Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive7#Thegoodlocust

If I were less involved, I'd block for this PA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What PA is that then? Am i not allowed to comment on an editors snideness now? mark nutley (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the above action with respect to my comments on an editors dickishness, no, you are not. Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• To spell it out, "he must have been dragged up not brought up" is unacceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The internal irony of the sentence "I tell you, the guy is incapable of being civil, he must have been dragged up not brought up" puts the whole sanctions regime in a nutshell; i.e., the expectation of exactingly correct behavior from others while exempting oneself from the same standard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the usual suspects demanding my head and that i am in the wrong from expressing my opinion on another editors continued barrage of snide remarks. I have yet to see any of the above editors bring WMC to book here for his attacks on me, yet they are all to willing to jump all over a perceived insult. Were i come from that phrase is in common usage, it is an indicator of poor manners, which is shown in the diffs stephan did not bother to post, i`m done with this now mark nutley (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That argument ("where I come from...") is depreciated. I noted before that where I come from, calling people "fucking retarded" is fine, but to question someone's honesty or motive without strong proof is by far the most substantial slight around. Apparently, here at Wikipedia, calling people dicks is the most substantial slight around, but accusing others of dishonesty and improper motive is AOK. You'll have to abide by that strucutre if you want to edit CC articles. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Deprecated", perhaps? We wouldn't want our arguments to lose value, after all. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 13:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark has redacted the most viscous part now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sure the conversation will flow better now. ;-) ATren (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal attack, while he has an open enforcement request.[1] The attack is, as these things go, relatively mild. But to do that while he had an open enforcement request is troubling. His response [2] (edit summary hah) also suggest contempt for community norms. Guettarda (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[Turns out I misread the date; today's the 26th apparently. At the same time, I no longer see his comment as "relatively mild". It's a clear personal attack, and is clearly incompatible with his civility parole. As, for that matter, is this Guettarda (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah indeed, and here was me thinking we were having a good old chat on my talk page, as i explained there that is not a personal attack, it is a question. I`m guessing english is not your mother tongue? mark nutley (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English? Only language I speak. And, not to boast, but I speak it and write it better than most people, though I sometimes code switch inappropriately (whenever someone comes up to me on the street and asks me for money, I switch automatically to Trinidadian basilect). Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you actually think asking someone if they are capable of answering a question which they are trying to avoid is a personal attack? Sheesh mark nutley (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it wasn't a question. It was a rhetorical question. And it has only two possible meanings - either you're calling Hipocrite cognitively or mentally impaired, or you're calling him dishonest. Either way, it's a personal attack. Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, lets make this simple, here is what i wrote Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above? Now lets see if i can answer it.

• "Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above?" Of course i am, here it is
• "Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above?" No, i am not.

Yes, i can see how that is a rhetorical question which can`t be answered all right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 April 2010

English *is* my mother tongue and the diff looks deliberately offensive (as well as an amusing self-reference failure), as does the comment above William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WMC, but you would of course say that. What is the self reference failure you refer to btw? O, and have you redacted your PA`s against me? mark nutley (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that MN cannot see what's wrong the comment (e.g. [3], [4]) strongly suggests that Administrator action is needed here. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

Cla68 Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. Violation of 1RR at a BLP article under this probation- 1st revert: Revision as of 22:08, 25 April 2010; 2nd revert: Revision as of 08:34, 26 April 2010
2. Personal attacks on discussion page for same article: [5] [6]

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

1. 1RR restriction
2. [7] Previous block for 1RR violation by LessHeard vanU
3. Warning not to use demeaning or derogatory phrases or words with regard to other contributors

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

Continue with escalating series of blocks until the behavior is corrected

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Diffs speak for themselves. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Judging from some of the comments below, I guess those diffs don't speak for themselves with everyone. Not only did WMC remove reliably sourced information and violate his 1RR restriction when doing so, plus making two personal attacks during the ensuing discussion on the article talk page, but this episode illustrates the long-running double-standard employed by WMC when it comes to AGW-related BLPs, in which he adds negative or disparaging information to skeptic's BLPs and removes such information from others. He has been doing this for years, as shown by these edits to the BLP of a skeptic: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14].

Then, last month he made this edit to another skeptic's BLP. Not only did he add negative information sourced to a blog, but he did so to an author who had, only a few months before, written unflatteringly about WMC in a published book. WMC shouldn't have even been touching that article. Cla68 (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15] Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues here, but the major one we're talking about seems to be the 1RR, so I'll address that. I explicitly claimed a BLP exemption for my revert, so the issue is was the edit acceptable under BLP exemption. As I've said on the talk page, in my opinion the "impeccable sourcing" bit is irrelevant. The question is balance, and selective quotation. If I say "immigration is both a blessing and a curse" and you quote me as saying "immigration is... a curse" then your sources are impeccable but you have misrepresented what I said and if you did that on wiki it would be a BLP violation. This is the same issue, though less clear. The section I removed [16] was entitled "Views on Climate Change" but that section by no means represents Curry's views on climate change, instead it merely presents some recent quotes of Curry disagreeing with the IPCC. That is not her view. Curry essentially believes the GW storyline as presented by IPCC. She has a number of quibbles and concerns about the process, but those are at the margins. Her overall viewpoint (which isn't very exciting, because it is the default, and so goes under-reported) is a "warmist" if you need a term William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Cla is making an elementary logical and wiki error by asserting that because he didn't like my BLP-related edits elsewhere, I am not permitted to make BLP related edits in this area. This assertion by Cla is clearly ridiculous. More directly: even if I had made grossly BLP violating edits elsewhere (which I dispute) that doesn't affect in the slightest the existence of the BLP policy, or my (all of our) duty to remove BLP violating material; and my right to claim BLP exemption for such edits as required William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be reduced to just a slightly iffy "No, not obviously, and not yet. You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that" (NW, 23:55, 27 April 2010). I think it is obvious that that diff doesn't merit reporting on its own; indeed I don't think it merits reporting at all. Please examine the context of that comment: Tillman is trying to justify adding a pile of tittle-tattle to a scientific biography, and completely ignoring Curry's actual real work, which is why she has her current position. This is a genuine ongoing problem with this and indeed many other GW type bios.

Also, I put on record my strong objection to Lar pretending to be uninvolved: he is obviously far too biased and involved even to see his involvement. The truely uninvolved admins ought to see this and ask Lar to step back to prevent his bias biasing the results William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear BLP violation; 3RR-like restrictions don't apply. Guettarda (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Discussion entirely within the "norm" that's tolerated here. Guettarda (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Guettarda regarding the BLP issue. Cherry-picking comments from blog postings to paint a picture on an issue conforming with an editor's ideological predispositions just isn't on. I'm surprised at this, because Cla68 has often expressed concern over BLP matters. If anything, Marknutley's repeated introduction of such material should be the issue here. It's too bad there's no provision for sanctioning such edits. Oh, wait... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking from blogs? I see references from the Times and the New York Times in there. A whittling down of the section in lieu of outright deletion would have been less disruptive.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that all of the sources were blogs. Should have been clearer, sorry. The "cherry picking" point remains: one can easily construct a BLP-violating article using only the best of sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heyitspeter, that's exactly it. If WMC had just removed the information sourced to the blogs and left the info that was better sourced, then taken it to the talk page, as we're supposed to do, then there wouldn't be a problem. As the talk page discussion shows, including WMC's opposition to (and personal attack on) Tillman's proposed variation of the text in question, WMC was simply revert warring material that he didn't want in the article in any shape or form. That's a violation of the restriction and disruptive. Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:BLP, The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. And remember, a zero-tolerance policy toward any language that could be considered less polite than a Victorian tea society can go both ways. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a different quote? The material removed was exhaustively cited. I'll remove this comment to avoid cluttering the page if you find a relevant excerpt.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoever added material to a biography of a living person from the comments section of http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com , from http://wattsupwiththat.com , and from http://www.qando.net should promptly be informed that they are no about to be no-longer welcome to edit. As such, I suggest that Marknutley, who has gotten his last final last final doublesecret final warning be final warninged again and that Marknutley , who has gotten his last final last final doublesecret final warning be final final warninged again and that Tillman be given his first final warning. Hipocrite (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Lar states "The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced." Lar, in addition to NW's question, please discuss how (using this pre-revert version of the article) the statement "She has ... [written] for example, "The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue,"" This is sourced to [17]. Please, do explain how this is impecable. It leads me to question if you are actually evaluating the requests, or merely taking sides based on your preconception of what must be true. If it turns out that you agree with me that this is, in fact, the opposite of impecable sourcing, what should be done to correct your conduct? Hipocrite (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I see Lar has now moderated his comment. While he initially said "The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced," he didn't actually mean all the statements. The ones that were not actually by Dr. Curry were apparently not impeccably sourced. Apparently, the appropriate response to someone who puts certainly defamatory content about living persons into articles is not to revert them, but rather to piece through their edits to determine what of those edits are impeccably sourced and what parts of them are defamatory poorly sourced content about living persons. I hope Lar will update WP:BLP to reflect this new understanding. Hipocrite (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not particularly surprised by that comment. But disappointed just the same. You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "The real issue here is the spin control," Lar. Why are you spin-controlling your "The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced," claptrap? Just own up to it, already. Hipocrite (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? If the NYT isn't good enough for you, what is? This isn't the first time that WMC et al. have removed NYT sourced "inconvenient truths". Regrettably it probably won't be the last. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting spin there. But we aren't talking about the New York Times. We're talking about an unverified blog comment. Which you apparently believe to be "impeccably sourced". I'd hate to imagine what you consider "so-so" sourcing. Guettarda (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? I'm not talking about blogs. I am talking about sources such as the NYT, which were also removed willy nilly. You repeating this after I've clarified it, more than once, is starting to verge on bad faith assumption. ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "The real issue here is the spin control". Funny, I thought the real issue here was attributing controversial statements to living people based on unverified blog comments. Guettarda (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not particularly surprised by that comment. But disappointed just the same. The enforcement request was raised to address the spin control by WMC et al, in my view. You're using BLP as a smoke screen. ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I must say I am particularly surprised by your comments. As for spin - yes, this is spin. Spin so single-minded that people are willing to resort to using unverified blog comments to advance their narrative. Still, given that you'd delete dozens of bios simply because they lacked sources, I'm shocked that you would place advancing your chosen narrative over our most basic rules of sourcing. "Don't put contentious words you can't verify in the mouths of living people" is far more basic than our BLP policy. Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look through the edits under discussion. You're implying that all WMC did was remove sentences sourced to blogs [though even that is not sufficient for BLP exemption], but he also removed statements sourced by The New York Times and The Times.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not. The entire section has BLP problems. The most egregious problem was the fact that part of it was sourced to a blog comment. It's entirely in keeping with accepted practice to remove the entire section. Specifically here though I'm talking about Lar's assertion that the entire section "impeccably sourced". Which is, of course, obviously false. Guettarda (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (2) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You think BLP advocates the deletion of the entirety of sections that have sentences that are poorly sourced?--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read MastCell's comment in the section below. I'm simply describing norms that are considered acceptable. As long as one is operating within the norms of the community, there's nothing to discuss. On the other hand, claiming that the comment was an appropriate source, as Lar and Cla68 have done ("impeccably sourced" in Lar's words), is outside of the norms of acceptable behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (3) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• random comment I was actively editing this article while much of this was going on. MN added some stuff (good stuff, but maybe too much). WMC took it off (with some justification. There was simply too much.). MN added a tag (with some justification. His good stuff had gone.) There was discussion, a sentence was added back and MN removed the tag. So everybody was happy. Well, less unhappy. Now we can move on to fight the same foolish war on yet another page (sigh). Neither MN nor WMC assume good faith of the other, but there you go. Thepm (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lar: "The BLP policy is being used as a smoke screen by WMC's many defenders, who have predictably formed ranks" - please stop it with the conspiracy theories and lay off the accusations of bad faith. You are the one who's attacking an editor for removing content sourced to blog comments from a BLP. The conspiracy you see - it's called Wikipedia policy. Guettarda (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (4) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - you said The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced. An unverified comment on a blog is "impeccably sourced"? I realise nothing Wikipedia should be taken too seriously, but you're turning this into a real joke. Guettarda (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If WMC's intention was to protect a BLP, then why did he make edits like these: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] in the past to the BLP of a climate change skeptic? Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to play that game, first explain why you consider an unverified blog comment to be a "reliable source" for a BLP. Then you can talk about other people's actions. Guettarda (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (5) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then you can explain how edits from two years ago are relevant in the discussion. Guettarda (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's one from last month, re-inserting material sourced to a blog into a skeptic's bio. Same pattern. What makes this worse is that Booker discusses WMC in an unflattering light in two pages in his recent book, so WMC shouldn't have been touching Booker's BLP, let alone adding negative information sourced to a blog. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, before you try to play this game, first you need to account for your own actions. In the very article we're talking about here, you assert that an unverified blog comment is a "reliable source". As far as I can tell, that's a flat-out falsehood. You need to explain that first. Otherwise how is anyone can take you seriously? Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Note that it's normal for enforcement requests to look at the behaviour of not only the subject of the complaint, but also the person bringing the complaint. And in this case, the real problem here is your assertion that unverified blog comments count as "reliable source[s]". Guettarda (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (6)... See the pattern yet? ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lar, the pattern is that you're going to try to spin that comment you made about unverified blog comments on a no-login unmoderated comments section being impeccably reliable till you're dizzy. Hipocrite (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I was questioned about what I meant, the very first time, I clarified that I was referring to the NYT. NOT blogs. (I support Tony's thinking that we ought to completely eliminate reliance on blogs...) I clarified that the first time it was brought up. And yet, here you are, still misconstruing what I said, over and over and over. If you repeat a Big Lie enough times (or even a small one) maybe it will stick? Is that the approach? You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? Stop saying I am talking about blogs. Please. It's tiresome. Or admit that you're the one spinning here, part of the cadre. ++Lar: t/c 11:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I'm willing to bygones your regrettable statement that unverified comments in blog comment sections are "impeccably reliable," if you'll admit that WMCs reversions of edits that insert actually defamatory facts sourced to unverified comments in blog comment sections are acceptable under WP:BLP. You can then have whatever argument you want about spinning, and others using blog sources, and whatever, but right now apparently you're saying the appropriate response to an edit that has what appears to possibly be reliably sourced information from the NYT and also obviously defamatory information sourced to unverified comments in blog comment sections is not to revert on sight as many times as it takes, but rather do do something else. Now, I know you don't think that, but sadly, when you admit the above assertion, it'll weaken your case and damage your spin here. I'm sorry that you went out on a limb about the sourcing, but you're going to have to crawl in. Hipocrite (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? Stop saying I am talking about blogs. Please. It's tiresome. Just flat out stop. No more spin, just stop. ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just can't admit when you make a mistake can you? Stop spinning and admit that your first comment was wrong. Please. It's tiresome. Just flat out stop. No more spin, just stop. Hipocrite (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered. "I'm referring to the stuff sourced to the NYT." As explained to you over and over. Perhaps you need to be sanctioned to discontinue repeating the same tiresome assertion over and over after it has already been answered. But that might interfere with your spin... ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it midly ironic that someone who actually numbered the times they said the same thing is suggesting I be "sanctioned to discontinue repeating the same tiresome assertion over and over after it has already been answered." However, I should note that with respect to this question, since it's you who alledge that it's bee answered, and you who I am challenging, that you are certainly not, even under your tortured definition, "uninvolved," with respect to my "repeating the same tiresome assertion over and over after it has already been answered." Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I was numbering was the number of times Guettarda raised the point AFTER it was already asked and answered. Not how many times I pointed it out (which, to be sure, is the same index value). Hope that clears up your latest confusion and that you now discontinue this fruitless line of badgering. Every time we interact I find your chosen moniker more apt. Why is that? ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because when people are willing to stand up to you you get defensive and try to attack the motives and character of the individuals who disagree with you. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss the content dispute on the article's talk page if you like. The question here is the disruption caused by WMC to the article by revert warring, contrary to his 1RR probation, and the two personal attacks he made in the content discussion on the talk page. What is your opinion of those two personal attacks on the article talk page? If WMC's actions were meant to help facilitate a content discussion, do you think those two comments were helpful, or disruptive? Cla68 (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (I'm "Lar-uninvolved", since I've never edited either the article not the talk page. Move my comments up if you move his up). As per the several comments above, there is nothing actionable here - indeed, WMC should be lauded for dealing with a BLP issue. If you, Cla, feel that there is a double standard, complain about the cases where BLP is violated, not about those where it is upheld. "Sorry, we executed an innocent man by accident. For fairness, we now need to eliminate all others, too" is not a good argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) (Note: I moved this up from the admin section. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Sorry, you're (by far) not as uninvolved as me. You may not have edited this article but you edit in this space far more than I do (i.e. essentially not at all) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Translation: I contribute content and have demonstrated some understanding of the issues. All you do is pushing misguided and one-sided sanctions following your preconceived opinion, without either knowing the editors, the domain, nor even the particular case very well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time understanding what was so dreadful about WMC's actions here. I've not been involved in any way with this article, but having reviewed it I think it's clear that the controversial section was "dirty" - a mixture of cherry-picked quotes from reliable and unreliable sources. As I understand it, WMC's concern, apart from the sourcing, is that the content seriously misrepresented Curry's views. The fact that some of the content was reliably sourced doesn't detract from this concern. Given that WMC has worked in the field and is familar with the work of others in that field, I don't think we can dismiss those concerns. It's not about "spin control", nor is BLP just about sourcing; it's essential that a subject's views should be reflected accurately. As others have pointed out below, BLP's toughened approach mandates a conservative approach to content. If questionable material has been added it needs to be removed.

Unfortunately think that Lar's strong reaction is affected by his evident dislike of WMC. Put it this way - if it was any editor other than WMC, does anyone think that such a severe penalty (or indeed any penalty) would have been proposed? I suggest that Lar should consider recusing himself from future WMC-related enforcement requests, given his apparent strength of feeling. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assumes facts (in this case, feelings) not in evidence. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I have no personal animus for WMC. I just dislike the tactics he employs. You should too. ++Lar: t/c 10:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second the request for Lar to recuse. I also ask that someone who boasts that his family owned 8 cars at one time should be removed from oversight of an area that intimately involves the topic of fuel combustion. I'm not joking. ► RATEL ◄ 09:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request is ludicrous on the face of it, as if it's allowed to stand then we should also eliminate anyone who brags of having less than 8 cars, or who brags about riding a bike or who brags about their use of wood to heat their house instead of natural gas, or any of a number of things. The request needs to be formally rebutted and disallowed, with an admonishment not to repeat it. ++Lar: t/c 10:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry, I'm sorry, but the fact that you openly proclaim your love of engines and ownership of numerous vehicles destroys trust in your judgement on the issue of fossil fuel emissions for me, and I'm sure for others too. I think Bozmo's suggestion that admins be rostered off this area on some sort of schedule would be a minimalistic, but perhaps effective, remedy for these concerns. ► RATEL ◄ 11:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even with 50 cars Lar could only drive one at once, a total climate change contribution equal to that of an editor with but one vehicle. Further since Ratel is using a variety of electricities and plastics to convey his displeasure I believe as a representative of the energy industry he should recuse himself from this debate. Weakopedia (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The probation terms state that "uninvolved" should be interpreted broadly. In my view both DrS and Lar qualify as the rules are written in this case. Involvement is not the same as neutrality. But perhaps we should all do a month-on month-off rota so that we don't get sucked into the personal stuff. Off article talk page involvement with the individuals concerned is probably not ideal. --BozMo talk 10:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Cla68's diffs about blp and blogs are from 2008, and some of them, such as [25] are totally uncontroversial housekeeping. While Cla's last diff, using deltoid on the Booker page is troubling, how much grudge-holding should be permitted by someone who has lost perspective? Just yesterday, Cla68 was defending comments on a blog as reliable sources. I think perhaps everyone in this discussion who has inserted blog sources or defended blog sources as reliable needs a break - that would be WMC, Marknutley, Cla68 and Lar. Perhaps ban them all from the topic area for a short time to allow them to regain their balance? Say, a month, and perhaps a longer ban on all of them under BLPSE, perhaps 3 months on all BLPs? Hipocrite (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying I am talking about blogs. Please. It's tiresome. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then acknowledge that WMC's second revert was not only acceptable, it was actually proscribed. Hipocrite (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, your claim that this was "impeccably sourced" still stands in your comment. You have not retracted that claim. Thus, you are still claiming that the blog comment is an "impeccably source". Strike the whole section (because, of course, your conclusions follow from your outlandish claim) and we can move on. But as things stand, you're telling people to stop talking about a claim you, by all appearances, stand by. Guettarda (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I was questioned, I (two comments below the orginal) pointed out I was talking about the NYT, not blogs. If you think a strike and rephrase will help, sure. But I don't see the need if the clarification is right there next to it. And yet you go on and on about it over and over. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by ATren - Round and round we go. We're in the neighborhood of a dozen requests against WMC now, most of them credible reports, and nothing but token sanctions. Lar is the lone admin who has any interest in leveling this playing field, and like clockwork the WMC apologists are coming out of the woodwork to attack Lar, someone who not only has no involvement in this topic, but has also professed sympathy with WMC's own views on the matter.

  And WMC's defense? BLP! Laughable for anyone who knows his history. WMC has openly scorned BLP when LP is a skeptic -- just a few months ago he was warring to keep "see also: climate change denial" in a bunch of skeptic BLPs even though the denial article was primarily about fraud. But when BLP policy suits him, he's more than willing to use it.

  But really, the issue here is yet another attack on Marknutley, someone who is actually working to add content in this topic area (how many articles created now? At least 3 by my recollection) and who has been subjected to constant mocking and abuse by WMC. That first PA diff is inexcusable given their history, and it has to stop. But as long as the apologists refuse any significant sanction against an untouchable, this will continue to be a poisonous editing environment. ATren (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marknutley. Let me say it just as it is. I have some time for Mark but that does not mean when he constructs such a poor biased BLP that every editor should congratulate him on his efforts to improve wikipedia. Why is this at enforcement? Why are we getting into this trench warfare? It was a crap attempt at a neutral BLP, now for some reason we are all here arguing about it, that is an absolute joke. Polargeo (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Why are we getting into this trench warfare?" Because admins refuse to remove the battleground editor. ATren (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Taking out MN, and you, would help. Or did you have someone else in mind? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m not happy with the direction this discussion is taking. If a BLP exemption can be taken for a citation to the New York Times, then the 1R restriction has no teeth. I’m sympathetic to the view that if someone posted that person X was a denier, which no sourcing, then an editor under an editing restriction can properly claim an exemption to remove the transgression. However, when the exemption, lists “biased, .. or poorly sourced” which is broad enough to drive a truck through. If the editor merely needs to claim that, in the sole opinion of the editor, the edit introduced some bias, then virtually no edit is covered. I think Cla68 is right that WMC violated the spirit of the restriction, but WMC can claim the exception. The result is that we should modify the exemption. We need to be vigilant about rooting out BLP violations, but some of the discussion ought to be carried out in the talk pages – we should narrow the scope of the exemption so that it covers only blatant examples, one’s where there’s no reasonable debate about the issue.SPhilbrickT 14:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is claiming the BLP exemption applies to the NYT. It does, however, apply to the unmoderated no-login comments section of a blog, wihch was used to shove words into Dr. Curry's mouth. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand your point. I do understand that there were multiple statements removed, one of which may have come from a blog, but one of which came from the NYT. When I see User:Guettarda state “Clear BLP violation” I don’t see any clarification that this applies only to a subset of the removed material. Are you telling me that Guettarda’s comment is limited to the blog entry?SPhilbrickT 16:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been clarified that even Lar agrees that "if someone inserts obviously defamatory information cited to a blog comment on a no-login unmoderated highly partisan blog, but also inserts content in the exact same edit that is purportedly attributable to the New York Times" then the best practice is to "revert first and track down sources later." Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result is that we should modify the exemption - you can't. BLP policy is outside the scope of this probation William M. Connolley (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t suggesting that it should be modified within the scope of the probation, merely that it should be modified. I don’t have time to tackle that now, we’ll see if I still feel motivated to consider it this weekend.SPhilbrickT 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar's approach to this seems to be based on two assumptions - that the removal of this content was an improper act of"spin control" and that there's a "cadre" of WMC defenders. Both are faulty. There's no dispute that some of the sourcing (blogs) was bad. WMC is concerned that the section as a whole, including the NY Times-sourced material, gave a misleading impression of Curry's views. He knows Curry's work. I don't, and I'm betting Lar doesn't either. Surely it can't be wise just to dismiss WMC's concerns out of hand, given his professional knowledge?We do want experts to contribute to Wikipedia, right? Misrepresenting someone's views is a serious issue - potentially defamatory - so it's absolutely right to exercise caution.

Second, I strongly object to the implication that everyone who disagrees with Lar is a WMC "defender". I'm certainly not, and I've criticised his conduct in the past. Assessing whether or not WMC acted properly should not depend on your prior opinion of him. It's absurd to label an assessment that no improprietry occurred as a "defence" of WMC. People are capable of being objective; it's verging on an assumption of bad faith to assume that any assessment that differs from Lar's is motivated by partisanship.

Surely, as a matter of basic fairness, we can't treat WMC differently from everyone else - whether more favourably or punitively. I seriously doubt whether Lar would have reacted this way if it had been anyone else. His issue appears to be not so much with the action as with the actor. I don't think that's a healthy approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imputing motivations seems like the essence of failure to WP:agf,do you disagree?SPhilbrickT 16:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about Lar, aren't you? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO: I let this sit a while, but on reflection I think it needs to be addressed point by point. Let's start with your assumptions about my approach:

• "Removal of this content was an improper act of spin control" - I started by looking carefully at the article beforehand, and walking the diffs and checking the refs. After that, yes, that was my evaluation... there is a long history of spin control (a kind of POV pushing) in this area, and it's been done by both "sides". I and others have in the past asserted that to be the case. Nothing I have seen recently has changed my view that in general there is still a desire by both "sides" to do this. I've also asserted that while both sides try to get their innings in, the playing field is not level, that one side seems to have an easier time of it. So, then... this content. My evaluation of the matter, and I acknowledge others may not agree, is that WMC came in and removed content that was inconvenient to the narrative that he apparently wants (I say apparently, because it's based on observation of outcomes, not of knowledge of his motives) to put forth, that there is no meaningful dissent and no problems whatever with anything related to the process or output of the research around AGW. Some of that removed content was poorly sourced yes, but some was impeccably sourced. Since WMC tends to do this only in one direction, but not the other, then yes, it was a reasonable conclusion on my part that it was spin control rather than a genuine desire to uphold the principles of BLP. Others may not agree, but WMC doesn't have a long history of generic BLP work that crosses topic boundaries. His BLP work seems to be concentrated in removing things that undercut that narrative and inserting things that bolster it.
• "there's a "cadre" of WMC defenders" - I think for more background it's useful to review the recent discussion TS and I had (on my talk) about why a "cadre" is not a "conspiracy". There are a number of editors in this area, who, whenever WMC (or one of the others among them) gets into trouble, speak out in his (or the other person's) defense. That's not a bad thing in and of itself. See Meatball:DefendEachOther. No outside communication, or collusion, or coordination, is necessary or implied by me. Occasionally pointing out something that WMC does wrong isn't proof that one isn't among these folk, and pointing out that WMC is right about something isn't proof that one IS among these folk. Rather, it's a pattern of behavior. To deny that there is a group of folk who hang together (call them what you will) is to deny reality... you can see it here. It may not be changable, but it's not a good thing to have people reflexivly defending each other, especially when their tactics include attacking whoever points it out.
• "the implication that everyone who disagrees with Lar is a WMC "defender"." See above. I make no such claim, and if you read that implication, it's not correct. People disagree all the time. But there nevertheless are defenders here.
• Finally, you are implying that this issue is somehow related to me, rather than to WMC. That's attacking the messenger and completely invalid. You say you "seriously doubt" I would have "reacted this way" if it were anyone else. That is false... if it were some other person with the problematic history of WMC and with the approach to interacting with others that WMC routinely employs my reaction would be the same. It's not personal at all.

I hope this perhaps clears up some misconceptions. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar - it's very hard to believe that you "I started by looking carefully at the article beforehand, and walking the diffs and checking the refs," but didn't notice that one of the refs was to a deleted blog comment (and other links were to random blogs) and quotes attributed to a living person were not uttered by that living person, and that at least one sentence was a quote, but was not attributed. Did you miss those, or ignore them? Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I neither missed nor ignored the sources, but the source I spent the most time with was this one. But you're focusing on a side issue from the general thrust of my remarks, which are a thematic rebuttal of ChrisO, not (yet another tiresome) digression about who said what when about blogs. If that's what you want to talk about... Dunno what to tell you, then, because I consider it asked and answered. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was the source you spent most time with, you'll have noticed that it's a blog source: it seems to be commonly described as a NYT source, but that's a little misleading. Your comment above that "clarified that I was referring to the NYT. NOT blogs" looks technically incorrect. Having said that, I've looked at the author's bio and find it credible as a WP:SPS. In my view it's worth being specific about that justification for blog sources published by such organisations as the NYT. . . dave souza, talk 22:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Mark Nutley People seem to be having an issue with the blog link, with one editor above saying the blog was putting words into DR Currys mouth. This is not the case, "What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them" This is from her open letter. New York Times For any editor to suggest that i used a blog source to put words into Dr Currys mouth is wrong, and i ask you redact your statements. mark nutley (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by WMC, moved from below: Lar, this is twaddle, unless you regard blocks and a 1RR restriction as "at best a slap". You seem to have lost touch with what has actually occurred William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pomposity and laconicism

I hadn't read the alleged personal attacks in the msst recent Cla68 enforcement request, but Nuclear Warfare says he's iffy about one, which goes:

"You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that."

There's a certain laconic tone to that, but it's well chosen given that he's replying to a person who has stated, without shame or hesitation, that he thinks a sequence of blog postings, a write-up in The New York Times and an interview is "something of a watershed moment in [the] career" of a quite eminent and decorated scientist.

If only that were so, my old mate PZ Myers, once a mere associate professor, now a world-famous blogger, would be able to move to Harvard and trade in his blog for the Louis Agassiz chair once held by one of his heroes, Stephen Jay Gould.

As you can see, I lack William's talent for laconic humor. His comment was no personal attack, though it cut through the nonsense more surely than I could. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC frequently personalizes disputes and baits other editors on article talk pages (yes, I can back that up). When Tillman made it clear that he, understandably, didn't appreciate WMC's remark, WMC refused to back off of his statement. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins? It's not clear to me how it has been concluded that WMC acted in the right. I see how his removal of blog-sourced sentences might be covered under WP:BLP, but he removed sentences sourced by the Times and The New York Times as well. (I suppose this applies to MN's treatment too.) I posed this question to SBHB above and did not receive a response. I'd love to have this cleared up.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you earlier, read MastCell's response. Short answer - it's within accepted practice to undo the entire edit that adds a serious BLP violation. Longer answer - there are issues with the remainder of the content. Just because something is referenced to a particular source doesn't mean it fairly represents the source (I don't think this does; for example, the final sentence of the first paragraph attaches the "we're experts, trust us" idea to transparency with research, when in fact the article presents is as a response to the loss of trust by the public in response to the CRU emails). And just because something is sourced doesn't mean it creates problems by distorting the person's record. And this was not the first time Mark Nutley was told that unverified blog comments cannot be used. An editor who uses an unverifed blog comment to support extraordinary accusations of "corruption" raises a huge red flag over all their contributions. Guettarda (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Dave souza, from below So adding blogs to BLPs are OK sometimes, and sanctionable other times? ATren (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring balancing text and accepting that a better citation is needed differs from introducing a blog as a new source in the first place. The editor concerned at least appreciated that the source was inappropriate, and your edit which followed within minutes was appropriate in removing a now unbalanced and inappropriate paragraph. That removal has stood, without any dissent that I've found. As for blogs in general, it's been argued below that a NYT blog is an impeccable source for a BLP – the blog concerned fully meets WP:SPS, so its use seems reasonable. . . dave souza, talk 07:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response on proposed restrictions The prohibition against WMC even commenting on the appropriateness of sourcing is frankly abhorrent. I realize that Lar and LHvU have declared open season on WMC, but this goes too far. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Lar mentions the [26] baiting of WMC which is funny because I have shown diffs on the talkpage where he has done just that. Here we have a case where certain editors created a BLP on a notable scientist who passed the Prof test and all they seem to want to do is highlight some recent criticism she made of the way fellow scientists have handled sceptics. But even this they have done in an extremely biased way using poor sourcing and misrepresenting any good sources to twist her meaning. WMC makes a perfectly legitimate and actually quite polite comment on the talkpage, which completely reflects the situation. Yes it is about the editor but last time I looked wikipedians weren't banned from making negative comments about editors actions when justified. Okay I will make a comment about certain admins down below. What sort of a totalitarian regime are we running here when Lar fails to push though heavy sanctions for a legitimate revert then he takes the ridiculous opportunity provided by LHvU's misguided civility crackdown to ban WMC from commenting on other editors. Nightmare, that is like tying his hands behind his back and in this instance for what? Lar please stop acting as an uninvolved admin before you turn this process into any more of a joke. LHvU, you are misguided here. Polargeo (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really suggest that the two of you re-read my proposed restrictions; there is nothing about restraining Doctor Connolley commenting upon content issues, and everything about constraining comment directed toward another editor, opinions on why they edit as they do, or speculations upon their intellectual vigour or moral fortitude (or similar musings) - it is "Comment on content, not on the contributor" writ large, prompted by what I regard as exampls of Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility (particularly point 1.d). If you have issues upon that, and the propriety in applying them, then you need to change the consensus regarding major Wikipedia policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be what you meant, but it's not what you wrote. Your recommendation was to restrict WMC with regards to "comment about another editor, their editing, the value of the sources quoted..." etc (emphasis added). To restrict comments on someone's editing is bad enough, though it's just about defensible if carefully phrased. But to restrict discussion on the usefulness of sources is indefensible and may even violate some of Wikipedia's core policies. I fully endorse "comment on content, not on the contributor" but the proposal goes far beyond that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What WMC said in that situation was a fair comment. Please stop acting as some sort of extremist civility police. To extend any sort of restrictions based on it is a gross overreaction. If WMC had said "You are a total dick who doesn't even deserve to be spat on by scientist X, let alone be allowed to write their bio", or words to that effect, then I would be calling for sanctions against him. Polargeo (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole Comment on content, not on the contributor is massively overused often mistakenly to signify that something is a WP:personal attack. This is a misrepresentation of not only the rule but also the spirit of the rule and is hence WP:wikilawyering. After outlining the clear cases of what a personal attack is the actual text finishes with the statement When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. If you are trying to class WMC's statement as a personal attack based on the fact that he has actually mentioned the contributor you are misinterpreting the rule in a quite extreme but unfortunately all too common way. Polargeo (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SBHB, what I said in respect of WMC - in full - was, "Any comment about another editor, their editing, the value of the sources quoted, should be regarded as a statement and thus need to be sourced or evidenced." (added underlining). I had earlier noted my desire to prevent from Doctor Connelley from "opinionating" upon editors and their comments, so the sentence you partly quoted was to say that any comment by Doctor Connelley about an editor or their edits needed to be able to be referenced to a source, or to WP policy or guideline. Doctor Connelley can describe another editors contribution as poor or misguided or wrong, provided he can indicate a source where the content concerned has been noted as poor, misguided or wrong, or the relevant policy that equates the edit as poor, misguided or wrong (I would be happy to include the term "able" into the sentence, there should be no need for every instance to be ref'ed, just that it can be upon request.) I am suggesting that Doctor Connelley is disabled from sharing his personal opinion and judgement upon other editors and their contributions - per the nutshell quoted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In discussion here, Mark has introduced what seem to me novel and unpersuasive arguments for accepting blogs on newspaper websites with copyright notices etc. so advice by others would be welcome . . dave souza, talk 22:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• So I think we have a general agreement (though not without dissent) that WMC acted appropriately in removing the content and referring the issue to the talk page. Cla68 has brought up a comment of WMC's that he believes merits action. I would appreciate advice from other admins, as I'm a bit iffy on this one: "No, not obviously, and not yet. You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that". NW (Talk) 23:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur that your summary appears to be the consensus among those admins who cared to comment. As for the diff you bring up... there are plenty more where that came from. WMC's baiting continues unabated. ++Lar: t/c 00:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • At present I am still struggling with the two way track in "nasty" comments. MN versus WMC is tricky because of the parliamentary rules issue. But this particular comment accusing someone of having no interest in (missing word added later) ^^her^^ science would be less provocative and attacking in my book than Lar "That's not dishonest. Your tactics are, though". It may sound a bit extreme but I am wondering asking for no personal interactions either way between WMC and Lar as a way of improving the atmosphere, since I do not see much productive coming from them? --BozMo talk 06:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not the source of the problem here. I've never had such a restriction imposed, ever. Stop WMC's dishonest tactics and many other problems go away. ++Lar: t/c 12:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am sorry I regard "dishonest tactics" as a serious and as yet unsubstantiated attack. I would complain if it came from from WMC and I complain equally aimed at WMC. Unsubstantiated non-specific attacks are part of the problem. A large part. --BozMo talk 22:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everything has a first time. And I notice how your unfounded violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF continue - and that in the probation area, where we are particularly required to assume good faith... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks to me like LHvU gets it. Take a look at his comment ("gaming sanctions" == "dishonest tactics", in my view) and see if you change your mind. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So: can anyone see any problem with Lar commenting as "uninvolved" on possible sanctions against himself? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I see rationales provided by WMC, so I think the that aspect of the request fails because we AGF that the reasoning was just that. I also think that in isolation the comments by WMC are within the terms of his civility restriction, but I am concerned that those restrictions are being gamed by WMC in that his tone and inferences create an uncomfortable environment within discussion involving him and those editors who may be considered as editing to a AGW skeptic viewpoint. I think the easiest solution would be a restriction on WMC opinionating on any such editor, or their edits, within the probation area. Any comment about another editor, their editing, the value of the sources quoted, should be regarded as a statement and thus need to be sourced or evidenced. If such comments are not, then WMC is violating his civility restriction and may be sanctioned (except possibly upon these pages). If WMC feels that this constrains his ability to comment within the probation area, then it is by his actions that this has come about. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly so. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • And can we have a symmetric list of editors who are prohibited from opinionating about WMC? It seems to me that this is the elephant in the room which we are not addressing. --BozMo talk 22:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not seeing the need for that. Handle it on a case by case basis and come down on people who bait WMC without prior provocation (which will be far less once he's prohibited from commenting on other editors) and all will be taken care of in due course. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Generally I don't support that because I cannot see enough evidence that he is the one baiting in general rather than responding. If you look at bullied kids in schools they often have behavioural issues but you need to see it all. Clearly there are many cases with different editors but the general situation in my view does not warrant a one sided action. And I repeat I would prefer a voluntary agreement for a particular list of editors and WMC not to comment on each other's editing, behaviour or knowledge base. Including him on you and you on him cos its getting me down both ways. --BozMo talk 06:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • • Are we officially stalled, here? Mn has a agreed form of wording relating to sources - it would be best if we could wrap this up. I would prefer to have something in the order of "WMC is reminded that commentary should be directed toward the content and not the contributor", but in any case believe that we need to close this request down so will accept another "no action" in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'd rather see another slap on the wrist that will be ignored than no action at all. Suggest you close as outlined. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Invoking WP:BLPSE and WP:GS/CC, I am proposing a restriction on Marknutley for something along the lines of the following: "Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. Examples of high-quality sources that meet this exception include articles in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media." Obviously, the wording could be improved, but your thoughts? NW (Talk) 02:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a sound principle. Apply it to every article covered by the sanction and every editor, though. Why single out just one editor? ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because so far I have only seen MN violate this principle. Point me to a number of other such cases of misuse, and I would be happy to expand this. NW (Talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, here's one. [28] (credit to Cla68 for finding it first, it's mentioned above...) ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point of order: that wasn't a new source, it had been in the article for over a year[29] though it had lately been disputed. The edit summary "rv: please don't remove valid material, you can add a cn if you like" clearly invites questioning of the source. Not the same in principle. . . dave souza, talk 22:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... Would not a 0RR on sourcing, without talkpage consensus, be easier? MN would not be constrained in introducing a source, but could not revert its removal without consensus - or is this simply allowing any source from MN to be removed and then discussion stymied. I am thinking that the long term contributor in good standing would be one that is already regarded by some as being on "MN's side", which leaves us with the unpleasant potential of the ltc's coming under scrutiny.
  • I would also suggest that MN be placed under a "no comments on other editors" restriction as I am suggesting for WMC, as a further method of reducing some of the friction that occurs around his editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems fine with me, although I think there is merit in what I proposed. I have not seen evidence that Mark realizes his misunderstanding of the RS or BLP policies, and until such time that he understands this, I see ample reason to be preventative rather than reactive. NW (Talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think your wording could be tweaked so to not include passing the proposed sourcing via another editor if the wording as what conforms to a "reliable source" is simply made very clear - even if it appears to be echoing WP:RS. Of course, if someone volunteers to mentor MN and his use of sources then it would be beneficial but I would prefer not to have that requirement. If we place a requirement for strict application of WP:RS - as it is commonly understood, not MN's take - then violation would be a sanctionable matter. It puts the onus on the editor to comply. I do take your point regarding being proactive rather than reactive in trying to resolve this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The level that I proposed was deliberately higher than the standard required by WP:RS. There are some cases where sources weaker than what I proposed are acceptable, but I am unsure if MN knows when to apply those. For that reason, I would like to have a mentor to advise him if at all possible (Cla68 seems like an excellent choice to help him if he would be willing). If we cannot find a mentor for Mark, then I suppose your proposal of 0RR for sourcing concerns would also work for me. NW (Talk) 23:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've proposed mentoring earlier, and I still think its a good idea. One problem with Mark is his strong confirmation bias. He forms his opinion based on unreliable sources, apparently seeing WP:RS as a quaint limitation to work around, not as a way to avoid, well, unreliable information. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree to the proposal to see if there would be a volunteer to mentor Marknutley - are we going to suggest it is only in the area of sourcing, because I am not sure the potential pool will be very large if it is to cover every aspect of MN's editing within the probation area? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Per the comments I have made in regard to a subsequent Request relating to MN's use of blogs as sources, I would note that this issue continues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have asked Cla68 if he would be willing to mentor MN along the lines you suggested, but for now, I am going to propose a closure below. NW (Talk) 22:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Update: Cla has agreed to mentor Mark NW (Talk) 01:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. He is also prohibited from reverting the removal of sources that he added to an article without first gathering talk page consensus. Marknutley is encouraged to find a mentor who can assist in checking the reliability of sources and with more properly educating him on the reliable sources policy."

• Support wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wording and delighted by mentoring. Lots of brownie points for Cla88. --BozMo talk 20:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per LHvU and BozMo. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+ + + + + + + + + + + + I note that no-one troubled to inform me of this result on my talk page. I take that to mean that no binding result concerning me was invovked - obviously, had any such result been determined, I would have been notified rather than any discovery being left to casual chance William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. You are a long term contributor to the project and are fully aware of the content/contributor commentary nutshell, so I thought it would be impudent to place that notification upon your talkpage per WP:DTTR (and considered that you would likely be coming to this page and therefore come across it). Where a result would have impacted upon your ability to edit, you would have been promptly notified. Marknutley has also not been officially notified, since he has already started editing within the wording making such notification superflous. However, you have reminded me that I have not logged Mn's notification - so I thank you for that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no restriction on WMC introducing sources? He also added a blog source to an article, as was presented in the RFE. ATren (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus was found for doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

mark nutley (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Atmoz (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. [30] Personal Attack
2. [31] Profanity and another PA.
3. [32] Another PA.
4. ...

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

1. He already knows of the probation

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

Up to you guys

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The personal attacks are pretty nasty, attacking an editor just because his English is not perfect is just plain mean.

[33]

• I'm sorry, but I don't see any personal attacks in the first or third diffs. Telling someone that they may not be as fluent in English as they thought is not a personal attack. The "profanity" (fuck) is not in the second diff. The second diff wasn't very nice, but Nsaa accused me of deleting content by redirecting the article to another article. This is flatly false, as I showed with diffs. I completely merged the Climate Audit page into the Stephen McIntyre page. All of it. The fact that there was no prior discussion does not mean there was no consensus to do so. The fact that the merge stood for over a year shows there was consensus for the merge. That consensus might have changed, I don't care. But please don't accuse me of something I didn't do. I consider that a personal attack. -Atmoz (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely spurious request. We might consider to expand Mark's ban from initiating enforcement requests in general - he seems to have trouble to distinguish between serious and trivial issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this "completely spurious"? Take me through the logic that led you to that conclusion, if you would. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See your own comment below - and that's generous to Mark. Even WQA is overkill. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Doesn't follow. Can you try again explaining why you concluded it is "completely spurious". If I thought it was completely spurious I woulud have said words to that effect instead of what I said, which was that WQA might be the better place. NOT that there was no merit in raising the issue. ++Lar: t/c 02:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What`s WQA? mark nutley (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hang on a minute Stephan, you say Now be a good lad and do bugger off on my talk page is a clear personal attack. Yet atmoz attacking another editor because his english is not perfect is a non issue? Strange logic indeed mark nutley (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you sure you are talking about me? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes Stephan I am sure, in the RFE above you said, This is a clear personal attack when i wrote "Now be a good lad and do bugger off", so how is that a personal attack, yet attacking an editors less than perfect grasp of english in a pretty nasty way is not an attack? mark nutley (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:WQA#Atmoz "your_English_sucks" -Atmoz (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The terms of the climate change probation explicitly cover personal attacks and incivility. The diffs provided clearly demonstrate incivility at the very least. The probation covers "pages related to climate change (broadly construed)." The page in question is an AfD page for a climate change article. I would suggest that it is within the scope of the climate change probation "broadly construed". Of course it would not have been tagged as such, and Atmoz may legitimately not have realized that his behavior there might be reviewed under the probation. Nevertheless it is very obviously against the explicit terms of the climate change probation for one climate-change editor to behave so uncivilly to another climate-change editor in a climate-change-related area. Having said all that, it's a fairly trivial case with no real harm done to anyone. I believe a warning would be sufficient and appropriate. Thparkth (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Don't give a flying fuck" is well within range of language the community finds acceptable. See Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism, for example, and all the pages thank link to {{User DGAF}}. The rest of it is less than polite, but context is everything - the fact that Nsaa's English, while good, isn't up to the level of someone like Kim or Stephan (recall the "have you stopped beating you wife" complaint recently) does make the comment rather more hurtful if Atmoz intentionally threw that in his face. On the other hand, encountering someone who appears to be fluent but just doesn't quite get "plain English" is likely to provoke that (unfortunate) response. Guettarda (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that "don't give a flying fuck" is a non-event and shouldn't be considered here. Thparkth (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur as well. Non-event, non-issue. (Was anyone else tempted to say "Don't give a flying fuck that Atmoz doesn't give a flying fuck", or was it just me?) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I made an Wikiquette alert on this already, and a finding and warning for personal attacks was made. If you admins would like to put some teeth into that finding so that Atmoz understands that there are consequences for his behavior and should correct it, I think that would be very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but a single opinion by one editor does not a finding make, and the comment is not "a warning". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was an independent opinion by an uninvolved editor with experience looking at these types of edits at the Wikiquette board. Again, if you admins are serious about improving the level of discourse and civility in this topic area, you need to take a stand on editors belittling each other like this. Like I've said before, I think AGW is the worst area in Wikipedia for the way in which the editors treat each other, and it has been going on for years. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nsaa

This is so bad. I have no word for it. Why the heck should my language be subject to Atmoz comments at all? Why not just keep the discussion about what was discussed? I find it totally counterproductive and it harms Wikipedia. So yes give him a long block or a long topic ban for this so other people can start working. What do Atmoz try to achieve? Getting people angry so they make "mistakes" and can get them blocked/topic banned? Nsaa (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• While the diffs show Atmoz was not being very polite, at all, this may not be the right forum. Suggest this be taken to WQA. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh dear lord, no. Its a non-issue, why drag it off to the WQA to complain there about what we all agree is a non-issue? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure "we all agree" that it's a non issue. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a result from WQA, as evidenced by Cla68. I suggest that Atmoz be advised to read Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility (especially point 1. d again]] and to apply it in future interactions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure on that basis. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requesting enforcement

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation (1RR parole)

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

On Bishop Hill (blog):

1. [34] (2010-04-28T18:46:34) Removes merge tags. Not explicitly marked as a revert, but clearly is: it reverts [35]
2. [36] (2010-04-27T21:04:09) Marked as a revert

On The Hockey Stick Illusion

1. [37]
2. [38] (note that this revert is *after* the report here about the BH blog 1RR violation. Note further that this edit warring is to restore a blog/twitter reference)

More:

• [39]

Failure to understand RS:

• Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#Kottke_Review

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

1. He is on 1RR parole

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

Std type of 1RR block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User denies that any violation occurs; see his talk

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[40] (note: MN has reverted the notification [41])

• Statement made in improper location (again, this time @LHVU), moved here from Admin section

If you're having problems understanding revert policy it would be better for you to have avoided issuing 1RR blocks William M. Connolley (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On The Hockey Stick Illusion Tags were removed per talk page consensus for no merge. The review which i reinserted had been removed under the claim the guy was not an expert book reviewer, However i found a source showing he has reviewed books in the past [42] so i put the review back.

On the Bishop Hill (Blog) I removed the tags per talk page consensus for no merge. I reverted the removal of reliably sourced material. Mainly the BBC and The Guardian which had been removed by a person who wants to delete the article.

I had not realized the removal of tags per consensus counted as a revert. mark nutley (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no attempts to talk to MN before filing this request. It may have been an honest mistake. The disputed edit is also extremely recent. So I suggest WMC (or the enforcement 'committee') simply asks MN to self-revert to restore the merge tag, and if he agrees, collapse this thread. It'd save everybody a lot of time.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible, wmc has already reverted me on the tags, against the talk page consensus i might add. Same with the other diff, as soon as someone adds content to the Bishop Hill (blog) article it gets reverted straight back out by the same guys who are trying to get the page deleted. After all being mentioned by the BBC and The Guardian are obviously not good enough for an article. mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Guettarda (diff).

Perhaps we can assume with GF that you were aiming to self-revert, and treat Guettarda's edit as your own w.r.t. his 3RR restrictions? Just a thought. I'm going to leave this to the discretion of the CC admins now. Happy editing.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nsaa

I've just learn something new about the English word blogs. Mark nutley has shown great willingness here to self revert if he had got the chance. Nsaa (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that Storm in a teacup should redirect here. Not this section, this whole page. Happily, I don't think I'm part of anyone's team, so there won't be a request for enforcement for this otherwise disruptive comment. Thepm (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hipocrite

MN is discussing it as opposed to edit-warring over it. As such, even though I think there's probably a 1rr violation in there, the rules are designed to improve the encyclopedia and the environment. Blocking MN at this point would not help. Thus, I suggest this be closed without action because probation is not a way to block people for no good reason. Hipocrite (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Marknutlety has yet again engaged in stale revert warring without discussion ([43]), I retract my request for lienency in light of positive progress. Perhaps a break will do him some good. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that revert warring? I`ve not removed that before. And there is no ref for that claim. Why not just say i can`t edit the articles at all for christs sake mark nutley (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, either you assumed that edit would be uncontrovercial, or you discussed it on the talk page, right? Which was it? Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured removing unsourced POV stuff would be uncontroversial yes, it`s what we are meant to do. Your removal of the fact that the book is non fiction, saying in your edit summary that it is fiction is however controversial would`nt you say? mark nutley (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's as controversial as your removal of "polemic." Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No because the book is non fiction. mark nutley (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because the book is a polemic. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response by William M. Connolley to LessHeard vanU

MN has two reverts. I've provided those two reverts. They occur within 24h. That they are not the same revert is irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – LHvU is using the standard 3RR definition of reverts being to the same material in whole or in part, but if I recall correctly, it was established in earlier discussions that in relation to these sanctions 1RR means no more than one revert, regardless of whether or not it's the same revert. If the rules are to be changed again, clarification is needed. . . dave souza, talk 09:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC) add iirc . . dave souza, talk 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you'll notice that *isn't* the defn he used when blocking me for 1RR William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your 1RR block was for reverting Marknutley twice relating to the same paragraph, indeed to the same opening sentence of the same paragraph, so I fail to see how I am supposed to have taken two dissimilar changes to the same text as being two completely different edits? Unless you are arguing that a revert is only a change to the reverters perferred version, and not a change from the revertees version. That is not a hair I had previously seen split. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't the same revert. You seem to be making the rules up as you go along in a desperate attempt to avoid finding fault with the skeptics William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I provide the revets and the previous version reverted to for the two reverts as a point of information. As a further point of information, since WMC pretty much defined how 3rr is adjudicated, I'd consider him more authoratative than any policy document.

18:46, 28 April 2010 reverts [44]. 21:04, 27 April 2010 reverts [45]. If you are defining 1rr as "reverts the same thing more than once" then it's not a 1rr violation. However, those are both "reverts" and so someone who is not permitted to "revert more than once in a 24 hour span" is not permitted to do that, with the caveat that I place practical over rote rule following. Hipocrite (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1rr restriction is located at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive5#Marknutley. It states "Marknutley is restricted to one revert per 24 hour period to any article in the probation area until 2010-10-01." Thus, while the reverts were totally unrelated, they were to the same article. Hipocrite (talk)

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

• I am only seeing 1 edit to Bishop Hill (blog) in the 24 hours preceding the first diff provided, and it did not relate to the tags - therefore I suggest that there was only one revert. Similarly, the one edit in the 24 hours before the one exampled at The Hockey Stick Illusion does not relate to the merge tags. Marknutley's 1RR restriction notes that it applies on an article basis, and thus MN is acting within the wording of that restriction. Marknutley's continuing failure to properly apply WP:RS and WP:BLOG to sourcing content is currently being discussed elsewhere, and in this case I suggest is only noted to that discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (resp to WMC)Ummm... okay, I will wait for other admins (and others) to comment upon that interpretation of revert as regards 1RR. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically I think WMC is right per how the rules are written and used in practice. But MN may not have understood how RRs are worked out (it isn't obvious). So if this is the first time he is claiming "didn't know that" I am inclined to be lenient (I know, I hate sanctioning anybody)... --BozMo talk 20:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Following the comments by WMC and Hipocrite, I see how the wording could be construed (although I had not quite grasped that aspect when sanctioning WMC for what I deemed to be the meaning per 3RR) as no second revert to any part within 24 hours. As regards sanctioning, I did block WMC for the technical violation - and despite WMC's (continuing) disagreement with my call, and other editors suggestion it only just fell within the time scale - so I am unsure that we can allow MN this grace. I will enact the block, if that is the decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a kind of "two wrongs don't make a right" argument to consider here. I don't see we should feel obliged to make equalhandedness more important than doing the right thing in each case. I also think with both this case and WMC we really need to stick to only blocking for prevention not as a punishment. However, I do hear your argument. --BozMo talk 07:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you think not blocking MN for violating the same technical violation as WMC was sanctioned would prevent further disruption, with the potential of claims of bias toward one editor over another? As admins we are of course always going to be wrong, but we have to consider the ramifications of one type of wrong over another going forward - certainly in a situation like this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, am finding it hard to care much. Do what you think is best, with my blessing. Personally I am start to get the strong impression that to do the enforcement properly we should spend less time on this page and instead watch a subset of CC pages themselves more diligently. At present I only have four on my watch list and find trying to decide stuff from the diffs presented here when it is as subjective as Lar implies is just non viable. I wonder if we should assign ten pages each or something and stand there rapping knuckles before stuff comes here. --BozMo talk 10:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

Polargeo (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Polargeo (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. [46] I inappropriately acted against Lar’s comment in the uninvolved admin section. I am involved and I believed that Lar was also involved. Both our comments were moved as inappropriate but I should know better this was the wrong way to protest.
2. [47] My comment was “Please move my comment it appears to be in the wrong section. This is the section where "uninvolved" admins become more imortant than other editors based on, well nothing really.” This was pure disruption per WP:POINT. I firmly stand by this as I believe this is a terrible situation to put on this section of Wikipedia but as I seem to be the only person who agrees with myself this is not good. This comment was also moved per my request.
3. [48] need I say more?

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

There are no prior warnings. I understand the situation.

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

I should be banned from ever adding a comment to the section for uninvolved admins on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. If admins wish to take this further and ban me from ever editing the page Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement then that would be acceptable to me and I would not complain, in fact I think it would help.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is not a joke or a disruption. It is a genuine attempt by myself to resolve this situation. ATren was confused about my involvement from the comments I made and assumed I was genuinely trying to comment as an involved admin.

I disagree passionately with this probation. I believe it was initially not advertised wide enough to be a proper consensus. I think it is a joke where every small issue that would otherwise go unnoticed now invites every nutcase (including myself) to come and have some sort of partisan say on it. The very idea that three or four self appointed high sheriffs could ever police this area is a joke and goes against my core feelings about what Wikipedia should be. My comments in the admin sections are largely to do with a protest against Lar’s involvement but that is not the motivation for this request. The motivation is to bring about a sanction on myself which clears up my involvement status and in extreme prevents me from commenting in the enforcements area altogether which is an area I fundamentally disagree with.

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.

I think Polargeo is right and I should be banned. The level of the ban is obviously up to uninvolved admins to decide on. This would violate WP:POINT if Polargeo had not genuinely requested a ban per sanctions. He has requested this and as such I am prepared to accept any decision based on his request and feel it would do me good. Polargeo (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have several times commented as an uninvolved admin when I clearly was involved and therefore should be banned from doing this again, ever. Sorry if this sounds a little strange. I am really genuine about this. Polargeo (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If raising this enforcement request is perceived as disruption then that is only a further reason to bar me from acting as an admin in the enforcement area and possibly even ban me from enforcement altogether. Polargeo (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to avoid any confusion and I will comply 100% with any sanctions. Polargeo (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Here is the point. I am an admin but I don't wish to act as an admin in this area. I want people to see that I am not an admin as far as the area of sanctions enforcement goes. I was motivated to request a ban by ATren lumping me together with enforcement admins and complaining of my possible bias. I think a ban will serve to show my non-admin status in enforcement to everyone and keep me away if I ever start to wobble in my resolve. However, it does seem nobody is keen to grant my request and so if any uninvolved admin wishes to reclose this as a pointless mistake then feel free to. Polargeo (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request for enforcement was filed in violation of WP:POINT. I suggest the applicant withdraw.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think the applicant should have tried discussing the matter with Polargeo before filing the complaint. It's a clear breach of AGF to just bring the complaint here without trying a bit of discussion first. I think applicant should be flogged with a warm lettuce until he calls "uncle". Polargeo on the other hand should be given some warm cocoa and buttered toast. Thepm (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to (perhaps foolishly) take this seriously for a second, there is no actual breach of the climate change probation alleged or demonstrated here, except arguably in raising this enforcement request itself. I suggest that having made his WP:POINT, Polargeo should simply blank this entire request and leave it to live on in legend as the strangest thing in the already-strange history of this page. Thparkth (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe this diff posted be Polargeo above [49] sums up the matter. This request is nor a joke or a point it's a problem with the self accused.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Polargeo (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for some advice Polargeo, I would suggest not climbing the Reichstag to try to avoid losing an argument. Cla68 (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Please move my comment because I am involved with Polargeo Polargeo (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 28 days to late... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Are you trying to make some kind of POINT? because I don't see it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation Banned from discussing climate change, including user talk pages [50]

Deliberate incivility and baiting, ethnic slurs: [51]

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

1. Piles o' stuff in User_talk:Lar#Can_you_imagine...

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

1. He is under santion

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

As deemed appropriate by a really uninvolved admin

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note deliberate incivility by TGL, obviously LHVU / Lar will now need to "narrow" the meaning of slur to exclude this use William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[52]

The topic ban extending to user talk pages is clearly not valid under the climate change probation (esp. ones that have been repeatedly stated to be an open forum for discussion) nor was the topic ban valid to start since 2over0 (who basically disappeared after unilaterally declaring the topic ban - likely out of some sense of shame) didn't even bring the discussion to this noticeboard. Of course, this is brought up, again by Connolley, because I'm daring to defend someone that he wants gone - attack, attack and attack. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Bozmo appears to have changed his definition of the scope of the probation; when a similar problem came up with WMC, he correctly stated that the probation didn't apply to user talk pages (correcting me in fact). TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Bozmo: I was making the request to you as a courtesy instead of making an RfC. The previous link has flat out shown that you change your interpretation of probationary scope depending on who is on the pillory and I was hoping that even you would take pause when presented with such damning evidence. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the original topic ban (coincident with 2/0's) against TheGoodLocust. While this could be a technical violation of the ban (haven't checked), I don't see any problem with TGL's behavior at Lar's talk. I originally brought it up for his grandstanding/aggressive behavior at article talk pages, which I saw to be detrimental to collaboration and article-space editing. I found this request because I just responded to him in a very civil conversation at Lar's talk. In addition to the civility, this conversation is ongoing at an out-of-the-way venue (i.e., not one of the article talk pages) with the blessing of the venue's owner. I am afraid that a topic ban extension will be detrimental to the environment here, as I think TGL will be nabbed for a crime he didn't think he was committing (yes, maybe its in the rules, but...), and that such an extension simply will create more bitterness that will extend into the future and beyond the realm of TGL's work here. I would suggest that TGL's topic ban not be extended, and that he be encouraged to continue the currently-more-productive mode of behavior that I see at Lar's talk. Awickert (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am recusing from uninvolved admin commentary, since I was part of the same discussion noted by Doctor Connelley and specifically addressed TGL. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the admin who got me talking about climate change on Lar's talk (baited?) has not recused himself and is, in fact, wanting to extend an already illegitimate ban that I've only followed out of sheer laziness even though I've stayed far away from climate change articles and their talk pages for 3 full months. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific, preferably with diffs, about how you were "baited" by an admin who "got you talking" about climate change? MastCell ^Talk 23:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[53] "sadly for you I am still a trained scientist and therefore more inclined to the scientific methodology and consensus, which is an area where WMC excels." Or you could go with the previous post of his in that same topic. I consider that baiting since I am quite a fan of science and don't like people trying to marginalize my beliefs as unscientific, nor to I appreciate the annoying suggestions that crop up frequently of creationism/ID sympathies (I'm an atheist). TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one invited your comments at a third party's talkpage, and I was as forgetful of your restriction as likely they were. I therefore do not see any attempt at baiting, and think you might withdraw that allegation. I also strongly suggest that you do not make interpretations on either the validity of the original restriction or the admin's rationale in doing so - the admin who is commenting is suggesting a response that is unlikely to appeal to any other sysop who reads your claims here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Lar did invite me to use his talk page, several times, and I think it is a very healthy thing to have such an outlet (for all parties). And yes, the restriction 2over2 imposed on user talk pages does not fall under climate probationary sanctions and is certainly not preventative as admin actions are supposed to be. After all, the probation clearly states, "bans from editing the climate change pages and/or closely related topics." And I don't think Lar's talk page qualifies under that definition - that definition was meant to include things like esoteric biographical articles and not userspace. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban, including user talkpages, was clarified here, before Lar (or I) became involved. Lar's invitation would have been made in good faith, in ignorance of the detailed terms of the ban. The issue of interpretation of bans, sanctions, etc, is why there are these long-winded discussions on these pages now - so everyone knows, or can refer to, the extent of the decisions. Your ban was before this practice was established, but appears otherwise within the remit given to admins by the Probation. Personally, I think it sucks just a little and you have been snared by your and other people's (me included) carelessness - but I also think you should accept this harsh lesson and accept the minimal sanction being proposed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were always longwinded discussions - as long as the sanctions were discussing someone like WMC. Skeptics were far more likely (the only people I believe) to get unilateraly banned by someone like 2over0. And yes, he can clarify or declare his sanction as much as he likes but it simply is a massive overreach, to ban my use of user talk pages, that simply isn't available as a means of sanction via the way the probation was set up. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there's room to argue whether s/he crosses the line before that point, this is a clear violation of his ban: I suppose my main problem with the whole thing is that the fundamentals of the theory don't make any sort of logical sense. For example, all the catastrophic scenarios of runaway global warming, envisioned by computer models, only work by assuming that the 3-4% of CO2 that man produces (1.52 × 10-5 of the atmosphere) will cause positive feedback loops - this just doesn't make sense to me because CO2 has been so much higher in the past. It is a giant non sequitur - and add that other phenomena better explain events and it all seems rather silly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blaming others for "baiting" doesn't really hold water. Not only are you responsible for your own actions, but it also seems pretty clear that TGL raised the issue of climate change by saying I'm not sure how I feel about you Bozmo. I don't like that you've set up carbon permit trading (seems like a major COI). With that comment, TGL initiates the conversation between him/herself and BozMo. Guettarda (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which was in direct response to him calling me out by name on a page I watch. I guess you missed that part. Odd how Less has the integrity to recuse himself and not the person directly responsible for my so-called breaking of the violations (and since you mentioned that comment, a person who has mistated facts about me in the past in an attempt to ban me). TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs, please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[54] He stated I had done 4 reverts in 24 hours (I hadn't) and understated WMC's reverts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were a number of complaints about tgl in a short period it seems a good idea to link to the whole conversation [55] but as I recall the fourth revert was just outside 24 hours so I was slightly incorrect. --BozMo talk 08:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd how when there are a number of complaints against WMC in a short period they get "closed as a mess" (ignored) instead of being dealt with. And yes, you were "slightly off" in that the extra diff would've made me break 3rr, and you were slightly off in that WMC had an extra revert that you didn't count (as pointed out by Unitanode). However, I did edit war and was sanctioned for it and now understand the edit warring rules better (I'd been going by WMC's example - and I believe he'd actually been formally warned by Arbcom for his edit warring). TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to how an edit back in February caused you to break your ban on discussing climate change 3 months later. Guettarda (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to resolve your confusion. I'm here because WMC was trying to improve the project by dragging me back here. I hope he gets what he is wishing for. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Which was in direct response to him calling me out by name on a page I watch". But your diff points to an edit 3 months ago. I really don't think you're saying an edit from 3 months ago "baited" you into discussing climate change on Lar's talk page. So what are you saying? Guettarda (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diff was obviously about what was in the parantheseses since I assumed Less was capable of scrolling up on the previously provided diff to see Bozmo call me out by name. I thought this was quite clear and blazingly obvious, but then again I thought the same amount the simple math in our previous discussion where you required further explanation. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banning an editor from discussing a topic on user talkpages is the same as banning every other editor from initiating discussion about the topic with said editor. That seems quite a restriction - why shouldn't editors be able to participate in civil discussion on each others talkpages? I see the link to where the block notice was left on TGLs talkpage, but does anyone have the link to the discussion that gave consensus to the terms of the block? Seeing that discussion would give the terms more context in light of this request. Weakopedia (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the terms of probation say anything about requiring consensus for the terms of a block. Uninvolved admins have wide discretion to do that kind of thing and the practice of seeking consensus (and also erring on the side of inaction) is a recent practice. Anyway, this is not the place or occasion for reviewing the original decision; this is for dealing for infringments of an existing block. --BozMo talk 07:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's not required that there be consensus. It is often helpful to get it first, and it's a common practice here (although not elsewhere), but it's not required. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated previously the "erring on the side of inaction" is not a recent thing - it is simply the status quo of sanctions for one side of this debate while the other side has gotten unilaterally banned when they get too uppity. As for weakopedia's original question, AFAIK no other admins were consulted on the ban and indeed, if standards were applied equally people like WMC would've been banned 10 times over by now due to his far worse behavior. 2over0 simply went out of his way to diff mine and then ban me without asking other admins for input. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There was a concurrent complaint about you on the probation page which got closed without action as no longer necessary however. --BozMo talk 10:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ TheGoodLocust Have you ever tried discussing this with 2/0? He is understanding and listens to concerns. Your attacks here are not the way to go about things though. My understanding is that 2/0 left because he wanted to edit articles and not burn out from all of this stuff. As Lar always says, stop blaming others and take responsiblity for your own actions. You are blaming everyone above for this situation and not saying anything about your own behavior about this. I think that the sanction should be extended because of this behavior you are showing. Sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Lars comment in the section below; I agree that this should be clarified, since it appears that the original intent was to prevent disruption of CC related space and the antagonism of certain editors. Posting on editors talkpages where they are welcome or otherwise invited, but not where there is comment already from one of those parties with whom TGL's restriction is intended to reduce interaction, may be permitted. I also agree that RfC's, like RfArb, is an area where such restrictions are suspended. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is rather clear from the clarification[56]on TGL's comment at Marknutley's page [57] , that it included "suggestions" and other indirect involvement in CC related space. From what i can recall it was either a complete ban, or a wide topic-ban - and in the interest of congeniality and a feeling that TGL might have things to offer to WP outside of this area - it ended as a wide topic-ban. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC) [corrected link to clarification, moved the two links around --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Which can be revised if there is a need. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it can. It can also be completely overturned. But that doesn't exclude the need for full disclosure of what the specifics were, so that a decision can be based upon such. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh absolutely. Specifics are always good. We've had some confusion about what things were in force and the like, lately too (e.g. with TGL), so the point is well taken. ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than extending the ban, I think it should be clarified/narroewd - so lets be clear. TGL is subject to a ban. He breaks it. Lar's response is no sanction whatsoever, but the ban itself should be narrowed. Yet more bending over backwards to be helpful towards the "skeptics" William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at Bozmo's talk page - you broke the same restriction and back then he decided that user talk pages were not subject to the climate change probation (and indeed they are not mentioned in the rules). Or, if you like, there was this time when 2over0 not only unilaterally closed a complaint against you, but refused to reopen it even after being asked to by several other admins. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed TGL is subject to a ban, and BozMo's suggestion is that the violation is noted and TGL warned against further infractions. Lars suggestion is that some consideration is given for the ban to be varied going forward, not that the violation is disregarded under a new definition of the original ban. It is within the remit of the admins to see if there is a consensus for variations of existing sanctions, since it is common practice to make them more stringent or wider ranging when it is concluded that the existing wording has not achieved the desired outcome and may also be narrowed or varied when reflection provides reason to do so. Not all breaches of the Probation, or editors restrictions and even WP policy, are met with the application of the maximum sanctions available. This is true of many editors reported here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The message sent by the proposed close is clear: "If there is any real or imagined ambiguity in a sanction proposed here, you should violate the sanction (or at a minimum test its limits) without asking first. The worst that can happen is that there will be a 'clarification' of the sanction." If that is indeed the message you want to send, go ahead and close the case in this way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already demonstrated, when this exact same issue of probationary scope came up with WMC it was dismissed, and, in fact, Bozmo's opinion on the scope of the climate change probations was quite different then. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with BozMo's proposed wording, that future violations of the ban - in whatever form it takes - will result in a 3 month extension (or 6 month, if it is decided to open some avenues to a form of restricted access to be decided). I know this isn't quite what BozMo proposed, but the discussion is ongoing on the latter aspect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I now suggest that the original topic ban, in the most stringent reading of its provision as clarified by Admin 2/0, be extended by not less than 3 and not more than 6 months, given that the olive branch offered in varying the conditions going forward has been used as a bludgeon in reactivating old issues. It appears that the behaviour that the topic ban was intended to remove from CC related space - as I said, including editor talk pages - is still in evidence. Enough. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Re-reading commentary in the "uninvolved" admins section below it's not entirely clear what the proposed close happens to be. Lar proposes that the appropriate response to the violation is to weaken the sanction; BozMo's suggestion is to clarify the sanction. You do not have a response there, but in light of the above your response to appears to be "don't do it again, and this time we really mean it." So it appears the admins are not of one mind as I had gathered from my first reading. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) PS: As an aside, perhaps slurs against someone's nationality are acceptable because they were not explicitly prohibited by the terms of his sanction? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol, that's right it was a "slur." I intentionally slurred my own family (Kaiser FYI). This is the fine sort of interpretation that got me topc banned in the first place - and which is conspicuously absent when it comes to WMC et all. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think TGL is hardening attitudes by his continuing violation of the existing understanding of the topic ban and his apparently increasingly bellicose commentary. I am striking and replacing my comment above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a violation. Bozmo has stated in the past that user talk pages are not subject to the probation. I was merely following his guidance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who placed the ban clarified that it was, and until consensus changes that is still the case. BozMo may have been voicing an opinion, but I am certain was not varying the terms without the aforementioned consensus to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the terms of applicability in terms of pages of the specific ban prohibiting tGL from discussing Climate Change widely across Wikipedia is not the same thing as the area on which the general probation terms apply. tGL was banned from discussing CC on a wider area than the probation area itself for reasons which are perhaps becoming apparent. This has been pointed out already but I think tGL is not managing to listen well. --BozMo talk 22:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well "clearly" if I was not banned under the rules of the climate change probation then this case shouldn't be before the climate change probation enforcement board. And yes Bozmo, the reasons are apparent, I tend to find and point out hypocrisy and inconsistency that some would rather not see the light of day. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd how his opinion on the rules changed so drastically in my case - either he thinks user talk pages are subject to the probation, as he states now, or they are not, as he previously stated, and which the climate change probation itself implicitely states. I would like to know what changed his mind all of the sudden. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake was that I misread probation for ban, (or the other way round). No, the Probation does not cover user talkpages. You, however, are banned from commenting in relation to CC matters everywhere except RfArb and RfC pages - and your mistake is continuing to flout the ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I believe we are making some progress, but you've confused me a bit. Since the probation does not cover user talk pages, then what exactly am I being accused of? I've respected the probation ban w/ regard to how the rules are set up (no edits to any article, article talk, or even on this page until this came up). TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the Probation covers violations within those spaces, a sanction such as a ban following from those violations may cover more than just the probation area; such as, for instance, Wikipedia. In the instance upon which the topic ban reach was clarified it appears that you were attempting to proxy your arguments by presenting detailed comment at another users talkpage. Had this been permitted, then the restriction on contributing to the CC article area would have nullified. Thus you were prohibited from discussing CC related topics pretty much everywhere within project space. A ban from areas outside of the topic space is permissible, where it may be considered that they will be used to circumvent the ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in short, in my case the bounds of the probation were extended while in WMC's case the bounds were followed - and in each seperate case Bozmo argued that the scope was different. I find this to be a very interesting case w/ regards to Bozmo since he not only initiated the conversation which brought this complaint, has changed his mind regarding the scope of the probation, and has taken what I thought was a relatively kind gesture at his talk page as a reason to extend my ban for several months. I don't recall him being so strict! TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. BozMo appears to be a teensy bit involved in the RFC/Lar discussion, and can certainly not be considered totally neutral here. Rather like the cat in the mouse's poem in Alice. Collect (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the analogy. No one claims to be neutral; articles and edits can be neutral but people cannot be. Lar and I are in amiable disagreement at present on some issues. But I can claim to be uninvolved, and actually the way this probation works having some range of views on uninvolved admins is, in my view, healthy. Generally speaking Lar and I both listen to each other's views too. --BozMo talk 08:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You would be amazed how many folks here know nought abot classics <g>. (My favorites are ones who do not know about piling Ossa on Pelion.) Where it is now accepted that tGL's ban will not apply to certain process pages and user pages, does it make sense to use violations which were due to such posts as a reason for extension of the ban? You will note, moreover, that I even spoke up for the famed Okip elsewhere, so I am not a believer in using grudges as a means of determining penalties. Collect (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguable and there was a point in the below discussion when I had come to this conclusion but I went through the sequence of his contributions again and all in all I think the analysis of 2/0 is correct. --BozMo talk 11:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the point of the sanction was to deny TGL the use of Wikipedia as a soap box, so that other editors are not forced to either let his wrong claims stand or spend the time to refute them. I don't see how this purpose is served by allowing him to soapbox on certain user talk pages, whether the user in question accepts this or not. While we grant some leeway to users on their user and talk pages, these are still project pages, and not under control of the user. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with that viewpoint. But on the other hand, you don't have to read user talk pages if you don't want to. People expressing content views there aren't necessarily going to have an effect on anyone or anything else... as long as their commentary is civil and otherwise within policy. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar and Bozmo should follow LHvU and recuse themselves. Their involvement runs the risk of this being thrown out, which I think it should be. Polargeo (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation states "bans from editing the climate change pages and/or closely related topics" Lar's talkpage is not a closely related topic so if this ban applies to Lar's talkpage it is incorrect. Polargeo (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State specifically what the issue is, please, and I'll take your request under advisement. (pro-tip: asserting "you're involved" won't cut it, you'll have to give specifics) ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pro tip don't ask for the specifics when they are obvious, it just appears as though it is an attempt to throw up a smoke screen. I said you should follow LHvU. I do believe he summed up his reason [58] Did you also ask WMC to give more diffs than User_talk:Lar#Can_you_imagine...? Polargeo (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they were obvious to me I would not have asked. What conversation was LHvU referring to? It wasn't obvious to me. And why exactly was that conversation a reason to recuse? I don't follow your last question, what is it asking? ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is my own, and not something to beat someone else around the head with - but, briefly, I chose to join a discussion on someone elses talkpage, forgetful of the ban and consider myself as partly responsible for the violation. Thus I felt I should not be in a position to decide on the matter. Other people may feel differently regarding their participation in the talkpage discussion and acting here, and that is fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lar. Disrespect of existing ban stated clearly at [59] Yes it is a clear violation now we have been reminded of the ban. Suggest we extend by a further 3 or 6 months with a ban if the terms are violated again? --BozMo talk 22:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be absolutely clear despite tgl's comments about I did not recall the terms of the ban on tgl until this was posted if I ever knew them exactly. He seems to have returned first to Lar and then to WMC's talk page then to the RFC on Lar before engaging with me. And he made some vague and incorrect comments about my involvement permit trading which invited a reply from me. I would however be interested in Lar's view before fixing a decision. --BozMo talk 06:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note the use of "really uninvolved" in the request for enforcement, which seems a preemptive strike. I don't think any of the admins here fit WMC's "really uninvolved" definition with respect to this matter, as we've all had conversations with TGL at one point or another. That includes LHvU and BozMo. This response of mine is to a direct question.

Rather than extending the ban, I think it should be clarified/narroewd to exempt user talk pages where TGL is welcome. A statement from the owner to that effect should suffice (this would mean mine, where he is welcome, since I host wideranging and open conversations on a regular basis, and I don't remove comments I disagree with or that are critical of me, but not WMC's, where he has been explicitly told he is not welcome and where wideranging and open conversations are apparently in general not welcome, and where comments that are critical of WMC or his approaches, or just from from people he apparently has animus toward are routinely removed. All within policy, to be sure but not likely to win any Miss Congeniality awards) Further repetition of comments on pages he's not welcome on would be sanctionable. Note that we cannot and should not extend CC enforcement to user RfCs. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If you are saying he was explicitly welcome on your talk page I am happy that we just clarify where he can go. I had not seen the invitation you offered him but as host to the discussion I take your views seriously. However I think he also needs cautioning about the tendency displayed above to attempt to assume bias and bad faith where none exist (or in the case of bias where none is relevant). --BozMo talk 18:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EVERYONE is welcome on my talk page, but I'm happy to make explicit invitations where that's needful for clarity. In TGL's case I think I did explicitly invite him at some point, perhaps on his talk, although I don't have the diff handy nor do I know of the ordering of events exactly (to the best of my recollection, it was after he gave me a barnstar though, and WMC responded with snarky mockery (note both the words and the edit summary), and TGL went to talk to WMC about it, and was in turn disinvited from WMC's page in what was actually a pretty mild way by WMC... ah here is my invite. ). So with that settled (?) I want to turn to the latter part, assuming bias where none exists is indeed not a good practice, and we all should be admonished not to assume it where none exists. So, support this approach. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile tGL is continuing to violate the terms of his probation without invitation and repeat allegations of bias etc. even here [60] where he definitely was not invited. So the stuff on Lar's page is by invitation (thats ok), the stuff on the RFC is because even though a site ban was considered RFC's are always in play (50-50), the stuff on the RFC talk page not actually on the RFC is well, kind of nearly ok by association (75-25), the drop by at WMC's was provoked, the use of this probation to make allegations about the existing ban is... or hang on are we missing something? I am always quick to unblock people who have got the message and say they are changing [61] but here we have a clear case of someone still claiming they are right and the world has no justice and they want to carry on. So I think I would rather add three months to the probation period, and caution against allegations. But I am open to hear other views? Oh and varying the terms a little and clarifying them is fine by me, still.--BozMo talk 21:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I apologize for inviting TGL to my talk page without first checking to see if it was ok or not, within his terms, that is... But I think we still should modify his topic ban to leave out user talk pages where he is invited. Subject to all normal restrictions on behavior, it's not a carte blanche or anything. As for the RfC, I think he needs to be able to comment on the topics that the RfC raises. But NOT on the content controversies themselves, only on admin and editor actions... after that (as your examples shade into darker and darker gray areas)... all that stuff is not allowed now and shouldn't be allowed after modification, if such be done. ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from 2over0: As a general principle, I do not think that this probation includes the authority to ban someone from RfC/U, ArbCom, or appeal of any sanction to an appropriate venue; if someone edits disruptively in the normal sense in any of these cases, standard dispute resolution mechanisms should suffice. Discussions related to climate change taking place at usertalk are, I believe, covered by broadly construed; we have certainly included such discussions when considering sanctions. Discussions unrelated to climate change, even if evidencing similar disruption, should be treated in other venues. For instance, I endorse the close of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive6#FellGleaming (2) as falling outside the remit of this board; previous sanctions and discussions here may be presented as relevant to discussions elsewhere, but we should not overreach purely for the sake of expediency. For also instance, a topic banned editor may appeal here or at AN/I, but should not otherwise comment here.

At the risk of invoking IAR, the question of whether an edit is covered by a ban should be viewed in the light of whether or not it furthers a climate change related dispute or is acting to circumvent or obviate the ban. LHvU's reasoning follows my own in noting that the evident primary effect of the edit in question was to continue to participate by proxy. It is well-established by wikiprecedent that such edits are covered by a topic ban. I chose to warn TGL instead of enacting a ban-evasion block because I hoped that the minimal intervention would resolve the issue; at least in the short term after that warning, I think that events bear out my reasoning.

It is the primary responsibility of a banned user to remember any restrictions on their contributions to this collaborative project. Intentionally baiting someone in an attempt to inspire a lapse of judgement or encouraging someone to edit outside the bounds of a ban would of course be disruptive. I do not think that either of these cases obtain here. A polite note by TheGoodLocust noting his withdrawal from the area should have prevented the matter from proceding any further. Honestly, for me, a non-disruptive chatroom style discussion at usertalk of general issues rather than specific articles or edits should require nothing more from us than a polite reminder that the entire rest of the internet remains available.

Crohnie brought this discussion to my attention a few hours ago (thank you); I have been avoiding this topic area for the last few weeks for a variety of reasons, but I feel I would be remiss to fail to comment on an issue where I am already involved. Glancing at the relevant pages then, I expected to leave the matter here. Looking more closely, however, TheGoodLocust is in blatant violation of his topic ban with edits such as: [62] or [63]. I believe that the standard procedure in these cases is to reset the ban. Given that he has also been continuing a personal dispute (ex:[64]), making comments like I'd assumed you hadn't posted it to the appropriate area because this was some sort of elaborate joke and that you couldn't possibly be serious in your request., and generally adopting a highly combative tone, I see no reason to act differently in this case. I am not really a fan of civility blocks, but I would like to remind TheGoodLocust that Wikipedia:Civility is good policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so to move to a close, we reset the ban duration from now, clarify that RfC/U, ArbCom, legitimate appeal and Lar's talk page are explicitly excluded from the ban (you want this Lar?), and give a civility reminder? Fine by me. --BozMo talk 07:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than naming my talk page specifically, I think a phrasing such as "user talk pages where TGL has been explicitly invited to participate" (and then maintaining a list) or similar might be better as it doesn't mean we have to modify things if someone else issues an invite. I do not myself see this set of transgressions as serious enough reason for a reset, I'd suggest instead tacking a month on to the end, but I'll go along with consensus as it appears to stand. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with preferring a general statement (preferably one that can be used as precedent) rather than naming Lar's talkpage specifically. I am uncomfortable with whitelisting talkpages on an invitation-basis given the established issue of proxying, but I also do not like the idea of telling Lar what he can do with his talkpage. Absent this topic ban, that discussion would be perfectly normal and well within WP:USER. At the same time, explicit discussion of articles needs to be included for the ban to mean anything.

I think we are in general consensus on the RfC/U, ArbCom, and legitimate appeals points. If someone wants to work up some boilerplate for future topic bans under this probation that might not be a bad idea.

In the interests of getting this resolved, I am okay with amending the ban to exclude Lar's talkpage and trusting him to give a nudge if discussion veers towards disruption or ban violation. I would prefer a reset in the interests of making enforcement more predictable, but in light of the above discussion I could accept tacking on a month. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm down with nudges. I confess I'm a bit queasy about just letting TGL talk about whatever he wants to. I'd prefer he circumscribed himself. ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we reset Mark Nutley for infringements? I think a reset is less arbitrary, especially if we are diluting terms a little. Reset is I think a couple of weeks less than a three months extension, so to 3 Nov 2010? --BozMo talk 21:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've done both. Whatever the rest of you think. ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [70] States that it is "intentionally condescending and insulting." It is a violation of WP:CIVIL to be "intentionally condescending and insulting." Edit summary states "condescending speech is all you're capable in a debate." It is not appropriate to denigrate the debating capabilities of ones intellectual opponents.
2. User:ATren/WMCSpeak States that When [ATren percieves WMC as] insults and condescends, I will do the same. Users are not permitted to respond to incivility with incivility. An eye for an eye, in other words, leaves everyone blind.

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

I contend that ATren is fully engaged in this sanctions page. I can dig out his pro-forma warning at some point if hoop-jumping is insisted on.

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

Him to stop being incivil on purpose, regardless of provication. If he can't avoid incivility, a topic ban on the area that he cannot avoid incivility on.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Like I said, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Only one party has an announced intention to be incivil - this is worse than failing to be civil, it's intentionally failing. Not acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Every comment I am making is a variation of something WMC has said in the past. He has been warned repeatedly, yet he continues to do it. Unless someone believes WMC is not in control of his actions, his incivility is no less intentional than mine. I am fully willing to remove all uncivil comments when WMC does the same, and I assert the right to respond to future incivility with the same level of incivility, as long as admins are not going to deal with this issue.

I'll also note that SlimVirgin (a true uninvolved editor who has done very good work cleaning up the mess that was Fred Singer's BLP) is considering withdrawing from editing here because of WMC's aggressiveness [71]. This has to stop. If nobody will stand up to WMC, then I will. Everyone worries about losing WMC, what about losing good editors like SlimVirgin? If WMC is chasing such experienced editors away, doesn't that severely impact the "net contribution" calculation for WMC?

I am going to work now, I will respond more later. ATren (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it accurate to state that you think WMC should be restricted in some way for his possibly unintentional incivility? It is accurate to state that I think WMC should be should be restricted in some way for his possibly unintentional incivility. How can you justify being intentionally incivil when you think someone who may be unintentionally incivil should be restricted in some way? Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe that after all this time WMC's incivility is unintentional? How can an explicit action like calling someone a troll be "unintentional"? And even if it is unintentional, then why is someone who cannot adhere to the basic standard of civil discourse still allowed to edit? BTW, this is my section for response; I'd appreciate if you would respond further down below. ATren (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ignore all sectioning - always have, and always will. You do the same, so we're in good company. I am forced to WP:AGF about WMC's incivility and state that it is not stated as intentional, but is, regardless, disruptive. This is different than your incivility, which is both disruptive and intentional. In fact, while WMC needs to be stopped from disrupting the encyclopedia, you need to be stopped from intentionally disrupting the encyclopedia - one could argue in good faith that you are actually vandalizing (your incivility is not even possibly in good faith - you have stated that you are being incivil on purpose). You both need to stop, but, right now, you're the easier target by an order of magnitude based on your stated intention to disrupt. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentional disruption (if you must believe that) is still disruption. If WMC truly cannot control his actions and his actions are alienating good editors then it he should be sanctioned even if he is acting in good faith. The ban lists are littered with editors who had very good faith but were apparently incapable of controlling their behavior, but for some reason, WMC's disruption persists years later. So my response to you is, even if it's unintentional disruption, at some point it must be stopped. ATren (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be making an argument for a sanction request about WMC's incivility. Disruption should be stopped, not met with more disruption. You have stated that since WMC is disrupting via incivility, which I do not dispute you will do the same. Thus, you should be blocked, as you are intentionally disruptive - you, to draw a parallel, are Willy on Wheels after his second page move, while WMC is someone who constantly delinks dates. Both are sanctioned - one is banned. Hipocrite (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, it's not being stopped, and good editors are being chased away. Someone has to step up and confront him. It's been going on for years and shows no sign of stopping. And, yes, others are banned for long term good faith incivility. Remember Child of Midnight? He was unquestionably good faith and he was banned because of his inability to maintain a level of decorum. Good faith has it's limits, and I submit that the limit is reached when other highly respected editors are chased away (SlimVirgin is just the latest).

As a side note, would you join me in filing a request for action against WMC's continuing disruption? You acknowledge above that WMC is uncivil, and that it's disruptive, so you should be supporting action which minimizes disruption. Would you do that? ATren (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that this is explicitly not an eye for an eye. I am engaging WMC on his own terms in an attempt to communicate with him. It's obvious from his edit history that he considers such dialog to be fine, and in fact I suspect that he even has a greater level of respect for people who engage in that kind of discourse. It's not something that comes naturally to me (hence the disclaimers I posted) but if that level of speech is necessary to communicate with WMC, then I'm willing to do it. Or, at least, I'm willing to try it if that's what he'll respond to. In the thread in question, WMC asserts a negative based on lack of information, something that is obviously logically wrong. He has a history of ruthlessness with editors who make such similar logic errors, and I honestly believe he would demand the same of those dealing with his obvious errors. So where he might dismiss a polite note about his error, a more direct, aggressive approach might be what it takes for him to recognize it.

It's not an eye for an eye, it's trying to engage an editor who thus far refuses to engage with those who disagree with him civilly. ATren (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apply the same equitable relief that WMC would receive for incivility, close and dismiss this. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a proposed resolution in the uninvolved admins section shortly but for now I merely want to comment... I understand ATren's frustration with WMC's approach. Many folk are frustrated. But Hip is right. An eye for an eye is not acceptable. We should try to stay above WMC's unacceptably caustic commentary, regardless of whether it is appropriately handled or not. So my proposed close is going to be an admonishment to ATren that they can collect diffs if they like, they can even compile a chart of WMC-to-polite speak but they cannot themselves engage in caustic commentary, even if WMC routinely gets away with it, because that's how it is... the playing field isn't level and they are going to be held to a higher standard than WMC and they will just have to learn to deal. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c.) Lar, with all due respect, been there done that. It's still happening. And now we have a case where an unquestionably good editor is being chased by his behavior. I will strongly object to any admonishment for my handful of uncivil comments if this board refuses to deal with the constant incivility by WMC. WMC is well into double digit requests for incivility, personal attacks, and BLP violations. Highly respectable previously uninvolved editors such as SlimVirgin and Cla68 are included in those requesting enforcement. Yet this group of admins still refuses to act. So how about this: sanction WMC and me equally - give us both the exact same topic ban. I will accept it without complaint as long as it's handed out equally, even though our respective level of transgression differs by an order of magnitude. If that's what it takes, I'm willing to take a larger sanction if it also means that admins finally act to sanction a long term problem editor. ATren (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a higher standard to demand that users not be intentionally incivil, but assume that other incivil users are just bad at being civil. It is, in fact, a constant standard. I have brought every user who has stated they are intentionally disrupting the encyclopedia to this enforcement board. Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the intention is to correct WMC where this Probation process has failed. The Probation can be a disruption too. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This illustrates the problems that WTC is causing. He regularly insults editors and sources; it's actually reaching the point where more of his posts contain insults than don't. Today he called ATren a troll and the New York Times rubbish; yesterday he called me a liar. In addition he seems to have no working knowledge of the content policies. It's impossible to work with. I've decided to continue working on the Singer article in my userspace until it's dealt with, mostly to keep myself safe because the article's under probation. Anyone choosing to interact with WMC is going to have a hard time. If you don't respond, he accuses you of ignoring him. If you do respond, you risk getting drawn into the kind of exchange that will land you here. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 13:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the basic problem is that he's an old-style Wikipedian, one more interested in content than in politics and game-playing. He needs to adjust to the new reality. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except he's wrong on the content too. He's dismissing a New York Times reference based on Google hits. He has a history of adding blogs to BLPs. He's edit warred with an arbcom member on a BLP, repeatedly adding an out-of-context factoid to a BLP intro, an edit which I challenge anyone to assert was within miles of being good content. It's all fundamentally against policy and when people disagree with him he attacks. ATren (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with another editor being incivil, please raise an enforcement request, which, if it's actually about civility and not content, I'll gladly support. Or raise an enforcement request about content, but narrowly tailor it to content that in unarguably poor, as opposed to just stuff you disagree with. You are taking this one off-topic. Other editors being incivil does not make incivility acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, lets be perfectly clear - while I would never call ATren a troll, an editor who pledges to be incivil, is, in fact, trolling. Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He called me that before any of my recent comments. ATren (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Atren, this is a bad road to go down. No matter how provoked you feel, you are ultimately responsible for your own actions. If those actions include deliberate incivility, you are likely be judged negatively for that. I think everyone here understands how frustrated you feel, but Hipocrite is correct when he talks about "an eye for an eye" making everyone blind. If you made a voluntary commitment to remain civil in your interaction with WMC, I'm pretty sure everyone would respect that and that would be the end of the matter. Don't martyr yourself over this. You are too valuable an editor, and this is too trivial an issue. Thparkth (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so. I cannot conceive of how I could possibly agree more strongly with this than I already do. Hence my proposed close. But I'm willing to toughen it all the way to a warning that blocks will be forthcoming if this course continues. Because it just isn't the right road. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, if I file another enforcement request for WMC, who is already on civility patrol, will he get a significant sanction? There are plenty of incivil diffs since his last admonishment. If I am going to be threatened a block for a few minor edits (none of which are worse than anything WMC has said repeatedly) how could that be justified in light of WMC's continued incivility, which is driving away good editors? ATren (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing it on purpose. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in an attempt to engage with an editor for whom that kind of discourse is accepted (since he does it himself). I honestly believe he doesn't listen unless you engage him in the same manor in which he engages you -- in other words, the same impulse that causes him to make aggressive comments without him knowing it, causes him to ignore civil comments from others. I really believe he dismisses civility as weakness of argument, and my attempts to engage in a more aggressive manor are an attempt to break through that dismissal. If you are going to assume good faith in his incivility, then at least extend the same courtesy to me. ATren (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. And obviously so, becuase it is trivial to find counterexamples. This is pure Assume Bad Faith on your part William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then please present those examples here, and please be sure to include examples of civil engagement with those who are disagreeing with you. I will then present examples of incivility with disagreers, and we can compare. OK? ATren (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to derail this enforcement request. This is about your intentional incivility, which is inexcusable. Finding other incivil people is the subject of a different request. This standard delaying tactic is why the admins here are failing - the first one that saw those diffs should have closed this section with an only-final warning to you that if you are intentionally incivil again you will be banned from this topic area for increasing lengths. How hard is this to do? Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point. This is a small one. I'll try to scare up another uninvolved admin to endorse my proposed close. ATren, do consider starting another request. I know you are frustrated. I know that you will have to do a lot of work. But do consider it instead of acting out. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not intended as "acting out", it was a good faith attempt to engage an editor for whom incivility is part of his habitual discourse. It was an attempt to discover if he'd respond better to a more direct and aggressive tone, because 2 years of civility has not reached him. I can't help it if it's perceived as something different, but I am somewhat disappointed at the lack of good faith assumed of me -- WMC's incivility is somehow excused as "unintentional" even though it's been happening for years, while my attempt to deal with it in a different way is met with assumptions of nefarious intent. I will take your advice though, to put this aside and gather that request. ATren (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are directed not to be intentionally incivil for any reason.Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATren, if you want to file an enforcement request, you can. But please, if you want to even have a 20% chance of success, make sure your own behaviour is impeccable first, and bring us, oh, 100 or so diffs, all of which are incontrovertible. If even one is even a bit questionable, where some reasonable doubt might exist, we will have no choice but to find against you and f0r WMC. Sorry, but that's how the playing field is here. Level. ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I've done that. It goes nowhere (see a few months back when 2/0 passionately defended WMC after a request with 20-odd very compelling diffs). And good editors continue to get bullied off. It has to stop, and this RFE is ineffective. Now, I will probably take your advice and disengage again to go back into research mode, but seriously, how much evidence is needed? Do we have to take this all the way to arbcom for any reasonable handling of this problem editor to occur? ATren (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have tried. Keep trying. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of "apply the same to ATren as to WMC" here. Even ATren has asked for that. Fine; I'm on a civility sanction, no? How about we apply that to ATren, too?

Also User:ATren/WMCSpeak should be deleted as an attack page. Ideally ATren himself would realise this and ask for it to be deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are on a civility sanction then perhaps you should not be calling other editors "Trolls" and "liars"? mark nutley (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. WMC, what is your response to that? An unsatisfactory response would cause me to be very cross. So cross that I might actually admonish you not to give unsatisfactory responses. Or worse. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My response is that I was responding to a post in which ATren actively and deliberately set out to insult me William M. Connolley (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you called me a troll before any of this stuff today. Try again. ATren (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which you actually were[72] (you know: Trolling) - WMC called you on it per WP:SPADE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was a response in advance? If WMC can divine your intent accurately ("actively and deliberately set out to"...), perhaps he can divine it before you actually post? Please assume good faith here about WMC. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As ATren had just made a comment that very much could be defined as trolling - he didn't call it "in advance" - he called it the spade he saw. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, given your tone, I suggest you remove your comment from the section which you believe is for uninvolved admins only. You are giving the appearance of a lack of impartiality, and per your own belief, editing that section is a use of admin tools. Hipocrite (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Do you think I should recuse because I am prejudiced against ATren and in favor of WMC? Is that the suggestion? I think my proposed close is a good one. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So grow a pair buck up and close this as opposed to snarkingusing mild sarcasm all over. Inform ATren that intentional incivility is inexcusable, and if it continues, he will be topic banned from the area for increasing lengths of time, and then delete his attack page. How hard is this admin 101 shit?If you'd like, I'll happily tell you exactly what actions to take on all the other cases in front of this sanction board, with reasonable confidence that I'd get them all right. Hipocrite (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, let me ask you: is this intentional incivility or unintentional incivility? We all know how important the distinction is. ATren (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional incivility is always inexcusable - it is a bad faith action. Unintentional incivility is problematic if consistant. However, you are not intentionally incivil, by admission. Here, I'll give the admins a hint suggestion - "ATren is informed that intentional incivility is always unacceptable. If ATren is intentionally incivil, he may banned from the entire climate change topic, broadly construed, by any admin for up to one week. After two such blocks, the period will increase to one month. After five such blocks, the period will increase to one year. After one year without a topic ban, this sanction will expire." Hipocrite (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm asking you, Hipocrite, is "grow a pair" and "how hard is this admin 101 shit?" intentional incivility or unintentional incivility? Since the distinction is suddenly important, I think you should either state that it was intentional or strike it. ATren (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I'll rewrite those. See how easy that was - someone who wasn't the target of my words told me they were wrong and I undid them. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might I then ask why you did not extend the same courtesy to me? You could have engaged me on my talk rather than running to mommy. ATren (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H: Snarking? Grow a pair? I think your tone is not helpful. I proposed a close, below. If some other uninvolved admin agrees with it, great. But I have not in the past uninlaterally closed things. Proposing is as far as I go by myself. I suppose I could revisit that decision, though. Is that what you're advocating? ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I think your lack of a pair unwillingness to not take deliberate action when it's obvious what action is right is not helpful. You are apparently unwilling to actually do something, so what's the point of you being here? You're not adminning in the area - you're using magic discussion powers in the magic "no-plebians" section. You're using your admin powers as a supervote, which you don't have. It's such a patently obvious close that your unwillingness to just do it is an embarassment. Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have it both ways. You cannot promote an RfC that is trying to remove me entirely (for the crime of having an opinion) and at the same time castigate me for not taking action (instead of just voicing my opinion about what the correct action is). You want this closed now? OK. I'll close it now, as I suggested it be closed, without further consultation. Let's see how that works. ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Proposed close: ATren is admonished to adhere to the high standards of civility we expect of all contributors, regardless of whether these standards are actually enforced against others or not. The misbehavior of others is not justification for one's own misbehavior. Regardless of how egregious that misbehavior of others might be. No other action taken. ++Lar: t/c 13:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

enacted. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from Lar's note "enacted" )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User requesting enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [73] Adds ref to "www.theregister.co.uk," adds ref to "rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com"
2. [74] Adds ref to "climateaudit.org"

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[75]