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

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

{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request

| User against whom enforcement is requested          
  = <Username>

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

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

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

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

| Additional comments 
  = <Your text>
}}

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

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

---

Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets

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

• Wealths wealth (talk · contribs) Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Mike's Nature Trick (talk · contribs) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Bosonic Fermion (talk · contribs) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

Consensus decision no case to answer. 21:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning William M. Connolley User requesting enforcement Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [1]- Removes source that is in compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and had not been used to source controversial material, but, in fact, had been used to source previously unsourced material without any alteration to the text. [2] [3] Violates WP:BLP by calling author "fringe" with no evidence whatsoever to support his position. In fact, as shown in the book's article, the book has received only positive reviews, no negative ones. And one prestigious scientist, Judith Curry, has recommended the book in a blog post. Enforcement action requested Correct the behavior Additional comments by editor filing complaint Here's the thing that makes it clear WMC is acting disingenuously. He removed the source as a citation for text that was already present, and unsourced, in the article. In fact, I believe that it was text that WMC has previously added himself. If I had added something controversial to the article using the book, then I could understand the objection, but that is not what happened. I made no change to the existing text whatsoever when adding the citation. Therefore, it appears that WMC would rather see the text remain uncited than use a source that meets our guidelines but to which he personally doesn't approve of. He has previously made this clear. Clearly a bad faith, partisan edit. Discussion concerning William M. Connolley Statement by William M. Connolley Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley Cla is forgetting to mention several things here: There is an ongoing discussion about the reference on Talk:Hockey_stick_controversy#New_source. Where his assertion that the reference (a book) is considered a reliable source for the article is very much in doubt. Cla is inserting this reference despite the ongoing discussion, where he is very aware of the controversial nature of the book. Curry's comment isn't a blog post.... But a blog comment, and is not a reliable source even to Curry's opinion. Curry is remarking not on the reliability of the book. She freely admits that she hasn't followed the debate (and isn't an expert on it). Curry also remarks that the book has been ignored by scientists in general ... because they consider it irrelevant. Curry's recommendation about reading the book, is for people (scientists) to gain an understanding of the non-scientific viewpoint, specifically that presented by (what she calls) "citizen-scientists", and more specifically the one presented at climateaudit.org. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC) This strikes me as a disingenuous request. As I've been tangentially involved in the discussions concerning this issue, I'd like to offer a perspective on it. This concerns a citation from a book, The Hockey Stick Illusion, that (as the title indicates) argues against the famous "hockey stick" graph. The book's position has negligible support among scientists. It is written by a blogger with no expertise in this particular field or scientific expertise in general. It has received only a handful of reviews and passing mentions confined exclusively to news opinion writers with a track record of "scepticism" concerning climate science. It has been ignored entirely by general media reviewers and the scientific press. It has not, as far as I can tell, been cited as a source by any other published works. WP:V requires articles to use "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". A handful of editors, notably Marknutley and Cla68, argue in effect that the burden of proof is on other editors to demonstrate that a source does not have such a reputation. As an experienced editor, Cla68 knows perfectly well that this is a reversal of the normal burden of proof required by WP:V, which states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.". WMC's removal of the material in question is clearly in accordance with WP:V, and as the discussion at Talk:Hockey stick controversy#New source shows, there is strong opposition from other editors to the use of a fringe source. Cla68 appears to have made no attempt to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard for review. There clearly isn't anything actionable here - Cla68 should be told to resolve this through normal dispute resolution procedures rather than running here to make yet another enforcement request. Frankly, this looks like another episode in an ongoing vendetta. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC) O dear Chris, you missed a bit from wp:v here also, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. As the book is reliable under wp policy then WMC was wrong to remove the cite mark nutley (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Mark, nobody is disputing that material "must be attributed to a reliable, published source". The question is whether the source in question is reliable. WP:V states clearly that the onus is on you to demonstrate that. You have not done so. That is what the dispute is about. Furthermore, it seems that only you and Cla68 are seeking to use this source. Six other editors, including myself, have opposed that. That is a clear consensus. It is not WMC who is being disruptive removing that material; it is you and Cla68 who are being disruptive by trying to impose your views on a consensus of editors. That seems to me to be a violation of at least the spirit of the CC article probation. Cla68 was ill-advised to bring this matter here, since his role in this matter is not a commendable one. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC) You guys are avoiding the important point here. I didn't use the book to add anything new to the article. I used it to source content that was already there and had been there for a long time, presumably added by WMC himself since he was one of the major contributors to the article. Also, WMC violated BLP by calling the author "fringe." A quick check of the article itself shows that there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the hockey stick graph, including hearings before the US Congress. Montford is making no statement on the veracity of the theory of human-caused warming, he is only commenting on the hockey stick research. I believe this is why the editors above have been unable to come up with any sources to meet their assertions that Montford is "fringe" on this subject, because he isn't. But to repeat, I used the book to source uncontroversial text, and that's why WMC's edit is a problem and an example of bad faith editing. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC) No, we aren't "avoiding" it. You clearly chose to insert a subpar reference - that you knew from the talk-page (and from earlier discussions[4][5][6]) to be extremely controversial. Why you chose to do so - is something that i'd rather not speculate on - since i'm struggling to keep assuming good faith. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC) You know perfectly well that it's not a violation of BLP to call an author "fringe". We do this all the time. We even have a guideline on fringe theories and opinions and a fringe theories noticeboard. We have to assess what weight a particular source has - whether it's mainstream or, yes, on the fringes. Saying whether a particular author is fringe or mainstream is nothing more than the normal process of assessing the weight of a source. It's simply tendentious to claim otherwise. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Wow - I can't believe that Cla68 is still trying to pass that blog comment off as a "blog post". Guettarda (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC) It appears that WMC and others are applying their own POV filter to evaluate what would otherwise be considered a reliable source. Tendentious editing, plain and simple. ATren (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC) As far as I see WMC's reversal of a wp:rs source should immedately be reversed. If he is unhappy with this obvious rs-source he should take it to the rs noticeboard for an evaluation. Nsaa This is clearly not a reliable source, it was a comment on a blog - could be anyone, etc. Verbal chat 14:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC) This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. The first cited diff relates back to a lengthy talk page discussion. The second set relates to a discussion as to whether, in discussion of a possible source, it is a "violation of BLP" to call the book's author "fringe." To call that a "BLP violation" is to stretch the limits of BLP to the breaking point. This is now one of two enforcement actions brought against editors in the opposing CC faction without justifiable basis by Cla68. He/she needs to be sanctioned with a prohibition against bringing meritless enforcement cases. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC) The underlying issue here is pretty simple. In the first example, there's an ongoing discussion about the the suitability of Montford's book as a source for the article. Cla68 chose to ignore the discussion and boldly insert the source. In a similar vein, WMC reverted the addition of what he sees as a dubious source. Since Cla68 already knew that the source was considered dubious by other editors, it is his insertion, not WMC's revert, which merits attention. In the second example, Cla68's argument is predicated on a falsehood. Worse yet, it's a falsehood he knows to be false. It's not a blog post, it's a blog comment. Not to mention that, assuming that the author actually was Curry, the comment was aimed at a specific individual and wasn't an endorsement of the book. This has been discussed at length. Cla68 is aware of at least some of this discussion. So the issue here isn't just bringing bogus enforcement requests - also at issue here is the fact that he would make statements that he should know are false, in an attempt to get another editor sanctioned. That sort of an attempt to game the system should not be tolerated. Guettarda (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC) It's a published book! You They are evaluating that book with your their own POV filter and rejecting it. It doesn't even matter what Curry thinks, Cla just added that as supporting documentation on the validity of the book as a source. You are derailing the primary discussion, which is the removal of the book source. ATren (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC) No, I'm not "evaluating the book". I made no comment on the book. I'm commenting on Cla68's filing. The rest of it is just WP:BRD. Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC) I've refactored per your request here, but I stand by my statement that the Curry issue is a distraction that undercuts the main issue of tendentious editing. ATren (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Can the uninvolved admins please comment on this: why is a published book being removed as a source? On what basis? It's certainly not policy based, as published books are certainly valid, so what's the justification other than it does not fit through the POV filter of some editors? At the very least, it is tendentious editing, which is sanctionable ATren (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC) No, it is not the function of this board to rule on content disputes. That is why I am so annoyed about this forum being misused to make a content case. If the contention is that a published book is automatically reliable source, I'd very much like to see the basis of that, and I'd certainly participate in a discussion on that point. In the appropriate forum, which is not here. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC) But tendentious editing IS sanctionable here, and the behavior is clearly tendentious. In fact, I may bring the Lawrence Solomon case here, another clear example of tendentious editing by WMC. Your allegation that this complaint is a misuse is wrong. ATren (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC) That is correct ATren, tendentious editing is sanctionable - but strangely enough WMC isn't the one acting against a consensus.... That seems to be you[7] (without contributing to the discussion), Mark[8] and Cla[9][10]. Inserting a controversial item without searching for consensus is tendentious - and that goes no matter whether the source is acceptable or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC) [(edit conflict) on adding wikilinks --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)] Controversial? Really? Adding a published book as supporting reference for existing content which was already sourced -- that's controversial, but continuously removing that source based solely on one's own POV filter is not? Interesting view. ATren (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Again, "tendentious editing" is shorthand, in this context, for "content dispute." What's before his forum are two specific instances of alleged "violations," both of which are extreme in their lack of merit. If there is a belief that his pattern of editing is "tendentious," the arbitration case page is the place for that. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC) This board has before ruled that acting against consensus on a controversial issue and edit-warring on it - is tendentious - and subject to possible sanctions. Those are all issues that can be assessed and addressed without commenting or examining the content issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Then in that case, the remedy is to bring a case specifying that charge, against Cla68 if I understand you correctly, rather than raising it in the midst of a case against WMC. This one is getting too messy, and should be closed. Personally, though, I'd like to see a moratorium on these enforcement cases pending arbcom decision. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Yes, ATren. Controversial. And Cla68 knew that - since he had been in a multitude of discussions about that source. It doesn't really matter who is correct in that discussion, since that doesn't impact the controversial nature. Do please note the discussion on the talk page - where the consensus was against Cla68, and despite this he inserted the source [and reinserted it when it was removed]. See my comment further up. [with links to the various discussions on the source where Cla68 has been involved] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Controversial only because it disagrees with your own POV. Certainly not controversial from a policy standpoint, especially not in this article (which is about the controversy) and especially not for the uncontroversial claim it supports. The controversy is purely manufactured by you and a few other editors who happen to share the same POV. ATren (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry? I "manufactured" this? You are trying to move the goal-posts - but do take that up elsewhere, since it is a rather extreme accusation. Back to reality: Talk page consensus was against Cla - Cla ignores and inserts - gets reverted - Cla reverts back. That seems to be tendentious editing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Result concerning William M. Connolley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections. There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions. What violation of policy, Probation, or individual restriction is being presented here? Doctor Connolley has a 1RR restriction (I believe) as well as some civility parole, but I don't see either being invoked. The closest to a issue I can see is the potential BLP violation, but I still don't see this as being more than a content dispute presently. If it is an allegation of being obstructive and obstinate, then there is an ArbCom ongoing for that sort of thing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with ScottBerg in his analysis of the diffs above, though not necessarily with his conclusion at this point. NW (Talk) 14:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite

All participants are reminded to refrain from battleground language like "club" "cabal" and other types of membership organisation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Hipocrite User requesting enforcement Cla68 (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Hipocrite (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 [11] [12] Enforcement action requested Correct the behavior Additional comments by editor filing complaint Hipocrite, in the first edit, accuses ATren, Mark nutley, and myself of being "skeptics" and operating as a cabal, without evidence. After I ask him to provide evidence, he declines to do so, but repeats the accusation in the second edit. Discussion concerning Hipocrite Statement by Hipocrite If calling people part of a cabal based only on the fact that they happen to show up at articles together and agree with each other is a violation, why hasn't Cla68 called for himself to be blocked? Thin skins, my friends, thin skins. Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Hipocrite This one really is utterly weird. Cla has happily made unfounded accusations of Cabals on the arbcomm page but somehow objects to the same label being applied to him? Dismiss this frivolous request with prejudice William M. Connolley (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC) There is no problem if Hipocrite makes the same accusation at the ArbCom page and presumably provides some evidence. This was on an article talk page. Big difference. Cla68 (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC) The principle difference is that the arbcomm page is more important and more visible. Your own gross hypocrisy is blatant; really, go ask someone you trust for advice before you push this ill-advised request any further William M. Connolley (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Cla68 is correct that "cabal" should not be used, and that rule needs to be applied uniformly. However, if this was part of an overarching "anti-labeling" endeavor I presume we'd be seeing cases like this brought uniformly against all offenders, which is not happening. WMC has a point. We're in the middle of an arbitration in which the whole issue of "cabals" is being hashed out. Bringing this sanction claim against Hipocrite, in that context, strikes me as a good example of the arbitration enforcement mechanisms being used in a spiteful and counterproductive manner. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Note: this is Cla's second meritless request on not-very-long. I hope the closing admins will consider some sanction against Cla; perhaps similar to that imposed on MN William M. Connolley (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC) @LHvU: "skeptic" is not an insult, and "cabal" (and similar words) seems to be entirely acceptable to Cla (since he's using it in the RFAR) and others (cf. Lar). So what's the alleged pa here? Guettarda (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Both sides in this ongoing edit-jihad need to show more restraint and watch their language. I agree that if Hipocrite wants to show that there is "collusion" or whatever on the part of skeptic-leaning editors he should have raised the issue in the arb case. However, in the overall context, I think that chasing after Hipocrite by a member of the opposing CC faction for using "cabal" is spiteful and completely unjustified. If this was the only enforcement case being brought by Cla68, or if he had a practice of bringing cases against people of both factions for use of the term, I'd not be upset by this enforcement request. But since he brought this case under the circumstances, simultaneous with a case against WMC for which there was no justification, I agree that he should be told to stop bringing these cases, period. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC) See[13]. If Cla68 believes that "cabal" is an expletive that should not be used, then why is he gratuitously using the expression "WMCab" on the arbitration case page? He apparently doesn't feel that using the term presents a problem when he uses it. I'm not trying to be Puritan about double standards, but I think in this context they indicate behavior that is sanctionable. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Hipocrite was adding the "free market environmentalist" to the lede of Solomon's BLP based on a single passing reference in an article published in an obscure Canadian magazine known for it's strong liberal viewpoint. This was a bad edit, pure and simple. But I assumed good faith and emailed Solomon himself to see if he was content with the label: He called it "pejorative". So I removed the label, and for that I'm part of some cabal. At the very least, Hipocrite is, in the guise of trying to resolve a dispute, actually fanning the flames by adding poorly sourced material and then flinging accusations at those who try to remove them. This is not a spurious report, not in the least. ATren (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC) @LessHeard vanU: I see no material difference between using "cabal" as an insult on the talk pages and using it as an insult, casually and without substantiation, on the pages of the arbitration case. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed. LHvU is going through some real contortions here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Not really. Comments posted to article talk pages are supposed to be about improving the article whereas ArbCom is the last resort in the dispute resolution process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Er, no - although I accept in good faith that some may be experiencing contortions following my train of thought; the term "cabal" on an article or user talkpage may be considered a pejorative term, especially in light of a known dislike for it or similar, whereas on a dispute resolution page it may form part of a complaint or allegation (that certain persons acted as a cabal) and may then be referred to in further comments. I very seriously doubt that it is being used casually on the ArbCom pages, given the powers implicit in the hands of the arbs that are reviewing the posts there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Interesting. Cla68 disagrees with you - he has stated that a reply on user talk that called people a cabal "seems civil." Of course, in that case, he was in agreement with the party calling people a cabal... I guess it's another one of those things that's incivil when people you don't like do it, but not when people you do like do it. I'm sorry I called you part of a cabal, Cla68 - I meant that you appear to be part of a loosely organized group of individuals that shows up to push a "skeptical" PoV on articles about global warming. I hope you feel better now. Hipocrite (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC) LHVU needs to go through these contortions because if he can't excuse Cla, that will make two meritless requests in a row, which will make it hard to avoid to avoid some kind of sanction on Cla, given precedent William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Ah, the good doctor is trying to channel me again... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC) The suggestion that no one can use a term because some people think it is offensive to their group is ludicrous. If people wish to not be seen as part of a group, they should avoid being seen as part of a gaggle in the first place <g>. And it should be noted that the existence of the gaggle is reinforced on this page, which worries me a great deal. Collect (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Using "gaggle" to try to avoid saying "cabal" is pointless. And trying to ban people from agreeing with each other but disagreeing with you is, as you put it, ludicrous William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Huh? I think you need to look up "<g>" in your online dictionary! Nor am I trying to "ban" anyone at all -- are you sure you meant the post as it reads? Collect (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Hipocrite This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections. There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions. There is the capability for an uninvolved admin to strike out a pa if the request has been refused; is this being requested here? I don't see there being a case for a sanction or restriction for a single "offence". However, I would comment that calling someone as operating within a cabal (or similar) within a content dispute or editing situation is very likely a personal attack, whereas making that claim and providing diffs to evidence that allegation within dispute resolution procedures (ArbCom, RfC, AN boards, etc.) are different matters. In the latter the accuser might also be reviewed, and suffer consequences if their comments are found to be improper. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC) I suggest we make a general warning for editors and commentators to avoid language implying membership of anything such as "club" or "Cabal" since it is part of battleground mentality and makes the atmosphere worse. --BozMo talk 10:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5

dealt with and stale
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning ZuluPapa5 User requesting enforcement Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested ZuluPapa5 (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 [14] Requests citation of the definition of the list - an unsourcable statement, and not required to be sourced - it is a navagational definition of what the article is. [15] The same, with cryptic comment and no talk page discussion [16] Removes the definition of the list, still no talk page discussion [17] Completly non-comunicative response on talk page. [18] Adds synthesis tag to article - no discussion on talk page of any synthesis. [19] very hostile talk page comment [20] unhelpful snark. [21] (after filing) ZP5 pledges to take a break from the article, which is good, but promises that on return from the break he's going to make some sort of edit. This is bad - if ZP5 wants to edit the article, he should engage in discussion on the talk page of the article itself, not pledge to make the edit after a waiting period where he does not engage in discussion of his proposed edit. 14:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC) [22] and [23], two talk page sections where ZP5 is consistantly unable, or unwilling to communicate with others, should be read in their entirety. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) User is well aware of the probation. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I suggest that ZP5 be placed on a tagging restriction along the lines of MN's sourcing restriction - ZP5 is not permitted to add or remove tags from an article without getting the approval of an uninvolved admin, or user with more than 1 year of tenure and 1,000 edits. Additional comments by editor filing complaint ZP5 is generally unable to communicate - perhaps this is because he is not a native speaker of english, or perhaps he is trying to be funny but failing - I don't know. I tried multiple times in that section to figure out what he wanted - it remains unclear, except he appears to want the definition of the list to be removed - this is unaceptable, per Wikipedia:LIST#Lead_section_or_paragraph, which states "The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." It isn't the responsibility of editors to have to beg and cajole other editors to communicate - and this is an ongoing problem with ZP5, who has previously made cryptic statements about having a "proprietary linguistics analysis rooted in genetic etiologies," which duped at least one uninvolved user into asking him to run his analysis (which was merely a joke) on other users. This problematic failure to communicate needs to be dealt with. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [24] Discussion concerning ZuluPapa5 Statement by ZuluPapa5 Extended content  · Don't be inconsiderate · Don't call a spade a spade · Don't call the kettle black · Don't take the bait · Do not insult the vandals · Just drop it · Don't edit war over the colour of templates · Don't be ashamed · Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid · Don't feed the divas · Don't stuff beans up your nose · Don't spite your face · Don't revert due to "no consensus" · Do not call things cruft · No angry mastodons · Don't be an ostrich · Don't be a fanatic · Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack · Don't fight fire with fire · Don't be prejudiced Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning ZuluPapa5 I left this note for ZuluPapa5. Hopefully he will take the advice. NW (Talk) 22:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC) ZP5 has stated that his native language is “American” [25] Cardamon :(talk) 22:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC) ZP5 has also said My mind is often on a different frequency than my communication channels or receivers. If communication is love, than I should try to do better. I tend to puzzle folks with some inspiring new view. ZP5 is incoherent and disruptive William M. Connolley (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I always look forward to reading ZP5's comments. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, ZP5 said, "American (smile) is my native language." (emphasis mine). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Huh? Nowhere enough even for an RFC/U on the person - so trying to bring this side issue during the arbitration which is intended for issues which have been through normal processezs for dispute resolution is overkill. This issue is not part of the core cases which the committee accepted in the first place, so it is not properly now before the committee unless the committee feels normal processess are insufficient for the magnitude of the offense <g>. The creation of side issues on multiple pages is not helpful in any respect to the current arbitration. Emending as the number of CC pages is reaching astronomocal numbers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC) You must have confused what page we are at. This is not an arbitration page. I await your retraction and apology. Hipocrite (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC) That talk page section that Hipocrite says is a "must read" actually shows ZP5 making the argument that the criteria for inclusion should be cited. This is a content/sourcing dispute, discussion was ongoing, and ZP5 was participating. Hipocrite and WMC were the ones removing the citation tags on sight, and when ZP5 indicated he was researching the issue on talk, he was attacked (Hipocrite: "you are becoming totally incoherent" and WMC: "you not adding pointless tags would help": in response to the very clearly stated and non-disruptive "Thanks for asking ... have faith, I am seeking source suport for the inclusion criteria. How can we avoid disruptions here? Where does is specifically say source support is not required?"). So, to summarize, this all lasted a few hours, where WMC and Hipocrite edit warred to remove a citation tag and attacked the editor who was trying to explain it, then Hipocrite immediately brought it here. NW's knee-jerk reaction was to warn ZP5 off the page. This is the entire CC conflict in a nutshell: "skeptic" editors raise potentially valid issues, they are attacked by the same 4 or 5 status-quo-defending editors who immediately squelch discussion, and then "neutral" admins step in and admonish that editor. This is a perfect example. This request should be tossed, but if any action taken, it should be taken against WMC and Hipocrite, who disrupted the entire process. ATren (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC) ATren, do you believe that ZP5's argument has any merit? Further, do you believe ZP5 was being communicative in that section? Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I note also that ATren states "So, to summarize, this all lasted a few hours..." This is blatently false. In fact, the time I commented on this issue was 14:18, 13 July 2010. This request was filed 21:28, 14 July 2010, which is over a day later. This is the CC conflict in a nutshell - one of the editors engages in disruptive behavior, reasonable attempts are made to contain it, but the rest of the loosley organized group of editors who show up to agree with the first editor shows up to disrupt attempts to halt the initial disruption. Perhaps ATren should be banned from commentin on requests not by or about him on this page? Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Not to mention SBHB seems to imply/accuse ZP5 of paid editing without presenting any evidence.[26] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Er, the evidence is that ZP5 said "I am working for sources." I assumed that was ZP5's english failing him. Apparently SBHB took him at his word. AQFK - do you believe that ZP5's argument has any merit? Further, do you believe ZP5 was being communicative in that section? Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC) We're supposed to assume good faith. SBHB's implication that ZP5 is doing paid editing is in poor taste. SBHB is a former admin so I would think that he would know better than to take a cheap shot like that on an article talk page (which is supposed to be used for the improvement of the article). As for your last question, I wasn't a party to this discussion so please give me some time to examine the evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Assuming good faith apparently includes assumes people did not mean what they said. SBHB's straightforward response to ZP5 declaration of paid editing was a bit tongue in cheek no doubt. --BozMo talk 20:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC) A bit, but there was a purpose to it. Divining what ZP5 means from what he says often is quite a challenge. I considered phrasing it as a question rather than a statement, but thought the statement form more likely to receive a direct and comprehensible response. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Please don't use this page for chat. If you haven't bothered examine the evidence, don't comment William M. Connolley (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Result concerning ZuluPapa5 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections. There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions. ZuluPapa5 has agreed to step back from the article for a few days. I think this enforcement request should be closed now without further sanction; a new section can be opened if issues persist. NW (Talk) 14:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with NW. No action needed as ZP5 has agreed to back off for a while. --BozMo talk 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Tarc

closing this with a reminder to all sides to avoid confrontational language
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Tarc User requesting enforcement A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Tarc (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 [27] Tarc accuses me of "pushing" my "own agenda" at the Climategate article talk page. Technically, he phrases the accusation as a question, but it's still uncivil and uncalled for. [28] I attempted in good faith to discuss the issue with Tarc at his talk page. My comment is polite and civil, and I tell Tarc that if he has a problem with me, he should take it up at my talk page. [29] Tarc responds by deleting my comment (with another uncivil and personal attack in the edit summary) and banning me from his talk page. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [30] Warning by A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) 1) Removal of Tarc's comment at the Climategate talk page. 2) Reminder to Tarc that he should assume good faith and be civil, and that article talk pages are not the appropriate place to discuss editor conduct. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Tarc's comments are clear violations of assume good faith and civility. Technically, he phrases the first comment as a question, so I guess there's some wiggle room about whether it's a personal attack but it's still uncalled for, and article talk pages are not the place to discuss editor conduct anyway. I'm not seeking any type of block or ban. Just to be clear, the reason why I filed this RfE is because Tarc banned me from his talk page - effectively preventing me from resolving this dispute with him. So, I'm following dispute resolution and filed an RfE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. Since Tarc has banned me from his talk page,[31] I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to notify him. Can someone else please notify Tarc? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Tarc has been notified by another editor.[32] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC) @WMC: Since Tarc a) refuses to discuss this at his talk page and b) declined my invitation to discuss it at my talk page, I had no choice but to seek another venue. So there's nothing pointy about it at all. Since personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith fall under the terms of WP:General sanctions/Climate change probation, this seems like the appropriate venue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC) @Thparkth and ChrisO: I am not asking for any sanctions. I'd just like Tarc's PA removed since he refuses to do it himself and reminders given about civility, assuming good faith and that article talk pages aren't appropriate to discuss editor's conduct. That's all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) @ChrisO: Yes, that's all I'm after. I'd rather not file a request somewhere else lest I be accused of forum shopping. In any case, the admins here are quite capable of deleting a PA and giving an editor a friendly reminder, which is all I'm asking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC) @BozMo: Can you also please remove the PA? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) @ChrisO: I see that you are advising me to "let it go". Have you asked Tarc to remove his comment? I'm willing to compromise on this dispute. If he removes his comment, I'll withdraw my RfE on the basis that the issue has been resolved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC) BTW, as of this writing, everyone who has weighed in so far at the article talk page (except Tarc who has made another personal accusation against me[33]) has said that this is something that is worth considering mentioning in the article: WVBluefield[34] ScottyBerg[35] and Tony Sidaway[36] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning Tarc Statement by Tarc Tempted to just say "LOLWUT" and move on. But, this user drops a link to an OpEd titled "The Climategate Whitewash Continues" into the article talk page. No context, no reason, no suggestion as to how, why, or, where it'd improve the article. I called him out on it...sharply, but not in a personal attack manner. He really needs some thicker skin. I really have little else to offer, as it seems a pretty straight-forward matter. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Tarc Ridiculous and WP:POINTy. Dismiss; sanction AQFK for bringing this William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Tarc's manner was quite abrasive but I don't see anything sanctionable here. Thparkth (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I think Tarc's reply could have been phrased more diplomatically, but it doesn't rise to the level of sanctionability and the point he made (i.e. lack of relevance) is legitimate. Suggest closing this with a reminder to all sides to avoid confrontational language. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Re to AQFK: well, if that's all you're after, filing an enforcement request wasn't necessary - this isn't a place to mediate disputes between individual editors. Why not just ask an admin (it doesn't have to be one involved with this probation) if they can help you sort out your issue with Tarc? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Re again to AQFK: it's mildly incivil; it doesn't rise to the level of a personal attack. I don't think there's any need to pursue it further. I'd advise that you let it go and that everyone concerned de-escalate the confrontational attitude. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC) @BozMo: disagree. Far too feeble a close. Stop weaselling William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Tarc This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections. Per above "Suggest closing this with a reminder to all sides to avoid confrontational language". It is incivil but sadly not more so than many others. --BozMo talk 20:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC) There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions.

Hipocrite

Closed by requester as the issue is resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Hipocrite User requesting enforcement mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Hipocrite (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 [37] Accuses Patrick Michaels of slandering others. ... Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Request the remarks be removed and Hipocrite be reminded not to make such statements. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I have asked him twice to remove the remarks, [38] [39] he has not. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [40] Discussion concerning Hipocrite Statement by Hipocrite That's not what I said. Read carefully. Hipocrite (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC) But, in order to appease mark, I've edited my comment. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Hipocrite MN is already under sanction not to bring RFE's against me. Perhaps it should be extended William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Hipocrite This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections. There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions.

William M. Connolley

superseded
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning William M. Connolley User requesting enforcement Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC [41] totally unexplained revert of cited content. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) User has multiple warnings and is already on restrictive editing parole. This report is for a violation of the editors previous notified restrictions. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Enforcement action requested - as per Administrative consensus as regards level of parole violation. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I attempted to discuss these problems with WMC on his talkpage but imo didn't recieve a fair reply. Here for example, edit summary of "Sorry, bored now. You've done yuor fishing, you can now run off" failed to fill me full of good wishes. WMC reverted a good faith contribution which included three supporting citations, he did so without any comment or explanation at all, this is in clear violation of his editing probation which states, "Until 2010-08-03 William M. Connolley is required to initiate or participate in discussion at the relevant talkpage any time he makes a revert to any article in the probation area, excepting to revert blatant, obvious vandalism." seen here , this contribution was in no way, clear , obvious vandalism as described in WP:VANDALISM and is a clear violation of his editing probation. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested notification of the user under report Discussion concerning William M. Connolley Statement by William M. Connolley Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley I would think that stating or implying that Mars has an atmosphere full of greenhouse gas which should be causing global warming would be clear, obvious vandalism. I'm pretty sure we went over Mars' (lack of) atmosphere in primary school. Heck, one of the sources cited even leads off by discussing the very low atmospheric pressure. - MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC) There is no way, per WP:VANDALISM that this can be considered "clear, obvious vandalism". Per that policy, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism". Thparkth (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Doing a quick, back of the envelope calculation, using the relative pressure of the atmosphere, and the relative proportions of CO2, it looks like Mars had 15 times as much CO2 per ft3 as Earth. It isn't quite this simple, but the statement doesn't sound all that crazy.--SPhilbrickT 22:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC) The text that WMC reverted was clearly faulty - an unfortunate example of POV by synthesis that produces a grossly misleading conclusion (yes, Mars does have a 95% CO2 atmosphere but at most it's only 1% of the density of the Earth's and obviously far less than Venus's). WMC shouldn't have done a straight rollback as it wasn't vandalism but the addition was so poor that he was right to remove it. The primary fault here was in the anonymous IP editor adding SYN material. WMC's removal of the material was the correct decision but the way he went about it was flawed. However, I don't think it rises to the level of a sanctionable offence. I suggest that this be closed with a reminder to all editors to provide edit summaries when they are not removing simple vandalism, per Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC) WMC's science is sound, and his decision to remove the material from the article was a good one, which improved the article. As so often it was his manner which caused friction. This was not blatant vandalism, and he should not have dealt with it as if it was. Thparkth (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC) The text reverted may (for the sake of argument only) have been faulty, however it was not blatant, obvious vandalism. WMC is on an editing restriction or probation that requires that he post a comment on any revert that is not blatant, obvious vandalism. It was clearly a violation and based on his past history, he should be sanctioned. GregJackP Boomer! 19:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC) The text reverted was not only faulty, it was a BLP violation making false accusations about a respected scientist, had a blatantly unsupported claim about "many occasions" referenced to once occasion, and was obvious synthesis. Agree that an informative edit summary would have been the right thing to do and might have avoided GregJackP's unfortunate restoration of the defective text. . . dave souza, talk 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) See here, (2002) "We can compare the Earth's climate to Venus, to Mars and we can look at going from glacial to interglacial periods." See S Langerfeld (1988). "Coping with change". The Wilson Quarterly (5): 117–128. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |vol= ignored (|volume= suggested) (help) "CO2 leaves Mars frigid and dry, while an overabundance of it makes Venus a furnace." (quoting Watson), see also here, C-SPAN video, there are other sources available. I did not do the original search for sourcing the material on the original post, the anon IP did, but the statement "many occasions" was correct, it was not negative, and it was most assuredly not false. Had I done the original post, I would have included additional sources, but the issue here is that WMC reverted material that was not blatant, obvious vandalism without complying with his editing restriction. The rest of this is just smoke and mirrors. GregJackP Boomer! 20:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC) "This view is in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars." That was in your edit. What source do you have for that? Hipocrite (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC) That one sentence was obviously WP:SYNTH and it was an unfortunate remnant from the text that GregJackP was improving. It was clearly a good faith edit and not blatant vandalism and should not have been reverted by WMC in violation of his probation. It shouldn't be used as a springboard for an all out edit war either, right? Minor4th • talk 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC) You're under the mistaken impression that I reverted GJP. I didn't. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the facts before commenting William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Same exact comment applies to your reversion of the IP. WP:SYNTH is not blatant vandalism. Minor4th • talk 21:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC) No, because I don't accept that the anon edit was good faith (I accept that GJP's was erroneous but in good faith) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Why not? You have absolutely no knowledge of that IP editor, so how can you immediately assume bad faith? ATren (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC) On that basis, all vandalism is done in good faith. As is all introduction of factually incorrect and improperly sourced smearing of living persons into their biographies. . dave souza, talk 17:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I strongly disagree with the conclusions that this addition was not vandalism - one of the sites linked in the edit to justify that "This view is in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars" was [42], which leads with "Mars has a very thin atmosphere," and says "On the other hand, the martian atmosphere results in only a weak greenhouse effect that raises the surface temperature by about 5°C over what it would be without any atmosphere at all." When people write false defamatory information about living persons on the encyclopedia, link to sites that say the exact opposite of what they alledge those sites say, that is sneaky BLP vandalism. Period. Defending people who use Wikipedia to defame living persons is highly problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC) This looks like a clear violation of WMC's probation. He reverted what was obviously a good faith attempt to improve the article and made no attempt to explain why he performed the revert. I'm not sure what WMC was thinking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC) You have got to be kidding me. Not only was the IP's contribution, wrong, a synthesis and rather obviously designed to denigrate a scientist. But there are actual editors here who have turned it into an edit-war? WMC should've made an edit-summary, since it is not blatantly obvious vandalism, but instead subtle vandalism. WMC clearly broke the letter - but not the spirit of his probation. But that there are editors here who will defend the IP's edit, to "get at" WMC is both tendentious and quite frankly disgusting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Good faith is a good thing to do, but being wrong is the worst thing an encyclopedia can be. WMC clicked the wrong button to make this encyclopedia better. So what? Tell him to use the unambiguously right one next time. Check. OK. Done. This is a discussion of a technicality. (AQFK: I'm sure that someone could help you find a book that would explain this; it's classical mechanics.) If we are going to punish WMC because he reverted something that was blatantly wrong and made the encyclopedia better, probation or no, I think that it's time for me to stop contributing here because bureaucratic uselessness will have won over the integrity of the content, and that is absolutely unacceptable to me. Awickert (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC) You treat this as if it were the first offense of an otherwise blemish-free editor. He was on strict 1RR for a reason, and he violated it. Furthermore, had he explained his reasoning right away, we might have avoided the edit war. ATren (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I do know WMC. I am treating this as someone who bent (broke) the rules to make WP more factually accurate. And I am 100% OK with that; WP:IAR and all that. I agree with you that it would have been better had he explained himself and it could have avoided friction with the rules. But I don't have much patience for people who make articles wrong because they don't know what they're talking about. The blame for screwing things up (accidental or no) lies with them. Bottom line: WMC made WP better, and I don't care about "due procces" because all that matters is that the final product is factually accurate. Awickert (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC) @ Atren, WMC didn't violate 1RR, he made one revert. Check the article history. . dave souza, talk 17:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Result concerning William M. Connolley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections. There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions. I have full protected this for one week given there's an ongoing arb case. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC) From my review of the ArbCom pages, I note that Rlevse refers to protecting the Watson article and making a special dispensation for adding evidence relating to the recent editing of that article in the ArbCom Evidence pages. As such, I suggest closing this Request as superceded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley again

superseded
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Marknutley User requesting enforcement Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [43] - "This view is in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars." Aledges that Watson's statement that Mars has insubstantal Greenhouse effect is an error on his part. This is factually incorrect - Watson is correct, and the IP vandal who intitally made this statement is just vanadalizing ([44], [45], [46], and I could keep going for days) - and it is defamatory to accuse a scientist of making such a basic error. Mark is no stranger to using wikipedia to defame living persons. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Unnecessary for this user Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Indefinite ban from all biographies of living persons in the topic space. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Cut the cord, already. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [47] Discussion concerning Marknutley Statement by Marknutley This is an obvious attempt to distract from WMC`s parole violation, lets actually look at the facts shall we. User:Verbal reverts User:GregJackP with the edit summary Material is not well sourced and is UNDUE / unbalanced. Take to talk please So i look at the refs, and see NASA and The Guardian. I looked on talk and saw Verbal had not bothered to post there, just the usual bickering going on. So yes i reverted. I however have not broken my probation as is being suggested. The sources were already in the article and used by Gregjack, who i believe is an editor in good standing. mark nutley (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Mark, I'm not suggesting you broke your sourcing probation, I'm suggesting you included false, defamatory information on the bio of a living person, and that this is a pattern of behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I never said you said i was breaking my sourcing parole, not everything is about you. Your hysterical claims of defamation are a joke as there was none. This is just as i said, a lame attempt to claim BLP and save wmc`s arse from breaking his restrictions. Not surprising really is it, when he gets pulled up here i`m the go to guy to carry the can. mark nutley (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley Saying a scientist is wrong is not defamation. Scientists do it all the time. (Part of the whole progress thing.) If this was the reasoning you used for excluding this piece of text when you confronted MN then I'm not surprised he wasn't swayed. That said, I do think the text MN added goes against WP:SYN. And if the Watson quote is not in the audio file... well that's frustrating.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC) The text in question is "This view is in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars." That's not synthesis, it's fabrication, it's wrong, and it's defamatory. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Play-by-play to show where I'm at. It's synthesis because that policy states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources," which is exactly what the text MN added does here by using a NASA factsheet to disprove a statement from another source. If by fabrication you mean MN finds stuff in the audio file that isn't actually there, that's a problem per WP:OR, which states that "you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." Is that what you're saying? Did you listen to the audio to make sure? I'm not really clear on that from your statement. Whether it's wrong or not doesn't really matter as per WP:V. It's certainly not defamatory for reasons I've already stated.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC) HiP, the fabrication is "This view is in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars," since it's not in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars. Accusing a Scientist of not knowning our basic understanding of Mars is defamatory. There is no source that states that the view is in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars - thus, that's not synthesis (which would be if we took sources that discussed mars and Co2, and sources that discussed Mars and Watson, and used that to say Watson and Co2), it's fabrication - no source says Mars is hot because of Co2. Hipocrite (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Look, the text being added is pretty obviously wrong to those who understand the issue, but if you look on the talk page, there is no attempt to explain the very simple misconception here: that 95% of Martian's sparse atmosphere is still a very small absolute number. Would it have been so hard to simply leave a short message on talk explaining this? It's also WP:SYN, so that could have been stated as well. A short message could have saved a lot of thrashing around. Instead, all the responses were of the "you don't know what you're talking about" variety, which was true but not at all helpful in resolving the dispute. ATren (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Let's focus on the facts - mark was reinserting false, defamatory information about living persons even after he was being told that it was false, defamatory information about living persons. You admit that mark didn't know what he was talking about when he inserted the false, defamatory information about living persons. But hey - if mark gets banned from all CC BLP's, I'll put explanatory text for all of my reverts on talk pages. Sound like a deal to you? Hipocrite (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC) How about we up the ante: let's permanently topic ban anyone in this topic who has violated sourcing policy to insert defamatory info into a BLP. ATren (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Sounds like you're prepping some kind of gotchya against me, but I guess I'm set up for it. What edit of mine from the long long ago would you like to use to distract the reviewers? Hipocrite (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC) It's not directed at you; it's directed at everyone who has played fast-and-loose with sourcing in BLPs in this topic area. This is not a new problem in this topic area. ATren (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Then I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I don't want WMC editing bios of living skeptics either. There, can we refocus on Marknutley editing bios of living scientists? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC) OK, then let's campaign to ban both: WMC from skeptics and MN from mainstream. That would go a long way to fixing this mess. ATren (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I think the main point is that MN is deliberately re-introducing factually incorrect information into a BLP. The best you can say in his defence is that he doesn't understand the material. Which I think brings us on to the second point, which is that his edits are (yet another) violation of his sourcing parole William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Marknutley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections. There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions. Per my comments at the WMC Request above, since ArbCom has decided to allow evidence on the matter of the editing of the Watson article then this request should be closed as superceded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

Closed at request of Bozmo
mark nutley (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning William M. Connolley User requesting enforcement mark nutley (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [48] Accusation of being a proxy for socks. He is on a civility parole and this most certainly breaks it. just don't contribute to these discussions. I believe this is also a violation of his civility parole. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) No diff`s he already knows about this Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I want his civility parole enforced Additional comments by editor filing complaint I also want that accusation removed Comment Bozmo says i should have been rebuked. WMC had already done that [49] Dispite having been told multiple times to not post on my talk page. So as i had already been rebuked then why was it followed up with that PA? mark nutley (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC) You kind of have a point although I am not clear that the "proxying" bit was a PA (I am a bit vague on terminology), he was aggressively defending the talk page rebuke he had done more than anything else... The trouble with all this storm in a teacup stuff is that Scibaby will be laughing into his hot chocolate at all the disruption caused by his comments. I would rather it disappeared to be honest. --BozMo talk 12:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I`ll give you odds of ten to one that the guy using all the pointy names in not scibaby. It`s not his MO is it? This guy is creating specific user names to make a point about a certain editors habits. If you want it to just disappear then enforce WMC`s civility parole, order him to remove the PA and let him know if it continues then escalating blocks will follow. mark nutley (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [50] Discussion concerning William M. Connolley Statement by William M. Connolley MN restored an edit by Scibaby. By my defn of the word, that is "proxying". If you weasel your defn, you might decide it isn't proxing. Either way round, the correct solution to this is for MN to apologise for restoring the Scibaby edit, and do his best to learn from that not to do so again, rather than raise yet another unproductive enforcement request. As for the second diff: a rather fuller version is @MN: I don't think that comment adds anything to the discussion. Please remember your parole and why it was imposed, and just don't contribute to these discussions. There is a problem on the talk pages: MN persists in showing up and arguing that any old source, as long as it is "skeptic", is fine. And reliable. And so on. His contributions to these debates are always noise. And there is a reason for that: MN is on don't-add-sources sanction, because he has provably, time and again, failed to understand sources and our sourcing policy. William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley Reverting an edit by an accused sock is not a violation of anything - it only indicates that the person making the edit assumes responsibility for the edit. It is most assuredly not "poxying" for a sock, nor should anyone who makes such an edit be accused of "proxying" for a sock. WP:PROXYING refers only to acting at the behest of a banned editor - such an accusation is an accusation of violating WP policy, and hence should only be raised at a noticeboard, not bandied about otherwise. One of the prime issues at arbitration is civility - and this is one more example to place there if it is not acted upon here. Collect (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC) It wasn't reverting an edit exactly, was it? It was reinstating a signed talk page comment by the sock. Since the edit was signed by the sock you cannot say Mark was really taking responsibility for it. Restoring a signed statement by a banned sock to a talk page, leaving it signed by the sock might well be proxying. I think. Maybe. --BozMo talk 12:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) At the time i reverted he had not been banned as a sock. mark nutley (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC) True but unless I am mistaken 23 minutes before your revert the user had already been marked as a suspected Scibaby sock on his userpage. --BozMo talk 12:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Bozmo, just about every new editor who comes into the CC area gets called scibaby. It still does not excuse the accusation that i proxy for blocked users does it mark nutley (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC) The user was already pretty disruptive. I do not think you should have restored talk page comments by a disruptive user who had already been tagged as a Scibaby sock. I am not clear about proxying (restoring a signed comment without quote marks might be proxying) nor about the PA (since the assertion was that you had done something not that you were something). If you had come to me I would have thrown the complaint out but LHvU is a serious admin and obviously thinks there is an unjustified PA here so I am open-minded waiting for the arguments. --BozMo talk 12:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry Bozmo, his assertion is that it is something i am doing Having him proxy for socks isn't great That is not past tense, that is an accusation of ongoing proxying. I asked LHVU as i saw he was online. WMC was asked yesterday to remove that comment. It is still on his talk page. His refusal to remove it and force me to jump through hoops to have it removed id also disruptive and a waste of peoples time. mark nutley (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Get it over with now and enforce the probation, WMC has learned nothing. Way to much time invested in this editor's behavior problems. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with ZP5. WMC is a huge time sink and a drain on the community's resources. I'm trying to work on getting one of my articles up to WP:GA status and adding sources to an unsourced WP:BLP, not to mention my regular contributions to WP:RSN. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would be a hell of a lot more productive on Wikipedia if we didn't have to deal with WMC's constant behavioral problems. I recommend a 48 hour block until ArbCom decides what to do with him. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC) What on earth has this got to do with you? If you've got something better to do - go and do it. Making unproductive edits on this talk page helps no-one. You'd be better off asking MN not to restore Scibaby edits - then we could ahve avoided all this disruption in the first place William M. Connolley (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC) This is such minor quibbling over the very edges of civility/bureaucracy that it is counterproductive to keep it going whilst the previous two requests which may even have more validity than this have been superceeded. I also come from the viewpoint that previous enforcement decisions concerning MN and WMC are pretty shaky and continuing these penalties has created this sort of marginal "let's get this person blocked" sort of rubbish we see here (both with rspect to MN and WMC). Polargeo (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Lets see: We have a sockpuppet making a talk-page edit, which is removed. Mark reinstates the talk-page comment by the suspected sock.... And people are actually claiming that the problem is WMC? Has common sense left the building? Mark should be cautioned for this, since he quite apparently doesn't understand what is wrong about his action, and that should be it (unless he does it again). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC) May I suggest that it may be best to wait and see what happens in the ArbCom case? It may very well be a moot argument since whatever they do will likely trump whatever is determined here. Just a suggestion. GregJackP Boomer! 16:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Result concerning William M. Connolley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections. FWIW this concerns [51] where Mark reinstated a talk page comment by a Scibaby sock on grounds that CU had not yet taken place. LHvU has, if I understand correctly, already said on his talk page he thinks WMC describing this as "proxying for a sock" in these circumstances is a PA. I have already said proxying looks like the wrong word but MN shouldn't be reverting deletions of sock contributions and some rebuke was needed. Various others have commented here. At this stage I have nothing to add to what I said when it was raised to LHvU.--BozMo talk 10:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC) There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions.

Request concerning William M. Connolley and Kim D. Petersen

User requesting enforcement

Cla68

Users against whom enforcement is requested

• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KimDabelsteinPetersen (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. [52] WMC readds single, self-published source (personal webpage of a university professor hosted on the university's website) that is extremely critical of Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
2. [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] Kim D. Petersen then fights on the article talk page for inclusion of the material and source.

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

Correct the behavior

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Wikipedia is strict about enforcing its BLP rules after several real life cases have caused harm to BLP subjects. There is no leeway for misbehavior or abuse in this regard. WMC and Kim have a long history of BLP abuses. WMC usually makes the bad edit, then Kim tries to justify it through wikilawyering on the talk page. Please make them stop.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[68] [69]

Discussion concerning William M. Connolley and Kim D. Petersen

Statement by Kim D. Petersen

My comments on the talk page should stand by themselves. As for Cla68's claims: No i haven't fought for inclusion. No, i do not have a "long history of BLP abuse". This is a simple content dispute, which is being blown extremely out of proportion. I disagree about the BLP claim (and still do), and strangely enough, this matches rather precisely some principles that i wrote down for the ArbCom case, but didn't submit, since it became obvious that ArbCom would not make content or policy decisions - but rather focus on behaviour: Here. Since it is 1:47 AM in my timezone, i will probably not reply anymore, unless i can't fall asleep. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley and Kim D. Petersen

This is an unreasonable request. The material in question is the claim that someone called Abraham made a presentation criticising the views of someone called Monckton. I kid you not, that's it. No-one has proposed giving any details of the presentation. This is not liked by several editors, but it seems to be common ground that it is true and verifiable. In other words, there is nothing contentious here and therefore no BLP issue. If anyone wants to see a genuine BLP breach regarding the subject of this article, I can very easily give a demonstration of what one would look like, so that you can tell the difference for future reference. --FormerIP (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a violation of a number of Wikipedia policies. First, it was a self-published source, in addition to being a primary source. Second, the source accused the subject of the article of making up a false quote, clearly against BLP policy unless. The entire presentation was an attack piece. The BLP policy states to Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below)... The self-published source, in and of itself is grounds for removal. GregJackP Boomer! 00:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP also states "We must get the article right". Trying to remove the fact that there was notable comment on the opinions of the subject by someone who knows what they are talking about isn't consistent with that.©Geni 00:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, the admins aren't going to rule on anything (except the most egregious conduct and this isn't it) with ArbCom about to announce their proposed decision. Face it, the probation has come to a screeching halt. I suggest that the filer withdraw this RfE. BTW, ArbCom asked us to take a break from these articles, so I don't understand why anyone's working on them right now. Find some other articles to work on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope that the admins will consider placing a temporary injunction prohibiting WMC and Kim from editing any BLPs, including the talk pages, pending the results of the ArbCom case. Even when the proposed decision is posted, it will probably still be several days at least before all the Committee members finish voting. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, I have a solution for everyone. Please click this link and improve the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when I clicked on it, I got Climate change as viewed by creationists in communist Israel... --FormerIP (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Wordsmith: There hasn't been a ruling from the admins for the last 7 RfEs. Not only has there not been a ruling, there aren't even any admins discussing the issues. Not one active discussion. Sorry if I've broken some protocol by pointing out the obvious. If I have, let me know, and I'll redact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- This may be the most egregious BLP violation I've seen on wiki. And several hours spent arguing for its inclusion is stunning. I am unfamiliar with the enforcement mechanism in this area, but given the seriousness of this BLP violation, it is disappointing that admins have not looked in and/or taken decisive and firm action in this case. Do you guys ever use the BLP noticeboard, or do you just bring issues here to the probation enforcement? Minor4th 02:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As is his wont, Cla68 has included a long string of diffs many of which are of little or no relevance. Administrators handling the case should be careful to examine each diff. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that BLP doesn't allow the Abraham comment. But this is a content dispute. It should be raised at BLP/N, not here. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar is not an uninvolved admin

Lar, being in an adversarial role to both KDP and WMC in the Great Climate Change Omnibus Case of 2010, where he explicitly proposes a topic ban for KDP and a year-long ban for WMC [70], is not neutral by either the common sense definition of the word, by previous ArbCom precedence, or by the definition in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Curious about this. So are you saying that if an admin, at any point in the past, expressed an opinion that a certain poster engaged in behavior deserving of sanctions, then that admin is forever after an "involved" admin for all purposes and cannot participate in enforcement discussions about that editor on totally unrelated events that the admin was probably not even aware of until he read about it on the enforcement page? What about an admin who has expressed an opinion that either of these editors did not deserve sanctions in the past -- is that admin also forever tainted because he is not neutral, as evidenced by his having an opinion in the past? It seems like that's what you're saying but that can't be what you mean. Minor4th 06:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that an admin who is currently, at this moment, part of an ArbCom case and is proposing drastic measures against certain editors, is not uninvolved. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you said currently but I thought you just chose the wrong word -- that opinion that Lars had about sanctions was days or weeks ago, and it was about incidents that are not related to this enforcement, right? I could understand the concern if Lar was in a current content dispute with these editors and was using his admin tools to win, but that is not the case. There's no requirement that an admin be neutral to be uninvolved -- if an admin is completely neutral how could a decision ever be made? By the way, why does it matter whether he is uninvolved or not -- he is apparently not even recommending sanctions according to his comment. He merely said it was not nice. You started this whole new section, so it must be important in a way that escapes me. Minor4th 07:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Currently" was chosen advisedly. Lar's suggestion were 4 days ago in a dispute that has been running for months (and for several weeks in Arbitration), the arbitration case is still open, and Lar's proposed sanctions are his current proposal. Why this ultimately matters is beyond me, but, if you check the history, it is apparently paramount that only uninvolved admins comment in the "Results" section, no matter what they say. People have filed ArbCom cases about this... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on currently -- I suppose we view "uninvolved" differently. It seems like youre saying that an admin who holds a negative view about these editors' bad behavior is disqualified from commenting. Or maybe it's the section heading that is throwing this into the realm of the bizarre. What is your opinion on the behavior Lar is commenting on though? (irrespective of where he placed his comment). I hope youre not in favor of edit warring or BLP denigration. Minor4th 11:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is the latest in a long list of Lar stretching the rules for himself on this page. He seems to think yet again that any deep long lasting conflicts with certain editors (often with him in a non-admin role) does not count whilst simply not editing certain articles makes him Mr neutral (uninvolved). Polargeo (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This isn't about me. This is about KDP filibustering to block consensus. Trying to make it about me is yet another example of inappropriate tactics to avoid the actual issue. BozMo has also proposed things in the case, that doesn't make him involved either. You guys know better. However that doesn't stop you. Which is why there's a case. ++Lar: t/c 10:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Lar. Correct it is not about you. So do not make it about you by commenting where you really should not be commenting at present. This seems to be your usual method but I hope it can stop right now. Polargeo (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• The below comment chain is a response to a comment by WMC placed in the wrong section, (first diff below), moved here (third diff below), edit warred to retain (second diff below), moved here again and then removed by WMC who apparently is more concerned with having it in the section he wants than having it be visible. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Nope, you're not. ++Lar: t/c 10:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Further, you're not allowed to edit war when others correct you. Don't do that again, please. You have been repeatedly warned not to, and blocked when you did not heed the warnings. ++Lar: t/c 11:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is again a case of "Lar is involved because I say he is involved" where the RFC/U did not arrive at such a conclusion. I guess if people claim it is true it becomes true? An interesting thesis. Collect (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No it is a major case at arbcom currently running with many serious and valid points that need to be answered. This is not a standard ATren "I say you are involved" or even a simple Lar "you have edited a CC article so you are involved" case so please do not dismiss this in the usual way. Any admin worth their salt should recuse themselves in these circumstances or face some serious come back. Polargeo (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

He is only involved because the members of the Church of Global Warming want him excommunicated because he enforces the rules. GregJackP Boomer! 12:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

GJP this is potentially a WP:Battleground addition to send this back to a them and us. When in this case I am not a them or an us but someone trying to get wikipedia right. Let us carry on in a more productive way. Polargeo (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That was not directed at you, but a general comment on the state of affairs in this area, and if you interpreted it to mean that it was intended for you, my apologies. It just seems to me that this has broken down into two basic camps, with a smaller third camp that just want the rules applied to all. I certainly did not mean to imply that you were out of line in your comment. GregJackP Boomer! 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Question for those who think this is not a BLP vio

Several (Geni, NW, Wordsmith, BozMo) have questioned whether this really is a BLP vio. I would like them to justify here why it is not. Specifically, answer these two questions: (1) is the material contentious? (2) is it self-published? If you respond yes to both, then it's a slam dunk as far as BLP concerned: it is to be removed immediately. If you respond no, then please explain your reasoning. Note that the material in question triggered legal action, and was only ever "published" on Abraham's personal webpage at the university. ATren (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I realise you aren't asking me, but I thought I'd inject a few thoughts anyway. One issue is whether it's biographical - whether information is subject to BLP depends on the subject of the material rather than the location. So that's one hair worth splitting. The other, as BozMo pointed out, is that the material is covered by reliable sources that are not self-published. So the information can be reliably sourced to sources that are BLP-appropriate. Which makes this more of a formatting issue than anything; cf. WP:BURO. Guettarda (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, the source I removed was unpublished and contentious. Read BLP -- that's sufficient for removal, and the policy language is not just firm, it's draconian, filled with bolded terms and references to proclamations from Jimbo. In any other situation this would be a non-controversial removal, but here it's opposed. Your classification of this very serious issue as simply "formatting" is startling. ATren (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this was a BLP issue (which is less than clear-cut, since it was a discussion of ideas, not of people), it was not inappropriate to remove it. But this request wasn't filed to discuss your behaviour, was it? The fact remains that the material was discussed by non-SPSs. Once that was clear, it became a formatting issue, a content issue, but not so much a BLP issue. Assuming, of course, that it ever was "biographical information about a living person". Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You are simplifying the matter too much. The answer to both of your questions is "yes". However, there are other matters to consider. The full content of the addition is "In response to Monckton's 2009 appearance at a symposium sponsored by the "Minnesota Free Market Institute," University of St. Thomas professor of Thermal Engineering John Abraham prepared a 73-minute slide show titled "A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton," rebutting all of Monckton's claims.[#]" Let us exclude for the moment the final clause (specifically the "all") of the sentence, which I agree is bad practice as it takes sides in this real world dispute but also could have been solved without any escalation whatsoever. The purpose of BLP is to provide both truthful and verifiable information on subjects so we don't have repeats of incidents like the Seigenthaler incident or the situation involving Mr. Brandt[71]. Is it true that Abraham did such a thing? Is it verifiable that he did such a thing? Is it the case that some material in biographies of living persons, depending on context, does not have to be held to the same standards of sourcing as other material because it does not focus on biographical details but rather incidents? If the answer to all three is yes, I believe the spirit of what BLP is trying to prevent is met. NW (Talk) 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

NW, read BLP -- sources such as this are to be removed on sight. There is no gray area here. BLP policy is clear on this and it supercedes all other analysis, including WP:V. Again read BLP: the spirit of that policy is basically draconian suppression of anything that is contentious and unpublished. In the first few sections alone it says repeatedly, in unambiguous language that frequently includes bolding, that such material is not permitted. Period. Full stop. This unpublished source triggered legal action between the parties. It's hard to imagine something more controversial than that (or as forbidden from a BLP policy standpoint). This is a slam dunk, and your reading of the spirit of the rule is frankly wrong.

Now, if the wording and sourcing had been different, then we might have been discussing different issues like weight and verifiability. But the BLP issue was so straightforward that all those other concerns were irrelevant. Or should have been. ATren (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So what if it led to legal action? That doesn't make it impermissible to add it to the article. If anything, it only makes it more notable. In any case, WP:BLPSPS says to avoid using a self-published source as "sources of material about a living person". This is not a source of material about a living person, even though it is in a biography. Therefore, normal WP:SPS rules apply, which this qualifies under as the material is self-published by a notable academic and scientist. NW (Talk) 15:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

NW, this is splitting hairs. Monckton's name is prominent throughout the entire presentation, and in fact he starts the presentation by discussing Monckton's qualifications in a way that would imply that Abraham thought Monckton to be unqualified. You don't consider that to be directed at Monckton himself? If someone posted a long presentation about your views in that format, questioning your qualifications and then presenting dozens of slides criticizing your arguments and your arguments alone, are you seriously saying you would not feel it was directed at you? ATren (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your concern might be relevant if the presentation was being used as a source. But since it's not, at least in the current version, it's an irrelevant issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, it was used as a source - that's what this request is about. I reverted the source and the text out, citing BLP, and it started a huge discussion on talk where editors were claiming it wasn't a BLP vio. ATren (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me refocus: BLP is meant to ensure that we have verifiable information in our article. Linking to the scientist's website is acceptable to use to verify that he criticized Monckton, as that is where he did it. Whether or not the criticism is notable is another matter. NW (Talk) 20:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"BLP is meant to ensure that we have verifiable information in our article." No, that is precisely what WP:V is. If WP:V covered it, we wouldn't need WP:BLP. BLP policy exists as a separate entity because the standards are different. Where WP:V has gray areas, BLP is black-and-white; where WP:V stresses verifiability and "getting it right", BLP stresses solid sourcing and protecting the person. I think you are misinterpreting policy here. ATren (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess we differ in our intepretations/opinions then. NW (Talk) 12:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@NW Aren't you overcomplicating things? I thought question 3 would be something nice and easy like Is it notable? And probably question 4 should be If being the subject of a Guardian blog post makes criticism notable enough for a BLP does that mean all objections to using such blogs are now gone?. Or maybe it should be Is non-notable criticism appropriate for any article, regardless of whether or not it is a BLP? Or how about When Jimbo pushed for BLP rules did he envisage people adding non-notable criticism to BLPs, backed up by admins telling them it was ok if it wasn't to the BLP part of the BLP? Weakopedia (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@ATren, If it was a BLP vio and you had a simple option to fix it or remove it, which would you do? If the exact form of words and that link was all that was available I would have deleted them. But it looks unimpressive that people warred over the removal rather than discussed the simple fixes possible. Unimpressive all round really. You might as well go the whole hog and say "the article contains a BLP vio lets delete the article". Or "Wikipedia contains a BLP vio lets shut down Wikipedia". Ok, come here and complain about it but I don't think you get a lot of sympathy when more constructive and quicker avenues to deal with the BLP bit had not been tried. --BozMo talk 15:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Weakopedia: I think, and that was the point of the discussion, that the question of "is this notable", is quite separate from the "is this a BLP violation" question. But, you can't discuss "is this notable" before you have "is this a BLP violation" solved. Dunno if that makes sense - but that is/and was my view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC) [this is basically the "BLP hammer" argument - call something a BLP vio., and all discussion has to stop until it is resolved whether or not it actually is a BLP vio. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)]

This whole business is really quite silly and it shows yet again two destructive behaviours which need to be curbed - the lack of any serious effort to discuss the fixes mentioned by BozMo, and the instant resort to a probation enforcement request (which, frankly, is an abuse of this page). The fixes required are obvious, merely a matter of providing reliable sourcing. Following BozMo's comments I have added a new version of the Abraham para which uses reliable sources and presents no BLP issues - see [72]. Hopefully that will resolve the immediate problem here. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, the text that was inserted 3 times over the past few weeks (and reverted most recently by WMC) had language and sourcing that was quite obviously a BLP vio. Whether there are other wordings/sources which would fit is another question, but the text as it was inserted (repeatedly) was clearly a violation. Now, if someone else had presented alternate sourcing and wording (they did, quite far into the discussion) we could have perhaps evaluated it, but most of the discussion was denying the obvious BLP problem that existed. That's why the request went up, and your insinuations otherwise are misleading. ATren (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, this text has serious weight issues and probably shouldn't be included anyways, even if the BLP problems are addressed. This criticism was barely notable. As a counter example, consider Mann's hockey stick. If you go to Michael Mann's page right now, there is barely a hint of the enormous controversy generated by that theory (warranted or not, there's a ton out there). If well-sourced hockey stick criticism is removed of Mann, how can this barely notable unpublished criticism be kept in here? But this is perhaps a question for the talk page. ATren (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's disappointing but perhaps predictable that Marknutley is trying to edit-war the revised paragraph out of the article, claiming BLP violations again [73], [74], [75] and declaring his intention to continue edit warring indefinitely. [76] I think a block would be warranted at this stage. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: You're also edit-warring over contentious material in a BLP:[77][78] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I followed the sourcing suggestions of BozMo (and I see also NuclearWarfare) and added a rewritten version of the disputed paragraph, avoiding the BLP problems that some were claiming with regard to the sourcing. I subsequently reverted once. That does not make an edit war. Marknutley's three reversions when he's on a 1RR parole are more difficult to justify. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• In my view, it would have been perfectly defensible to cite the Guardian and mention that Abraham had produced a slide show rebutting Monckton, but adding the self-published slide show to the BLP was not. It is not the purpose of BLPs to argue science, or to show why BLP subjects are wrong. --JN466 23:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I agreed with the earlier views that the sourcing was inadequate and the wording poor - which is why I changed both to provide reliable sources and neutral wording (see here. Note that the two Guardian articles I cited give both sides of the argument (i.e. Abraham's that Monckton is wrong and Monckton's that Abraham is being malicious and his demands of Abraham). There is of course room for a discussion about weighting, but I don't see anyone objecting on undue weight grounds in the earlier discussion. This seems to be a new objection now that the sourcing and wording problems have been resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: ChrisO added the contested source back in. MN reverted, WMC reverted, MN reverted, MN got blocked, and SirFozzie protected. At least he protected with the contested source out, but it's a shame it had to come to this. If Marknutley added an unpublished criticism of the hockey stick from a skeptic scientist to Michael Mann's BLP, he'd be immediately sanctioned. But he's sanctioned for removing a bad source here. It's a joke. But this will be my last comment on the matter; it's not worth the trouble anymore. I've spent 3 years battling these same half dozen editors on obvious BLP transgressions, and nobody seems to care. So I don't either. ATren (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that's completely wrong. I did not "add the contested source back in". I rewrote the material in its entirety, sourced to two Guardian articles. The contested source was not used as a source for anything. See for yourself. Nor was Marknutley blocked for removing a bad source. The block was on him rather than other editors because "a) it wasn't a BLP violation, b) they did not break an edit warring parole, and c) they did not signify their intent to continue edit warring even past that". See for yourself. Please check your facts before jumping to conclusions. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@ NW, in response to his comments below and elsewhere: NW, either you accept the wording of WP:BLPSPS, or you don't. If you don't accept it, argue your case at the WP:BLP talk page; but while WP:BLP policy stands as it is, this was a WP:BLP violation by the letter and spirit of that policy. Arguing otherwise is, with respect, the equivalent of putting your head in the sand. --JN466 10:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the source is not ideal (which is why I replaced it) but I don't think the issue is as black and white as you portray it. WP:BLPSPS does not seem to fit very well with self-published academic work by experts in their fields. If Professor Y, a published expert in his field, publishes a detailed critique on his website of a work by Professor Z, that doesn't really seem to fit into the BLP framework. The subject of the critique is not the individual as a person but a work by that individual (a book, speech, TV show, whatever). On the other hand, if Professor Y uses his website to post biographical claims, that clearly would fall within the BLP framework. But I can't see how a critique of a work, as opposed to biographical claims, would be caught by BLP. Suppose in this case that Professor Abraham had published a scholarly critique of a book by Monckton, rather than a speech. Would that make any difference? If so, why? -- ChrisO (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree it feels different if it is a book, rather than a speech; it is less personal. Even so, I believe we wouldn't cite a self-published critique of a scholar's book in the scholar's biography; especially if it is a hostile critique which casts doubt on the author's integrity and competence, as is the case here. Apart from BLP, it comes down to WP:SPS, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." But I appreciate you tried your best to find a way for the passage to work. --JN466 00:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you approach Wikipedia with a black and white view of things ("the information is in a biography of a living person, therefore all aspects of WP:BLP must apply", for example), then you are only setting yourself up for failure. That statement I wrote in parenthesis is not true. NW (Talk) 12:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Request_for_a_statement_on_BLP_policy. --JN466 23:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning William M. Connolley and Kim D. Petersen

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

• A Quest For Knowledge above states that admins are unlikely to rule on this issue because there is an Arbcom case on. This is false. ArbCom has not nullified this board, and it is still the place to take disputes that are not resolvable through the usual channels. That said, I think this issue isn't a clear-cut BLP violation, but a content dispute. I would suggest remanding this case back to the article talk pages, with instructions to play nice with each other. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• That's one possibility. Another would be to point out that KDP seems to be arguing against all comers in quite the tendentious way, and the participants ought to call consensus, and if they're reverted again, ask for protection. Taking it to talk is good. Trying to filibuster isn't. I see why most folk would see this as a BLP violation. And why many folk would be frustrated with the level of argumentativeness from KDP. Sanctionable? Maybe not. But not nice. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Addendum. WMC needs another sanction/warning/admonition about pointy behavior and about edit warring to preserve pointy behavior. And if that doesn't do the trick, a block. ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• I must admit I approached this by belting up my gun and setting of to arrest people abusing sceptic BLPs (again). I found a link to the views of an associate professor (aka "lecturer" in the UK) which were notable and discussed around the place. In my view the wording of the mention was a little POV ("rebutting" etc) the link probably should not go to the presentation (which isn't peer reviewed or anything and is a primary source) but to some of the coverage of it but all in all I am a bit disappointed that everyone went for the mattresses without much attempt to find a compromise text. But I think this is at heart a content dispute where some constructive approach from both sides would help. As For Kim, per one of my children, I would describe him as a "determined" editor, tenditious being a more polemic word but there are other determined editors in CC too. We should close this and send it back to talk. --BozMo talk 08:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• I am inclined to topic ban all participants to the Climate Change ArbCom from all Climate Change topics, including talk pages and only excluding reverting obvious vandalism and socking (any ip or new account), until there is a result. I seriously doubt if the world outside WP would be harmed by not having articles updated for a week or so, and it would put an end to this type of behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • A list of people you would ban please? NW (Talk) 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • All parties to the ArbCom case; specifically anyone who has been complained about, for any reason. Everyone can take a step back, and go and do something else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• What BozMo and The Wordsmith said. Describing this as a BLP violation is simply wrong. While The Guardian piece might have been a better reference than the professor's website and there is the matter of whether it is necessary to include this information at all, neither is a matter for this board. Oh, and with regard to tendentious editing: nonsense. If we did that, we would have to apply the same to Cla68 for arguing that The Hockey Stick Illusion is a reliable source on multiple pages. Both are simply the respective editor's opinion, and just because they can argue their point well doesn't mean their are acting disruptively or tendentiously. Caveat: I have not seen Cla's edits since last week and am going by memory NW (Talk) 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Lar

Request closed - The diffs provided in this request do not demonstrate involvement. Commenting on another editor's behaviour here, during arbitration proceedings or elsewhere does not make an administrator involved. Giving an opinion on suitable sanctions does not make an administrator involved. There is nothing in the diffs provided that ought to prevent Lar from making further comments on editor behaviour or from suggesting or issuing sanctions. CIreland (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Lar User requesting enforcement Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Lar (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 [79] Lar poses as an "uninvolved administrator" in a case where he is actively seeking sanctions against the parties in an ongoing ArbCom case [80] Lar is misrepresenting other users positions, disrupting dispute resolution [81] Respect my authoritah style unproductive blustering [82] Lar disrupting ongoing dispute resolution by hijacking discussion for a separate event Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) This has been brought up several times before and is part of the ongoing ArbCom case. Lar is well aware that his behavior is considered unacceptable by several editors. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Lar banned from posing as an "uninvolved administrator" until the CC Arbitration Case has come to a conclusion Additional comments by editor filing complaint Lar's claim that he can comment as an uninvolved admin if he is in an adversarial role in the ArbCom case with the parties is obvious nonsense. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [83] Discussion concerning Lar Statement by Lar This is playing the ref, not the ball. (thank you, 2/0, for reminding me of that usage, it's apt) This request should be closed by the other uninvolved admins so we can get back to the important matter in the section just above instead of being diverted. Diversion is a tactic certain factions use routinely, don't let it work here. Uninvolved does not mean blind. I remain uninvolved despite having advanced remedies to correct the many issues that factions continue to cause in this topic area. ++Lar: t/c 12:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Lar Another fine example of this faction trying to eliminate an admin who is actually trying to address the problems on both sides of this issue. Lar has been the only admin on these pages who has been consistent in his treatment of the Marknutleys vs the WMCs. At times he's been highly critical of Marknutley, TGL and me, not to mention handing out several lengthy sanctions to Mark, but any time he dares point out the elephant in the room, he is subjected to this treatment. This is why it's gotten so far. Lar's treatment by this faction is precisely why arbcom has to be the ones to sanction this group. ATren (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Absurd per WP:POINT. Accuses Lar of "posing" where the RFC/U n Lar reached no such conclusion. Uses other colorful words to attempt to disguise the fact this is simply retribution for Lar opining in the WMC case anteceding this. Should be dismissed with extreme prejudice <g> as such. This page is not the place for anything approaching this sort of "request". Collect (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC) What the RFC/U reached or did not reach before the ArbCom case and Lar's current proposals is in itself contentious, but is also irrelevant. The claim that Lar is uninvolved now is absurd, and I seriously can only explain his defense with an extreme factionalism that completely ignores inconvenient facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC) If no uninvolved admins will do it maybe Arbcom should review a temporary restriction on Lar's posting as an emergency measure. Polargeo (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Comment User:Stephan_Schulz should be sanctioned for this. If Lar is involved the nso are any other admins who have commented at the arbcom case. Shall we also bring an RFE against Bozmo? After all he is asking for people to be topic banned right? Throw this out and stop wasting peoples time with distraction tactics, and that is all this is, a distraction from the case above mark nutley (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Bozmo, for what it's worth, is not, in my opinion, in a current conflict with KDP or WMC. Lar is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I also recuse from commenting further about this request as an uninvolved admin, since I am currently barred from doing this. Polargeo (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (moved from below by NW (Talk) 15:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)) I also recuse from commenting further about this request as an uninvolved admin, since I'm not one. Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC) It's past time that the hammer started getting dropped for disruptive use of this page. That includes both this request in general, and the specific past few edits by User:Hipocrite.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Actually no. Hipocrite was spot on in moving Lars and my edits up a section and I back this up 100%. The admin section does not need people recusing when they should not be commenting there anyway, this is just pointy.Polargeo (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Honestly, I probably shouldn't have posted my pointy recusal in the uninvovled admins section - just moved both of your pointy recusals up. For that I apologize - for the pointy recusal, not for the move-up. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Lar, having made so much effort in the past to move comments from "inappropriate" sections, what should be done with your comments in this section, which I remind you is headed "Comments by others about the request concerning Lar"? In a request about you, you aren't others.. you have your own section above this, all for you. I also wonder about your recusal "as an uninvolved admin" that you posted in the section for uninvolved admins... sorry to have to explain, but you aren't an uninvolved admin when commenting on yourself. It is impossible for you to make any comment "as an uninvolved admin" in this case as you are involved - in just the same way, it is impossible for me to comment as an orange and pink striped aardvark, because (amazingly enough) I am not one. I wouldn't usually note issues like this but given you have made such a lot of noise about posting in the "correct" places, you have wandered into pot and kettle territory. Regarding the analogy you consider so apt, I feel the need to point out the irony. You see, the analogy you misquote is actually about playing the man and not the ball, and it refers to going after a player on the opposing team rather than going for the ball. It has nothing to do with a referee and would make no sense otherwise, as there is no advantage to be gained by taking out a referee instead of playing the ball. You see yourself as the impartial referee, yet you describe as "apt" an analogy in which you cast yourself as a player on the opposing team! Maybe there is more of you that doubts your claims to uninvolvedness than you realise... EdChem (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Two points Consider This page intentionally left blank... (the page actually isn't blank!... a statement of recusal is not itself a comment. So your analysis supporting its movement is flawed. I've moved it back to be in accordance with common practice about where to put recusals but won't be sussed if it is moved again. I was quoting 2/0, (advise if you want the actual diff) when he said "playing the ref, not the ball", rather than the more general aphorism you refer to. So your analysis is flawed, I'm a ref, not a player. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 13:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Comment Lar's edit-warring his pointy recusal back in below is problematic - however, it's unlikley that anything will get done to solve this until ArbCom does something. I advise all right-thinking people to not fall for the bait (like I did), and just ignore Lar's attempt to rile you (and me) up going forward. Hipocrite (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Or treat it for what it is - intentionally or unintentionally hilarious. Guettarda (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Mother Mary and Jozef - could everyone involved in these tit-for-tat requests stop it???? Nothing is going to be solved and both "sides" are making themselves look ridiculous. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - this is a groundless request, and an unnecessary one. Not one sanctionable action is demonstrated, and no new argument about Lar's involvement or otherwise has been presented. I would suggest that many editors who have taken part here should consider whether under the circumstances their words reflect well or badly on them in the eyes of a neutral observer - or, say, of an arbcom member. Thparkth (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC) That is a pretty standard summary of an enforcement request. My personal concern is that the battleground is not enforced by supposedly "uninvolved" admins. Polargeo (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Lar This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections. There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see Template_talk:Climate_Sanction_enforcement_request before engaging in any threaded discussions. Recuse from commenting further about this request as an uninvolved admin, since the request is concerning my actions. ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I'm considering speedy closing this request on grounds of "dear God, not this shit again." Smacks of "Is he involved yet? No? *waits 10 seconds* Well how about now? Can we get rid of him now?" The WordsmithCommunicate 14:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I think we actually need to read the probation terms etc before closing it. --BozMo talk 15:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC) "an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions" is written only on content disputes on topic. This needs closing and the discussion on probation terms and personal relations needs taking elsewhere.--BozMo talk 15:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning ChrisO

Closed: RFE is not the place for fishing for reassurance. --BozMo talk 10:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User requesting enforcement User:ChrisO Users against whom enforcement is requested ChrisO (talk · contribs) Sanction or remedy that this user possibly violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation Diffs of edits that possibly violate it, and an explanation how they do so [84] Addition of rewritten version of paragraph about Abraham/Monckton dispute with new sources [85] Reversion of Marknutley's deletion of said content Diffs of prior warnings n/a Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Undetermined Additional comments by editor filing complaint I'm being accused by other editors of edit-warring, BLP violations and adding "bad sources" against consensus. I'd like to get some clarity on whether I have in fact breached article probation here, so I've submitted this complaint against myself to enable this to be resolved. To summarise, a number of editors complained that the previous version of the Abraham/Monckton paragraph was poorly sourced and worded. I agree with this view and said on this page that the issue could easily be resolved with better sources, [86] one of which BozMo identified in his comments on the enforcement request above [87]. I therefore produced an almost entirely rewritten version of the disputed paragraph, sourcing it to two Guardian articles (including the one identified by BozMo) and using a different and more neutral form of words. I also added material about Monckton's POV to add balance, which the previous version lacked [88] (and compare with [89]). I did not use the disputed reference as a source, since I agreed that it was not an adequate source. Marknutley reverted this three times on the grounds of undue weight, an objection that had not been raised to any significant extent in the previous discussion of the disputed paragraph [90], [91], [92]. I reverted it once, asking MN to discuss it on the talk page first. The article was then protected by SirFozzie. The issues that other editors have raised are: Was I making a good-faith, constructive attempt to improve the sourcing and address concerns? (per MastCell) Was I restoring the old contested source? (per ATren) Was my one reversion an act of edit-warring? (per AQFK) Was the rewritten version of the paragraph a BLP violation? (per Marknutley) Was this, overall, a violation of the CC article probation or otherwise a sanctionable action on my part? From my own perspective, I rather feel that I've been jumped on for making an honest constructive effort to resolve a sourcing and wording dispute. Some clarity from the admins here would be helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning ChrisO Comments by others about the request concerning ChrisO ChrisO acted in good faith. The article protection by SF was unecessary because NW had already blocked the cause of the problem, MN. But this is not an appropriate use of this noticeboard, which is for requesting enforcement not for exhonerating people of spurious charges William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I would not have linked the presentation, but this was a good-faith effort to resolve the situation. --JN466 08:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Result concerning ChrisO