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.

• BanVan (talk · contribs)Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Thoop33 (talk · contribs) Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Torontokid2006

Editors are reminded that they should seek to provide relevant context along with evidence presented as part of a Request for Enforcement. Torontokid2006 is advised to discuss content with other editors and seek to compromise, instead of edit warring.
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 Torontokid2006 User requesting enforcement mark nutley (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Torontokid2006 (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] Rv 1 [2] Rv 2 [3] Rv 3 [4] Rv 4 [5] Rv 5 [6] Rv 6 ... Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [7] Warning by Thparkth (talk · contribs) ... Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) up to you guys Additional comments by editor filing complaint Not only is he massively over on reverts his removal of tags before consensus is reached is disturbing. I leave it to the admins to sort out a punishment but i believe a 1r minimum is needed here mark nutley (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Comment, Would someone be so good as to talk to this guy? Today he is on 3R`s on Global Warming Reverts WMC Reverts Arthur Rubin Reverts Verbel And accuses him of edit warring :) mark nutley (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC) On my way. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC) BozMo got there already. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Cool, how about this RFE gets wrapped up btw, i suppose i was to hasty in bringing it to be honest mark nutley (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [8] Discussion concerning Torontokid2006 Statement by Torontokid2006 Hi everyone, I'm a little new to wikipedia but if it's possible I would like to file a counter-complaint against Marknutley as he was attempting to add tags, repeatedly, without consensus or looking at recent discussion. The sentence that he calls to question has been thoroughly discussed [[9]] on the talkpage talk:Global warming and that is why I reverted his actions. I have told him numerous times [[10]] to read the discussion and see for himself that a consensus had already recently been made and he did not need to add said tags (which served to only weaken peer-reviewed scientific evidence). Additionally another user User:VLB Pocketspup was attempting to vandalize the article by removing an entire section without any discussion! From what I have read in wikipedia policy, it is ok to stop vandalism. Here's one of the vandal's edits (Sorry, not sure how to make diffs)[[11]] the only comment he made was "removing the trash again". Here is another: [[12]], he says "rv blatant rubbish". Again, he made no comment in the discussion before removing an entire section from the article. If I was wrong I will accept full responsibility. But I feel like I was protecting this article from vandalism and arbitrary tags that were against consensus. If I knew better the steps of making a complaint I would have filed one for User:Marknutley and User:VLB Pocketspup. In regards to my "6" reverts, 2 of them were on my own actions, 2 were on User:VLB Pocketspup's huge deletes, and 2 were on User:Marknutley's insistence to have tags that did not meet consensus nor take into account the recent discussion. Sorry, for the trouble. Have a good day. Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Torontokid2006 TK needs to be forcefully reminded that 3RR *does* apply to him, contrary to his assertions otherwise [13]. Mind you, in normal times a 3rr violation would just be grounds for a std 3rr block, not a RFE. Hopefully a watching admin can simply assess whether a 3rr vio has occurred and make the appropriate block/warning William M. Connolley (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Two of those reverts were reverting his own comments, the net change to the article of the two edits was zero as they cancelled each other out, so that is just four reverts. Two of the reverts were reverting 'vandalism' from an editor who has been subsequently blocked for vandalism, and I think that reverting blatant vandalism does not fall within 3RR, so that makes it potentially two actionable reverts. The two remaining reverts are debatable, but that debate really should take place on the GW talkpage until such time as someone really violates 3RR. That doesn't mean the remaining two reverts are valid, and it's never good to edit-war over tags, but it doesn't seem like this matter yet requires enforcement action. Weakopedia (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Well, if you feel that he was simply reverting vandalism you might want to consider where it appears the vandal got his inspiration from as well as the comment just above yours. Was he actually being a vandal? --68.63.103.42 (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC) A strongly worded warning should suffice but I think this discussion here is a fairly clear warning in itself. I would have prefered a standard warning rather than through enforcement. The warning outlined above by Marknutley is not a warning regarding the reverts but is simply informing the editor of probation. Also Marknutley has not bothered to outline why any of the particular diffs are problematic and is just throwing in everything he can and leaving it for others to make the difficult judgement with the comment "I leave it to the admins to sort out a punishment". This is a rather poor use of enforcement. (On a general note as an admin, Global Warming and its talkpage are pages I have never edited and Torontokid2006 is a user I have had no dealings with. Therefore although I cannot deal with him as an admin in enforcement due to the recent ruling I could deal with him as an admin per general wikipedia guidelines.) Polargeo (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Excuse me? He was edit warring, i see no need to explain why the diff`s are problematic. And removing pov tags without reaching consensus first is problamatic. I also asked him on his talk page to stop edit warring and to self revert, he refused. And yes i leave it to the admins to decide a course of action, that is their job here not mine. mark nutley (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)] Next time, if there must be a next time. Yes you should explain exactly why diffs are problematic. It is tough for uninvolved admins to just act on 6 diffs with out any explanation of why you think they are in breach of the rules. Polargeo (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Polargeo, what do you think "He was edit warring and removing POV tags without getting consensus on the talk page" is? that is an explanation is it not? mark nutley (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC) You failled to outline which diffs do this and which diffs do not and which bit of the talkpage consensus has not been reached on. You just presented 6 diffs with no detail. For your own sake I advise you to put together a proper RfE or just do not bother. It is not up to others to chase around for the answers. Polargeo (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I have interacted with TK2006 and find him to be a good-faith editor who though editing from a strong and obvious point of view, at least intends to follow wikipedia good practices and work within consensus. It's probably fair to say that he doesn't yet have the experience to always know what good practice is and make good judgments about when consensus has been established. In particular I think he is over-aggressive in repeatedly reverting to exactly the same language (albeit not exceeding 3R a 24 hr period) when others are attempting to find compromise wording, and he can be offensively dismissive of those other editors. For example, he has regularly used things like "if you actually read the source" as edit comments on his reverts, when the source only "actually" says what he thinks it does with a large dose of synthesis. Again, I believe this is mostly an issue of inexperience, and I'm sure most people see that and make allowance for it. I think some polite but firm and specific advice from an administrator about the standard of behavior expected in the climate change space would be enough to help him understand. As an aside, I wonder if the administrators reviewing this might consider extending 1RR to the "Global Warming" article - more talking and less reverting would probably have been a good thing there over the last little while. Thparkth (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 1rr is a potential nightmare and should not be used liberaly Polargeo (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC) If I was allowed to act as uninvolved as I would be per standard wikipedia guidelines I would agree with The Wordsmiths conclusion. Polargeo (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Torontokid2006 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. I am inclined to deny the RFE per WMC; bring Torontokid2006 up to speed regarding 3RR generally, the CC Probation specifically, and bring any further edit warring to that noticeboard - only bring here again if they trip over one of the 1RR exemptions or probation related issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I agree with LHvU. This is a case where I would not make a 3RR block. I also see no reason to impose special sanctions just yet. NW (Talk) 14:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Concur. I'd add a gentle reminder that Mark does need to give a bit more than just the bare diffs... as it turned out, analysis of these showed not all qualified as reverts that "count". If Mark had tried to write the supporting material asked for in the request template, he might have realised this and structured his request differently. With three in concurrance I move for a close. Although I would like my reminder tacked on :) ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I propose the following closure: Editors are reminded that they should seek to provide relevant context along with evidence presented as part of a Request for Enforcement. Torontokid2006 (talk · contribs) is advised to discuss content with other editors and seek to compromise, instead of edit warring. -The WordsmithCommunicate 02:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC) support wording by TWS --BozMo talk 11:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC) support wording by TWS, striking out previous comment since Torontokid2006 has not yet "got it". LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC) support wording by TWS ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley

Marknutley, under a 1rr restriction on climate change articles, declares his intention of repeating a certain revert every 24 hours, without discussion. Without going through the motions, can an uninvolved admin please explain to him Wikipedia:Edit warring and gaming? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Also note the edit comment here [14] William M. Connolley (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"I got the time wrong" seemed like an odd edit summary, but this clears up what he meant. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

? The edit summary to the diff I used is put these back for a few hours - indicating, as Stephan says, that MN intends to game the 1RR for this William M. Connolley (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved administrator(s)

If someone under 1RR introduces or removes the same content every 24 hours and 1 minute, then they are not violating their restriction. However, they may still be edit warring since neither 3RR or 1RR is an entitlement. A request with details of the repeated instances, the challenges of the edits and any subsequent discussion might be made here if desired. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by me, separate section to keep Cla from having a heart attack

I'm not concerned about the edits - Mark has self-reverted. I'm concerned about the attitude ("I'll self-revert, then revert again when my 24 hours are up, nope, no discussion"). Please see the complete discussion at User_talk:Marknutley#1rr. Please note that I do not request a formal sanction - I request that someone whom he listens to explains WP:EW to him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley (civility)

Furthermore, Your full of crap hipocrite [15] appears to be a violation of his civility parole. A while later he refuses to strike it after being asked to [16] and repeats the offence however what he wrote above is crap William M. Connolley (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You guys are full of it, is this a case of throw enough shite and hope some sticks? First my edit summary was about moving stuff to a new section, not to do with the see also`s. Did i get a chance yet to reply to hipocrite`s last comment? No i have not. So how do you know what i intend to do? Got a crystal ball? or perhaps you modelled it. WMC that is an out and out lie, when was i asked to strike it? And as hipocrite has not asked me to then there is no issue with it mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"full of crap" seems light compared to some of the crap that's come out of WMCs mouth and strikes me as highly hypocritical. -Atmoz (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As well as the above (you guys are full of it) we have What the hell are you on about? [17] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that you open a separate request for civility issues if you think that's useful? I consider the original issue a simple matter that can be - constructively or destructively - solved without much discussion. Civility, on the other hand, is a general mess on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, added a header. Mind you I only added this here because it was convenient to piggy-back on your report. MN still has a chance to redact and close this William M. Connolley (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been redacted mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you mean [18] - convention is to strike through not silently alter. But no, this is not done: the other 3 PA's remain William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The WS asked me to remove it, i did. The rest are not PA`s i`m done here mark nutley (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to LHVU (below)

What civility parole?: [19] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And you've forgotten you guys are full of it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Now here`s a funny thing, i`m not actually on a civility parole [20] mark nutley (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you consider I will give my word to be civil at all times from this moment on. This will mean if i`m insulted or other crap is chucked my way i will get up, go for a fag and then respond. binding? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't top-posting such a helpful mode of discussion? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is binding in a sanctionable meaning, although it may be that Mn might be placed under an official civility parole as his voluntary one seems to have fallen to the wayside. I also did note the use of "full of it", in the penultimate sentence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a less partial admin comment. Alas, they are all busy it seems. With an arbcomm case to play with, RFE is just so yesterday William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: MN considers his civility parole to be binding [21], even if LHVU considers it binding in a non-binding sense, whatever that is supposed to mean. Although apparently he does not think saying to someone they are full of crap is a personal attack. Let us hope that the admins here will disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how you think me saying, "...I agree that "... is full of crap" constitutes a pa" means the opposite. I would also note that I am aware that Mn considers his civility parole binding, but I am also aware that he does not consider his choice of words constitute a personal attack. I cannot square the circle you are attempting to present to me, that Mn is under a civility parole by means of his personal undertaking and he has broken it by the use of terms he does not consider as being attacks. How can his word that he is under some restriction be used against him when he gives his word that he had not broken that restriction? I also would appreciate some other opinions in regard to this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this "crap" conversation still ongoing? Given it was removed as requested? mark nutley (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Another question I am unable to satisfactorily answer... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved administrator(s)

What civility parole? I have reviewed the logs and noted both the 1RR and "good sourcing" restrictions upon Marknutley, but cannot find and was unaware of a specific civility parole.
Under general WP:CIVIL, I agree that "... is full of crap" constitutes a pa, and am glad that it has been removed. Noting that an opinion is full of crap is unhelpful, but cannot be a pa since it addresses the content and not the commentator. Unless there is a civility parole, I would be minded to issue marknutley with a warning against further use of contentious terms for this and the "full of it" comments. However, "what the hell" is common terminology and would not fall under the WP:CIVIL umbrella as far as I am concerned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think a civility parole is now in order. Mark seems to be losing his temper a bit too much. ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Standard wording then: "Marknutley may be blocked if he makes any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith"? Not really sure if it is worth it; it doesn't seem very different (more strigent) than the standards of WP:NPA, but if you want... NW (Talk) 08:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

Filer blocked as a sockpuppet; no action taken with regards to WMC. 12:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning William M. Connolley User requesting enforcement BLPWatchdog (talk) 14:47, 24 June 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 [22] Reverts the removal of a (purported) BLP violation. [23] Self-reverts indicating that he has violated some type of 1RR restriction. [24] Makes the same revert minutes several hours later. [25] Suddenly realizes that he has just made the same 1RR "mistake" again. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [26] Warning by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) He self-warned that he was violating a 1RR restriction. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Appropriate sanction based on obvious gaming of the system. I believe that arbcom has on several occasions explicitly rejected the idea that self-reversion is an acceptable technique to evade restrictions in other contexts. I also believe that he is well aware of this fact and yet this appears to be exactly what he his trying to do. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I leave the matter to the capable hands of the neutral administrators on this board. 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 William M. Connolley Statement by William M. Connolley Can we have a CU for this obvious sock please? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC) No need - it proved it was a sock here, using http://nhpproxy.webcreatif.ch. Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC) That shows that I choose to edit through a proxy (a reasonable precaution on today's intertubes), not that I am a sock. You seem confused on the meaning of the term sock. --BLPWatchdog (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Please note [27], where the above proxy abuser attempts to cover up for his continued abuse. Hipocrite (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley This enforcement request was BLPWatchdog's 9th edit ever. Cardamon (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC) This is not a BLP violation. The LP himself referenced the blog posting directly in one of his papers, so obviously it's not a violation for him; and an examination of the post reveals strictly scientific analysis without commentary on any other individual. I note this with the qualification that many of the RealClimate references in BLP have been violations of BLP (for example, recent attempts to add a post from RC that called Fred Singer dishonest), and those should be dealt with, but this particular instance is not. Perhaps BLP policy pages should be updated to reflect that the restriction is primarily for contentious material, which this doesn't appear to be. ATren (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, the rule is good. Blogs can't be used as a reference. In this instance, it was more of a convenience link than a reference to support article content. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC) The blog is not being used as a source here. The text says "Bradley recommended x", and the link goes to x. It's simply a convenience link. Guettarda (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Result concerning William M. Connolley 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. I have blocked BLPWatchdog (talk · contribs) as an obvious and inappropriate use of an alternate account. I make no judgment about the issues raised in this request, and will leave them for discussion by others. MastCell Talk 16:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Blogs are not allowed as sources per WP:BLPSPS, but I think this instance is a valid WP:COMMONSENSE exception. the BLP subject referenced RealClimate, so I don't think it is out of line to include a link to the post he referred to. WMC needs to be careful about reverting, but this case doesn't seem to be abusive. I don't believe that any further action is necessary. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Bear with me for a moment... There is a request for sanction because WMC self reverted himself twice, in short order, to stay within the spirit of his 1RR restriction? So, because by self reverting swiftly WMC has only technically violated his restriction and Good Faith requires that we consider any reverted 1RR violating edits as null and void for the purposes of Probation enforcement, that the blocked SPA is suggesting we sanction WMC for... self reverting twice within 24 hours? Is that the logic, that the two self reverts constitute a 1RR violation? Um, isn't there a ArbCom case where participants can more usefully expend their energies in relation to the editing of AGW related articles? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC) This is pretty clearly just a section opened to troll. As no one is proposing to sanction WMC, I'm just to close and archive this section. NW (Talk) 06:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

marknutley & Nsaa

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

Request concerning marknutley & Nsaa

User requesting enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nsaa (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

mark uses a blog as a source NSAA approves a blog as a source marknutley defends a blog as a source

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

Both editors fully involved here

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

marknutley's sourcing provisions modified such that all sources must be passed through an en administrator or experienced editor with prior-approval from this board. Failing that, the creation of a running list of individuals banned from providing source blessings for MN.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

He's not going to stop using blogs as sources unless you stop him.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[28], [29]

Discussion concerning marknutley & Nsaa

Statement by marknutley & Nsaa

Ok Nsaa checked the ref`s. And was concerned about the use of Watts Up With That so he checked the reliable sources archives and found a discussion which clearly says that the use of Watts up is fine for Anthony Watts opinion [30] And as such he ok`d it. As you can see from this diff of hipocrites removal [31] the content was attributed to Watts opinion on the spoof video Hide the Decline, there has been no breach of either my parole or of WP policy here mark nutley (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning marknutley & Nsaa

I would say that the far worse example of sourcing in that article was a press-release, which was being used in the lead as a reference for factual information. Please see the discusssion here[32]. The ref in questions was this[33] and the version of the article where i tagged it as unreliable is here[34] (ref #1). Mark removed the tag immediately claiming that this was a reliable source[35] (somehow conflating it with the usage of the name climategate - which wasn't the information that i tagged it for). I'm still uncertain as to whether Mark has recognized that this is a press-release or not, and that the reference wasn't reliable to the information given. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking advice from someone like Nsaa - an editor involved in this topic area, with a POV sympathetic to Marknutley's (and therefore with an ideological blind spot) - strikes me as counter-productive. I suggest that Marknutley's sourcing restrictions be modified to require him to obtain a review from an editor who is uninvolved in this topic area. Otherwise we will just find Marknutley laundering bad sources through his friends, rather than getting an independent review. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish, i have recently asked five people to ok the refs in an article. It is still to be done a week later. Trying to restrict who can ok the sources will simply mean i can never do any edits at all mark nutley (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In your case, that would not be a bad thing. But what is needed here is to get independent reviews of sources, not just nod-throughs from ideological allies. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(moved from uninvolved admin section): Would you recommend I file an enforcement action against NSAA seeking to have them prohibited from advising MN on sources? Hipocrite (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be very wary of anyone attempting to limit who is an "editor in good standing" on an ideological basis - and all the more so when someone is in opposition to that stance. If anyone wishes to question the good standing of a contributor on the basis of their disciplinary record, editing in mainspace, etc. then it could be a matter for review. Otherwise, per AGF, we simply look at the edit and attempt to resolve issues through normal dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is why, despite the fact that I am ideologically opposed to him, I would insist that Cla68 be included on the pre-approved list. I would oppose including problematic editors on both ideological sides - for instance, there is no need to include Ratel on the list of approved reviewers. Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the "editor is good standing" condition requires us to determine who is not in good standing by evidencing persistent poor editing or inappropriate behaviour. Should this probation be retained, or another method of overview adopted, it would add to the burden in having to draw up lists of approved editors - with various interests advocating or opposing choices for their own reasons and possibly disinclining editors from accepting that role. Also, as noted earlier, WP:AGF requires us to consider long standing editors as being in good standing unless proven otherwise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What would you suggest people do, outside of attempting to have marknutley banned from the entire topic area, to stop these endless blogsourced disasters from him? Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest closing this as it is a content dispute. Whether or not Anthony Watts posting on his site Watts Up With That can be used or not i am not the only editor here who is saying it can be now am i mark nutley (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you and your ideological cadre all agree that anytime anyone says anything you agree with it's reliable and should be put in every article without question or second thought. I wish you'd stop with the blogs, already. I've asked you over and over - I didn't even decide on deletion of the article until it became clear that it was just another venue to translate blogsourced nonsense to the public. The level of trouble you have getting your articles approved is directly proportional to the times you use denialist blogs to source things you want to be true. Consider just not using them, ever. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning marknutley & Nsaa

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.

I have checked the wording of the restrictions relating to Marknutley in regard to sourcing overview [36], and note that the requirement is for an editor "...in good standing." There is no wording that indicates that the reviewing editor needs to be vetted. However I would note that Nsaa, whose userlinks I have included in the relevant section, has been editing since 2005 and has a clean block record; I should think they therefore qualify per the wording. A review of Nsaa's contributions also indicates that this matter is being discussed by them on the article talkpage, so I am inclined to regard this as a content dispute (per the concerns noted by KDP) and suggest closing this request - especially since Nsaa has not yet been advised that they are a party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)