it up and I believe that ATren is referring to this edit[65] where WMC moves a sentence about the Martian moon Phobos out of the Space and Exploration section into the lede, apparently because WMC thinks it's embarrassing to Singer. I don't think that should be a goal when writing a biography of a living person. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is a revert of someone else removing it - and WMC wasn't even the first to revert its removal from the lead. It looks like that text has been floating about in different positions in the article for a very long time. I can't find the edit that initially placed it in the lead, but FWIW it wasn't that one. Thparkth (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he added it a total of five times. Two of them were reversions of Fred Bauder, who was an arbitrator at the time. One of them actually used the loaded words "built by Martians" which sounds ridiculous and was added to the lead. At around the same time, he was removing text about Singer being an advisor to president Eisenhower, a fact MUCH more notable than the ridiculous "martian" stuff. Diffs:

• rv 1, restores "embarrassing" material
• rv2, reverts Fred Bauder
• rv 3, again reverts Fred Bauder
• rv 4
• rv 5, calls removal "whitewashing"
• removes text about Singer being advisor to Eisenhower ATren (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Would one of the admins who oversee the climate change probation please topic-ban William M. Connolley from editing any article connected in any way with climate change? Please cut the Gordian knot. Thanks so much. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Bozmo: Biographies are not the best place for his talents anyway Indeed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If anyone is under the illusion that JWB is acting in good faith, [66] should cure them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
      • That sort of response (in essence, "I think I'll go work on something else where I don't have to struggle with WMC") seems to be a fairly common one, though... How is that actually a sign of not acting in good faith? ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So then: ATren, Bozmo, Lar, JWB, AQFK, SP, LHVU all you lot: do *any* of you think FS is better known as a physicist than a GW skeptic? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In specific reply to this point there are a number of examples of people who become better well known (famous or infamous) for a second attribute only because of their position from a first attribute. Obvious examples are Bob Geldof, Sebastian Coe, Gene Robinson and others. In general we do them the courtesy of explaining their primary claim to notability first. Not to the exclusion of the second string in the first sentence. It is a subjective matter but one in which having a strong opinion on the merits of the article subject doesn't help... --BozMo talk 20:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In specific reply to this point it appears that I am being asked a content question. WMC: You cannot have it both ways. You cannot fault me for having opinions about the subject area, to the point of trying to have me removed from enforcement, and then turn around and ask me about content. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am frankly puzzled by the rationale for this complaint. The only diffs cited in favour of it are that (1) "WMC edited the article to say that Singer is a global warming skeptic" and (2) that he added/restored a POV tag. I can't see that either edit is actionable. If Singer himself says he's a GW sceptic, that's simply a matter of fact. If WMC thinks there's a POV problem with the article, he's as entitled as any other editor to add a tag to that effect. How is either issue actionable? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not about Solomon, it's about Singer and WMC. - well, no, it's not. SV started editing Singer, didn't get her way automatically, and on the first resistance to her edits, while the opposing party is trying to resolve this on talk, she comes here citing not on-wiki behaviour, but (bad) off-wiki articles. Unless you (and she) are willing to remove any reliance on these articles, they are very much up for discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Potentially related COI/N threads

There follows a list of the threads raised at WP:COI/N regarding User:William M. Connolley. I do this in the interest of not duplicating concluded discussions or reinventing the wheel. As of this writing, I have not read WMC's response and am offering no opinion at present. I only searched using the correct spelling of his name, omitted threads where he was not of primary concern, and made no attempt to track down any more general threads that may exist. If anyone finds additional relevant threads, please add them with the date and a brief, neutral summary and note that you have done so. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• 2007-04 - related to Real Climate (where WMC no longer contributes), Michael Mann, and an AfD that today would probably be WP:CSD#A10; dismissed with advice to several other users to be mindful of policy and WMC to bear in mind that most editors do not have a technical background.
• 2007-05 - raised by the same user as above on much the same issue, and quickly dismissed (potentially bad faith or WP:POINT, but I would not care to offer an opinion without analyzing a three year old situation, which activity carries no interest for me)
• 2008-10 - external link to Real Climate; dismissed/moved to BLP/N
• 2009-12 - related to Lawrence Solomon; dismissed, noting inaccuracies in the article (note sockpuppetry)
• 2010-04 - dealt with at this board not so long ago.

The 2009-12 thread looks relevant enough that I recommend reading it before commenting. The one from last month should still be fresh in everyone's mind, but re-reading it as well might not go amiss. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Observation by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

However the admins decide on this case, I suggest that you explain your rationale carefully (not merely "per complainant" as one admin has declared). To establish a precedent that a partisan commentator can knock out a Wikipedia editor by objecting to their actions, as the complainant argues here, may not necessarily be in the best interest of the project. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, would it necessarily be in the best interest of the project if a partisan Wikipedia editor knocked out a commentator? Just askin'. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe either outcome would be desirable. We have policies regarding the second but the admins here are treading new ground with regard to the first, hence my remarks about establishing a precedent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea of restricting an editor based on what partisan commentators say should be firmly rejected. SlimVirgin of all people should know that being attacked by partisan commentators isn't grounds for getting rid of Wikipedia editors. If that was the criterion she'd have been booted long ago. Quite rightly, she hasn't been, because her conduct - like that of any other editor - is judged by whether it conforms with Wikipedia's standards, not by what partisan outsiders might claim. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I object to the analogy, Chris. If I had articles from a serious writer in a mainstream newspaper accusing me of using WP to smear a living person (note: not just editing that someone disagreed with, but smearing), and the subject himself had written about it, I would certainly back off, of course I would. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ZP5*

Taking the side of precautionary safety here would be appropriate given the external complaints and many COIN issues raised on WMC. BLPs have greater rights than any editor who has a POV bias. I've seen others get disciplined for simple and fixable copyright issues, however this seems to be a persistent issue here, which should not be ignored. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I checked again about what would be sanctioned here with WMC since others seem to blind to it. As per Wikipedia:DISRUPT then "Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of: disrupting progress toward improving an article, or disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." No wonder there is a perception of a lynch mob, the editor has extended disruptions over a considerable period of time. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by BozMo

• (moved from uninvolved because I do follow that page rather closely and do have a content interest on BLPS). Basically FWIW I agree we should topic ban WMC from Singer. Biographies are not the best place for his talents anyway and I think he should walk away from this one. There are plenty of other people to do this. But as SV has pointed out I edited Singer five months ago and have commented on the talk page there twice since so you are welcome to discount my view in forming a consensus. --BozMo talk 21:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

To add, just Singer. In general on Climate Change pages I think WMC is a massive net contributer who does a great deal to sort out misunderstandings etc and whose curtness I personally can easily forgive. But biographies do not require quite as much technical skills and on this particular one I have had misgivings for some time about edit summaries refering to embarrassing bits etc. which do not meet my criteria for appropriateness. This call is really more though about the best interests of the project rather than punititive or anything else. WMC is highest added value on the science articles. --BozMo talk 05:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not introduce any material to embarass Singer, nor do the edit summaries say that. I object to material being removed just to avoid embarassing him. Do you understand the distinction? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Biographies are not the best place for his talents anyway - if we start using that as a criterion, I can suggest some editors who should be restricted to editing Kindergarten on Simple. Editors are volunteers - they choose how and where to work. We only restrict them if the net contribution in an area is negative, not if we fell that their effort would be better spent somewhere else. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of administrators saying that WMC isn't using his talents the best at this article. What I would like to know is this, what breach or breaches of policies has he done worthy of being banned from the article? I see that he put tags up, a revert and went to the talk page. Shouldn't this still be at the talk page? What other issues are everyone else talking about? I read one of the COI board complaints about this when it was happening and it was closed as not actionable because the editors there didn't see anything to bring any sanctions. The dif is already on this so I'm not repeating. I think others watching this is also interested in hearing exactly what edits that has the administrators so ready to lay down a sanction. I think the talk page should be tried first and that this is premature. I'm not seeing it, sorry. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a reasonable point. In this specific case WMC is no worse than aggressively wrong. But whereas on scientific subjects his forceful desire for any intuitive disagreement to be rationalised poses no problem on BLPs where people are just voicing concerns it is not helpful to have him putting in a statement and defending it as robustly. --BozMo talk 20:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that phrasing, I was trying to be polite and agreeable. Would it be better to say "in view of the repeated incidents of problematic behavior in editing the BLPs of various folk, it would be best if WMC stayed completely away from all BLPs, or at least all GW BLPs, but certainly from this one" and skip the polite phrasing? ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ben Aveling

• I remind people that this is about WMC's alleged behaviour, and whether it violates the climate change probation. It does not matter if WMC's edits are good or bad, only whether they have been conduced with civility. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure where you got that idea? The complaint is about such things as conflict of interest and difficult editing, and not entirely about civility. And these probations are specifically to guard against "disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.". So this request board, and this request, are related to both the quality and manner of editing. It really does matter if an individual editors edits are "good or bad", as you would know if you looked at some of the older requests regarding misinterpretation of sources and other inappropriate editing practices. That way you would also see the recent discussion about civility, and how the consensus did not match up with the views you express here. Weakopedia (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Then let me rephrase myself. This should only be about whether the cited edits violate the climate change probation, that is, whether the cited edits are disruptive. I cannot and will not try to stop people talking about whether WilliamMConnelly/SlimVirgin/FredSinger are good or bad people, or about what they may have done elsewhere on the wiki or in past lives, all I can do is point out that investing in an unbounded discussion is unhelpful to the objective of creating a Fred Singer encyclopedia page - once we start discussing those things, how will we ever know where to stop? Better to focus on the immediate issue, resolve it, then get back to work. And to that end, the cited edits are not, to my eyes, examples of difficult editing. Pending further evidence, I now intend to go and do something useful. Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Thparkth

A few pedantic points.

• WMC's possible conflict of interest with regard to Fred Singer following the Solomon articles has been considered and dismissed multiple times in the past. Let's not re-try that here.
• Fred Singer's criticism of Wikipedia in this recent article is very minor and doesn't mention WMC at all. It only complains briefly, in passing, about his biography mentioning his one-time belief in Martians. This material was not added by WMC or originally moved to the lead by WMC. Therefore Singer has not complained about WMC in any sense.

• Fred Singer is more prominent today as a global warming skeptic than as a physicist, in my opinion. At least, a good-faith argument can be made that this is the case.

• Citations are often appropriate in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, there is not "an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.... controversial subjects may require many citations". There is no reason to assume bad faith in WMC's "citations needed" edits, and it's certainly not vandalism.

Given all this, I can't see any real substance to the enforcement request.

Thparkth (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tiger Woods is better know as a philanderer than as a golfer—should we edit the lede to place that first?--SPhilbrickT 14:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns about multiple trials;however, Double jeopardy would only seem to apply if a fair due process hearing occurred before. There appears to be recurring issues raised with WMC and Fred Singer and to me that is substantive in and of itself for prophylaxis. If only a goof-faith abstention pledge from WMC. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk

Straw man. There is a vastly greater corpus of sources talking about Tiger Woods as a golfer than as a philanderer. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ratel

I suggest WMC withdraws voluntarily from this BLP, as LHvU suggests. It may not be a BLP for too long anyway. A lot of these sceptics are superannuated, retired academics finding the spotlight again by taking the contrary position to mainstream scientific thought, often for a price (this does not refer to FS). We get that. Bigger fish to fry, William. ► RATEL ◄ 15:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC adding "RealClimate" as a source for criticism to Singer's BLP

• Singer "dishonest" - [67][68][69]
• Disputing Singer's argument - [70][71]

Note that WMC has a long association with RealClimate, and though he quit several years ago, he still appears in their contributor list (page 2), and Gavin Schmidt still referred to Connolley as one of them as recently as mid-2009 ("...and our own William Connolley"). ATren (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Q Science

I agree with many of the comments with respect to WMC's editing, but I don't think that a ban is appropriate. I find SV's claim that WMC should be banned partly because he made over 103 edits since 2004 amusing. Based on experience, it is likely that 30% of those were simply to revert vandalism. On the other hand, SV has made over 160 edits is just 4 days (from 05-13-2010 to 05-17-2010). Over 100 edits in 6 years verses 160 edits in 4 days. It is pretty clear which is more disruptive. Don't get me wrong, I agree with many (maybe even most) of SV's edits (no, I have not read them all), but this is not the way to make a better article. More than 5 edits a day (not counting vandalism repair) by a single editor is just too many. Not even SciBaby is this disruptive.

At any rate, since WMC is no longer an administrator, I don't see how banning him will make this article better. In fact, now that SV has obviously taken over this page, I strongly feel that WMC should be encouraged to monitor the changes, not banned. Q Science (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by dave souza

The basic reason given for this request is a dispute over article content, where SlimVirgin went to extraordinary lengths to avoid mentioning Singer's AGW skepticism in the first paragraph of the lead,[72][73] and came here rather than presenting a reasoned argument on the article talk page. I'm uninvolved, having not edited the article or the talk page, but would note the following. Singer's testimony of 2000 gives his self description as "the founder and president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).... We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of the National Assessment".[74] His views remain the same in his December 2009 article published by Reuters, Climate skeptic: We are winning the science battle | Analysis & Opinion where he is described as "the President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia", and describes himself as a lead author in the first NIPCC report. In view of these statements, SlimVirgin seems to be attempting to whitewash Singer on the unwarranted assumption that due mention of his climate skepticism is a slur. All of which should be resolved by presenting evidence on the article talk page with the aim of improving the article rather than using the sanctions to win a dispute over content. . . dave souza, talk 09:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz is NOT Uninvolved

I tried to put a note to that effect, but Vsmith removed it. I will take this to arbcom if Stephan's obviously inappropriate comment as "uninvolved" is not removed. ATren (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't "remove" it -- just moved it up and out of the "Results" section. Now you have removed it. The results section is for admin use. The arbcom threat ... seems someone else tried that a while back and didn't get far. I'd suggest further "dispute resolution" first. Vsmith (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Vsmith, you freely admit Stephan is not uninvolved, yet you leave his comment in the uninvolved section while moving mine. Why is that? If you're going to police that section, and if you're going to freely admit that Stephan is involved (which is obvious) how do you justify moving mine and not his? ATren (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that section is for uninvolved administrators, and however uninvolved Stephan may be he is still an admin. And you aren't. Vsmith already told you so, when they said "The results section is for admin use." Weakopedia (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope one of the admins will remove Stephan Schulz's post from the "involved admin" section. He's clearly deeply involved in this situation as a whole, but he's also involved in the Fred Singer article in particular. Here are some of his recent comments on the talk page, dated May 15, where he objected to me posting articles by or about Singer from The New York Times in Further reading. Overall he's made 26 edits to the article between 2007 and 2010, and 33 posts to talk during the same period. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Will you please stop misrepresenting what I wrote? I did not object to anything about Singer, and I did not complain about you "posting" anything - in fact, I wasn't even aware that you added them. I am unhappy with a large number of links to texts by Singer in the Further Reading section, yes. I don't think they fit in with WP:EL, and I don't think they serve a useful encyclopaedic purpose. I note that William has not, so far, made any comment on that issue, so what does that have to do with anything? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it. Stephan Schulz is not uninvolved in this matter, and to claim otherwise in view of all the edits to the article talk is inappropriate. I gave it a subheading all its own but he is free to move it somewhere or retitle it or whatever, just not move it back into the uninvolved admin section. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Will you now move your own comments, given that many editors feel that you are involved with WMC in particular at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lar? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No, since I am not involved. Nice try though. ++Lar: t/c 21:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• This request is about WMCs editing. Stephan has edited the article, but the complaint doesn't really cover Stephans involvment. You have been mentioned by several admins as being potentially too close to the subject of WMC to be subjective, but you haven't edited the article. So to be honest it seems like you are both either involved or uninvolved. Weakopedia (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Because you say so? Where do I apply for that inherent "I'm right" medal you seem to be wearing? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan you wrote above I note that William has not now either WMC is about to comae along and demand you redact your PA or he considers you a friend per his naming of cats thingy. If your his mate then you can`t really be uninvolved can you? mark nutley (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Read User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats and WP:NPA again, and please for understanding. In other words, Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I read this: If you are on personal terms with me, you can use my first name, William. So actually Mark has a point. But Stephan's comment has been moved, making this section moot, so I suggest we just drop it now. ATren (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your quote has no substantial connection to Mark's claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

View by Stephan Schulz

(in response to LHvU's view on how to proceed)

• Strongly dedorse. This just repeats SlimVirgin's empty complaint without any fact-checking or insight. If Singer is primarily a sceptic is a point open for debate - Singer himself certainly gives that aspect of his work top billing. If you want to help find a consensus on that point, discuss it on talk: Fred Singer. Trying to impose your viewpoint by banning editors is not remotely appropriate. The notices "in media of some standing" are generic and do not mention WMC - the only one who does is Solomon, who has been noted, on and off-wiki, as completely unreliable and outright wrong. That leaves nothing of a WMC-specific complaint. The fact that other editors can also edit the article is a complete straw man - that's true of all articles on Wikipedia and all editors. By that argument we can ban anybody from any article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(in response to Lar's comment that he could represent WMC's views adequately)

• ...because I've edited it so very often in the last year? Or two? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ChrisO

Frankly, I'm getting the feeling that this is more of an anti-WMC witch-hunt than anything else. It looks very much like yet another case of "throw mud against the wall and hope that it sticks". I've criticised WMC's editing in the past but I can't see any substantive scope for sanctions in this particular case. I'm dismayed by the fact that SlimVirgin has (it would seem) made little or no effort to pursue dispute resolution but has jumped straight over to here in an attempt to obtain an instant ban. When these sanctions were enacted, they were meant to deal with egregious conduct or issues where dispute resolution had broken down. I don't see anything particularly egregious here and dispute resolution doesn't even appear to have been tried.

Admins, if you impose sanctions in this case, you will be setting a very bad precedent - you will be telling everyone involved that there is no point in going through dispute resolution. You will have turned this process into an alternative to DR and you will encourage editors to think that you will ban their "opponents" rather than getting them to resolve their differences. The only sensible way to resolve this is to instruct all concerned to pursue dispute resolution and stick to the rules of BLP. If that breaks down, then it might be appropriate to consider the issue here, but surely not before DR has been pursued. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution would be prefered; however, SV's appeal seems to include a great deal of past issue evidence which shows cause for concern. I'll remind you that witch hunts were generaly based on spectral evidence. It seems to me folks are looking to see if WMC will volunteer self-restraint, for the better of all, before taking official means. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is part of dispute resolution, and I'm using it because it became clear that trying to negotiate with WMC on my own would have led nowhere. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that you've made much effort at dispute resolution beyond a few comments on the talk page. You seem to have escalated it without pursuing elementary dispute resolution. Where is the RfC? Where is the mediation? Where are the requests for outside input? If you had taken this complaint to the ArbCom they'd have told you to go away and take these basic steps before bringing it to them. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't the last request that SV was involved in include an RfC that she initiated in an attempt to gather wider input? One that was edit warred out rather than addressed? You can't have it both ways. ++Lar: t/c 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Alex Harvey

I have withdrawn from BLPs for a while, largely from burnout, but I've had a look at this dispute. I think a topic ban of WMC from the Fred Singer article would definitely send the right message -- i.e. that BLP abuse in Wikipedia is not tolerated (although it usually is...), and that WMC is not above the rules and untouchable. It would also give WMC a chance, I suppose, to contribute constructively to other articles in the AGW space, even save some of his own time. I think it's fair to say that Fred Singer is not an area that WMC is interested in or especially knowledgeable. Frankly, I think it is a shame WMC doesn't spend more time writing his blog, and less time defacing Wikipedia & causing controversy here. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

not an area that WMC is interested in or especially knowledgeable - events are proving you wrong. It appears I know rather more about Singer than SV et al. William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not concur, looking at the edit history. SV has contributed a great deal; the fact you can correct bits of it makes you a lowly proof-reader which is not better than an almighty contributer. --BozMo talk 07:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Polargeo

(moved from uninvolved admin section by Lar as Polargeo is not an uninvolved admin under our definition)

• I am commenting here through gritted teeth. Technically I am as uninvolved as Lar is. There is absolutely no action here that should be sanctioned under this enforcement request. If the anti WMC admins such as Lar and the wordsmith had not turned up I would not be here either. Polargeo (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If WMC had made this request against SlimVirgin I feel it in my very bones that those same admins would be calling for WMC to be banned for making frivolous enforcement requests. Polargeo (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Check out the google books search [75]. It is certainly not libel to call Fred Singer a skeptic. Polargeo (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So this request is based on two things the fact that WMC called Fred Singer a global warming skeptic (in line with general interpretation of the sources presented and along with several hundred books on the subject) and the fact the he restored a POV tag. Ban him, ban the antichrist how dare he, how dare he. BLP BLP BLP BLP!!!!!!! You cannot go against BLP!!!! I call this whole thing a farce and a storm in a tea cup. Polargeo (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I will not call for action against SlimVirgin based on my own principles, not previously evident in other admins' comments. Polargeo (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I dispute your assertion that I am anti-WMC. While Dr. Connolley may have an issue with me, I have none with him. If any other name were attached to the pattern of diffs presented, I would advocate for banning them from the article as well. If you believe that I am anti-WMC, I counter that your belief may be due to not having a large enough sample size of interactions between us. I have had several negative interactions with Lar as well (I even opposed his Steward reconfirmation and he opposed my RFA), perhaps I am anti-Lar? I rather dislike a number of things that SlimVirgin does, including her habit of inserting herself into a discussion at the last minute and attempting to change everything (see WT:BLPPROD). I suppose I am biased against her as well. I supported views opposite to yours on Lar's RFC/U, so I am clearly anti-Polarego as well. I should probably withdraw from this entire area, since it is becoming increasingly obvious that I hate everybody. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466

I believe SlimVirgin's request is justified. To be fair, WMC has on occasion deleted unsourced allegations against Singer, e.g. [76], [77]. However, this edit by WMC appears to add a self-published source (now defunct) to Singer's BLP, in direct contravention of BLP policy, which WMC is well aware of. This edit reinserts a ref to a site WMC is personally involved in, to contradict an opinion voiced by the article subject. None of the articles presented at the cited site actually discuss Singer, so this appears to be a case of using this BLP as a coatrack for conducting a scientific argument (as well as WP:SYN), rather than a reflection of Singer's reception. This appears to be WP:OR commentary. This edit as well as this is designed to diminish the subject, who continues to be described as an atmospheric physicist in the press.

That's not how we write BLPs. These are simply random edits by WMC from the edit history; their nature, together with the above press cited by SlimVirgin, leads me to the conclusion that a topic ban is in order. --JN466 14:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(Feel free to strike this request for clarification once clarified): Are you calling for a topic ban or a ban from this particular article? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I meant a ban from this particular BLP. --JN466 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

At least regarding the "atmospheric physicist" thing, which of Singer's 70-odd publications since 1990 in ISI-indexed journals do you consider "atmospheric physics"? The goal of both Wikipedia in general and BLPs in particular is to get it right. Singer has not held a position in a physical sciences department in decades, and he hasn't published in that field in decades. He also describes himself as an "emeritus" (= "retired") professor. Sure, a handful of newspaper stories repeat "atmospheric physicist". But someone who has retired from the army is a retired general, even if he is still a consultant for a cable news network where he talks about military matters. Someone who retired after working construction is a "retired construction worker", even if he now writes books about the construction industry. And a person with a PhD in a given scientific field who has retired from their last academic position a decade ago and who hasn't published in a given field for even longer, simply isn't a scientist any more - they're a retired scientist. "Scientist" isn't a title, it's a career. And as a scientist you do research, you publish, you participate in the intellectual community of your discipline, and you teach. You may be able to call yourself a scientist if you don't do all of them, but certainly you need to do some of them. Reliable sources call Singer retired. And there's no evidence he still works in the field of atmospheric physics. Calling him a retired atmospheric physicist isn't "diminishing" him any more than is calling Colin Powell a retired general. Have a look - that's the way Powell is described. And no one is fighting over calling that either. Guettarda (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda.

• [78], [79].
• [80], [81].

According to these searches, there is not a single source that has called Singer a "retired atmospheric physicist". --JN466 07:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

He's an emeritus (="retired") professor (of environmental science). Thus he has retired from his academic position. Which he says is atmospheric physics. And what about my latter point - how is pointing out that someone is retired "diminishing"? Guettarda (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If sources are united in calling him "an atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus at university X" (which they are), then that is what we should be calling him. Everything else is OR. Very simple. --JN466 13:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference between a military rank and an academic title is quite subtle, one has to do with the ability to actively command while the other is a record of achievement that remains regardless whether it is practiced. Colin Powell may correctly be referred to as "General (retired)" but Professor Singer remains a Professor, until and beyond death. I think he might be denoted as no longer practicing (another charming vagary of language, you'd have thought he would have not needed to practice after at 5 or 10 years - being rather good at it by then) but his professorship cannot (I believe) be retired. Emeritus is rather an archaic title, anyway, from a period where only a privileged few were permitted to remain at a place of education after years of service - a type of pension - and is now mainly a courtesy title (a bit like all those Commodores at yacht clubs) conferred much like honour doctorates are bestowed upon persons for reasons of publicity and reward. It is quite obvious the Professor Emeritus Singer has not retired from public life, only the pursuit of that particular branch of academia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all vert well, but it belongs on t:FS, not here. If we're down to this level of subtlety, then it becomes obvious that calling him "retired", whilst it may well be quibbled (personally I think it is still accurate, but as I say that discussion belongs on t:FS) doesn't rise close to the level of a sanctionable offence William M. Connolley (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and on the off chance that a clearly RS stating directly that Singer is retired will make you change your mind: [82] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you would disregard what appears to be unanimous agreement across all reliable sources available in google news and google books to write something in the lead sentence of this BLP that not a single source has written is why you should not in my opinion edit this article. --JN466 17:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting confused here. This is about whether he is retired or not, yes? And we have a direct statement from U Virginia that he *is* retired. And you're still claiming we have no RS for this? See [83]? The heading is "Retired Faculty". Singer is listed. Are you still arguing? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

He is retired from the university's faculty. He is not "a retired atmospheric physicist". He continues to work and publish as such. You are still arguing for an unsourced statement that is contradicted by every single published source to remain in a BLP. (You can call him a "retired professor emeritus", if you like, but that would be rather tautological, would it not?) --JN466 18:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard discussion here. Since talk page consensus on this issue seems impossible, and the process on this page is pitifully incapable of dealing with the problem, it appears necessary to get even more eyes on this situation. --JN466 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hans Adler

This complaint is a farce. There may be some valid core, somewhere. Actually, I consider it quite likely given how abrasive WMC has been against myself in the past. But this valid core, if any, is impossible to see behind the thick mixture of fog, smoke, snow, sand, and locusts. I don't have the time to respond to anything that was said against WMC that was wrong, so I will just address one point.

SlimVirgin quotes Singer's complaint: "In my own case, my Wiki bio also carried additional malicious accusations; the most bizarre one was that I believed in the existence of Martians." [84]

• According to others who have checked the edits, WMC didn't introduce the claims, he just reverted their removal. Also, WMC is not mentioned by Singer.
• Also, whether true or not, the claim regarding Martians is certainly not original to Wikipedia. With Google I found no less than 17 sites that mirror the following text: "March 1960: The Martian moon Phobos, generally accepted as a celestial body, actually may be an artificial satellite launched long ago by an advanced Martian race, according to Dr. S. Fred Singer, special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments. [...] 'I would be very disappointed if it turns out to be solid,' said the white House advisor. If the figures were correct, he stated, then Phobos undoubtedly is a hollow, artificial satellite. If it is, he said, its purpose would probably be to sweep up radiation in the Mars' atmosphere, so that Martians could safely operate around their planet. Dr. Singer also pointed out that Phobos would make an ideal space base, both for Martians and earthlings." It appears this may be the original source of the claim, although according to Phobos (moon) it was "Singer, S. F.; Astronautics, February 1960", a letter to the editor.
• It's a bit odd that Singer complains about being connected to belief in Martians, but doesn't say clearly what's wrong with the source used for the connection. This has been around on the web since at least March 2002, so surely he has heard about it before.
• Let's look at the paragraph preceding Singer's complaint. Here we find conspiracy theory talk: "[...] machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a 'warming' by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them [...]" – This is seriously distorted, and unless he gets good money for saying such things in public there is reason to doubt his sanity, or at least that he has looked at the emails in question in context.
• Now the paragraph following the complaint against Wikipedia: "We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as 'tricks,' [...]" – Again, transparently totally false, as has been well known for a long time. In fact, the real meaning of "hide the decline" is so well known by now that I am not going to repeat it here.

Hans Adler 21:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I will refrain from expressing any opinion on whether a sanction is warranted on the basis of William's editing, but I will express my extreme disappointment in any admin who attaches weight to Solomon's essays, or Singer's, for the purpose of deciding on an appropriate response to this request. MastCell ^Talk 21:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I seldom find myself disagreeing with either of you two. But the diffs I posted in the preceding section above are not indicative of good BLP editing. --JN466 02:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning William M. Connolley

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above.

(Remarks by BozMo moved to above and since partly struck through Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Comment_by_BozMo --BozMo talk 09:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

• Agree with BozMo that topic banning WMC from Singer seems prudent. BLPs are indeed not the best place for WMC's not inconsiderable talents. I see no need to discount BozMo's view in this. ++Lar: t/c 00:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• I concur that a topic ban from this one article is probably necessary. I'm not sure whether a ban from all Climate-related BLPs would be helpful or harmful, but I do believe that it should be looked at more closely to see if it would be a good idea. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would appreciate it greatly if one of you could expand upon your rationale for banning WMC from this article please. Thank you, NW (Talk) 01:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Per the material presented by the complainant, SlimVirgin" ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I would appreciate it if you could expand upon that. Thank you, NW (Talk) 02:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I would appreciate your explaining why further expansion is necessary. SV seems to have laid out a very thorough explanation. All you have to do is read it, it's all there. I note that, below, LHvU has given the same reasoning, but in his own words. If you want me to write up a paragraph or two saying the same thing, yet again, I can. But I think SV adequately explained this. It will be in the record if we close this the way that onsensus seems to be leaning. I endorse SV's reasons for requesting a topic ban. I endorse BozMo and tWS's endorsement of SV's reasons for requesting a topic ban as well. Finally, I endorse LHvU's explanation of why he endorses SV's reasons for requesting a topic ban as well. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: BozMo has struck the part of his statement supporting an article ban. He certainly can change his mind but my endorsement was of his view prior to that strike. He was right the first time. ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• I am with NW on this - I would like to see a serious elaboration on why an article ban would be the best step to take at this point in time. I am not seeing even the need for full protection at this time, though that may change. I would also once again (nothing personal on you, SV) like to urge far more diligence in pursuing honest dispute resolution at the talkpage before filing a request. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I am afraid I don't see things this way at this time. WMC has been brought here time and time again and every time another warning is given. This is a ban from a single article, not a ban from all GW related BLPs (which might well be a good idea, but that's not what is being advocated) much less a ban from the entire GW area (which might well be a good idea, but, again, that's not what is being advocated).

Note: I suppose we could issue WMC yet another admonishment to be a better editor, and state that this time we really, Really, REALLY mean it, and that if we are once again ignored we are going to be very, Very cross, so much so that we may actually admonish him again and state that this time we really, Really, REALLY, REALLY mean it. Honest! No fooling. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be preferable if Dr Connolley were to withdraw from editing the article, and it to be enforced if not done voluntarily. My rationale is that there is another slow edit/revert war, where the possibility of Dr Connolley and another editor of differing viewpoint having a meeting of minds resulting in a consensus is really rather remote. Furthermore, the article is a BLP being edited by Dr Connolley to a Climate Change viewpoint - where a distinguished and notable physicist is being primarily recorded as a CC skeptic, which views would not be be so notrworthy if not for the subjects prominence as a scientist - rather than as a review of the individuals most notable achievements in his field, which I feel is inappropriate. Also, the editing of the article has previously been noted outside of WP, in media of some standing, as being biased toward a certain aspect of the subject's published work, in a manner not regarded as neutral, with Dr Connolley being named as one of those whose contributions have given cause to raise these concerns. There are many good editors who are able to contribute toward providing a balanced article on the subject, noting their recent contributions to the discussion relating to Climate Change, who have similar stances regarding AGW as Dr Connolley, but without his history and consequent "reputation" in editing this subject, or his rather combative manner when faced with edits he does not care for. Dr Connolley's withdrawal from editing the article would not, I feel, detract as much from it as his continuing presence would. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked to expand upon my viewpoint by NuclearWarfare above, so I will do so here. My original comment is the second in this section. Anyway, I find the diffs presented by SlimVirgin and others to be highly disturbing. The fact that they come from three consecutive years turns it into a pattern. In 2008, there was the Mars nonsense in the lede. In late 2009, diffs have been presented by ATren of WMC sourcing content to RealClimate, which is wrong on several different levels. SlimVirgin's diffs come from 2010. When looked at together, they seem to demonstrate a persistent inability to comply with our policies while editing this article. Therefore, a ban from this particular article appears necessary to prevent further harm. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree in part with much of what you have said. The issue that I have is that I'm not seeing perfect behavior on all parties in the dispute, not just with WMC. Topic banning WMC to me would seem a lot like pushing one party out so that the other side can write the article how they want it. NW (Talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Who else do you have issue with from a behavior aspect? Raise them and they can be dealt with too. However, this request is about WMC, so that is where we should start. I don't think removing him from this one BLP is going to mean the BLP has no representation from "his" side (since you refer to the "other" side...), in particular I suspect that Stephan Schulz will do a perfectly adequate job of representing WMC's views in this matter. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I seem to be seeing a consensus that WMC should not be editing this article. WMC himself has offered at best only a partial defense of his action (instead, his statement seems to take a page out of L Ron Hubbard's philosophy of "Don't ever defend. Always attack."). With that in mind, I propose the following closure:
  • William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing the article Fred Singer or its associated Talkpage. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Make it so. (I wasn't going to suggest talk, only article, but sure) We've sunk enough time into this already, it ought to be pretty cut and dried given the evidence. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Seeing how AE at CC has turned into, I am going to step in as uninvolved admin. I'm entirely uninvolved in this area and have no intent or interest other than to help with this process. With respect to this request, first off I think outside media should not be taken into account when considering a sanction, with a few exceptions, but it's not one of them. The reason is more or less WP:NPOV which could be affected if we sanctioned or altered content, the first weighing on the second, based on external pressure. Therefore in those cases, and as usual, we should consider diffs and make our own analysis of them. It has also been pointed out that we should be wary when applying sanctions not to unduly unbalance the different views in a content dispute. This principle is at the base of our dispute-resolution mechanisms, and this can be detected in the ArbCom principle to look at all sides of a dispute. Now the specifics. Of the diffs provided in the complaint, (1) removing material even if properly sourced is acceptable editing and indeed an editorial matter (and necessary part of ensuring NPOV, encyclopedic writing, etc). WMC provided reasons for removal, it's not vandalism, I also note that the very sentence caused a multi-party edit-war [85]. (2) The description (or lack thereof) to give of a group is an editorial matter as well, and discussion should happen to find a NPOV one, it worked in the article on the group and can work here too. (3) The weight to give to the person's different aspects is also an editorial matter - it should of course be given special attention because of BLP issues but I note that WMC didn't attempt to reinsert skeptic in first place after SV removed it, and the assertion is largely supported by RS, so it's not a BLP violation. It isn't obvious in those edits that WMC intended to tarnish the subject, and we shouldn't sanction based on that without being certain. (4) The removal of the categories while removing the further readings section was probably accidental, and it may be too bold an edit but not sanctionable. (5) This use of 'rubbish' was not against policy, and as seen again recently the community tolerates this kind of uses.
  Thus I do not believe that there are grounds for sanctions in those edits, nor in adding a POV tag, which WMC explained on talk. This is a content dispute, it's frequent for major changes in a controversial article to cause such and is normal. Editors should discuss to resolve disagreements and we can't sanction based on an editor's position in a content dispute. With regards to the cited external media, as I said I do not view them as relevant to this request, as others do, thus I won't comment on that. The material about martians was not inserted by WMC, also it did not say that Singer believed in martians; he did reverted some removals of those, although it was in 2008 long before the probation. The power extended to admins here is for actions within the scope of this probation. I can see that there has been some problematic edits in the past, such as using sources which are not reliable enough and opinionated editing. However in the last few weeks, from what has been provided, there's been no characterized disruptive editing or edit-warring. A ban from the talk page would require severe disruption or violation of restrictions which I'm not aware of, so I don't see this as justified and thus it would unjustifiably unbalance a content dispute. I don't see here material enough to warrant an indefinite article ban either, in light of precedents or accepted standards. Now concerning a temporary ban or restriction on editing this article, I am not entirely decided, mostly because the above is heavily convoluted and unclear, again there has been some problematic editing by WMC on this article, but from what I can see of recent, it's not to the level where ban is needed, although WMC is too often on the edge. So not a ban, but something more moderate seems appropriate, considering the 'history'. I would propose actions as follows: on this article, for the next 2-3 months, WMC is restricted to 1RR and warned to scrupulously respect content policies especially WP:V, WP:OR and WP:BLP, to source each added claim, use only reliable sources, and when uncertain or disputed to submit them to talk; violations may result in an article ban. Cenarium (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Should not the requirement to scrupulously apply the noted policies also extend to when removing content, noting the relevant policy within the edit summary, equally? Otherwise, a very comprehensive and considered proposal - much like those I made when I first commented here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium is not "entirely uninvolved" as they do have edits in article space in this topic area (however minor). But, be that as it may, new perspectives are always good. As to the proposed action, we've tried 1RR for WMC already, topic wide. And the requirement to respect V, OR and BLP already applies to all editors. No, I think in view of all the evidence presented, The Wordsmith's close is a better one. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar, NuclearWarfare, The Wordsmith, Polargeo

The admin section of the templated sanctions request is not for threaded discussion. While I'm content to allow Lar to stagnate the above request with his reversion, in the future if any of you disregard the purpose of the admin section and engage in threaded discussion amongst yourselves, I will seek to have the lot of you prevented from using your tools in this area - admins do not have magic discussion powers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh? The way we've gotten to results in the past is by discussion, amongst the uninvolved admins, of what a good approach would be. Your moving the threads was unwarranted, which is why I reverted it. I suggest we take this to the talk page and hash it out further. Feel free to move this entire section there. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The uninvolved admins should feel free to discuss with the plebians. This will resolve the problem of you lot deciding which of you lot is involved vs. uninvolved. It will also resolve the problem of you lot thinking you have magic discussion powers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The current section intro indeed says "Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above". On basic Wikipedia principles (adminship is no big deal), Hipocrite's action is actually well founded. Of course, for "getting results" it may be inconvenient to actually interact with more editors. Ceterum censeo, Lar has not been involved in any discussion among uninvolved admin during this probation, although he probably has been involved in a discussion with uninvolved admins. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no magic discussion powers. I would sooner chew my own foot off than comment on sanctions. However, I just cannot stand by and watch biased admins wade in to level the playing field in their own image. Polargeo (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please respect WP:NPA and WP:AGF. The RfC you opened on this topic has so far not favored your interpretation of Lar's behavior. It would probably help if you stopped plastering this page with slanderlibel. It doesn't come across well, contrary to your best intentions.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole (e.g., "slander") isn't helpful either. and besides, it would be libel because it's in a fixed medium instead of spoken. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Slander'Libel' is not hyperbole. Sorry, I occasionally confuse project pages with talkpages. --Heyitspeter (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Stephan and Hipocrite, that section says it is not for discussion. Admins should be reacting to consensus, not establishing it amongst themselves. Weakopedia (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The admin only section should not even exist. Nor should CC sanctions. Polargeo (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit iffy with this, as I have seen both methods used at WP:AE. On the one hand, Hipocrite is indeed correct that administrators should not have any "magic discussion powers" on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the reason that probation and discretionary sanction boards were implemented in the first place was to allow for arbitration in areas where it is not possible to establish an agreement between all parties. I shall think on this further, and refrain from commenting in the admin-only section in the meantime. NW (Talk) 18:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How are the admins supposed to reach a group decision if they don't discuss it amongst themselves? Would you rather they did it by email? If we want to comment on something they say in the admin-only area, we can leave a comment on each admin's respective user talk page. This is the format that we have chosen and if we respect the rules (yes Polargeo and Stephan Schulz, I'm talking to you) things should continue to operate effectively with this enforcement board. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since "the rules" explicitly state that the admin response section is not to be used to conduct discusson or debate it's not altogether cleaer what point you are making. The wording of the no-discussion-and-debate proviso is meant to apply to admins because the next section says Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above, i.e., it calls out "discussion and debate" separately from "comments by non-admins" (emphasis added for clarity). You can argue that the rules should be changed, and I can see some merit in doing that. But to chide other editors about "respecting rules" when you appear to misunderstand those rules yourself is inappropriate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The rules I'm referring to relate to involved/uninvolved admins participating in the admin-only area. I think we're interpreting the rules differently. I interpret those rules to mean that the area is not for discussion or debate among non-admins or involved admins like Stephan or Polargeo. Again, the system that has evolved seems to be working fine so far. Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the key sentence (from Weakopedia) is Admins should be reacting to consensus, not establishing it amongst themselves. Your interpretation, to put it bluntly, is not compatible with the text. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys are rules lawyering. Policy is what we do (at a page), not what it says. What we do is we have a section where uninvolved admins discuss amongst themselves. They are influenced by the discussion in other sections, or should be. If the writing of how things are done here doesn't quite match what we do, we fix it. That's how things work here. Stop rules lawyering, it's not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Given your insistence on a narrow, technical definition of "uninvolved" I see more than a little irony in your objecting to rules lawyering. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My insistence is merely to go with what the other uninvolved admins have said, that I'm not involved. Regardless of how much you spin it, you can't avoid that. You're involved. I'm not. Deal. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I take that that you sanction my posting in the admin section now, since that's "how we do things"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Your attempts to post in various uninvolved admin sections have been reverted, multiple times, and no uninvolved admin has undone that reversion. So it's not "how we do things". How we do things is to remove your postings there. Because you are not uninvolved. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It seems that everyone is very focused on the wording of the intro sentence. In order to avoid "wining" this debate unfairly, it should be noted that I changed that wording without objection on May 6 perWikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation#Note_re_template. Individuals whose arguments are based only on the revised wording in the template should strongly consider if they support the revised wording - I based my revision on the fact that admins lack magic discussing powers, and that the constant back-and-forth in the admin section has hobbled this page (in the case directly above that has led to my ire, if not for grandstanding about who could type what where, a sanction against WMC would have already have been passed by almost unanamous consent - consent which I would have joined, even if the twin evils of Polargeo and Steven were permitted to write in the admins only section) Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just changed the wording, again, to clarify how things are actually done, which should sort this. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Intresting. Do you think that editing a template that stood for almost 14 days after an edit and a talk page announcement about that to win a debate here is really a deal-ender? I would argue it's not. See, unlike my edit, which was well publicized and apparently non-controvercial, your edit was done by what one might term an "involved" party - in that it's your name up at the top of this section, but, hey, I'm just a plebian - perhaps you should full-protect the template in the version you think is right, just to shove it in our plebian faces. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your rhetoric is noted. However, as I said, we change policy writings to match what we actually do. Do you dispute that in the many enforcement requests to date there has been considerable back and forth discussion between uninvolved admins in the uninvolved admin section on the way to arriving at consensus? If you don't dispute it, it was a good edit. If you do, then please provide some proof. Because you're ruleslawyering and that's not helpful. I am at a loss as to why you do this. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that local "consensus" (which obviously dosen't exist, given the above) that admins have magic discussion powers does not override policy that admins don't have magic discussion powers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you figure? The uninvolved admins have been doing things this way for some time. If you want to change it, this isn't the way. Convince the rest of us. You're not an uninvolved admin, and no one else commenting here, save NW and myself, are either. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As the subjects of the requests, niether you nor NW are uninvolved. Further, admins do not have magic powers of discussion, and I alledge other than the frequent violators, I have convinced everyone else. Find me someone who thinks the admin-only back-and-forth is valuable, as opposed to convincing some of you to grow a pair and start actually closing things. Go on, I'll wait. Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"As the subjects of the requests, niether you nor NW are uninvolved" ... oh that makes my head spin, it's so sophistic. Yes, technically, since we are discussing uninvolved admins, no uninvolved admin is uninvolved when the topic is uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins are those who do not engage in admin-only segregated discussion. Off the top of my head, I can think of 1,700 of them. Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A novel definition, but an incorrect one. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How so, exactly? The question on the table is "enagaging in admin-only segregated discussion - unwiki?" You're asking that the question be decided only by people engaging in admin-only segregated discussion, as opposed to everyone? Why do you think admins have special powers to decide that they can engage in admin-only segregated discussion? When the probation was created by community (not admin-only) consensus, was there a discussion about having admin-only segregated discussion that I missed? Perhaps you could point it out to me. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense. How do you expect us to decide on a sanction (or lack thereof) if we can't discuss it without the conversation being polluted by mountains of crap? It has been this way for a long time, which makes it a de facto consensus (see WP:SILENCE). The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You can discuss anything you want to, including the proposed sanctions, up in the plebian sections. You can write your proposed sanctions in the admin only section. Another thing that was this way for a long time which makes it a de facto consensus is that admins do not have any special abilities other than buttons - that broader consensus overrides the local false "consensus," that obviously dosen't exist here - from the essay you just linked it seems pretty obvious to me that there is not even a majority of users who support admin-only discussion sections. Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems entirely appropriate - discussion in the discussion section, only proposed sanctions or results in the admin section. If the probation can't get everyone talking and making consensus decisions then they were ill founded. Admins should be participating in that, not trying to limit it or holding themselves aloof from it. Weakopedia (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to distract from this section, but I am unsure why I am named in this section. I do not appear to have engaged in threaded discussion in the above complaint. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you concurred with another uninvolved admin (which is a response, apparently) and then had the audacity to actually respond to a request by yet another uninvolved admin... what's more, you responded by elaborating the reasons for why you concurred!!! CLEARLY that was way out of line. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You engaged in threaded discussion above - "I was asked to expand upon my viewpoint by NuclearWarfare above, so I will do so here..." You could have expanded in your initial comment (acceptable), or in the plebian section (preferred). Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated use of hyperbole is noted. Barring a serious time travel accident, I doubt there are many Roman citizens editing Wikipedia, and certainly not enough that we need an entire section for them. Therefore, we should eliminate the "Plebian" section entirely. In addition, your assertion that we believe that we have "magic discussion powers" is faulty. The ability with which we have our conversation is well-grounded in science, particularly the fields of computer mechanics and software programming. I request that you cease using these inaccurate phrases. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith here, but you should be aware that I have a substantial case of dyslexia that makes it very difficult for me to imagine that plebeian and plebian are different, let alone write one when I want to write the other, or vice-versa. I try to remember to put substantial effort into my main page postings to make sure that the spelling is correct - I will not do so on talk pages. Sorry that my poor spelling distracted you. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that they are actually alternate spellings of the same thing, that the both refer to the Roman citizens whom were not of the nobility (both redirect to the same article on WP). It wasn't meant to be a jab at your spelling. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

[86] - "Of or pertaining to the common people; vulgar; common; as plebeian sports." Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I was unaware that it was in current usage. I know it comes from the Roman citizenry, of whom many could actually become prestigious. I guess I learn something new every day. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See Plebs#Modern_usage. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What a lot of silly nonsense. As I was asked to comment, my opinion is this: the section should be for discussion between uninvolved editors. Non-administrators permitted; threaded discussion and direct replies permitted; those with a vested interest or a prior involvement prohibited; and bickering or pointless comments prohibited. In my experience that is how things are done, and the template should of course reflect the status quo. AGK 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, silly nonsense is incorrect. There is already a section for discussion between uninvolved editors. This is about the section that is being used for discussion between administrators. Changing that section to allow discussion between editors would mean having two identical sections, repetitive and not needed. Silly nonsense, to coin a phrase. Weakopedia (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What I find silly nonsense is the ferocity with which debate on this topic is being pursued. Some perspective and cooling down is needed. AGK 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"the section that is being used for discussion between administrators" – Do you mean the 'result concerning [subject]' section? Oh, well that really shouldn't be used for discussion unless it is a formal proposal by one administrator of one course of action or another. For instance, I usually give my preliminary thoughts in the main discussion section (for uninvolved editors), and solicit the input of other uninvolved people. When the parties' statements are all in, I'll propose, for example, "Topic ban X for 3 months; topic ban Y for 1 month; and place Z on final warning" in the 'results' section. If there are no objections from the other uninvolved parties, I'll action the request in that way.

I don't think there is a need for much rigidity with respect to which sections uninvolved editors and administrators can comment in. I think excluding involved people from the "results" and "uninvolved editor discussion" sections is wise to simply avoid too much heat and noise; if they have a comment to make, they can do so in the section devoted to their statement. But otherwise I don't care much either way. Ultimately we should manipulate the layout of the discussion in whatever way produces the best results. AGK 11:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have been asked to comment on this entry, but I have no opinions hereon. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

ATren

ATren admonished to adhere to high civility standards. No other action. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning ATren User requesting enforcement Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested 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 [87] States that it is "intentionally condescending and insulting." It is a violation of WP:CIVIL to be "intentionally condescending and insulting." Edit summary states "condescending speech is all you're capable in a debate." It is not appropriate to denigrate the debating capabilities of ones intellectual opponents. User:ATren/WMCSpeak States that When [ATren percieves WMC as] insults and condescends, I will do the same. Users are not permitted to respond to incivility with incivility. An eye for an eye, in other words, leaves everyone blind. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) I contend that ATren is fully engaged in this sanctions page. I can dig out his pro-forma warning at some point if hoop-jumping is insisted on. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Him to stop being incivil on purpose, regardless of provication. If he can't avoid incivility, a topic ban on the area that he cannot avoid incivility on. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Like I said, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Only one party has an announced intention to be incivil - this is worse than failing to be civil, it's intentionally failing. Not acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 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 ATren Statement by ATren Every comment I am making is a variation of something WMC has said in the past. He has been warned repeatedly, yet he continues to do it. Unless someone believes WMC is not in control of his actions, his incivility is no less intentional than mine. I am fully willing to remove all uncivil comments when WMC does the same, and I assert the right to respond to future incivility with the same level of incivility, as long as admins are not going to deal with this issue. I'll also note that SlimVirgin (a true uninvolved editor who has done very good work cleaning up the mess that was Fred Singer's BLP) is considering withdrawing from editing here because of WMC's aggressiveness [88]. This has to stop. If nobody will stand up to WMC, then I will. Everyone worries about losing WMC, what about losing good editors like SlimVirgin? If WMC is chasing such experienced editors away, doesn't that severely impact the "net contribution" calculation for WMC? I am going to work now, I will respond more later. ATren (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Is it accurate to state that you think WMC should be restricted in some way for his possibly unintentional incivility? It is accurate to state that I think WMC should be should be restricted in some way for his possibly unintentional incivility. How can you justify being intentionally incivil when you think someone who may be unintentionally incivil should be restricted in some way? Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Do you really believe that after all this time WMC's incivility is unintentional? How can an explicit action like calling someone a troll be "unintentional"? And even if it is unintentional, then why is someone who cannot adhere to the basic standard of civil discourse still allowed to edit? BTW, this is my section for response; I'd appreciate if you would respond further down below. ATren (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I ignore all sectioning - always have, and always will. You do the same, so we're in good company. I am forced to WP:AGF about WMC's incivility and state that it is not stated as intentional, but is, regardless, disruptive. This is different than your incivility, which is both disruptive and intentional. In fact, while WMC needs to be stopped from disrupting the encyclopedia, you need to be stopped from intentionally disrupting the encyclopedia - one could argue in good faith that you are actually vandalizing (your incivility is not even possibly in good faith - you have stated that you are being incivil on purpose). You both need to stop, but, right now, you're the easier target by an order of magnitude based on your stated intention to disrupt. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Unintentional disruption (if you must believe that) is still disruption. If WMC truly cannot control his actions and his actions are alienating good editors then it he should be sanctioned even if he is acting in good faith. The ban lists are littered with editors who had very good faith but were apparently incapable of controlling their behavior, but for some reason, WMC's disruption persists years later. So my response to you is, even if it's unintentional disruption, at some point it must be stopped. ATren (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC) You appear to be making an argument for a sanction request about WMC's incivility. Disruption should be stopped, not met with more disruption. You have stated that since WMC is disrupting via incivility, which I do not dispute you will do the same. Thus, you should be blocked, as you are intentionally disruptive - you, to draw a parallel, are Willy on Wheels after his second page move, while WMC is someone who constantly delinks dates. Both are sanctioned - one is banned. Hipocrite (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite, it's not being stopped, and good editors are being chased away. Someone has to step up and confront him. It's been going on for years and shows no sign of stopping. And, yes, others are banned for long term good faith incivility. Remember Child of Midnight? He was unquestionably good faith and he was banned because of his inability to maintain a level of decorum. Good faith has it's limits, and I submit that the limit is reached when other highly respected editors are chased away (SlimVirgin is just the latest). As a side note, would you join me in filing a request for action against WMC's continuing disruption? You acknowledge above that WMC is uncivil, and that it's disruptive, so you should be supporting action which minimizes disruption. Would you do that? ATren (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC) NOT "an eye for an eye" I would like to point out that this is explicitly not an eye for an eye. I am engaging WMC on his own terms in an attempt to communicate with him. It's obvious from his edit history that he considers such dialog to be fine, and in fact I suspect that he even has a greater level of respect for people who engage in that kind of discourse. It's not something that comes naturally to me (hence the disclaimers I posted) but if that level of speech is necessary to communicate with WMC, then I'm willing to do it. Or, at least, I'm willing to try it if that's what he'll respond to. In the thread in question, WMC asserts a negative based on lack of information, something that is obviously logically wrong. He has a history of ruthlessness with editors who make such similar logic errors, and I honestly believe he would demand the same of those dealing with his obvious errors. So where he might dismiss a polite note about his error, a more direct, aggressive approach might be what it takes for him to recognize it. It's not an eye for an eye, it's trying to engage an editor who thus far refuses to engage with those who disagree with him civilly. ATren (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning ATren Apply the same equitable relief that WMC would receive for incivility, close and dismiss this. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I will have a proposed resolution in the uninvolved admins section shortly but for now I merely want to comment... I understand ATren's frustration with WMC's approach. Many folk are frustrated. But Hip is right. An eye for an eye is not acceptable. We should try to stay above WMC's unacceptably caustic commentary, regardless of whether it is appropriately handled or not. So my proposed close is going to be an admonishment to ATren that they can collect diffs if they like, they can even compile a chart of WMC-to-polite speak but they cannot themselves engage in caustic commentary, even if WMC routinely gets away with it, because that's how it is... the playing field isn't level and they are going to be held to a higher standard than WMC and they will just have to learn to deal. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC) (e.c.) Lar, with all due respect, been there done that. It's still happening. And now we have a case where an unquestionably good editor is being chased by his behavior. I will strongly object to any admonishment for my handful of uncivil comments if this board refuses to deal with the constant incivility by WMC. WMC is well into double digit requests for incivility, personal attacks, and BLP violations. Highly respectable previously uninvolved editors such as SlimVirgin and Cla68 are included in those requesting enforcement. Yet this group of admins still refuses to act. So how about this: sanction WMC and me equally - give us both the exact same topic ban. I will accept it without complaint as long as it's handed out equally, even though our respective level of transgression differs by an order of magnitude. If that's what it takes, I'm willing to take a larger sanction if it also means that admins finally act to sanction a long term problem editor. ATren (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC) It is not a higher standard to demand that users not be intentionally incivil, but assume that other incivil users are just bad at being civil. It is, in fact, a constant standard. I have brought every user who has stated they are intentionally disrupting the encyclopedia to this enforcement board. Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I see the intention is to correct WMC where this Probation process has failed. The Probation can be a disruption too. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC) This illustrates the problems that WTC is causing. He regularly insults editors and sources; it's actually reaching the point where more of his posts contain insults than don't. Today he called ATren a troll and the New York Times rubbish; yesterday he called me a liar. In addition he seems to have no working knowledge of the content policies. It's impossible to work with. I've decided to continue working on the Singer article in my userspace until it's dealt with, mostly to keep myself safe because the article's under probation. Anyone choosing to interact with WMC is going to have a hard time. If you don't respond, he accuses you of ignoring him. If you do respond, you risk getting drawn into the kind of exchange that will land you here. SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I see the basic problem is that he's an old-style Wikipedian, one more interested in content than in politics and game-playing. He needs to adjust to the new reality. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Except he's wrong on the content too. He's dismissing a New York Times reference based on Google hits. He has a history of adding blogs to BLPs. He's edit warred with an arbcom member on a BLP, repeatedly adding an out-of-context factoid to a BLP intro, an edit which I challenge anyone to assert was within miles of being good content. It's all fundamentally against policy and when people disagree with him he attacks. ATren (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) If you have a problem with another editor being incivil, please raise an enforcement request, which, if it's actually about civility and not content, I'll gladly support. Or raise an enforcement request about content, but narrowly tailor it to content that in unarguably poor, as opposed to just stuff you disagree with. You are taking this one off-topic. Other editors being incivil does not make incivility acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC) And, lets be perfectly clear - while I would never call ATren a troll, an editor who pledges to be incivil, is, in fact, trolling. Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC) He called me that before any of my recent comments. ATren (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by Thparkth Atren, this is a bad road to go down. No matter how provoked you feel, you are ultimately responsible for your own actions. If those actions include deliberate incivility, you are likely be judged negatively for that. I think everyone here understands how frustrated you feel, but Hipocrite is correct when he talks about "an eye for an eye" making everyone blind. If you made a voluntary commitment to remain civil in your interaction with WMC, I'm pretty sure everyone would respect that and that would be the end of the matter. Don't martyr yourself over this. You are too valuable an editor, and this is too trivial an issue. Thparkth (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Just so. I cannot conceive of how I could possibly agree more strongly with this than I already do. Hence my proposed close. But I'm willing to toughen it all the way to a warning that blocks will be forthcoming if this course continues. Because it just isn't the right road. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Lar, if I file another enforcement request for WMC, who is already on civility patrol, will he get a significant sanction? There are plenty of incivil diffs since his last admonishment. If I am going to be threatened a block for a few minor edits (none of which are worse than anything WMC has said repeatedly) how could that be justified in light of WMC's continued incivility, which is driving away good editors? ATren (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC) You are doing it on purpose. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, in an attempt to engage with an editor for whom that kind of discourse is accepted (since he does it himself). I honestly believe he doesn't listen unless you engage him in the same manor in which he engages you -- in other words, the same impulse that causes him to make aggressive comments without him knowing it, causes him to ignore civil comments from others. I really believe he dismisses civility as weakness of argument, and my attempts to engage in a more aggressive manor are an attempt to break through that dismissal. If you are going to assume good faith in his incivility, then at least extend the same courtesy to me. ATren (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC) You're wrong. And obviously so, becuase it is trivial to find counterexamples. This is pure Assume Bad Faith on your part William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC) OK, then please present those examples here, and please be sure to include examples of civil engagement with those who are disagreeing with you. I will then present examples of incivility with disagreers, and we can compare. OK? ATren (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Please stop trying to derail this enforcement request. This is about your intentional incivility, which is inexcusable. Finding other incivil people is the subject of a different request. This standard delaying tactic is why the admins here are failing - the first one that saw those diffs should have closed this section with an only-final warning to you that if you are intentionally incivil again you will be banned from this topic area for increasing lengths. How hard is this to do? Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC) You do have a point. This is a small one. I'll try to scare up another uninvolved admin to endorse my proposed close. ATren, do consider starting another request. I know you are frustrated. I know that you will have to do a lot of work. But do consider it instead of acting out. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC) It was not intended as "acting out", it was a good faith attempt to engage an editor for whom incivility is part of his habitual discourse. It was an attempt to discover if he'd respond better to a more direct and aggressive tone, because 2 years of civility has not reached him. I can't help it if it's perceived as something different, but I am somewhat disappointed at the lack of good faith assumed of me -- WMC's incivility is somehow excused as "unintentional" even though it's been happening for years, while my attempt to deal with it in a different way is met with assumptions of nefarious intent. I will take your advice though, to put this aside and gather that request. ATren (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC) You are directed not to be intentionally incivil for any reason.Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC) ATren, if you want to file an enforcement request, you can. But please, if you want to even have a 20% chance of success, make sure your own behaviour is impeccable first, and bring us, oh, 100 or so diffs, all of which are incontrovertible. If even one is even a bit questionable, where some reasonable doubt might exist, we will have no choice but to find against you and f0r WMC. Sorry, but that's how the playing field is here. Level. ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Lar, I've done that. It goes nowhere (see a few months back when 2/0 passionately defended WMC after a request with 20-odd very compelling diffs). And good editors continue to get bullied off. It has to stop, and this RFE is ineffective. Now, I will probably take your advice and disengage again to go back into research mode, but seriously, how much evidence is needed? Do we have to take this all the way to arbcom for any reasonable handling of this problem editor to occur? ATren (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I know you have tried. Keep trying. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Comment by WMC I see a lot of "apply the same to ATren as to WMC" here. Even ATren has asked for that. Fine; I'm on a civility sanction, no? How about we apply that to ATren, too? Also User:ATren/WMCSpeak should be deleted as an attack page. Ideally ATren himself would realise this and ask for it to be deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC) If you are on a civility sanction then perhaps you should not be calling other editors "Trolls" and "liars"? mark nutley (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC) That is a good point. WMC, what is your response to that? An unsatisfactory response would cause me to be very cross. So cross that I might actually admonish you not to give unsatisfactory responses. Or worse. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC) My response is that I was responding to a post in which ATren actively and deliberately set out to insult me William M. Connolley (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC) No, you called me a troll before any of this stuff today. Try again. ATren (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Which you actually were[89] (you know: Trolling) - WMC called you on it per WP:SPADE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Perhaps it was a response in advance? If WMC can divine your intent accurately ("actively and deliberately set out to"...), perhaps he can divine it before you actually post? Please assume good faith here about WMC. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC) As ATren had just made a comment that very much could be defined as trolling - he didn't call it "in advance" - he called it the spade he saw. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Lar, given your tone, I suggest you remove your comment from the section which you believe is for uninvolved admins only. You are giving the appearance of a lack of impartiality, and per your own belief, editing that section is a use of admin tools. Hipocrite (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Eh? Do you think I should recuse because I am prejudiced against ATren and in favor of WMC? Is that the suggestion? I think my proposed close is a good one. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC) So grow a pair buck up and close this as opposed to snarkingusing mild sarcasm all over. Inform ATren that intentional incivility is inexcusable, and if it continues, he will be topic banned from the area for increasing lengths of time, and then delete his attack page. How hard is this admin 101 shit?If you'd like, I'll happily tell you exactly what actions to take on all the other cases in front of this sanction board, with reasonable confidence that I'd get them all right. Hipocrite (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite, let me ask you: is this intentional incivility or unintentional incivility? We all know how important the distinction is. ATren (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Intentional incivility is always inexcusable - it is a bad faith action. Unintentional incivility is problematic if consistant. However, you are not intentionally incivil, by admission. Here, I'll give the admins a hint suggestion - "ATren is informed that intentional incivility is always unacceptable. If ATren is intentionally incivil, he may banned from the entire climate change topic, broadly construed, by any admin for up to one week. After two such blocks, the period will increase to one month. After five such blocks, the period will increase to one year. After one year without a topic ban, this sanction will expire." Hipocrite (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC) And I'm asking you, Hipocrite, is "grow a pair" and "how hard is this admin 101 shit?" intentional incivility or unintentional incivility? Since the distinction is suddenly important, I think you should either state that it was intentional or strike it. ATren (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC) You are right. I'll rewrite those. See how easy that was - someone who wasn't the target of my words told me they were wrong and I undid them. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Might I then ask why you did not extend the same courtesy to me? You could have engaged me on my talk rather than running to mommy. ATren (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC) H: Snarking? Grow a pair? I think your tone is not helpful. I proposed a close, below. If some other uninvolved admin agrees with it, great. But I have not in the past uninlaterally closed things. Proposing is as far as I go by myself. I suppose I could revisit that decision, though. Is that what you're advocating? ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC) And I think your lack of a pair unwillingness to not take deliberate action when it's obvious what action is right is not helpful. You are apparently unwilling to actually do something, so what's the point of you being here? You're not adminning in the area - you're using magic discussion powers in the magic "no-plebians" section. You're using your admin powers as a supervote, which you don't have. It's such a patently obvious close that your unwillingness to just do it is an embarassment. Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC) You can't have it both ways. You cannot promote an RfC that is trying to remove me entirely (for the crime of having an opinion) and at the same time castigate me for not taking action (instead of just voicing my opinion about what the correct action is). You want this closed now? OK. I'll close it now, as I suggested it be closed, without further consultation. Let's see how that works. ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Result concerning ATren This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved admins, will be moved to the section above. Proposed close: ATren is admonished to adhere to the high standards of civility we expect of all contributors, regardless of whether these standards are actually enforced against others or not. The misbehavior of others is not justification for one's own misbehavior. Regardless of how egregious that misbehavior of others might be. No other action taken. ++Lar: t/c 13:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC) enacted. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Post result discussion

(moved from Lar's note "enacted" )

Undone. That was indecent haste. Please allow other admins to comment William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, but you are not permitted to undo a close. Closes can be appealed at WP:ANI. If you would like to appeal, do so, but be aware that I'll certainly be opposing such. Hipocrite (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are both out of line. Only uninvolved admins can close, and only uninvolved admins can un-close. Further, WMC's comment was in the uninvolved admin section, and he is neither uninvolved nor an admin. 50 lashes with a wet noodle to the both of you for edit warring and general mopery and dopery of the spaceways. THAT said, if some other uninvolved admin wants to reopen I have no objection. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar, my edit was not out of line at all. Please explain, now, or I will have to seek redress. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC was out of line to un-close, not being an uninvolved admin. You were out of line (although arguably less so, under IAR undoing a wrong action) to re-close, not being an uninvolved admin. ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(moved from Lar's "you can't have it both ways" remark to H)

How about sticking to the case at hand Lar? Otherwise we may think that you bear a grudge for the RfC, and thus really are involved, despite your statements to the opposite. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out a logical inconsistency isn't "bear(ing) a grudge". Which I suspect you know already. That inconsistency *is* relevant since it was a response to H. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no logical "inconsistency" to see - other than that you creating a red herring by hasty generalization. The RfC is not relevant here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC) [let me be more specific: Until/unless the RfC spawns a result - you are still what you are - so pleading how someone is commenting on the RfC is a fallacy] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is a hasty generalization. Much less a red herring. If you don't see the inconsistency in "I want you not to act in this area at all, but I insist you take this specific action in this area" I can't help you.++Lar: t/c 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this - "I don't want you to act in this area at all, but if you're going to do it, at least do it right?" Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The inconsistency that you think is there, isn't. Let me make a rather apt analogy: While i (or anyone else) may oppose a specific president/prime minister, and want him to be deposed, that i can still want the pres/pm. to act within his office - in fact i rather expect that he must. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

marknutley

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

Request concerning marknutley

User requesting enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 19 May 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

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

1. [90] Adds ref to "www.theregister.co.uk," adds ref to "rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com"
2. [91] Adds ref to "climateaudit.org"

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

Per Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive7#William_M._Connolley_.28and_Marknutley.29 "Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing."

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

Indefinite, wiki-wide ban on adding any new sources to articles. Marknutley is permitted to suggest sources on talk pages, and edit articles to conform to already existing sources.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

He was prohibited from doing the behavior, yet he did the behavior. When confronted about the behavior, he stated "The register is a main stream newspaper is`nt it? And Pileke is reliable per wp:prof so i figured that would be ok to use". The Register is a website, and blogs that are reliable are not one of the exemptions presented. If Marknutley cannot abide by a narrowly construed prohibition, the prohibition must be more broadly construed.

As demonstrated by his response, he doesn't get it. He's prohibited from doing X - regardless of if X is acceptable under other policies or guidlines. He does X. This is not acceptable behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[92]

Discussion concerning marknutley

Statement by marknutley

Andrew Orlowski writing in The Register is reliable if attributed, which is what i did [93]. Same for Roger A. Pielke, Jr. who passes wp:prof and again the same for Steve McIntyre who strangly hipocrite has left in. There is nothing wrong with what i did here all the sorces are fine and attributed correctly mark nutley (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Further, yes i made a mistake in saying wp:prof It is wp:sps i should have quoted. It says, Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications That covers both Pielke and McIntyre. Orlowski and the register is used as a ref in loads of articles, which is why i correctly assume it is ok to use if Attributed, which it was. mark nutley (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, i would like to say, i would have self reverted if given the chance, kim posted on my talk page and i asked him to clarify, within half an hour (i was having dinner) Hipocrite had reverted the content and filed this RFE. I have seen the register used as a source in plenty of articles and assume it is ok to use, the same with academics who are ok to use as wp:sps. If i have broken my sanction it was unintentional and i will ensure that i will double check anything not from a part of the MSM with other editors. I also apologize for once again wasting everyones time mark nutley (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning marknutley

Statement by ScottyBerg

I've had a few minor interactions with Mark and found him generally to be a pleasant chap. But his handling of this has been discouraging. This is not rocket science. On the talk page he cited WP:PROF, which is not the correct policy. When I pointed that out to him, he questioned my motives. Now I see that he is not supposed to be introducing new sources even if perfectly valid except under limited circumstances. I'm afraid the relief requested by Hipocrite seems warranted. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your correct it was wp:sps i should have cited, i did not question your motives btw i said debate with you was pointless as you want the article deleted regardless of how notable it is, sorry if you think i was impugning you mark nutley (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments like that aren't at all helpful, Mark. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare about The Wordsmith's proposed closure

When I first proposed the existing sanction, the reason I limited it to biographies of living persons and CC articles was not because I felt applying it to all pages would be too far-reaching. I did not believe that administrators under the current site culture have the ability to implement such a sanction (especially because WP:DSN never attained consensus). To work around that, I applied two existing sanctions, the climate change probation and WP:BLPSE, to ensure that as great a proportion of MN's edits as possible were covered under my action. That said, I think that your sanction extension is a good idea, and should be enacted. NW (Talk) 19:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning marknutley

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections.

There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions.

• This seems fairly clear-cut. However, I think Hipocrite's requested sanction may be a bit too far-reaching if it applies to all articles. Therefore I propose the following resolution:
  • Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)