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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
FellGleaming (talk | contribs)
Reopening
Line 684: Line 684:


[[User:Thparkth|Thparkth]] ([[User talk:Thparkth|talk]]) 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
[[User:Thparkth|Thparkth]] ([[User talk:Thparkth|talk]]) 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

== Reopening by MastCell ==

I had intended to ignore Hipocrite's continuing his stream of combative, personal attacks on me (the behavior for which he was admonished here), but since MastCell has chosen to reopen this, I would like to call attention to these diffs

# [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley&action=historysubmit&diff=356185148&oldid=356184489] "How many times are you going to misrepresent sources?"
# [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley&action=historysubmit&diff=356185148&oldid=356184489] "Sorry you are embarrassed you got caught again", "...no matter how bad it makes you feel".
# [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley&action=historysubmit&diff=356190345&oldid=356189655] "If you lack the intellectual
capicity to understand why what you are doing is wrong, you need to be banned "
# [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley&action=historysubmit&diff=356192449&oldid=356191859] "...means that an admin actually sanctions your disruptive behavior."

Further, I question why MastCell's chose a diff that specifically excludes the very heart of this disagreement. I saw a claim that a person "had admitted to a publicity stunt". I clicked on the source next to that claim, and it said specifically he "denied a publicity stunt". Apparently the source next to that one contradicted the first one, but Hipocrite was unwilling to accept that, and continued his stream of personal attacks even after being requested to desist. See below for the source which I used.

Further, I point out that, once again, Hipocrite has chosen to engage in nonproductive behaviour for no good reason. I placed my concern on the talk page and then made the edit. I did not revert his reversion, nor respond to his insults, nor do anything but ask sincerely why the article said one thing, but the source another. See this talk page diff here, made BEFORE I made the edit in question:

# [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley&action=historysubmit&diff=356184489&oldid=355582668] [[User:FellGleaming|<font color="darkmagenta"><b>F</b>ell <b>G</b>leaming</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:FellGleaming|<font color="black">talk</font>]])</sup> 18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


===Result concerning FellGleaming ===
===Result concerning FellGleaming ===

Revision as of 18:58, 15 April 2010

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.

Peterlewis

Result: Peterlewis warned about reversion without discussion. Ratel warned about approach. Global warming conspiracy theory placed on 1RR restriction. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Peterlewis

User requesting enforcement
► RATEL ◄ 12:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Peterlewis (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. [1] I removed a BLP violation that amounts to vandalism from Global warming controversy
  2. [2] Peterlewis reinstates BLP violation and unsourced slur against Al Gore into article, calling my removal of this material "vandalism"
  3. [3] After I asked Peterlewis to apologize on this talk page, he refuses to withdraw and repeats that my removal of the slur was vandalism.
  4. [4] admin Vsmith removes slur again.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

  1. [5] Warning by BozMo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Same article warning. Peterlewis replied that this amounts to action by "thought police'
  2. [6] Warned by TS of the probation on global warming articles
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Admins should take into account that this user has a pattern of edits that may be harmful to the encyclopedia and a history of incivility. He was blocked for incivility, in fact. ► RATEL ◄ 12:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[7] notified ► RATEL ◄ 12:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Peterlewis

Statement by Peterlewis

Comments by others about the request concerning Peterlewis

So Ratel is calling Peterlewis' edit "promulgating slur against a living person" on Peterlewis' talk page, and saying above that this is a "BLP violation and unsourced slur against Al Gore". Where's the BLP harm in listing among the "motives" that conspiracy theorists use, "A desire on the part of individuals, such as Al Gore, to promote their own agenda to secure financial benefits for themselves."

  • in an article titled Global warming conspiracy theory,
    • beneath a section titled "Participants", where "Al Gore" is also listed (with a footnote) as one "of those claimed to be participants in a conspiracy to promote global warming theory [who] appear prominently in other conspiracy theories"

Are we supposed to think that conspiracy theories about global warming do not include the most famous proponent of the idea? That somehow the conspiracy theorists would have avoided mentioning his name? Anyone with the least familiarity about the AGW debate knows that Al Gore has been accused of having ulterior motives by someone. It's a technical violation of BLP that Peterlewis didn't provide the source. It's kind of like not having a source for the statement, "George Bush is said to have known there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war" in an article titled "Iraq War conspiracy theories".

All editors are warned that the tolerance for WP:BATTLE and general gaming of enforcement requests is approaching zero. Franamax (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than engage in what looks like WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, why not just do this: [8] It wasn't hard. [9] I'm sure it took less time than Ratel took to fight over this, and probably less time than Peterlewis did. Is Peterlewis aware of WP:BLP and WP:V?

Oh, let me correct myself. It wasn't quite that easy. [10] Of course it would be reverted. As a BLP vio. Of course. We can't possibly say that there's a conspiracy theory about Al Gore, now, can we? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, please note that JohnWBarber restored the deleted material again [11]. This complaint is now being treated by some users as a reason to start an edit war in which they are going to fight to add clearly unacceptable material. I suggest topic bans for anyone trying to re-insert this material. ► RATEL ◄ 23:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The content now has a cited source, and so is not a BLP violation unless the source does not support it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ratel, your comment on the talk page for that article indicated to me that you didn't read the thread. You obviously didn't read my statement above where I linked to the edit. You might want to take the time to read things through. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Wall Street Journal article about some of the same issues "And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely." (my boldings) Climategate: Follow the Money Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God., so it's look sourced "unless the source does not support it" as LessHeard vanU states ... Nsaa (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • LHVU: and was in itself a serious BLP violation I would save words like "serious BLP violation" for edits that might possibly hurt the subject. That simply isn't possible in this case. This was a violation, but extremely minor. Worth a warning. Ratel's gaming the system is more serious. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some editors here have missed the point, and turning this into a content dispute on this page. The facts are:
  1. IP editor inserts unsourced BLP vio into probationed article
  2. I revert
  3. I am reverted by Peterlewis and called a "vandal"
  4. Admin reverts Peterlewis
  5. On his talk page, Peterlewis refuses to apologise or admit wrong

The rest is just noise. It matters not if you can find some bloggy or op-ed source to suggest that someone surmises the edit to be correct. That has nothing to do with this. Please stop with the red herrings. ► RATEL ◄ 02:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of WP:BLP is not noise: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Where there is no possibility of harm there is no serious BLP violation, just a technical one. It is Contentious material that must be removed -- and it is not contentious that these conspiracy theories exist about Al Gore, which is all that the article ever claimed. I am not the one who brought up the idea that the passage is a "slur". If it isn't, you have no case. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peterlewis should NOT have edit-warred an unsourced SLUR against a living person into a probationed article (in fact, into any article). That is what this is about, your obfuscation and hand-waving notwithstanding. ► RATEL ◄ 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Peterlewis

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • I certainly think that the diff provided, showing the insertion of controversial material about a living person without a source, is a violation of BLP. Even if it is an easy thing to fix, such a thing is quite unacceptable. Reverting with the summary "rvt vandal" was also totally unnecessary (this applies to both Ratel and Peterlewis). However, by itself, this incident is far too trivial by itself to block or topic ban for. If someone could provide more diffs of this being part of a larger pattern of treating Wikipedia as a battleground, I would certainly consider a long-ish topic ban. (The same for Ratel as well if someone wishes to file another RfE with evidence.) NW (Talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reviewed the article and various Probation pages, and am pretty sure that the article is not under a 1RR restriction and neither is Peterlewis; therefore it needs to be asked whether the edit was serious enough to constitute a violation of the probation by itself. I believe it does, and was in itself a serious BLP violation enough to have drawn a warning outside of the probation - you do not re-insert an unsourced edit after it has been removed as BLP vandalism without finding a source to back it up. "Fair comment" simply does not cover it. The attitude displayed by Peterlewis is also of concern generally, exampled noting the removal of the BLP violation as "vandalism", and not conducive to creating an appropriate editing environment (in this instance, Ratal noting the edit as vandalism is not inappropriate - since it was so noted when the original ip edit was removed). I feel that Peterlewis should be warned that his attitude and tone is deleterious to the probation area editing environment and that further examples of battleground mentality and actions will result in sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In agreement with NW and LHvF, the material inserted was a BLP violation if not sourced, but that this is a fairly trivial infraction, and absent more diffs showing a larger pattern, a warning to Peter Lewis seems what is called for, including a request that Peter Lewis explain better instead of revert warring. In agreement with LHvU that the article is not at this time subject to 1RR. Perhaps it should be, suggest extension. I would like to point out that Ratel's behavior in this matter has not be satisfactory either. Ratel was warned previously about improvement in approach being needed. I agree with JWB that Ratel is being unnecessarily battlegroundish. This doesn't rise to the level of a sanction by itself, but I suggest a further warning to Ratel that this sort of thing is encompassed by the warning already given and repetition may result in sanction. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to a close as I outlined? This has sat for 4 days with no further comment. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. NW (Talk) 19:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize for the record:
  • Peterlewis will be warned about explaining rather than reverting, and warned in general that improvement in approach is needed, or there may be sanctions imposed.
  • The article will be construed to be part of the CC area (It already is), placed on Article Probation (it already is), get the {[tl|Community article probation}} tag (already has it), and get the 1RR restriction in line with other CC area articles that have needed it.
  • Ratel will be warned that he was being unnecessarily battlegroundish and that further such behaviour may result in a sanction being imposed.
++Lar: t/c 23:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal by Macai

Appealing user
Macai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Macai (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction being appealed
Two month topic ban.

Not imposed by RFE council Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction
2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / 2over0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Notification of that editor
[12]

Statement by Macai

Please bear with me

There are a few issues I'd like to bring up, so please bear with me. What I am presenting is abstract and I'd appreciate it if you read the entire thing.

Preface

As a preface, I am aware that posting this request is in violation of 2over0's sanction against me. However, I think it is acceptable for me to post this request because the point of the request is to contest his sanctions. I'd appreciate if I was not blocked again for the duration of this request's lifespan, so that I can participate in the ongoing discussion about it. I will, in turn, refrain from editing other climate change related articles, and even other requests on this page.

What I was sanctioned for

I've been accused of edit warring, and was blocked by 2over0 over it for two days. He also imposed a climate change topic ban on me that lasts two months. I believe he was referring to my edits to "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" on 03 April, 2010 based on the fact that it's the only article I've edited that day, as you can see based on my contribution history, and the fact that Short Brigade Harvester Boris commented on my page about how I supposedly violated 1RR. [13]

Why I believe I did not do what I was sanctioned for

First and foremost, I do not believe that I was edit warring. If you take a peek at WP:EW, you will find that it describes "edit warring" as:

Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches.

If you take a peek at EP:EW again, it also says:

Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion.

So let's see if the edits I made were "confrontational, combative, non-productive use of edits and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches."

In my first edit, I offer up a compromise between the "leak vs hacked" argument by describing the incident as both.[14] This was not confrontational, I was not being combative (in fact, I was being compromising), and certainly not non-productive. I was not trying to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, nor was I trying to coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches.

Let's take a look at my second edit. In this one, I change the wording of the article to assert that scientists did some bad things as a fact, rather than simple allegations.[15] Okay, someone did not like this, so they changed it back. An outright reversion of it. Fair enough, I guess. Still, I wasn't being confrontational or combative, and I wasn't trying to win, manipulate or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. So I guess I wasn't edit warring here.

Well, I guessed then that I should just cite my sources, then, right? So I did.[16] This I guess you could say is my revert for the day. Still not really edit warring. I mean, I wasn't combative, confrontational, or non-productive (I produced some sources for my original claim), nor was I trying to win, manipulate or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches.

So on to my fourth edit. In this one I change one use of the word "incident" to "scandal".[17] I wasn't reverting anyone's edit, nor was I acting in combative, confrontational manner, nor was I trying to win or manipulate any debates by being uncallaborative. So, so much for that.

Finally, my fifth and last edit on April 3rd on this article, I bring back the term "Internet leak", since ChrisO said he was going for concision, and it's shorter than "publication on the Internet" by a margin of about two. Not really a revert, here. I mean, if you look at what he changed, this is a very minor tweak, was an improvement on ChrisO's edit, as evidenced by the fact that it's still there well over two days later.[18]

In conclusion, I didn't edit war, and I didn't violate 1RR.

Lack of proper warning

I was spoken to briefly by Short Brigade Harvester Boris about how I am supposedly in violation of 1RR. He referred to the violations as "technical violations". I asked him how he figured I was in violation.[19] My final edit for the day was to inform him that I had made a response.[20]

2over0 blocked me and topic banned me for two months about an hour later.

According to the probation's policies:

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions;

I was not given a warning, at least not in the common understanding of the word "warning", and if you want to be technical, certainly was not given a warning with a link to the aforementioned provisions. This means that he went against the way things are supposed to be done. You don't give someone a "warning" for speeding and then ticket them anyway for no reason. Figuratively, this is more or less what happened.

Lack of sanctioning process

While it may not be explicitly listed, the proper channels were not used prior to blocking and imposing the sanction on me. I was not informed of a sanction enforcement request, and I wasn't given the opportunity to explain myself or anything. Just bam, you're blocked, and topic banned for two months.

Everyone else seems to have been at least given a chance to express their side of the story. Even the request concerning WMC involved him having a window -- three hours or so -- to respond. This sanction went through no process whatsoever. I had no window, at all.

Relative heavy handedness compared to other sanctions

WMC was given his third sanction, this time for 1RR violation, a 24 hour block.[21] Nothing else. On my first offense, I was given a one month topic ban. WMC was consistently obstinate and angry, and was consistently let off much easier than I.

Most users who did and said worse things than this got a warning or something of that nature.

Let's contrast this with my case: on my first offense, I was given a one month topic ban. I honored it, not wanting to cause a ruckus.

Now, I've been given a two month ban on climate change. This is very frustrating, and I don't think it's fair. Why fast escalation for me, but not others?

Ending argument

I was accused of something I didn't do, and was reprimanded for it without getting the warning that I was entitled to by the very rules my punisher was claiming to enforce, without any way to explain myself, or any form of recourse, and was given a notably stiffer penalty than basically anyone else. This is an abuse of power, and should not be accepted.

What I'm hoping for

I think this sanction should be lifted. It was unfair, heavy handed, and extreme. There was no basis for it.

@Prolog Please address:

  1. The lack of warning, which is required,
  2. The lack of procedure and discussion,
  3. The lack of explanation or basis for the topic ban on the part of the imposing administrator,
  4. The fact that every other time I've been punished for something, I've admitted to doing what I've been accused of (why would I lie this time?), and
  5. The fact that both the first and second punishments issued were considerably more heavy handed than many other similar cases

I'd really appreciate it. Macai (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@2over0 Well, you have made many charges now, not just "edit warring". Your original ban really was for edit warring. Now you're shifting the goalposts. I know it might be taboo to compare this to a court room, but it's like charging someone with murder, but when the defense basically disproves that claim, changing the charge to rape, or something, and acting like nothing ever changed.

  1. I'm failing to see a battleground mentality. I'm simply stating facts. Naming the article "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" does imply that the notable thing about the entire situation is the hacking part, and supporting such is ignorant at best and POV-pushing at worst.
  2. Maybe sarcasm wasn't the nicest thing to use, but really, I've in the past discussed things with people who have a preconceived conclusion and will not budge from it no matter what. If your argument is that I'm not "suffering fools", then I do bring up WMC again. His punishment for this begins and ends with a 48 hour block, which I've already completed.
  3. Again, this isn't really a claim that's up for debate. The man's choice of words really were like that. I have no ill will for him, but if he will word things like a madman, it should be pointed out, not simply ignored.
  4. Suggesting someone see a therapist is not uncivil after they've gone on a threatening, accusatory incivility-fest with no contextual provocation, despite an active attempt to calm him down. The kind of behavior exhibited by Hipocrite was pretty extreme and inflammatory, and considering the lack of context in this particular discussion, my choice of words to suggest a therapist were particularly subdued. Besides, all of this takes place on talk pages. I thought this probation's purview didn't extend there? I seem to recall someone else being able to shrug off incivility accusations based on this fact. I'm sure I could come up with a diff or a link if need be.
  5. Discussing someone's past on the RFE page is not a violation of WP:NPA. If you disagree with this, then I suggest that your response to this is a WP:NPA violation since you accuse me of a laundry list of presumably bad things.
  6. How can you accuse me of violating WP:NOTFORUM and then cite an edit where I was explicitly talking about the wording of an article?
  7. I was discussing how the article should be worded with someone in this edit. First you accuse me of not discussing what the wording of the article should be, and then you call me out for discussing what the wording of the article should be. You can't have it both ways, 2over0.
  8. I am guilty as charged of being sarcastic.
  9. I was accusing someone who removed a comment on a talk page of vandalism. That's one of the things listed on WP:VANDALISM as...vandalism! If pointing out to someone that they broke the rules is now actionable, I suggest we sanction everyone who files a successful complaint on this RFE without exception.
  10. I later cited sources for that claim since they were implicitly asked for.
  11. Calling The Washington Post, The UK Telegraph, and The Wall Street Journal "blogs" is just silly, 2over0. They're not blogs, they're news sources.

While I'm aware that I'm supposed to assume good faith, I also feel that I'm being bombarded with accusations in the hopes that one will stick, and the sanction will be considered appropriate. Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid, but that's what this seems like to me. Macai (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 2over0

Posted using my alternate account (confirm). 2over0 public (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of clarification, I do not believe that this appeal is in violation of Macai's topic ban. It would reasonably be construed to include participating in disputes at other sections of this page, but logically and morally we cannot prevent anyone from filing an appeal at an appropriate venue. It has been my understanding of the wording of the probation at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation that the intention is that nobody should be subjected to sanctions before having been made aware of the possibility. As Macai has continued to engage in the same sorts of edits that led to their first sanction, I do not feel that insufficient warning was given in this case. I am a bit busy over the next few days, but will make every attempt to make appropriate response here; the number and complexity of diffs here is fairly low, and I expect that this should be fairly simple to resolve. I was having a bit of a connectivity issue Saturday, and I see now that the full justification for this block and ban did not make it into the record. This was remiss of me, and for that I apologize unreservedly. The probation as currently worded encourages administrative action in the area of dispute, but does not remove my responsibility to ensure that everyone is aware of exactly why a particular action was taken. The next two sections are mostly copied from my records; if there are any formatting issues, I should be able to fix them in a few hours; anyone should feel free to correct them in the meantime.

I set the block at 48 hours as a reasonable escalation of a previous edit warring block at the end of last November. I set the ban at one month full and two months article but not discussion (running concurrently) as a reasonable escalation of their previous one month ban that expired about a month ago, on 03-07.

It is my understanding that enforcement of the probation does not require a thread here, though as always it is incumbent upon the acting administrator to understand any situation fully through careful perusal of the relevant diffs. If we would like to modify this aspect of the probation, either officially or as a gentle-editors' agreement, I believe Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation would be the best place to discuss this.

Block

Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation and #Article probation enforcement.

  • [22] unsourced contentious change without seeking consensus; WP:BLP
  • [23] substantially restores with sources without addressing concerns raised on talk page; WP:BLP
  • [24] the word "scandal", a perennial issue; talk page at time of edit shows limited discussion but nothing resembling consensus

When this block expires, please be more careful that your edits: adhere to the Neutral point of view policy by carefully summarizing all relevant sources, especially when editing the lead; adhere to the biographies of living persons policy through careful consideration of you choice of sources and appropriate attribution; and adhere to any consensus expressed at the talk page. Particularly, please wait for and participate in discussion to ensure that all aspects of an edit are not contentious whenever someone makes a reasoned objection to any bold edits you make. This is a collaborative project, and requires input from many points of view if we are to produce the best encyclopedia possible. Thank you,

Ban

Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation and #Article probation enforcement.

You show a laudable ability and willingness to seek out sources, but you still seem to be approaching this topic area largely as a battleground. Probably in a different editing environment this would be only minimally disruptive, but at present editors in this topic area very much need to avoid antagonizing each other (Hipocrite, you might also take this to heart) and be more proactive in seeking consensus supported by accurate summary of the range of reliable sources. When this ban expires, please try to remember that there is no deadline - little is lost and much is gained by spending the extra time and effort to convince your fellow volunteers at the talk page, even if it means waiting a day or three or accepting wording that you may not find ideal. As a final note, I remind you that the Biographies of living persons policy applies to all pages and all edits concerning identifiable living persons; please be extra careful when making such edits that your text is fully supported by the best possible sources and is properly attributed. Regards,

Further

By "connectivity issues" I mean "I was running two browsers, including Flash in 32 bit compatibility mode, a lengthy document full of equations and images, an old presentation, a couple spreadsheets, an analysis package from 1995 or so with poor memory management, a curve fitting package that three software layers down still thinks that it is being run on a command line in 1972, and a dozen or so pdfs when for reason or reasons unknown something decided it would be fun to just hang unresponsively until eventually a reboot was acknowledged." After rebooting, I saw that my edits to Macai's talk page and the sanction log had in fact saved, but did not check that the version was correct; for this I apologize. I can be hard on a system, but it should not show up in my activities here.

I stand by the block and ban themselves, though - Macai was made aware last time we were here that tolerance would be extemely low for anay further disruption. Nothing in the past month has been as blatantly anti-collaborative as copy/paste moving a page through move protection, but it is my opinion that a further warning would not be the best course of action here. I believe my analysis shows that the effect of Macai's continued editing in this area has been disruptive, both through blatant edit warring and through anti-collaborative tendencies such as treating the talkpage as a general forum, treating Wikipedia as a battleground, making personal attacks against their fellow volunteer editors, and failing to adhere to WP:BLP. If consensus here develops that some other sanction would better serve the encyclopedia, I would bow to that. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Should always topic bans be discussed here? on the issue of raising lengthy sections here before they are imposed. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the appeal by Macai

These were not "housekeeping" kinds of edits. They were controversial reverts of the kind the 1RR restriction was meant to cover. I'm particularly concerned about this edit [35] because it violates BLP by having Wikipedia state in the lead that scientists "withheld scientific information", which sounds like it could be a serious charge. That part of the edit is sourced to a Telegraph commentary by James Delingpole (and even Delingpole's article [36] has "perhaps" and "may" strewn all over it) and a Wall Street Journal news story. I looked at the WSJ story [37] and can't find anything to back up "withheld scientific information". This is something I consider a serious BLP violation because of the first section of this [38] Der Spiegel article. There is simply no way that this could be considered anything but a contentious edit. So could this one [39] which came within hours of it. I don't think 2/0 should be deciding on topic bans and perhaps not blocks without going to this page for a discussion, but I don't disagree with either the block or topic ban, except that one month seems too short. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps show me reverting more than one edit within a twenty-four hour period? Since you're going to accuse me of violating 1RR, you should probably do this. Macai (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if you think I violated BLP, you should file a complaint against me. I'll gladly discuss that in its own place. However, anything not directly related to the "edit warring" accusation is irrelevant. I'd also appreciate a reason why one month is "too short" for me, while other users get infinitely more lenient punishments for even worse offenses. Macai (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of filing a separate complaint against you. You were already blocked and topic banned, and it's being discussed here. I don't see any indication that you understand the seriousness of the BLP vio, and that leads me to support the topic ban. Reread WP:EW. At the WP:3RR section it states: a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, -- 1RR is an extension of that. The "Reverting" section of EW links to Help:Reverting which defines "reverting" as reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors. This edit at 16:19 April 3 changed the meaning of the lead to remove the idea that the wrongdoing was alleged and not proven [40] and this edit at 17:14 on the same day, within 24 hours, did the same [41] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By your understanding of reversion, any content edit that doesn't exclusively add data is a reversion because wording changes "reverse the actions of other editors". Furthermore, I wasn't banned for BLP violations, but for edit warring. They're not the same thing. Macai (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's about what my understanding of reversion is. The way I would put it is that the change should remove something from the article (or restore something) and it should be contested or controversial (something you would have known others would disagree with). If that happens enough times (1RR, 3RR), then I see a violation. Some editors may not see the earlier edit I cite as a revert because they may see it as a change to a longstanding part of the lead. I think removing the idea of "alleged" from the lead is a controversial move where we could probably find an edit that restored that word or idea to the article in the past weeks or even past couple of months. That's good enough for me, but others may have a different view of whether or not that first edit should be counted. It's true that WP:EW and WP:3RR has been understood differently by different editors and admins in the past, all over Wikipedia. If admins think you're in a gray area on this or even if they just don't see the 1RR, I can understand that and normally I'd want to lean toward leniency. But the BLP violation, frankly, makes me worry. I really wish you'd consider that policy and its implications, especially its implications here, very carefully, because I'm sure you'll be back either way. Your edits, as I described them above, did not look like efforts to be as accurate as possible. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me from the admin discussion below that the overarching issue is not limited to a particular alleged vio of 1RR. But this discussion does raise an important issue of what exactly constitutes a revert. Presently, when one edits articles covered by this probation, a box is displayed above the edit box which says:

This page is under a 1 revert rule restriction due to the climate change topic community probation. Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period. Avoid edit warring and seek consensus for any contentious edits at [the Talk page]. Editors who fail to adhere to these standards may be blocked from editing for a short period.

Note carefully the language "that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part" . Now, just today I made a series of edits to the article on Climatic Research Unit email controversy, all in the first paragraph of the lead ([42]), about half of which reversed some aspect of the edit of another user in part-- a word here, a short phrase there, etc., and at least one of which (w.r.t. the word "hacked") had been wrangled over by multiple editors just today. Yet, I consider none of them to be even partial reverts, and would sure hope everyone agrees with this upon looking at those edits. So I think the issue of what parameters are used in the assessment of what constitutes a revert is a conversation that ought be had in more depth in order to gain better clarity on it. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the page that I'm on. I don't consider your edits to be reversions. My understand of a "reversal" of an edit would be more or less clicking the "undo" button and doing little, if anything else. That's what I always understood a "revert" to be. You, well, revert it back to an old revision of the article. Macai (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one should be sanctioned for uncontroversial, small edits like that. The problem comes when the edits are obviously controversial (contested by other editors). I don't know if that's an easy, bright line that everyone can or will follow, though. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Nsaa

(as posted previously before 2over0 ansver above ) I've requested that 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) justified both the block and the topic ban at his talk page. As far as I can see this block and topic ban of user Macai (talk · contribs) is wrong and should be lifted immediately. We reason when we do actions like this, and when Macai is not even getting any kind of explanation on why, it should have been rolled back immediately. This looks like a misuse of the admin tools by 2over0. Nsaa (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@2over0 (talk · contribs):
Block
I've just gone through all the diffs provide by 2over0 and if this is blocking ground he can just starting by blocking me to. I could have done exactly the same edits I suppose.
Topic ban The topic ban diffs. looks like just normal conversations and your claim about violating of WP:BLP will never be accepted at WP:BLPN as far as I see. the diff that I found most disturbing was this one Your comments are akin to that of a homeless man with a picket sign reading "the end is nigh". You might want to tone that down some.. I've added the last sentence, and as you see this is a friendly request.
So both the blocking (it's probably not the correct place to discuss it?) and topic ban is unjustified as far as I see. Nsaa (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Kenosis

I was a bit surprised at the broad range of interpretations of 2/0's and Macai's respective actions, so I did some research of potentially relevant diffs.
....... Here are two sets of diffs, the first of which I think is relevant to a broader enforcement policy issue in the CC probation, and the second of which fills in a few important aspects of Macai's edits that appear to have been missed above in 2/0's presentation.

  • 10:19, 31 March Macai adds qualifiers to statements wrangled over between William M Connolley, Marknutley, Ratel, and Machan79. Nothing substantive has been reversed in this edit, it merely adds material.
  • 00:12, 1 April Macai adds a souced phrase that mining company director Ian Pilmer is also a professor of mining geology.
  • 08:41, 1 April Macai retitles section from Reception and criticism to Responses and reactions, removing most of the first paragraph of the section. Edit summary = I think this sublede should be trimmed quite a bit; also, saying that "scientists criticize X" implies all scientists criticize X as a rule, which is not false This edit, if one wants to be technical about it, reverses several earlier edits by multiple editors.
  • 08:53, 1 April Macai reverts Ratel

It seems to me the last two might be a potential issue--similarly to what's happened to several other editors here-- the question being "was the edit at 08:41 1 April a revert under the 1RR rules?". I imagine if one wants to be strictly technical under the terms specified in the box above the edit box in articles within the probation area, one could easily argue it is. It might be reasonable to describe it as "slightly dangerous territory" under the CC probation terms, since this was a direct extension of the wheel war that got both Marknutley and William M Connolley blocked. But it doesn't seem to me to be per se a 1RR vio. This is the general sort of situation I was referring to in my brief exchange of thoughts with JohnWBarber and Macai above, where I advocated a more in-depth discussion towards clarifying what criteria might be involved in the decision about what's a revert and what isn't.


As to Climatic Research Unit email controversy, I'm concerned because the issues include not only WP:NPOV, but also WP:BLP involving potentially damaging accusations of serious professional misconduct leveled against living scientists, a number of which are named in the article.

  • 1: 15:37, 3 April Macai changes "with the unauthorised release on the Internet of thousands of e-mails and other documents" to "with the Internet leak of thousands of e-mails and other documents hacked from"
  • 2: 16:19, 3 April Macai's Edit summary = They're not just allegations, they're objective facts. Also, who cares if they were hacked or leaked? That's not important in this sentence. Macai changes "gained wide publicity in blogs and news media for allegations that the hacked e-mails showed climate scientists colluded in manipulating data" to "gained wide publicity in blogs and news media for pointing out that the e-mails showed climate scientists colluded in manipulating data"
  • 3: 17:14, 3 April Macai's Edit summary = Like I said before, these aren't allegations made by individuals alone, but by the mainstream media itself. NPOV mandates that we present them as facts, not allegations. Macai changes "Upon the e-mails' dissemination, people gained wide publicity in blogs and news media for allegations that the hacked e-mails showed climate scientists colluded in manipulating data" to "The e-mails showed that climate scientists colluded in manipulating data".
  • 4: 19:35, 3 April Macai's Edit summary = This is definitely a scandal. Changes "incident" to "scandal" .

These diffs, all in the lede of the article, raise significant NPOV and BLP issues, in addition to 1RR issues.

  • Number 2 changes "allegations" to "pointing out",
  • Number 3 is, it seems to me, a revert of other editor(s) who rejected Macai's language, changing "allegations that the hacked emails showed that" to "the emails showed that".
  • Number 4 is, it seems to me, quite arguably a second revert of numerous editors who, as 2/0 indicated above, had already clearly rejected by consensus the use of the word "scandal" to describe the controversy or incident.


... Kenosis (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by KimDabelsteinPetersen

I'm a bit concerned that this seems to be getting a close, without admins reviewing the evidence provided by 2over0. If this closes this way, then you are setting a bad precedence for yourselves, no matter what you agree that the enforcement procedure should or shouldn't be. Because it seems that the closure will be "procedural error - overturn - sentence served". May i gently and in a friendly manner remind you of WP:BURO?

It doesn't really benefit the accused (who doesn't know whether he did something wrong or not) nor the enforcement board (setting precedence) that this should close this way. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant section from WP:BURO would be " Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." which seems to be what is happening here. FellGleaming (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Macai

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

It should be noted that during Macai's first topic ban discussion, lengths of even a year and three months were proposed but the user was let off with a month and a strong warning not to edit disruptively again. It's been less than a month since his ban expired and the disruption, repeatedly making highly contentious changes/reverts, happened on the same 1RR article. After a quick look, the block and topic ban seem appropriate to me. Prolog (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the interests of openness, I would draw attention to my remarks made during the previous request. As regards to the complaint of lack of notice in this matter, I would note that Macai had been put under general notice regarding further disruption at the subject article when notified of the previous sanctions. Since both the previous Request and the notification to Macai suggested that further sanctions for disruption would include topic bans of several months duration, I cannot find that 2 months topic ban to be excessive of itself. The questions that, I feel, need review is whether Macai was being disruptive sufficiently to draw a sanction without warning, and secondly whether 2over0 should have requested review either before or after enacting the sanction. The latter I would comment upon now; given the history of the previous request, I think it would have been expedient for 2over0 to have invited review, here, of their actions and preferable to have made a Request to enforce the warnings inherent in the earlier sanction. I will need to look at the substance of Macai's assertions that they did not edit war before commenting upon that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say, I am struggling to see the edit war and even more than one revert. I see the revert of Macai's wording in one instance as two other editors undoing each others changes which includes Macai's intervening edit, which I think Macai would be entitled to re-instate without incurring penalty under 1RR since that content was not specifically removed in the first instance, and it had consensus per the talkpage discussion. I consider it falls to 2over0 to provide the evidence of the specifics of the other/two reverts, because there were quite a few individuals "amending the interpretation of sources" in amongst Macai's edits. Of course, if it is not conclusive that there were the reverts in question then the topic ban should be reversed and consideration given to an amendment to the block log - the latter since it appears that Macai has substantially changed their attitude toward consensual editing since the previous incident. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not gruntled at all. I see a major communication problem here; it appears that Macai was blocked for matters as well as 1RR, but the details of what and when were not specified owing to connectivity issues - despite 2over0 editing for another hour. I note that both JohnWBarber and Kenosis have highlighted concerns outside of the previously noted 1RR, but these have not been fully considered as the block notice, block log, and the Probation log specifically commented on the one issue. I suggest it is difficult, at this time, to now review all of these further instances and put aside the subsequent "revelations" and determine if 2/0's good faith rationale for his actions were permissible within the previous warning to Macai. In truth, for the sake of expedience, I would prefer that the full article ban on Macai is reduced to time served, and that the article space ban be reduced to two weeks, and that all admins very swiftly retire to the Probation talkpage to agree whether all admin actions (outside of vandalism, etc.) made in regard to edits to pages covered by the probation should be either discussed first or at a minimum noted at the Probation enforcement pages for review - my instinct would be that if this were followed in this case then there would not be the issues in front of us, where there is reasonable concern over the relationship between the sanction and the originally noted alleged violations. I consider that there is enough discrepancy between what was originally recorded as the rationale, the sanctions imposed, and the subsequent listing of concerns regarding Macai's editing history immediately prior to the imposition of sanctions to make the extended ban(s) untenable. Process has failed the Probation, the articles and Macai (and possibly 2over0), and I feel it unfair that only one should be held to account. I urge all parties to close this by reducing the sanctions as suggested or otherwise agreed and to work out a form of words that requires third party overview by use of Probation enforcement pages so such misunderstandings do not happen again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support reducing as you say, or better, to time served across the board. I'll repeat, I think 2/0 should have brought this here more expeditiously rather than needing to get this appealed first before we got an explanation. Please don't do that again. Do we need a hard/fast rule? Maybe, but I'd hope a word to the wise would suffice. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB: see Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Should_always_topic_bans_be_discussed_here.3F ++Lar: t/c 04:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there was edit warring either, although I do agree with JWB that the edits were potentially controversial, some of the wording introduced was slanted. I don't want to be excessively procedural, but I agree that this matter should have been brought here by 2/0 or some other party rather than having 2/0 unilaterally impose a block and further topic ban. The topic ban may well be warranted, but I'm not seeing it yet. If it is, we should impose it here, and 2/0 should be admonished, or at least requested not to do this again. Macai's point about unlevel playing fields seems warranted. NB: I opine here a lot but I have yet to be the admin who actually closed anything that resulted in a block being given to anyone. ++Lar: t/c 12:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this decided? Other views? Failing that I think I'll close as LHvU outlined regarding the ban itself, with my changes. Its been a few days. Note that there has been considerable discussion about process. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marknutley

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

Request concerning Marknutley

User requesting enforcement
William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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: civility parole; not-bringing-enforcement-requests parole
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

  1. [45] MN sneaking in an enforcement request (this [46] also refers; not sure if you consider it under your purview or not)
  2. [47], [48], [49] Incivility (also within his responses here: e.g. WMc carrys on with his crap)
  3. [50] This one is arguable - interested in the admin opinion
  4. ...
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

  1. All over the place, including the talk page here. Do I really need them?
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Up to you folk
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note that MN, and now ATren, have tried to excuse the parole violation by nor is he in violation here, since he was requested diffs on the talk page. This is false. Lar asked for diffs , but he asked for them from specific individuals, and none of those individuals was MN (I see ATren is still wriggling: as the diff he has just posted shows, Lar was talking to KC). Note also Lar's I agree, the above is MN sneaking in an enforcement request all right William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC) [Oops: need to strike that: Lar asked for diffs, twice. However the diffs where he asks Mark are in relation to another matter: MN's answer is, still, trying to sneak in an enforcement request, as I think Lar acks William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Oh, and I also see that Nsaa is pushing and just adds "POV" without referencing any discussion on the talk page to the article - this is wrong; as you can see from the article talk page, where I discuss exactly this William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[51]
Pung

Do you think you might turn your minds towards actually closing this one? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Marknutley

Statement by Marknutley

With regards to the vandalism charges, i point you to WP:VANDAL which says the insertion of nonsense into articles which is what WMC did, [52] wp:vandal also says reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive which he also did [53] With regards to the comments on my talk page i did not call any person stupid, i called the situation stupid. I also did not try to sneak an RFE in, lar asked for diffs over what this was about, so i posted the diffs. @At KC, what you are saying is, that when i ask advice from admins over WMC`s disruptive behaviour then i am trying to get and enforcement done against him? If i can`t bring a request then what else am i meant to do? I have no option but to ask admins for assistance when confronted with his behaviour. To suggest a vendetta by me is ridiculous, it is not me who is constantly being confrontational, it is not me who turns up at a newly created article and inserts junk. It stuns me that WMc carrys on with his crap and it is ignored, yet you suggest a topic ban for me for filing a COI report, laughable indeed. It is no wonder wp is going down the pan when a disruptive editor is given free reign yet when those who request he be stopped are the ones punished mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So i made an honest mistake and am accused of sneaking in an RFE, when you asked me for diffs the conflict was currently about the diff`s i provided. Funny how AGF does not extend to that.
OK, I'm willing to AGF about that if others are. However I do think you need to stop calling things vandalism. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already said i`m ignoring WMC from now on lar, he is not worth my time quite simply, i`ve had it to be honest. mark nutley (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring WMC might help a fair bit but I'm telling you to stop calling things vandalism. Those are two different pieces of advice. The second is pretty broad, you shouldn't call any contribution by ANY established editor vandalism. Not just contributions from WMC, from anyone. Trust me, it will work out better if you don't. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A topic ban is not fair, i am to be topic banned from an article i created and was trying to get up to GA status, an article WMC wilfully inserted junk into in a lame attempt to create trouble and make the article unstable. My attempts at improving an article were attacked and again wmc is being let off scott free and i am the one whose head i being called for. @ Bozmo what does 3RR have to do with this? mark nutley (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley

I no longer edit this topic area except to revert Scibaby because Climate Change is the third rail of Wikipedia (touch it, and you die). However, I do watch the conflict of interest noticeboard (WP:COIN) and have done so for quite some time. Editors here should be aware that Marknutley recently filed a COIN request to ban WMC from two articles at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion_.26_The_Real_Global_Warming_Disaster. Now, let me make sure that my "Watch this page" checkbox is unchecked and note that if anyone needs more info they should use my talk page as I'm not getting dragged back in! Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Ironically, I forgot to uncheck the watch-this-page button from my minor spelling correction. FIXED!) Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by nsaa

I'm amazed. How can this be incivilitysneaking in an enforcement request [54]? I can't see anything wrong in any of the diffs. This is just WMC trying to divert the attention so people is engaged in this unproductive discussion. Throw it out and ask WMC not to file such request again. Why do WMC add shuck comments "he book has been enthusiastically and uncritically reviewed by the skeptics, and ignored by everyone else." and again "The book has been enthusiastically and uncritically reviewed by the skeptics, and ignored by everyone else." and just adds "{{POV}}" without referencing any discussion on the talk page to the article The Hockey Stick Illusion. A topic ban for him on these issues is highly necessary. Nsaa (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?I believe that diff accuses me of sneaking in an enforcement request not being uncivil mark nutley (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, sorry for looking at the wrong diff, stroked it out in my original posting. Nsaa (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to quote from the The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion:
  • "William Connolley, a climate modeller and sometime green politican, commented in a web forum called sci.environment that he thought McIntyre and McKitrick's claims about about the effect of short centering were 'probably wrong'.87 However, [...] the best he could come up with [...] ", p.177,
  • "Also in the RealClimate lineup where [...] William Connolley, the environmentalist-cum-climate modeller [...]", p.179,
  • and last at page 386.
Nsaa (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from being obviously out of date, what relevance does any of that have? It has my name on it, which is always nice, there is nothing worse than not being talked about, but otherwise what is your point? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine it points to your conflict of interest with regards to the article mark nutley (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious, even if I'd read them. And not clearly relevant to this, even if true William M. Connolley (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all unreasonable to think that you have a COI in this area. ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone entirely ignorant of the situation might well think that. Such a person should bring a complaint to the COI noticeboard. Or perhaps to this board, making a clear complaint rather than snide accusations. If you, or anyone else here (other than those bared from doing so, of course), is such a person, then please feel free. Otherwise: we all know you are thoroughly biased, it really isn't necessary to keep demonstrating it quite so clearly William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it's not unreasonable to think you have a conflict demonstrates MY bias? That's rich. I think your making that claim (no doubt backed up by a chorus of "yes yes yes, he is!" from your glee club soon enough) is evidence of why your editing at WP has become a net negative. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference to established editors and administrators as a "glee club" rather undercuts your frequent criticism of others' "snarkiness," methinks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I'll stop calling spades spades if you all stop digging. But you failed to address my point. ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure William felt that he was "calling a spade a spade" when he referred to you as biased. That's why that particular platitude is counterproductive in these sorts of situations. You can't call on people to stop being "snarky" or "uncivil" while at the same time defending your own right to "call a spade a spade". It's a goose/gander thing. As to your point, obviously a reasonable person might conclude that William has a conflict of interest; hence the numerous threads at WP:COI/N, most of which were presumably started by reasonable people. Perhaps reviewing those threads would be a reasonable starting point for addressing a COI concern? MastCell Talk 00:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by FellGleaming

I think it's important to remember the essential purpose of Wikipedia is to create quality encyclopedic entries. From the diffs posted above, it is clear that WMC was, as another editor points out, "inserting shuck comments" in a disruptive manner. I am also shocked and dismayed that at least one administrator has openly admitted WMC receives special treatment in this regard.

Returning to the issue of Knutley, since he did nothing but bring to attention acts which were clearly disruptive to Wikipedia, how can there be any discussion of action against him at all? User A disrupts WP; User B reports him...User B gets banned? To quote Shulze here, "what the fuck?" Nothing you could possibly do would have more a chilling effect on editors bringing to light such abusive actions. Had he brought a complaint without merit, that would be one thing, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. FellGleaming (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to remember the essential purpose of Wikipedia is to create quality encyclopedic entries - I am absolutely in agreement on this point. I've tried numerous times to interest the admins on this board in considering this point, and failed every time. If you can do better I wish you the best of luck William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment (that the admins here are not holding that purpose firmly in mind) is actually incorrect. It's just that there is more to actually creating quality encyclopedia entries than merely putting words into the entries. Especially when there are folk who make it so unpleasant for others to work in the area with their snarky comments (and worse). ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, "merely putting words into the entries" is a necessary step in creating a quality encyclopaedia. And I do quite firmly believe that we (as in the community of editors actually editing articles) do not want a semi-professional class of administrators or politicians. If someone is only here for the drama or to boss people around, they are not helping. Neither are people who have no problem with the vilification of scientists or other editors, but turn into shrinking violets if some bad bad words are used by others. But I don't think that's William's main point - the main point is that using roughly the level of intelligence embodied in grep may be easy, but is nearly worthless, while actually getting an understanding of the domain to recognise which edits are really disruptive is hard and takes time. So far, most of the admins here are of the grep variety. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a necessary step but unfortunately, it's not always a sufficient step. Especially when the area is a contentious one. ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Stephan Schulz

If i can`t bring a request then what else am i meant to do? I have no option but to ask admins for assistance when confronted with his behaviour. (Mark)

Mark, the very point of your sanction is that people found your enforcement requests/complaints/whines about WMC to be not helpful. It may be counter-intuitive, but Wikipedia has survived for a number of years without your input. It will likewise survive for a couple more years without your input in this particular area. So your obvious, and strongly recommended, option is to ignore WMC and his behavior. If it really is so egregious as you think, someone else will do something. If not, take it as a sign that you erred (once again, as in the cases that got you banned in the first place) in your evaluation of the situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than likely right stephan, and i suppose this is what i will have to do as it is now obvious that WMC can say and do what he wants and if i complain about it i am the one who is punished, it`s just a waste of my time mark nutley (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's how it is supposed to work. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not lar, but that is the way it is working, the majority of editors who have made complaints against wmc have been sanctioned, not him. I give up on it, i`m just ignoring him from now on mark nutley (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can completely ignore him when you feel you are being baited, you'll do far better. Your current approach of labeling everything as vandalism, and responding to snark with invective, and lashing back and edit warring and so forth... isn't working. It will end badly for you. Yes, the playing field just isn't level. It's probably not going to become much more level than it is now, which isn't very, either. Live with it. Be meticulous in documenting things, be completely above reproach as far as your own behavior, and hope for the best. (see meatball:DefendEachOther) That is all the advice I can give you. It isn't fair. But guess what, Wikipedia isn't fair. Sorry. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have nothing to be sorry for, i got myself into the shit :) and then was stupid enough to grab a shovel and start digging, Thanks mark nutley (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar's advice above is spot on. You really need to learn to stop reacting badly to these things. Walk away when you feel the frustration overtaking you, and when you come back seek the advice of those you trust. ATren (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mark is someone who would benefit from mentoring. Much of the trouble he causes is due to simple ineptness, not due to considered bad decisions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by ATren

KC's proposal is completely unacceptable given the history of this conflict, which has been escalated by WMC's repeated mocking of MN. Either both should be topic-banned or neither. Also, MN is not in violation on COIN (he is not forbidden from filing there, it was understood at the time that he was sanctioned specifically from filing further enforcement requests. The wording, however, is vague so perhaps the intent was misunderstood.) nor is he in violation here, since he was requested diffs on the talk page. KC, you should review the history of this debate before judging. ATren (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was part of that conversation, which you seem to have missed, I am unlikely to have missed that Lar requested difs, and has MN provided same. I suggest you AGF and not presume I have not reviewed history prior to stating my view. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that even though i was asked for diffs i am still bringing complaints, but that in multiple venues, How can you say that when i was asked to supply diffs? mark nutley (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two are not mutually exclusive - and I am not speaking of the difs. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must be missing something obvious here then, what exactly are you speaking of? If you think this is going off topic, ping my talk page, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KC, I think you did miss this; the diffs are there for you to read. He asked Mark directly for diffs in a flurry of edits by you, Lar, and WMC. By the time MN responded, he was responded to Lar's second request for diffs, which came in the same thread and was indented under your comment. Here is the diff which shows Lar directly asking Mark for diffs: "Mark: It depends on the context. There are almost always better ways to phrase the matter. Do you have a diff?". In the next edit, three minutes later[55], Mark responded with diffs, but he put them at the end of the rapidly expanding thread. But the direct request from Lar was only 5 minutes old.

Further, it was my understanding that the sanction against MN applied to complaints in this enforcement only, so if the intent was different, it's quite possible that MN had the same impression. Indeed, he has indicated above that he was unaware of any restriction on filing a COI/N. For reference, here is enforcement request that triggered the sanction from Geni. Note that ChrisO specifically requested "I suggest barring Marknutley from making any further enforcement requests", and that he uses "complaint" interchangeably with "enforcement request". ATren (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BozMo, why are you not concerned about the time wasted by the editor who is now in double-digits in enforcement requests, has a long list of token blocks and warnings he ignores, and makes blatantly bad POV edits with no sourcing? ATren (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ATren. If you really want an answer to the question I do not think anyone should worry about everything. I haven't looked through all of WMC's contributions and (as with every other editor) pretty much notice what I come across or is brought here when I am looking at a case. Much of what has been brought here (not by you but by others) has done more to establish the reputation of complainants some of whom in my view have little credibility left. Some of it does look like bad behaviour but not as outrageous to me as to you evidently. Perhaps the more spurious complainants just hope something will stick but with more care would do better. I do not think it is unreasonable as an admin not to be bound to inactivity because I do not follow every edit on WP. I only watch a handful of CC articles. Anyway other admins are evidentally very interested indeed in WMC's conduct and will not doubt jump quickly on errors of judgement by him so I don't feel I would add much by following him too.--BozMo talk 21:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it appropriate to take an editor to task for the total number of requests lodged against them, regardless of whether those requests were found to be actionable. By doing so we give incentive for people to file requests simply to bump up the tally against their opponent. Also (while acknowledging that this noticeboard is not a court of law) such an approach contradicts certain principles that are held as fundamental in most Western societies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you agree that BozMo's worry about time wasted on another (mostly spurious) MN request should not be held against MN himself? ATren (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The total number of actionable complaints against WMC is nearing double digits, is it not? How many of those have resulted in anything but token spats on the hand? Any? Given the evidence here, I truly can't believe you're considering a topic ban against Nutley for reporting a valid offense, while giving the real source of the problem nothing but more ammunition to continue such actions. FellGleaming (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by ZP5*

MN must appeal directly to admins for WMC issues, since by his CC sanction, he may not bring them directly here. There is no "sneak" .... it's the way to have indirect oversight on MN, so that WMC does not abuse MN's disabling probation terms. I find WMCs complaint on MN disability to be really unfair, when MN takes reasonable an appropriate steps to involve third parties. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an option you have not mentioned: MN could try actually following the rest4ictions already placed on him, and not make any complaints regarding WMC. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, see my reply to stephan above mark nutley (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, MN should not be left without recourse from any WMC harassment. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes but if you keep abusing a process, you eventually don't get to use it. Someone else may need to bring up matters instead of MN. He was under sanction not to open enforcement requests until the 12th... he couldn't wait 4 days? ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it only applied to here, my mistake. I have noticed that my COI report was closed by KC he also closed the following one saying it was being dealt with here, i have yet to see a mention of this yet however mark nutley (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, FWIW, I was also under the impression he was banned from enforcement requests only, and that a COI/N request would not be covered by the ban. ATren (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is "under sanction not to open enforcement requests" defined? It seems more than one editor has some question about what exactly that means. Some admins are taking him to task for comments made on a talk page. Surely that's not an "enforcement request", now is it? FellGleaming (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't the restriction: the verbiage is not "enforcement requests" at all; the verbiage is "bringing further complaints against User:William M. Connolley" - that's fairly broad, and covers all complaints, on any page. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) The word "bringing" implies carrying to a venue of some sort. If it meant any page anywhere on WP, then it would prevent him from even responding to a WMC edit on an article's talk page, as that could certainly be construed as a complaint. Since this is being closed, the point here may be moot in the case of MN, but for future actions, I would suggest such bans be specified more clearly. FellGleaming (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly expect all noticeboards included in that restriction. Responding to an article talk page post is not bringing a complaint. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Mackan79

I don't see how this can possibly be called "sneaking in" an enforcement request. On the talk page, WMC was accusing MN of incivility with his comments; when Marknutley then points out WMC's edits that prompted his comments, WMC accuses him of "sneaking in" an enforcement request. Besides that, how is WMC still accusing anyone of incivility while continuing to call editors bozos and septics (on his talk page, right, because that doesn't bother him). Topic bans should not result from silly gags. Mackan79 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, if MN is not allowed to bring requests against WMC, then let's please also not allow WMC to bring requests agaisnt MN. Please let someone else do it. Mackan79 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if A burgles B 15 times, let's put both into prison? What kind of logic is that? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If A burgles B 15 times and B burgles A 15 times, let's put both into prison." If that's what you mean, yes. Else no. Neither party is blameless here. Both parties need to work on their approach. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Complain enough times, and you can be sure that something will stick - because as we all know (its an old police saying): everyone is guilty of something. That is the way it apparently is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your assertion that there is nothing at all that WMC should change in his approach? ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. But that isn't the issue. I also agree that pedestrians should look before they walk, while at the same time being vehemently against speeding, and strongly in favour of hard punishment for involuntary manslaugter of pedestrians killed while not looking by a speeding car. You are too often addressing the pedestrian - and ignoring the speeding, perhaps this is because (as others have pointed out), that you haven't immersed yourself within the topic area, to be able to tell "good edits" from "bad edits", and thus have to keep it at a "surface-level". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WMC edits in question here are "bad edits"; I think that's already been established without question. FellGleaming (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between opinion and perception - and what has been established. You statement that it has been "established" is an opinion not based on given evidence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that WMC filed this request, Kim, who is keeping it at a "surface level"? When editors oppose surface level evaluations only when it suits them, and otherwise use them to the full extent possible, there is an appearance that they are not principled in what they are doing. Mackan79 (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I'm concerned about WMC bringing requests. He's a master at keeping the playing field unlevel, in my considered opinion. ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If not for WMC's continuing antics, I think there's quite some reason to believe that "skeptic" editors would not continue to make fools of themselves while criticizing him. I think a consensus would also be much easier to reach as to appropriate conduct in this area. But yes, assuming that WMC is a smart person, you have to wonder if he doesn't prefer trying to rile up (bait) the aforementioned editors. Perhaps he thinks it's necessary because otherwise the "civil POV pushers" would be able to go about their work unhindered. I think this would be wrong for a few reasons, notably: 1.) I see very little risk of anti-science conservatives forming some kind of majority on Wikipedia on a high profile topic like climate change, and 2.) I suspect if not for these antics, admins like 2/0 could create a more functional environment that was more inviting to responsible professionals and better for sorting out bad apples. But of course maybe I'm wrong and WMC really just can't help calling people things like septics and bozos, and in reality it's the "skeptics" who are running the charade. I don't consider it an assumption of good or bad faith to say I think WMC has the better idea of what he is doing. Mackan79 (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This alludes to the point I've been making. Is WMC so lacking in self control that he simply cannot resist these antics, or is he smart enough to recognize the strategic advantage of baiting another into a fight on what has been historically a tilted playing field? Knowing WMC, I tend to believe it's the latter, which is actually a compliment to him (and a criticism at those admins who've kept the plane tilted). Intelligent people do what they're permitted to do to get their way, so as long as WMC is permitted to act in this way, he's doing the smart thing. It's up to others to level the playing field, but mere mention of that is met with strong resistance. ATren (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the latter is what is going on, I fear I myself am among the many that have fallen into the trap of responding to snark with less than ideal phrasing. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ATren, no amount of intelligence helps someone very much with self control or any emotional maturity (think Bill Clinton, but there's a horde of other examples). Someone could well recognize the advantages and disadvantages of a certain kind of behavior, but that doesn't mean the person can control it. (It might mean that someone who could control it won't try as hard.) Anyway, unless you have some diff or pattern of diffs to show one motivation or the other, it's useless to try to figure it out. You can simply say that either motivation or some other motivation is behind it. At the end of the day, the pattern of behavior is what counts anyway. Efforts to figure out motivation without some evidence may even be counterproductive (you just rile up a lot of other editors sympathetic to him). Diffs and quotes are the valuable things here. The only response to them is that they may be out of context or that we should have sympathy for the particular editor, and those responses are only so effective for so long. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this can possibly be called "sneaking in" an enforcement request. - those are Lar's words, not mine William M. Connolley (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first use of the term "sneaking" was "Isn't WMC correct that you are sneaking a complaint in via the back door?" at 21:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC). I can't find the exact thing now, but I was clearly responding to something WMC said. Somewhere. He may not have used that exact phrasing but it was his implication. No matter. What does matter is that it did appear to me at the time that MN was indeed skirting or trying to circumvent his restriction on raising complaints. I've subsequently changed my mind, and I feel that MN was instead trying to respond to something WMC raised. Not very well but trying. ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Marknutley

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • As Marknutley is in clear violation, here and on COIN, as well as on various usertalk pages, of his ban from "bringing further complaints against User:William M. Connolley until 12 april" it is clear stronger measures are required. Not only is he bringing complaints, but that in multiple venues. I propose either a topic ban, as this personal vendetta is content dispute related; or else a complete moratorium, with no end, in bringing complaints of any kind against WMC, to be enforced with blocks of increasing length. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find myself in agreement with KC that things are whacked, some sort of further sanction, topic ban or even block (if this happens again) for MN is warranted. Forever ban on enforcement requests against WMC? Maybe a bit much. Perhaps resetting the 3 month ban on requests (as we do with other sorts of evasion, we reset the counter no matter how close we are) to 9 July (3 months from today) would be in order. Or even tack on a month and make it 9 August.... Mark could have waited 3 or 4 more days and the ban on requests would have run out.... but no. I would also like to suggest a ban on MN accusing any established editor of vandalism until he demonstrates a clear understanding of the meaning of the term. However I do think that WMC is not the best person to be bringing up requests for enforcement. Of any sort. Against anyone. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur on the additional ban on reporting vandalism - if we can agree on when and how he can demonstrate a clear understanding. Perhaps a mentor or several, of whom he can ask? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think we need an actual mentor. I think we just say "until further notice" and encourage him to appeal when he thinks he has learned the difference. We could apply a test at that point or something. Dunno. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Without a clear benchmark or method to determine when he can be released from this, I am not comfortable enacting it, so I must withdraw my support for any kind of ban and suggest we merely warn him that misuse of the vandalism templates (or similar false vandalism reports, whether using a template or not) can be construed as character attacks and disruptive behavior, and may carry consequences. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair point. That approach works too. Perhaps also encourage him to ask for guidance if he really wants to make such a charge, before making it? ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've changed my mind on a full reset. I don't think Mark thought he was sneaking in a request, I think he thought he was responding. It's always difficult to judge intent, though. Perhaps a one month extension as a compromise??? No change on the vandalism ban/warning/mentorship (whatever others agree with in this regard I will go along with), as the unfounded vandalism accusations have to stop. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning from holiday and finding all the above I have also (finally, regretably) lost patience a bit with Mark on this. I cannot believe how much time is being wasted on this page and I think we have gone far enough in proving our desire to be completely even handed. Given the time wasted above, resetting a ban when the last ban was worked around is also not enough. I support a topic ban. On Lar's comment on WMC, I think we should acknowledge WMC is expert at 3RR, aside the things he is not expert at. --BozMo talk 02:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref above, I am ok to move to a one month reset on this. I accept the various arguments on it not being deliberate. --BozMo talk 18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


1RR restriction on Global warming controversy incorrectly added, then fixed

Lar has just added a 1RR restriction (or at least a comment claiming that such a restriction exists) to Global warming controversy. The note claims that this is "per the probation sanctions logged here". However, there are no probation sanctions concerning Global_warming_controversy currently logged, and I see no good reason for a 1RR restriction on that article - the article is relatively quite, with less than 1 edit/day for April, and no contentious edits in the last weeks. A small amount of IP vandalism has been curbed by semi-protection.

I suspect this is a mixup. If not, I'd like to see an explanation. Also, I very much suggest that 1RR restrictions are announced in a page notice, as at Climatic Research Unit email controversy. It's not realistic to expect users to read all talk page headers before editing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, too. To be absolutely clear, the article in question has seen no significant edits since it was semiprotected over a week ago following ssome vandalism. I assume Lar intended to target some other article. --TS 18:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he has moved the tag to another article and I've added an edit notice. So this is resolved for now, although all admins should be aware of the possibility of adding an edit notice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last edit to that article was a week ago. And no editor in that dispute had more that 1RR. Typically pointless action resulting from this probation. -Atmoz (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually a simple error, that originates with Ratel's evidence (he mislabeled a diff). Discussion was about Global warming conspiracy theory - but the closing admin (Lar), just checked Ratels evidence, to be sure what the article was - and the error propagated. Hasn't it has been remedied? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you check my piped link, that's the article I linked to. And if you check the history, from 3 April until the 1RR restriction was put in place, there were a total of 13 edits by 10 accounts. There was 1 revert by Vsmith on 3 April, 1 revert by Ratel on 4 April, 1 revert by Peterlewis on 4 April, 1 revert by Vsmith on 5 April, 1 revert by JohnWBarber on 5 April, and 1 revert by William M. Connolley on 5 April. How would a 1 RR have prevented that? -Atmoz (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It (the incorrect article being tagged) was a mixup on my part. I apologize for any inconvenience caused. Comes from not making sure everything lines up, (see my talk for more...) Ratel's diff (which is to the correct article but went via secure.wikimedia) did not match his statement and I was following that link so as to not have to work on secure. Sloppiness on my part. I think it's sorted now. I think adding a note to the talk page is a good idea too. As for whether it was a pointless action or not... ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FellGleaming

Request concerning FellGleaming

User requesting enforcement
Hipocrite (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
FellGleaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated
GSEE
this diff alone is all I intend to report or discuss.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
He's been blocked for it.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
This line is a trap.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Look, I've unwatched all of the GW/CC articles except the scibaby SPAs. I go around and revert scibaby, and sometimes I forget to uncheck watch this page. Shockingly, this was one of the pages I scibabyverted - [56], and then didn't unwatch. Across my watchlist comes "original source says "leaked" emails," and I know - just know, that the edit will be problematic.

Here's a link to the source [57]. Here's the source with every word but "hacked" or "leaked" or derivatives replaced with "..."

...hacked...

That's right - the article that "original source says "leaked" emails" according to the edit summary uses "leaked" not even once, but used "hacked" exactly once. The edit summary was not just false, it was 180 degrees removed from the truth. This kind of behavior is part of why the atmosphere at these articles is poisonous, and why I quit them entirely.

Fellgleamings' statement is false The sentence being referred to is "He wrote in The Washington Post that the (DISPUTED WORD) e-mails "do not undermine the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.""
This sentence follows with a ref. That ref is not to an AP article, it's to the washington post article (duuh, it's about what someone said in the WP). I know marknutley tried to create a way out for FG, but it's just not true or accurate. Don't fall for the wall of text. Don't get distracted - focus on what the edit summary was, and what it did. Hipocrite (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further note - Felgleaming states that I "removed this description from the source's hidden title before reporting me." This is false - my edit to the article, which he failed to show, is here, and neatly avoids PoV pushing by both disgusting sides of this revolting stain on an encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC) FG has realized that he was totally and utterly incorrect in this part of his false statement and has retracted this part of it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this will be archived without action. How unimpressive. Reminds me why I stopped editing in this area. Will you at least warn FG that if he misrepresents a source again he will be banned from this topic area for a long time? Hipocrite (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FG has again misrepresented sources. In this edit he removes the text "he later said the story was a publicity stunt." which is sourced to "Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt to boost puzzle sales." Here's what that article says about the incident - "A SCOTTISH aristocrat who claimed he was forced to sell his ancestral pile after losing a fortune on a $1 million puzzle has admitted that he invented the story to boost sales.... "[The house sale] was the story which the PR people dreamed up after we had three months of the best sales that any puzzle had ever had," he said... "I was selling the house anyway and they asked me if I would be willing to tell people I was selling the house because I was afraid somebody might solve the puzzle too fast. I said 'yes'. They said, 'Don't you mind being made to look an absolute prat', and I said, 'No - I'm quite used to that'. History is full of stories that aren't actually true." So, I guess I should revert him with the comment and continue to not report misrepresentation of sources? Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[58]

Discussion concerning FellGleaming

Statement by FellGleaming

This is the version of the article before I edited:

The source ref for the article line that describes the emails as "leaked", is below. Forgive me for modifying the original ref & cite tags, but I'm unsure how to escape the text properly:

(ref name='AP 2009-11-21')((cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= |authorlink= | title=Hackers leak climate change e-mails from key research unit, stoke debate on global warming | date=2009-11-21 | publisher=Associated Press | url =http://www.startribune.com/science/70700047.html | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2009-11-24 | language = ))(/ref)

Note the article title says "Hackers "leak" climate change emails". Again, this is the text before I made my edit. If the AP is willing to title the emails as leaked, why is that not good enough for WP?

Also note that the reporting user removed this description from the source's hidden title before reporting me, which I find highly illuminating. See this diff:

I also want to point out that the reporting user is incorrect when he claims I have "been blocked for this before". I have never made edit to this article or a similar edit to any other article before, much less been banned for it. Further, I believe the assumption of bad faith, along with the general aggressive tone as seen above, and his instant and immediate reporting of me for a single edit, as potentially actionable in itself. There was no attempt made to engage me in discussion, nor respond with civility, AGF, or even, apparently, an accurate assessment of the situation. FellGleaming (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • To NuclearWarfare: I wouldn't open that can of worms, given WMC's own characterization of an entirely valid edit as "dodgy" skirts the restrictions on his conduct. FellGleaming (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning FellGleaming

  • Comment by Mark Nutley, perhaps it was good faith, the link in the article says "Hackers leak climate change e-mails from key research unit, stoke debate on global warming". Associated Press. 2009-11-21. Retrieved 2009-11-24. Perhaps this is what FellGleaming meant? mark nutley (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, mark, that's a different part of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, honestly, mark, it would behoove you to at least TRY to fault poor behavior by your fellow whateveryoucallyourselvestoday. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that article is a bit messy, i looked at the wrong ref. And yes i will fault Fell for his mistake, he should be more careful when looking at refs, as should i it appears :-) mark nutley (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In his edit, Hipocrite removed the "leaked" word from the article's title. My edit was made to the text to which that article was being used as source. FellGleaming (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is nothing more than a lie. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just rechecked; apparently my original search was mistaken. My apologies and I retract that particular allegation. I do want to ask you to AGF and adhere to civility, however. Notice I did not accuse you of "lying" regarding your incorrect statement that I had been banned for this action before. FellGleaming (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked twice for violating this probation. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you you're looking at. I've never edited any article regarding the East Anglia controversy before today, and unless I'm reading my block log wrong, I've never been blocked at all. FellGleaming (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) you are reading your blocklog wrong, [59]. Hipocrite (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was 2 years ago, old news. There is no edit warring here, no incivility, nothing except a mistake. What action were you expecting from this complaint? You also did not adequately complete the section about what action was necessary - so what were you expecting as a result? FellGleaming may have been wrong, but did not edit war about it and was civil. You, on the other hand, left an edit summary of 'This bad faith hacked -> leaked garbage should earn people bans' which in itself is an assumption of bad faith and unnecessarily uses POV terms like 'garbage' which are extremely provocative. It may not have been your intention to provoke, but your choice of wording both in your edit summary and in the wording of this complaint could be seen as doing just that. Since you already reverted the change, and no-one has interfered with that, just what was the purpose of bringing the matter here? Weakopedia (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right, it was 2 years ago. I guess FG wasn't blocked under this probation, he was blocked under the far laxer rules of the pre-probation era. Even worse. Further, I reverted nothing. What do I want? What I really want is for everyone involved in this nonsense to be topic banned, but I'm not going to get that. I guess what I want for FG is for him to either admit that he was wrong and then get off with a slap on the wrist, or for him to get topic banned untill he can own up to his mistakes. Either or! Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page is to request enforcement of sanction. What sanction do you believe that FellGleaming has broken? That isn't clear from your complaint, nor is it clear from looking at FellGleamings edits. Weakopedia (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sanction states that "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits." I believe misrepresenting sources is an incredibly disruptive edit - probably the most disruptive edit possible. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten, you're right; I was blocked two years ago, for doing what you're doing here, making a wrongful accusation of bad faith edits.
By the way, how are you generating that block log? I tried earlier and it showed nothing. FellGleaming (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You go to your contributions and click on block log. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to ask specifically what do you believe I did wrong? Yes, I looked at the preceeding source, but since sources used by the article were already using the word "leaked" to describe the emails, what specifically do you feel was wrong with my edit? An article source DOES say the emails were leaked; what specifically did I misrepresent?
You misrepresented a source. You stated that "original source says "leaked" emails." This was untrue. Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My edit did not misrepresent any source. You're referring to my description of that edit. I don't believe that was substantially in error either, but even if it was, it's far from "disruptive". FellGleaming (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I also believe a brief sanction against Hipocrite limiting him against raising issues against me may well be in order. I think the emotional tone of the remarks, made not only against me, but as he says, the "spineless admins", justifies such an action. FellGleaming (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should both be topic banned forever. Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful what you wish for. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My list of proposed topic-bannings is long. If you'd like it, I'm happy to provide. Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to approach this with good faith, but considering Hipocrites language, tone, lack of specific allegation and his subsequent [60] accusation that I am a sock-puppet I would reccomend that rather than close this complaint as malformed the admins take action against him for disruption, failure to AGF and use of inflammatory language both here and in his edit summary. Weakopedia (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disclose your earlier account. Since you're not techincally in violation of WP:SOCK, it shouldn't be a problem, right? Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I should have said 'subsequent bad-faith, baseless and incorrect accusation which appears to be an ill-conceived retaliation for my disagreement with his bringing this matter here '. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started trying to plow through this to understand what's up, but I ran into trouble when I got to "(because "good-faith" actors like this one here make it perfectly clear why I'd make a better admin than 99% of the spinless admin corps.)"... could we all try to be a bit more dispassionate please? ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit this page except when the odd confluence of SciBaby and obviously bad edit summaries make me, so while I'll try to be more dispassionate, what would be better is if you'd click the diff I've listed and read the two main arguments. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are able to read my comment without getting tripped up now. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I one of the spin-less admins? Thanks! I figured you had me in the 1%... :) ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I decline to provide a figure as to the relative spinless vs. spineful admin set. I would note that I did not state that only 1% of admins had spine, rather that I would provide more value than 99% of all spinless admins, as spineless admins who are super-coders would be more valuable than me. I will, however, note that you certainly have Spine. Hipocrite (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were talking about spin? ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, that was my disability. Hipocrite (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, do I need to bring a separate sanction request against the reporting user, or is the evidence presented here enough for that procedurally? FellGleaming (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not warranted. I was asking EVeRYONE to be a bit more dispassionate. ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have been extremely dispassionate throughout the entire incident, as were two other editors who came here to weigh in and were subsequently attacked. I do appreciate my memory being refreshed on my earlier block, in which I was sanctioned for behavior far less blatant than what has been displayed here. FellGleaming (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I looked. Am I to understand that this entire request is over one word? I've read the analysis and I agree, the source cited supports "hacked" rather than "leaked" and the article should in that area use "hacked". Claiming otherwise wasn't helpful. Misrepresenting the source wasn't warranted. But that diff, taken by itself, suggests that discussion is needed and clarification of what the source actually said ought to be given, and that ought to sort it. H's reversion reversion (with a somewhat strident edit summary "This bad faith hacked -> leaked garbage should earn people bans." ) should have resulted in discussion. Did it? I don't see it directly discussed, although I see WMC mentioned it (with insufficent context) in passing at Talk:Michael_E._Mann#Pointless_fiddling ... Doesn't bringing it here as an enforcement request seem a bit extreme? What am I missing? ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request is over the misrepresentation of sources. Misrepresenting sources is not acceptable. Someone who misrepresents sources is comitting actions that are frequently considered worse than vandalism (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sadi_Carnot#Falsification_of_sources, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance#Accuracy_of_sourcing). The edit summary is clear that the source says "leaked." The source actually says "hacked." Further, my edit is not a reversion. The initial article said "hacked documents." Misrepresenting sources, FG changed it to "leaked documents." Showing an incredible knack for actually being an NPOV editor, Hipocrite changed it to "documents." I don't engage in "discussion," with editors that misrepresent sources. Further, as you should be well aware, the meaningless piddling over hacked vs leaked has been going on all over these stupid fucking waste of space articles for ages - to misrepresent sources to make an edit as blatently controvercial as hacked -> leaked (or back again, I don't care) is not only misrepresenting sources, it's misrepresenting sources in a debate that has been around the bend and back again. Do you get it now? Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I agree. Misrepresenting sources is not acceptable. And when done deliberately, it's worse than vandalism (MN, take note, I called it worse than vandalism, but I didn't call it vandalism ) Is this the only example of FellGleaming doing this? Do you have reason to believe FG did so deliberately? If this is the only example you have (and you urged us to look at the one and only diff you brought here) I'm not seeing this as particularly actionable. A warning to FG to be more careful seems warranted but more? Not seeing it. Is there a pattern?
PS: your tone isn't doing you any favors. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in going through FG's historical edits. That's what I'd do if I were still playing the one-upmanship games that this enforcement page was designed to propigate. If you believe that a warning not to misrepresent sources will keep FG from misrepresenting sources in the future, so be it - but I'd note that if your warning fails, misrepresented sources are far harder to fix than simple penis vandalism. If he didn't do it deliberately, he probably lacks the chops to be a content editor, as the single most important skill (er, only important skill, honestly) of a content editor is to accurately present sources. If you'd like to ban him from editing sourced content, I guess that would work also.
I am sorry that I am unable to distance my palpable anger from my writing. What you're seeing is an editor who cares about an accurate encyclopedia geting mad when an another editor is misrepresenting sources. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the accuracy in your edit? The AP says one word, the Wash Post another. Why do you feel one is more accurate than the other? FellGleaming (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, how many times do we need to see FG leap before looking? In this very thread he's accused me of doing something I didn't do, denied being blocked when he was, in fact, blocked, and now, apparently, he's talking about my edit where I changed leaked to hacked as being less accurate than his edit which changed hacked to leaked, right FG - you're saying that when I changed leaked to hacked I was doing the same thing as you? Hipocrite (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying your edit was less accurate than mine, yes. RS in the article use both terms, but "hacked" can mean many things, whereas "leaked" is much more specific: "To become publicly known through a breach of secrecy", which fits this situation exactly. FellGleaming (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying my edit to the article earlier today, which you clearly reviewed since I linked to it above, changes the word "leaked" to the word "hacked," right? Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I misrepresented nothing. A source immediately above the text I edited called the letters "leaked". I used the term directly from the source. Hipocrite's source calls them hacked, yes -- but both sources are referring to the same emails.
Further, I am formally requesting sanction against Hipocrite. He has not only brought a disruptive, baseless action, but used highly loaded language, accused me of both lying and bad faith, and even attacked other editors who came here, even going so far as to accuse one of being a sock puppet...not to mention his comments about "spineless admins", and the snide remarks in the edit log for this page ("further falsehood", "don't fall for it", "my sarcasm is showing", etc.). Statements like " I am unable to distance my palpable anger from my writing", and "I think we both should be banned", indicate he is more interested in climbing the Reichstag than a productive outcome.
Two years ago, I reverted an edit, calling it bad faith, then on a talk page, explained why I used the word "vandalism". For that I received a block. The statements and actions here by Hipocrite are far, far above that line. If there isn't sanction brought against him, I would like an explanation of why a double standard is being applied. FellGleaming (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you changed a statement without checking the source for that statement, just assuming the information would be the same as a previous source? Ravensfire (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're the same emails in all sources. How would they magically change from "leaked" to "not leaked" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talkcontribs)
Perhaps the problem is you shoved the word "leaked" in Michael Mann's mouth. Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I did no such thing. The adjective was not part of Mann's quoted remarks. Had I done so, you would indeed have an issue to complain about. FellGleaming (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit summary, you wrote: "original source says "leaked" emails." The cited source is a Washington Post op-ed by Michael Mann. A logical editor, reading your edit, would conclude that you were attributing the word "leaked" to Mann. I understand that was apparently not your intention, but perhaps that clarifies where the concern came from. MastCell Talk 20:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) The definition of the term: " Leaked: to become publicly known through a breach of secrecy, e.g. The news has leaked."

Describing leaked emails as leaked is not misleading, with or without a source. In this case, however, reliable sources already in the article described them using that exact word. Double verification. Further, even Mann's own op-ed describes emails that became "publicly known through a breach of security". Thus, though he specifically did not use the word, even this source verifies that the emails were leaked. Triple' verification. Had I attributed the word itself to Mann within a direct quote, that would be an error. But by standard rules of journalism, the statement "Mann said of the leaked emails, "xxxxx" " is attributing only the quote to Mann, not the preceeding adjectival phrase.

There is no error here, no deception, much less any intent to deceive. The edit improved the article. FellGleaming (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, except for the fact you said "original source says "leaked" emails."" and the original source didn't actually say "leaked emails." - quotes yours by the way. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - you're now indicating that you paraphrased Mann. When paraphrasing someone, it is best not to use quotation marks, which are reserved by common understanding for direct quotes. MastCell Talk 21:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you both need to look at the article again. An original source DOES say the emails were leaked, and the quotation marks ARE being used for a direct quote. FellGleaming (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that this was a misunderstanding, and that you had no intention to deceive anyone or misrepresent sources. At the same time, your edit was perceived as misleading, for reasons which I hope are clear. Your responses tend toward unhelpful semantic hairsplitting and legalistic parsing. I assume that's largely a defensive reaction to the strong language used in the initial complaint. Maybe you could try to be a bit more careful in linking quotation marks directly to actual quotes, and Hipocrite could show more patience and consideration of misunderstanding, rather than malice, in such situations in the future. That would be a win-win, right? MastCell Talk 22:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe you understand that the "linking of quotation marks" was already in the article. I did not change the quote one iota. There is no hair-splitting going on here. The emails were leaked; they were described in an article source as leaked; and my edit accurately reflected that. FellGleaming (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your perspective. I'm asking you to put at least a tiny bit of effort into understanding others' perspective. MastCell Talk 00:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "when paraphrasing someone, it is best not to use quotation marks". But I paraphrased no one, and I used no quotation marks. Hipocrite's statement above is not referring to my edit, but rather my description of the edit. Nor do I believe defending myself here is "legalistic parsing". I made an edit that improved the article, and I stand behind that assertion. I have struggled to see Hipocrite's position, despite his prolific stream of insults and opprobrium, but it seems clear it's based more upon his disagreement with what he perceives as my view point, rather than this specific issue, and I fear similar outbursts from him await me in the future. FellGleaming (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion Fell Gleaming is systematically attacking articles about people who support the scientific consensus on global warming, while at the same time preventing the addition of well-referenced criticism of articles about global warming deniers. Here are some examples of what I think are inappropriate edits made by Fell Gleaming in his attempts to weaken and make incomplete the bio article about Joseph Romm: [61], [62], [63], [64].
    • Err are you seriously attempting to bring up for discussion edits made over two years ago? I'll be happy to defend them if you are, but other editors here might find such an approach rather nonsensical. FellGleaming (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are edits by Fell Gleaming which I believe are an attempt to prevent criticism of the article on Watts Up With That: [65] and [66]. Jack1956 (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first diff was discussed in talk, it was considered there was to much crit and thus an undue weight problem was being caused, after discussion in talk you can see some of it went back, your second diff makes no sense, you can see he revert a crit back in after an edit by a banned user mark nutley (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by William M. Connolley

[67] is pretty dodgy too. I've reverted it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

collapse bickering
And you felt the need to announce this because...? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion abot FG. Recent BLP violations by him appear relevant. Weren't you pretending to be neutral? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a noticeboard to request sanctions gaainst a user violating the CC probation. FG added a section to the article which was sourced. You didn't agree with the validity of the sources and removed it. No-one has tried to reinsert the section, or any of the offending material, and the matter has been taken up on the talk page.
What aspect of CC probation violation do you believe this shows? And what remedy do you wish the admins to consider? Your diff shows the normal workings of Wikipedia - no misrepresentation of sources, no edit warring, no incivility, just disputed sourcing, which is no longer in the article and is being discussed.
So, no - this isn't a discussion about FG, it is a request concerning FG, and your diffs add nothing to the discussion. Weakopedia (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, recent BLP violations, which those edits were, are relevant. If nothing else, they are doing a good job of revealing your and AQFK's biases William M. Connolley (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing other editors of bias is rather bad faith, especially when you have previously been advised of your choice of wording in relation to these probations. This is not a forum for your unfounded allegations nor slurs against other contributors. Weakopedia (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything to contribute here? this isn't a venue for general chatter. Or at least, it would be good if it wasn't William M. Connolley (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From your talkpage - "You are also further notified that you shall not use demeaning or derogatory terms or phrases, broadly construed, when interacting with or discussing other contributors in respect of the General sanctions/Climate change probation area of articles (that is, not specifically on the article talkpages and probation pages but anywhere within the project)". Please try to abide by the restrictions your previous behaviour has necessitated. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop this pointless baiting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you accusing of baiting? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whomever I replied to. What do you think? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't pretend to be a mind-reader. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thparkth

This is a trivial complaint not worthy of any response, not even the mildest of warnings. It should be clear to even the most casual reader that the language FellGleaming changed was not directly attributed to Michael Mann. It is obviously outside the quotation marks. It is a real stretch to claim that FellGleaming's edit put the word 'leaked' into Mann's mouth. It is also clearly consistent with the citation given just two sentences earlier which unambiguously refers to a "leak" of the emails (incidentally the linked source is no longer available but a quick Google shows the same story available from many other sources with the same title.).

Does that mean it was a good edit? No, I don't think it was. In this context, when we are summarizing Mann, it would be better to be consistent with the language Mann used in the article being summarized rather than being consistent with the AP story. But that's a judgement call - reasonable editors may legitimately differ. What's certain is that there's no reason to assume the edit - the one, single edit - was made in bad faith.

It is manifestly unreasonable that one edit, a very minor one, made in apparent good faith, with no edit warring or breach of talk-page consensus going on, should end up here - not just as a component of a complaint, but as the entire sum of the complaint. It stretches my ability to WP:AGF about the complainant.

Here is the process that should have been followed:

1. Revert the edit FellGleaming made.

2. End of process.

Thparkth (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening by MastCell

I had intended to ignore Hipocrite's continuing his stream of combative, personal attacks on me (the behavior for which he was admonished here), but since MastCell has chosen to reopen this, I would like to call attention to these diffs

  1. [68] "How many times are you going to misrepresent sources?"
  2. [69] "Sorry you are embarrassed you got caught again", "...no matter how bad it makes you feel".
  3. [70] "If you lack the intellectual

capicity to understand why what you are doing is wrong, you need to be banned "

  1. [71] "...means that an admin actually sanctions your disruptive behavior."

Further, I question why MastCell's chose a diff that specifically excludes the very heart of this disagreement. I saw a claim that a person "had admitted to a publicity stunt". I clicked on the source next to that claim, and it said specifically he "denied a publicity stunt". Apparently the source next to that one contradicted the first one, but Hipocrite was unwilling to accept that, and continued his stream of personal attacks even after being requested to desist. See below for the source which I used.

Further, I point out that, once again, Hipocrite has chosen to engage in nonproductive behaviour for no good reason. I placed my concern on the talk page and then made the edit. I did not revert his reversion, nor respond to his insults, nor do anything but ask sincerely why the article said one thing, but the source another. See this talk page diff here, made BEFORE I made the edit in question:

  1. [72] Fell Gleaming(talk) 18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning FellGleaming

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

Here's my thinking. FG to be requested not to use quotes in ways that might mislead. Hipocrite admonished for bringing a rather picayune matter here straightaway rather than talking it out, and for the manner in which it was brought, which is unnecessarily combative. This matter is so small I can't see anything beyond that. Anyone else? ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. MastCell Talk 05:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agree --BozMo talk 07:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also would like to consider that Weakopedia and possibly AQFK are banned from interacting with WMC. It's not the subject of this enforcement action, but I believe that their edits in WMC's section above constitute baiting and battleground-ish behavior. NW (Talk) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, before closing, I would like some further discussion of FellGleaming's subsequent edits as raised by Hipocrite above. In particular, this edit cited by Hipocrite seems to exhibit exactly the behavior that FG has been cautioned against; the sources removed clearly support the text, and FG's edit summary is misleading at best. FG's explanation - which apparently hinges on the claim that a "story cooked up by PR people" is not "a publicity stunt" - again follows on previous unconstructive hairsplitting. I'm concerned that there is a continuation of behaviors that have been identified as problematic. MastCell Talk 18:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, MastCell, personally I think that particular hair is thick enough to split. --BozMo talk 18:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley

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

Request concerning William M. Connolley

User requesting enforcement
ATren (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [73] - WMC comments out the RFC by Marknutley
  2. [74] - again
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
I would suggest a one week block or topic ban, because shorter blocks have not worked
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This reversion of the RFC was unnecessary and aggressive, unfortunately typical of WMC's editing style. WMC and MN are already on very bad terms with each other, so why would WMC twice comment out the RFC template? If this were the first time something like this has happened, I wouldn't bring this request; if it were the first time WMC did this kind of thing with MN, I wouldn't bring it. But given their interpersonal history and WMC's long history of this kind of thing, I'm requesting action. WMC could have simply made his feelings known in the RFC, there was no need to subvert the process entirely. ATren (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[75]

Discussion concerning William M. Connolley

Statement by William M. Connolley

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley =

Comments By FellGleaming

Three more civility breaches by WMC, all in the last few hours. I didn't bother to look back any further. [76] [77] [78]

  • "MN's statement reflects a lack of understanding of the science, and was correctly removed. It is regrettable that he is adding material that he doesn't understand. It cannot be a co-incidence that this suits the POV"
  • "I note that MN is still pushing his bizarre "this is what all the sources call it" unmarked reverts"
  • "It's good to see you chaps finally coming out into the open and admitting you're a team. Full points for honesty, well done Cla and ATren!"

Fell Gleaming(talk) 15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZP5* Comment

Noticing the included PA "I suggest that someone like Cla - who for all his faults at least has some clue about writing without bias, and has a fair idea of what MN really means - goes in and rewrites the thing. Until that is done this fails the criterion for RFC listing; I've nowikied the tag ni the interim William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)" (sorry, could not find diff) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a PA? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per [79] bold added to highlight. The PA statement does not better the encyclopedia environment. (see [80] for additional guidance.)

Direct rudeness (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions; (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities; (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety; (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen"); Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see random bold face in your copying of parts of WP:CIV - do you plan to make an argument that these or any other parts apply to the edit in question? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a claim, you seem to be disputing. We can let the readers decide. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Nutley Comment

@Bozmo, please check the history of the talk page in question. I had in fact already changed the text of the rfc based on comments made by both CLa and WMC. [redacted] I do not see how the wording was any differnet to other RFC`s i have done. And they have never been tampered with. It is mentioned in the RFC that two editors opposed this text, so i dunno were your coming from there mate mark nutley (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you are permitted to make this comment. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why ever not? I am being mentioned here after all mark nutley (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is you were not permitted to bring complaints about WMC here for another month. Is that not acurate? You are bringing a novel claim against WMC here, yet again - "WMC is under a probation not to alter other editors talk page posts, he broke that restriction." Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I`m not bringing a complaint, i am explaining to bozmo his misunderstanding of the situation. If i am incorrect in this then an admin can simply remove my comment. mark nutley (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that if an admin removes your comments you should, before mentioning WMC for another month, instead run it past someone who hasn't been frequently sanctioned for exactly the behavior you repeat over and over and over again? Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in fact i`ll remove that bit now to show good faith mark nutley (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Mark. When he detagged the RFC it read like a complaint "The following text was removed without consensus... i seek consensus to reinsert the removed text". If you want to get comments you should ask for them neutrally. "The inclusion of this text into this article is a subject of discussion because of a question whether... we are seeking comments from a wider audience". I would have detagged and asked for a reword if I had found it like that. --BozMo talk 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally that's not a big deal. As far as I can see he was being vaguely helpful but you took it badly. But trying to create another mountain on mole foundations seems a bit silly. --BozMo talk 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BozMo, given their history, wasn't this apt to be taken badly? And don't you think it was unwise for WMC himself to do it, for that particular reason? ATren (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I`m not going to comment here again as i have no desire to drop myself ever further into the poop. I will say Bozmo i will take your comments about the RFC t oheart and redo it in the manner you suggest, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers Comment

This appears to be yet another attempt by global warming deniers to prevent Connolley from insisting on accuracy in Wikipedia articles in the climate area. I have often disagreed with Connolley, and he can certainly be brusque, but he edits in good faith, whereas his accusers are nearly always POV pushers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The message from the numerous WMC enforcement requests is an insistence on civility. Why the ed is allowed to circumvent the means to create a nice place to edit, must have something to do with their POV? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As this request is about MN, I would suggest creating a new request for WMC, rather than sidetrack this one. Ravensfire (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning William M. Connolley

Hmm. I propose to move this to a speedy close. AFAICT Mark had not understood the correct way to do and RFC (which would have been to request comments on whether a text block should be included, not to request explicitly in the RFC lede to overturn a decision by two other editors). WMC gave the RFC the best hope of survival by nowikiing it until it was reworded properly, and said he was doing this. His comment about Mark being incapable of phrasing it neutrally was a bit sharp but I think suspending the RFC pending appropriate wording was a no-brainer, and WMC did suggest Cla should do the reword. Obviously, Mark did not like it being WMC doing the suspension or the comment. Anyway I do not think it requires action here. --BozMo talk 14:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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