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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:41, 9 March 2010

WP:GS/CC/RE

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

{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request

| User against whom enforcement is requested          
  = <Username>

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

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

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

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

| Additional comments 
  = <Your text>
}}

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

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

IP disruption

142.177.0.0/16 and 142.68.0.0/16 rangeblocked one week, please come back if they persist. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done about the disruption being created by the anonymous IP editor "142.x" who was previously discussed in this archive. The individual is currently using the following IP:

142.177.158.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'd like serious consideration to be given to a range block, since blocking this individual's IP addresses has been ineffective thus far. I have become a favored target, with vandalism of my user talk page and disgraceful personal attacks being the current problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the current addy, but only for a short while - since they hop addresses, longer is pointless. I suggest you form up an SPI report, and let someone see if there can be an effective rangeblock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or seek another CU to do the same sort of checks I did. With the assumption of Ombudsmanship, I no longer can run routine CUs so someone else will need to. However,n I stand by what I said before though, I don't think a short range block is that damaging. Yes it loses some IP editing that isn't part of this problem, but not shedfuls. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get some help at WP:SPI but received none, so I opened this ANI thread, which resulted in week-long range blocks being applied. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigelj

Nigelj block for 24 hours on 1RR. Unitanode "warned to use any of the formal, common and agreed forms of address when interacting with other editors, when requested." - 2/0 (cont.) 18:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Nigelj

User requesting enforcement: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nigelj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation The Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article is under a 1RR restriction:[1]

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

[2] First revert of material
[3] Second revert of same material

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

[4] Warning by A_Quest_For_Knowledge (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I'll leave it to the admins to decide what is appropriate.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Pretty self-explanatory. Nigelj reverted the same content twice in a manner of hours. I asked Nigelj to self-revert but he hasn't.[5]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [6]

Discussion concerning Nigelj

Statement by Nigelj

Comments by others about the request concerning Nigelj

I suggest that the content involved here is much too new to be discussed in an encyclopedia. There are various attempts at reading crystal balls, but all that can and should be said, with respect to the BLP, is that several investigations are ongoing. We're not a gossip factory, and we should explicitly recognize that this article in question has become little more than a funnel for press gossip. There is no deadline and we will look a lot less silly if we wait for the independent investigations to deliver their conclusions. --TS 00:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be making a content argument here which is unrelated to the determination of an outcome in this RfC. This discussion would be more properly addressed to the talk page in question. Please consider collapsing this comment and any replies to it to avoid further disruption of this discussion. --GoRight (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"[W]e will look a lot less silly..."? Sidaway, it would be hard for our GW-related articles to look any more "silly" than they already do. The content AQFK was adding was well-sourced, and not gossipy at all. These attempts to whitewash articles need to stop. And, while I doubt it will happen, Nigelj should have sanctions levied against him. Scott aka UnitAnode 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can call me Tony. Do you think you could try to stop bringing POV-pushing of the most extreme kind to this page? Our science articles have been compared to Britannica's and fared well, and the global warming article has been singled out for praise by experts. Please give a good reason for sanctioning this editor, and in doing so try not to express extreme points of view. --TS 00:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I call my friends by their first name. You're not that. You're about as far from that as I could imagine an on-Wiki person being. And I'm wholly unperturbed by your accusations that my contributions here are POV-pushing. Nigelj is removing sourced material multiple times. He should be sanctioned. It really is as simple as that, Sidaway. Scott aka UnitAnode 00:53, 28
Hi, Scott. If you cannot address me as Tony then you cannot at address me at all without giving offence. But that's okay. I'll swallow it. --TS 01:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Calling you by your surname is not uncivil in any way. You're offended by it? You must have some very thin skin, then, good sir. Scott aka UnitAnode 01:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unitanode: Please call people by either their entire username or by whatever abbreviation or short form they themselves specify is acceptable. "TS", and "Tony" are, I believe, acceptable short forms (TS because it's how Tony Sidaway signs, and Tony because he said it was OK to use) for "Tony Sidaway" but "Sidaway" is not. Because he said so... that is a good enough reason. This is just giving people basic respect under the forms and norms we use here. You don't have to actually respect them personally if you do not want to, but polite discourse requires that readers can't tell that, at least not at first glance. We are none of us perfect in this regard but let's do better if we can. ++Lar: t/c 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The content AQFK was adding was well-sourced" Actually, I did not add that content. But that doesn't give Nigelj the right to violate the article's 1RR restriction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first diff listed does not seem to be a reversion. It removes material, but it does not return the article to a previous state. Therefore, I can see no violation of 1RR. Recommend reporting editor withdraws this report with an appropriate apology to Nigelj. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first edit reverted Rumping's edit[7]. He deleted the same paragraph twice in a matter of hours. Clearly a 1RR violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing Nigelj's edit as far more complex - a process that included rewriting the previous paragraph. Re-editing is not the same as reverting. Seems like a frivolous complaint to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:3RR which provides the controlling langauge related to revert counting:

A "page" is any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. (This differs from the definition of "revert" used elsewhere in the project.)

--GoRight (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually any edit that makes changes to an article "reverses actions of other editors". Nigelj rewrote the section, and it is unreasonable to classify that action as a reversion. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is true he did not make a bald revert but that is not the standard applied to counting reverts. If you don't like the standard arguing here or with me will be futile in effecting any sort of change. Propose your change on the talk page of the policy itself. --GoRight (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a ridiculous argument. Nigelj's actions didn't violate anything. Heyitspeter's revert is a far worse crime, since he is obviously aware of some sort of edit war and yet chose to perpetuate it. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What 1RR restriction? Is there a specific one for Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, or one which Nigelj is under? The Marknultey request, where a general 1RR warning was promoted, was closed without such an agreement, and anyhoo without a prior case and notice Nigelj would not be under restriction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC) ps. My comments should not indicate that there isn't a 1RR restriction in place, just that I need to be guided to it.[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that Climatic Research Unit hacking incident is under a 1RR restriction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the second listing under [8]. The article is under 1RR. --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any chance of noting it on the article talkpage? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can take care of that. I just looked it up in response to your query. I am surprised it is not there already. --GoRight (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a crude textual attempt to note it after the probation template on both CRU and IPCC talk pages. If there is a more proper way to do it let me know. Otherwise I will look into making a proper template tomorrow. --GoRight (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that the 1RR wasn't noted, I assume we're all aware of it. It's the whole "let's go after the Dalai Lama" thing that makes this so weird. It isn't as if NigelJ had any history of naughtiness. --TS 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one was not aware of it. This game of "gotcha" is why I've quit editing these articles altogether. It's too easy to accidentally run afoul of sanctions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's largely academic, since 1RR hasn't actually been violated (as I point out above). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[9] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that block is entirely inappropriate. I do not see a violation. A troubling development. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's moot since I notified him that he had violated 1RR here[10] and he still would not revert his edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no violation was made, then I cannot see how he would be required to revert. I think you've misrepresented what has happened and gone and got him blocked. Not good, AQFK, not good. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from section below reserved for uninvolved admins.

See Nigelj, you got off with only a slap on the wrist. You can continue to be as disruptive as you want to be so long as it you're civil. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines.

Result concerning Nigelj

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

Nigelj blocked for 24 hours for violating the 1RR restriction, per request. I note the argument that this was not a "technical" revert, but the probation is in place to stop edit warring and Nigelj did not use the option of requesting the second editor to self revert.
Unitanode is warned to use any of the formal, common and agreed forms of address when interacting with other editors, when requested. Both actions logged as required. As ever, review invited and amendments may be made without further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heyitspeter

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

Request concerning Heyitspeter

User requesting enforcement: Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Heyitspeter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

[11] - Perpetuates an existing edit war.

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

Not applicable.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): 24-hour block, per 1RR rules on the article in question and/or clarification of 1RR and edit warring in general.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: With the edit summary of "reverted 1RR violation", Heyitspeter is clearly aware that an edit war is taking place (or has taken place). While not a technical violation of 1RR, it certainly violates its spirit. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notification

Discussion concerning Heyitspeter

Statement by Heyitspeter

Scjessey and I discussed this here: User_talk:Heyitspeter#February_2010. I think we may have been talking past each other but you get the gist. I asked that he file this request or get input from an administrator so that I could hear more definitive feedback (e.g.). My edit seemed perfectly alright to me, but I'm not an expert on wikipedia policy. I'd be happy to defer to the input given here (i.e., self-revert or stick with it as needed).

Finally, I probably won't be able to edit here until late tomorrow as I'm off visiting friends. If before that time an administrator decides my edit was in the wrong he or she has my best wishes to revert it before I have a chance to do so myself, and can count on my explicit endorsement (see previous paragraph).--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Heyitspeter

There is no 1RR violation on this page by Heyitspeter. The edit provided was made at 01:50, 28 February 2010. His next most recent edit was made at 01:15, 27 February 2010. As far as 1RR is concerned case closed. --GoRight (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, we are not talking about a technical violation here. The reversion in question is a violation of the spirit of the rule in that it perpetuates the existing edit war. Consider the firestorm that would result if someone were to revert Heyitspeter's edit right now. I haven't edited the article for two weeks, but I certainly wouldn't dream of reverting Heyitspeter even if I think the current version is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~This request appears to be in retaliation for the request above against Nigelj as far as I can tell. --GoRight (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
Absolute nonsense. I discussed this matter with LHvU and Heyitspeter and I was encouraged to file the RfE. Please consider withdrawing your accusation. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per this which I was unaware of and Heyitspeter's comment below I withdraw this erroneous conclusion and apologize for having jumped to it. --GoRight (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this was a reversion related to the previous request. In the circumstances, page protection might be merited. Further edit warring like this obviously doesn't help and Heyitspeter should be told off ~~for being a silly sausage.~~ --TS 02:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is little more than a tit-for-tat request. It should be speedily closed, with the only action being warning the editor who called his colleague a "silly sausage" that such insults aren't acceptable. Scott aka UnitAnode 02:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR states 3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Yes, the bolding is in the original, so this appears to be an important qualifier. The question then becomes whether 1RR is meant to be applied in the same spirit as 3RR. If so 1RR is "not an 'entitlement'" and restarting the revert cycle at 24 hours + ε (where ε = 35 minutes in the present instance) would be looked upon no more favorably than doing the same under 3RR. I have no opinion on whether 1RR in this probation is a rule unto itself or is meant to be in parallel to 3RR, and leave that decision to the admins who have taken on the easy and pleasant job of enforcing these sanctions. But I think it would be helpful to clarify the intent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SBHB that this would be an important clarification. Even so, however, I don't believe that HiP's previous edit was a simple reversion of that same content, so I don't think it probably matters to this specific case. Scott aka UnitAnode 02:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I certainly hope this page isn't fully protected, especially given the "scale" of the issue at hand.

That said I suppose I'm generally against full protection as antithetical to Wikipedia's principles and advantages so my opinion isn't likely to change even if the scale were to increase. Do they have userpage infoboxes for that philosophy, like they do for "inclusionist"/"exclusionist" editors? Maybe I'll make that my first.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw, and have struck out, a thoughtless and unhelpful characterization. My thanks go to Unit Anode for pointing out my error. --TS 02:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be rather freaked out by any suggestion that protection would be a bad idea, If there is edit warring even in the presence of a probation and a 1RR, then the only way to go is an edit restriction--full protection--until there is consensus. --TS 03:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The present tense is what I take issue with. Nsaa reverted, Nigelj broke his 1RR, I restored to the version prior to the violation. I viewed myself as reverting vandalism in that sense. Content wasn't at issue for me at all, you're not talking to a loose cannon that has to be restrained. I asked that this request be filed so I could figure out whether the kind of action I made was appropriate. I just want to make that clear.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am dismayed at the continued reverting found here; while Nigelj was found to be in violation of 1RR it does not hold that the edit was otherwise incorrect. I haven't reviewed, but it would not have been inappropriate for someone else to take ownership of Nigelj's second edit as their own. Of course, this would have made this an multi user edit war which is as bad or worse than 1RR violation. I am sure that Heyitspeter acted in good faith, but so did Nigelj. My view is that the 1RR restriction is in place in relation to this article as a means to stop edit warring. Reflex reverting even of a 1RR violation appears contrary to the spirit of the placing of the 1RR restriction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where someone's refusal to self-revert led to sanctions it seemed appropriate to make the revert manually. I'm still not clear as to your opinion on that - obviously a series of reverts isn't inherently warring.

It seems to me this 'edit war' consisted of Nsaa's revert followed by bureaucracy. Perhaps you disagree but I can't tell whether or why yet. Reexplicate?--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review of the talkpage, I cannot see the consensus for the inclusion of the text twice removed by Nigelj. The reverting of Nigelj's 1RR violating edit brings the disputed text back into the article - where the correct application of policy is to allow the basis of the edit and continue trying to achieve consensus. It might be argued that the 1RR violation was otherwise made correctly, and should not have been a matter of a sanction request had it been made by anyone other than Nigelj (outside of a general edit warring complaint). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. I'll open a discussion on the talkpage now to make sure people are okay with its inclusion. Seeing as no one has done so yet I doubt there will be an issue, but who knows.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[12]--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Heyitspeter is guilty of "Perpetuat[ing] an existing edit war" as Scjessey claims, then so are the following editors:

~~ChrisO[13]~~
WMC[14]
Nigelj[15]

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nonsensical assertion. You added a paragraph on an issue totally unrelated to the article in this diff. I removed that paragraph two diffs later.[16] As far as I know you hadn't added it before and I don't think anyone's restored it since. How is that evidence of an "edit war"? I don't think you're making that claim in good faith. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you had deleted the same paragraph as the others. After taking a second look at the diff, I see that it was a different paragraph that you deleted. I've struck through your name above. My comment regarding WMC and Nigelj stands. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to find who WMC previously reverted. It seems to me he just edited the same paragraph as Nigelj did, but Nigelj did a different edit than WMC had done and Nigelj has been sanctioned for the edit war. So I don't see where is the edit warring of WMC and Nigelj's edits have already been brought up and sanctioned.83.86.0.74 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Nigelj and WMC edit-warred. But you are correct, neither have been sanctioned in this particular instance. Whatever action against Heyitspeter should also be taken against the other editors who did the same thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigelj has been sanctioned in the request above. Blocked for 24 hours? About WMC here is how I read the history, WMC makes an edit to UK government, Rumping adds a paragraph, Nigelj deletes it and rewrites the one above it and the edit war has started. WMC's edit is not a revert as far as I have seen.83.86.0.74 (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this idea start that edits were per paragraph? If I had known then I would have split my contribution into two paragraphs so that the diff viewer would make it look like I had edited both of the existing paragraphs, not edited one and deleted the other: that was never my intention. The way it happened was this: there was a paragraph that some said was a biassed account of one submission to the UK gov committee, Rumping added another and commented that it was 'for balance'. I removed both and added a new paragraph about submissions to the committee in general, saying that we can't discuss all 55, so let's not start with one. HiP took us back to the original charges/counter-charges about the one submission. I don't suppose anybody cares, but I think the standard of debate here should be higher --Nigelj (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Heyitspeter

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

My 2¢: without commenting on Nigelj (I am willing to trust LHvU that the material was inserted recently enough and the rewrite was not substantial enough that the first diff up there counts as a revert for 1RR purposes), I think that Heyitspeter acted appropriately here. His revert noted that he was restoring the pre mini-edit war version, and was performed after the block. I would agree with Scjessey in most other circumstances - perpetuating an edit war is a Bad Thing, and could be sanctionable under the probation. I would even venture that this should not count as a revert at all for the 1RR for that page, though following SBHB above, any time we get into counting reverts something has probably gone wrong already. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this view. ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey

No action - 2/0 (cont.) 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Scjessey

User requesting enforcement: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Scjessey (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

[17] Uncivil, assumes bad faith, addresses editor personally
[18] Personal attack, accuses me of "becoming quite adept at spin."
[19] Uncivil, assumes bad faith, addresses editor personally.
[20] Launches another personal attack against me.

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

[21] Politely asked Scjessey to remove comments
[22] Asked again.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I leave it to the admins to decide what action is appropriate. However, I do ask that Scjessey's history of misconduct be taken into account and the fact that Scjessey refused to remove his comments even when asked politely.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Scjessey's edits show repeated assumptions of bad faith, lack of civility and personal attacks. I twice asked him politely that he remove his comments[23][24] and he refused both times. [25][26] In fact, rather than removing or refactoring his comments, he launched another personal attack against me.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [27]

Discussion concerning Scjessey

Statement by Scjessey

Hardly worth the effort. AQFK continues to misrepresent my comments, and now tops off the disgraceful behavior with wikilawyering after baiting me at every conceivable opportunity. Recommend AQFK receives a 24-hour block per WP:PLAXICO for filing yet another frivolous RfE. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comments by administrators, I feel that the accusations of "bad faith" are totally unwarranted. Examine the diffs in context, and you will see that what AQFK describes as "bad faith" comments are appropriate responses to unequivocal trolling by an SPA. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WMC

These edits, supposedly showing Bad Faith, don't. #1 is in response to a very unhelpful comment by Oiler99 (which begins Nonsense. You must be joking... By AQFK's standards this should represent an attack, but AQFK doesn't bother report it; this is evidence of partisanship). Oiler99 is arguing GW science, very badly, in a inappropriate page; Scj's response, whilst a little heated, correctly recognises the (null) value of Oiler99's post. #2 is in response to an attack by AQFK. #3 is again in response to trolling by Oiler99; #4 asks AQFK to do something useufl instead of baiting; that seems quite fair.

The Bad Faith is on AQFK's side. I ask the admins here to look at Oiler99, with a view to a block from these pages - he appears to be nothing but a troll William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand on WMC's train of thought here, how should I be expected to respond to this disguised accusation that I am a racist by Oiler99? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't characterize the accusation as "disguised." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would i boris, i have asked Oiler to remove that post. My advice to Scjessey is to ignore this. mark nutley (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Statement by A Quest For Knowledge

It should be noted that the conditions of this article's probation state "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. " Even according to LessHeard vanU and BozMo's assessment (which I don't agree with), Scjessey violated assumptions of bad faith and uncivil commentary. It seems to me that we have a disconnect between the article's probation and its enforcement. If the article's enforcement is correct, then Scjessey should be sanctioned. If these violations are acceptable, then I request that the article's probation be amended to state that disruptive edits, including including incivility and assumptions of bad faith are now allowed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My only statement was that the diffs were not actionable. Your assumption that I agree he violated anything is only an assumption. While you felt you needed to put this assumption on my talk page as well as here is also unclear to me. --BozMo talk 06:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Scjessey

This is the second request by AQFK in 24 hours. Some of the diffs he provides do not look like personal attacks, as the term is normally applied on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are these on topic comments? Scjessey comments would seem to be more appropriate for a user talk page than the article talk page. I fail to see how they are productive with regards to article content value. It would seem they may inflame an already off topic discussion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are completely appropriate when viewed in the proper context. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, repeated uncivil comments, assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks are not "completely appropriate". The probation rules specifically state that this is not acceptable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you misrepresent my comments. Your claims of bad faith, personal attacks and incivility are bogus. And now that you have been caught trying to influence one of the presiding uninvolved administrators inappropriately, it is becoming clear that you are more interested in seeking sanctions against me than actually improving the atmosphere. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I politely asked you to remove the comments twice. All you had to do was to remove them. You have no one to blame but yourself. BTW, false accusations aren't going to help your case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I got up this morning, I decided to review my comments with an open mind as a "sanity check" on myself. Maybe they were a little acerbic or terse, but in context they seem perfectly acceptable. "Simon of Today" agrees that "Simon of Yesterday" was right to refuse to comply with your inappropriate demand. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Scjessey

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

I do not see personal attacks by Scjessey in the diffs; I do see assumptions of bad faith, with regard to both the motives of the other parties and their contribution toward the subject - it is not "wrong" to hold a contrary opinion, and nor to wish to edit an article to reflect that opinion, because it is the distillation of differing pov's referenced to good sources that create NPOV. It is my view that personal attacks might be subject to sanction, but that bad faith does not unless it is particularly egregious - and they are not to that level. I would invite comment from other admins whether there should be a request made to not repeat ones opinion of another parties' stance and concentrate solely upon the issues raised. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the diffs presented are not actionable/. --BozMo talk 23:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reminded that the wording of the probation does mention accusations of bad faith as being prohibited, so I am inclined to "up" the remedy to a formal warning to Scjessey to desist, and a general reminder to all parties about the need to AGF. Whether this warning should be a notification of the result here, or whether it should be listed in the warnings section of the enforcement log, is something I would request further comment upon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused here about whether we mean assumptions of bad faith or accusations of bad faith and exactly which diff contains these. --BozMo talk 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the above diffs [28] contains nothing about faith, it seems to be about flawed methodology, and in answer to a comment of similar tone ("nonsense") and [29] may or may not be a personal attack or a reasonable comment depending on the substance of the edits which preceded it [30] looks like a de-escalation to more provocative comments by Oiler99 and [31] does not look to me any worse in content than the actions of Quest for Knowledge in bringing these accusations. All in all these edits do not look like nice tea-room banter but they are not clearly differentiable from the rest of the conversation and do not look worse than the sharp comments some of them are answering. --BozMo talk 14:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support either a warning as LHvU outlines, or no action. More than a warning doesn't seem justified at this time unless I an missing something. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley

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

Request concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley

User requesting enforcement: ATren (talk) 17:17, 1 March 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

[32] - PA; edit summary "clueless", directed at Mark Nutley. Text: "Face it, you really don't know what is going on here but are determined to push your POV anyway"
[33] - incivility, directed at MN: "you should find an arera to edit that you understand"
[34] - removal of MN's comment on enforcement page. MN was actually supporting WMC in a thread. Full text of removed comment: "Nor would i boris, i have asked Oiler to remove that post. My advice to Scjessey is to ignore this." (agreeing with Boris' condemnation of Oiler)

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

From the sanctions log page:

"User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done. Exceptions are made for archiving discussions that have received no comments for at least one week, and for whole removal of comments from his own talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)" - violated in third diff (see my rationale below)
"User:William M. Connolley warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, and to promptly refactor any unintentional typos." - violated in first diff ("clueless")

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I suggest a month-long topic ban for repeated refusal to adhere to this probation.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is, what, the ninth request against WMC? I'm at least the 6th to raise a request (CoM, HiP, MN, AQFK, Cla68 have all filed before me - all editors in good standing). The three diffs I supplied are from today, so this is continuing behavior.

@WMC: WMC has claimed below that the RFE page is not a talk page, therefore the sanction was not violated when he removed MN's comment there. But this RFE is a discussion venue, so WMC certainly violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the sanction. In addition, there was nothing whatsoever offensive or abusive in MN's comment, which was part of a larger thread involving 2 other editors. Such a comment removal would be suspect in any context, let alone on a probation enforcement page, let alone from an editor who has already been sanctioned for similar removals. ATren (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@WMC: what about the "clueless" diff? Perhaps you can claim a technicality on the the comment removal (dubious, IMO), but you still haven't said a word on calling another editor clueless. Do you concede that violation? ATren (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman, do you have evidence of which member of this so called "viscous campaign by right wing bloggers" hijacked WMC's account and posted those offending diffs? We all put up with unfounded accusations (both on and off wiki), but that's no excuse to lash out at others. If editors can't be held responsible for their own actions, they shouldn't be editing. If an editor can't participate in a debate without insulting other editors, he should be banned. An example: my contribution history and motives have been repeatedly attacked on this page. The accusations are completely unsupported (and unsupportable). Does that make me a victim of a "vicious campaign", and by virtue of that, can I start calling people clueless and removing their comments? Where does it end? Do my "victims" then get a free pass, ad infinitum? It has to stop. Mark Nutley may not agree with WMC, he may even be wrong, but once WMC starts belittling him and hurling insults, it becomes WMC's problem regardless what disagreement started it. WMC must learn to be less disruptive even in the face of what he believes are hostile elements. It's his responsibility alone to control his behavior. ATren (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [35]

Discussion concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley

Statement by User:William M. Connolley

I'm baffled by #3. But apparently retrospective re-interpretation of the rules forbids this, so I've restored it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to 1, 2: there is a distressing lack of connection to reality about all this. No-one, it seems, cares that MN has got this completely wrong; that his timeline is simply incorrect; that he has been indulging in blatant OR and SYN. Face it, MN isn't listening to rational argument. But then again, neither are the admins here, sigh.

So, lets go through it. MN wanted to say Pachauri defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035 based on [36]. Well, you can read that for yourself - it says no such thing. Moreover, it *can't* say any such thing, because of the timeline.

2009/11/09. RKP calls an Indian glacio report junk [37]
At the start of December 2009. J. Graham Cogley notices that there is a problem with the 2035 date in AR4 WG II Criticism of the IPCC AR4#Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers.

So there you are. MN is well aware of the Dec '09 date, as he has spent plenty of time edit warring over that bit. Which is why I suggested he was clueless. Because he didn't even know the dates of events he himself has been edit warring over.

MN is *still* refusing to learn, and obsinacy at this level really is clueless: as his latest "evidence" says itself [38] Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”. The Indian "voodoo" report has *nothing at all* to do with the 2035 claim; MN is so blinded by his POV that he is unable to recognise this William M. Connolley (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZP5

This diff history showing a disruptive pattern is here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC Request for Enforcement History showing disruptive and egregious behavior.

This must demonstrate a pattern of disruptive and egregious behavior in the Enforcement Project for WMC.

Request concerning William M. Connolley [39]
William M. Connolley [40]
William M. Connolley: on refactoring comments and civility [41]
William M. Connolley [42]
William M. Connolley [43]
TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC [44]
More incivility from William [45]
William M. Connolley [46]
William M. Connolley [47]
William M. Connolley [48]
William M. Connolley [49]
Tentative disruptive request [50]

@Admins, In the past before the probation, I examined a 20 day diff history sample of WMC's "no", "not" language with other negative comments about others contribution. The result was 34 findings, which average to 1.7 negative comments per day. So with regards to a 90/10 ratio, the projected results imply a greater impact than "snarks". The editor is a highly significant negator of others contributions (including snarks as an "I No" editor). Do this imply that "know" means "no" ... well the reference to the sources should decided. My faith in others says "no" and "know" are different. My opinion is that excessive negation creates a overheated environment rolling over to this RFE. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, there are other ways of interpreting this data. A viewpoint exists that the articles are generally reasonably high quality and fairly NPOV, but that a number of not very well informed POV editors are seeking to shift the arrticles away from NPOV by inclusion of less well sourced material with UNDUE weight. In the context of such a vewipoint diligent refusal of proposed content might well be a sign of a knowledgable and well intentioned editor who has been driven to the occasion curt remark by the continuation of this. As to which viewpoint is correct, I think the edit histories speak for themselves to people who take trouble to do some research. --BozMo talk 08:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest interpreting as if negation is occurring, then it should be extra civil and self-aware of its impact, so as to avoid a creating negative environment. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley

This idea of ATren (talk · contribs) [51] was much more reasonable than the current request. This is needless escalation. That ATren is trying to precipitate a month long topic-ban is not particularly surprising. Mathsci (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"That ATren is trying to precipitate a month long topic-ban is not particularly surprising." - I am unclear on your meaning here. Could you please clarify what you mean by this statement? Specifically, why do you feel it is not particularly surprising? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had specifically requested that MathSci explain his comment above to make his meaning plain. It was a simple and polite request. This was his response. I can only assume that if his meaning was constructive that he would have been more than willing to come and make it more clear here. His bald dismissal of my request suggests, IMHO of course, the opposite. If I am wrong on that point I welcome MathSci to come and correct the record. --GoRight (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was lucky that I was asleep so that I could ignore what appears to have been WP:BAITing and your own extraordinarily rude interpretation of my sleeping. Your message in a headline on my talk page, with its split infinitive, did not seem "simple and polite". Are you contesting my right to remove that message or are you claiming that my edit summary contravened certain wikipedia rules? At present you seem to be repeating the disruptive behaviour which resulted in an indefinite block before, lifted subject to assurances from you. Have you ever thought of trying to improve your article edit count, GoRight? That would be more helpful for this encyclopedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a reference to my request above for others to conveniently judge for themselves. If my request offended you in some way, I apologize. I choose to ignore this most current attack but if you (MathSci) would take this opportunity to clarify your meaning it would be most helpful in clearing this matter up. If my analysis above is incorrect I will gladly retract it once you have clarified your actual meaning. I don't believe that simply asking for clarification on what you meant by "not particularly surprising" is uncivil or baiting or even assuming bad faith. I would simply like to understand what you had in mind when you wrote that statement specifically so that I DON'T make any assumptions either way. Clear communications is important to avoiding misunderstandings and unwarranted animus, and reducing either of these should help to improve the editing environment here which is, of course, my goal. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did in fact ask WMC to self revert after he removed my comment, as he obviously did not then i believe he has in fact broken his parole mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar Given the fact that WMC has a long history of misconduct dating back at least five years.[52], a one month topic ban seems too lenient to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I vote we chain him to a fence and throw rotten cabbages at him. That's no less an absurd suggestion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, might I suggest a remedy here? I propose topic bans of increasing duration. If LHVU wants to start out at 72 hours or whatever, that's fine. I suggest, however, that the lengths of any future bans for this editor, if they occur, increase drastically in duration, from 3 days to one week, followed by one month, followed by two months, and so on until the behavior in question has been corrected. Obviously, the behavior is in need of correction. Note the vindictive motion by WMC in response below for an indication of his desire to self-correct. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from clueless over here, WMC is once again wrong, please note the following Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen, and was asked about it in november He already knew the 2035 date was rubbish but stuck with it. mark nutley (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, you are playing word games WMC, Again please note the following, Ramesh recalled how IPCC chief R K Pachauri had scornfully dismissed doubts raised by a government agency about the veracity of the UN body's sensational projection about melting of glaciers. "In fact, we had issued a report by scientist V K Raina that the glaciers have not retreated abnormally. At the time, we were dismissed, saying it was based on voodoo science. But the new report has clearly vindicated our position I want a personal apology from the IPCC chairperson R.K. Pachauri who had described my research as voodoo science,” Mr. Raina told The Hindu over phone from Panchkula. “Forget IPCC, Dr. Pachauri has not even expressed regret over what he said after my report -- Himalayan Glaciers: a state-of-art review of glacial studies, glacial retreat and climate change -- was released in November last year So he knew in november the ipcc had cocked up, and still he called this guys work voodoo science, were exactly is this wrong in your eyes? mark nutley (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman, how do you manage to post a paragraph in a remedy section about WMC, and only mention the diffs provided of his behavior as "a mountain out of a molehill". You consistently fail to apply the probation as it exists, which has served only to enable this to continue. After your previous GBCW [53] to this page, I doubt your impartiality. If you have complaints about other editors on those pages, open a request like everyone else. Arkon (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SS ... Your question's premise is based upon the assumption that WMC owns (as sole editor) Wikipedia's POV and content, which is the primary issue here causing a disruption. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(moving from section below, per notice at head of section)Wikipedia functions very well outside of the Utopian ideal and always did on climate change. Unfortunately these sanctions have been given support without any real advertisement of the debate (so are certainly not consensus) and with a few misguided editors thinking they were a good thing and no proper general debate. This is such a different area from the other areas where similar sanctions have been imposed. Oh well! Let's all be "bend over backwards" civil to the talkpage POV warriors who time and time again don't even bother to read previous posts and bring up argument after argument. I even think WMC thought the sanctions might be a good idea which makes me seriously wonder about issues of judgement. Polargeo (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning More violations of sanctions by User:William M. Connolley

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

I am certainly minded to add "clueless" and similar to the banned expressions list for WMC, including in edit summaries. It is hard to see how this can lead to constructive dialogue. As for what's a talk page etc someone involved in the last lot is going have to answer that. And is it time for a "come off it and behave like and ordinary mortal" type action... hmm. Probably not from this diff list. --BozMo talk 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we cannot allow the refactoring of another editors talkpage comments to pass unsanctioned, since it was not under one of the exceptions noted in WMC's restriction - and the argument that Enforcement pages do not fall under the ambit of the probation is simple Wikilawyering; personal attacks, and the like, would not be permitted either. However, I am not minded to remove WMC from editing for any extended period because I believe that such silencing of one of the major contributors would become (more) of the intended purpose of requests on the page than trying to return to a collegiate editing environment. My suggestion would be, following the 24 hour sanction previously, of a tariff of not less than 48 hours and not more than 96. It must be made clear to WMC and all those who are not willing to work within the terms of the probation toward a good working environment that they are the architects of their own sanctions - and thus they should be incremental but not punitive. There needs to be the probability of a return to editing within the near future. Frankly, 1 month blocks would be counter productive since some accounts may decide that they will attempt to destroy what little co-operation currently exists if they cannot be part of the editing team. Everyone should be, and is, welcome to edit here in good faith. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a person clueless makes an assessment of their mental state and should not be done, especially in edit summaries which cannot be retracted. Describing on-wiki behaviour as lacking in WP:CLUE is different, but if you are involved in the dispute you shouldn't need to do it anyway, other editors who do have clue will be able to spot clueless behaviour without you having to put it on a banner for them. The usage in this case seems to be aimed at the person, so yeah, add "clueless" and whatever variants to the no-type list.
Suggesting that an editor find a different topic area where they are more knowledgable can be OK at times, but needs to be done with care. For one thing, it's like saying you're the toughest guy in the bar - you never know who will come in the door next. For another, a currently banned editor made a habit of telling other people they didn't know enough to edit "his" areas and this became part of the evidence. In this case, the suggestion seems not unreasonable. MN always has the option to acquire the requisite knowledge.
Removing someone else's post from a discussion page, whatever the prefix, when you are in a dispute should not be done unless it's something egregious. Uninvolved observers are perfectly capable of evaluating and if necessary removing posts. Since WMC is currently under a restriction on removing posts at all, let's just clarify that it applies to all discussion-style pages (generally anywhere where you end your post with tildes) and move on.

Does that about cover it? Franamax (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that about cover it>> I think so. I think maximum clarity is lowest stress for us and whether what LHVU says was deliberate wikilawyer was in fact congenital pedantry is perhaps a benefit of doubt thing --BozMo talk 21:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you run that last bit past me again? :~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means that if there's a choice between deliberate rules-lawyering on whether the page starts with Talk: or not, or confusion on exactly what the sanction meant, then we go with confusion and make things more clear. Some words may have got lost in the inter-tubes there, or actually just the "ing" is missing from "wikilawyer". As a congenital pedant myself, I always like to get the benefit of the doubt. ;) Franamax (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If folk are saying, "Let's make things clear" then I agree. If folk are saying, "Let's make things clear only" then I demur. WMC removed a comment by someone they are in dispute with, generally, over CC - and they are under notice that they may not do so. Comment removal, and the chosen adjectives, appear to violate the restriction placed upon WMC the last time he indulged in such practices. Let us make things clear, and enact a sanction under the restrictions noted for the reasons given. 48 hours only, since there might have been some confusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that WMC is relying on the "but I'm right" defence, which everyone knows is not wikpedish at all even if you are right, and also know is not well-expressed with "you're an idiot"-style edit summaries, I'm forced to agree with you. The regime also seems to be designed with escalating sanctions in mind. I would easily accept a 24-hours-plus-one-minute or 31 on this, though I quail at a double-up given the ambiguities involved. Franamax (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I agree with you, (your summary, above, was very helpful and spot on) but if the last block was 24 hours, I think 24 hours plus 1 minute, or even 31, sends the wrong message. Either it is sanctionable, or it isn't, and if it is, escalation is appropriate, because there have been a fair number of warnings. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about an RFC/U instead? Rather than nipping at the edges of a problem, why not deal with it completely? Jehochman ^Brrr 04:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they work. I've seen a fair number that blunder on for a month or so, during which much heat is generated, and at the end the user blithely ignores the findings (the fact that some dissenting views are generated appears to enable them to ignore the larger consensus that they have a problem that needs addressing) and continues with the disruptive pattern of behavior. For example, this one. I suspect that an RfC/U on WMC would be worse. We have an enforcement regime here and I think it is actually doing some good. Slowly, but it is. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The account filing this request does not appear to have engaged in any worthwhile article building in the area. Their contributions appear to be more properly characterized as disruptive. The request itself is overblown--making a mountain out of a molehill. Therefore, I oppose any sanction, as this would encourage further rules lawyering, and baiting. WMC's contributions in the area, while not perfect have been substantial and serious. Wikipedia:Content matters. Please discuss rather than imposing a sanction that is not supported by a consensus. Jehochman ^Brrr 02:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that comprise a separate request then? (Like the one just below?) This system seems designed to consider individuals and individual articles, one-by-one, to get the mess sorted. WMC is a big boy, he can withstand a sanction or two in the process of getting his stuff together to the point where he's not crossing lines in dealing with what he deals with. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Franamax (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one below is being rejected. It does not make sense to sanction the one expert who knows the most about the subject while giving a variety of tendentious accounts a free pass, and encouraging them to further their attacks against WMC. He's the target of a viscous campaign by right wing bloggers. We should not condone that. A warning should suffice here, then we need to turn to the primary sources of disruption and drop the hammer. Jehochman ^Brrr 03:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lone expert is smart enough to be capable of cleaning up his act. Given that, targeting the gunsights becomes much easier. Consider that it takes some serious skiing to even get to where you can aim the rifle. (Sorry for the biathlon analogy, I could see one of the venues from my front door - what I mean is that it takes a whole lot of reading to get a handle on all this. :) No-one gets a free pass, this is just the first request where I chose to weigh in. My assessment was a warning result too, but if LHvU sees need for a sanction, I'll defer as noted above. One miscreant at a time. I've observed the serial provocation and I'm not unaware of the possibility of off-site exhortations, though when you say it's "viscous" I do have to ask what the Reynolds number is. :) Franamax (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify that the little riff on "viscous" was much more a comment on my own obession with detail and interest in opportunities for wry, dark, or downright sick humour than it was with Jehochman's single typo/grammo. Franamax (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I really WP:DGAF. You guys do what you must. I personally dislike using short blocks on established contributors. People should be treated as adults. An RFC would be more likely to change WMC's behavior for the better. A short block is unlikely to do much except stir up drama. As I said, do what you must. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franamax: Yes. WMC needs to tone down the abrasiveness. I know he can do it if he wants to. So far I don't think he's been motivated enough to want to.

Jehochman: Escalating blocks will eventually get through. Or they will be escalated to the point that the disruption will cease. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to get out of a death spiral is not to go into one. Escalating blocks often lead to a self-reinforcing trend that is bad for Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually. but sometimes it's best for the project and the editor that there is a parting of the ways if the editor cannot edit within our norms. What else do you suggest, given that there seems to be a persistent problem here? Please make a concrete and implementable suggestion for improvement of WMC's behavior. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have enacted a 48 hour block on WMC's account, with regard to this request, per the above discussion. As ever, I welcome review and I will not oppose any admins good faith variance or lifting of the sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I do not see the above discussion supporting this action. As far as I can see B, F & J were against the sanction and L and L in favour of it. Could someone recount for me? --BozMo talk 15:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Franamax as opposed to a block entirely, my read was that Franamax was advocating 24h+1min or 31h rather than 48. That shifts things. Also, you didn't opine clearly, so I don't think I knew where you stood until just now. But I'll reiterate, I think we should propose the sanction and seek consensus, not just implement it first. ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that next time LHvU please seek consensus if we are going to bother having discussion, including amongst people who may be in bed at different times of day to you. I think there was not very good listening between uninvolved admins on this one, and am concerned per J that all we have done is made a major move toward worsening things. On F, like J and I, I read F as saying "am prepared to defer to consensus"> but it gets a bit odd if three people prepared to "defer" to consensus have consensus declared against them by a smaller number. Not that I could not have been talked around but there are certainly other things to fix at the same time. Also we did not even get to topic ban versus editing ban. I am not proud of our performance here.--BozMo talk 19:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I obviously was under the impression that we were discussing whether WMC had violated his restriction regarding refactoring other peoples comments and also his use of intemperate discriptions of others and their agenda's. I read that there was consensus that he had. On that basis I moved to enact the agreed sanctions, those that were detailed in those restrictions, after first requesting what sort of time scale we should impose. Having read the discussion I went to 48 hours since it seemed a sufficient increase upon the previous block, not as short as the last block + 1 hour suggested, and not the 96 which I had suggested as the upper end (I considered all the "requests" for 1 week/1 month to be punative, and did not factor them in my considerations). If anyone did have reservations about the potential block, I wish that they had clarified that and the basis of the reservations. As I said previously, I am not wedded to my sanctions and will not "refuse" a variation or lifting of the block - but I would be concerned how we are supposed to police these articles if we impose restrictions which we then apply to some editors and not others, sometimes, depending on the prevailing opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern. I just think we may possibly need to get crisper on "I propose this enforcement action" "I concur" "I disagree because" kind of phrasing so we can avoid this sort of confusion going forward. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without imposing yet another layer of bullrocracy (my invention, please note when using in future) on these processes, the case of Mark nutley was closed with a proposed wording not enacted because there were too few responses to indicate consensus. We - me included - do need to sharpen up our act to be both transparent and clear in our opinions. And prompt. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not minded to lift the block (although I would if enough people turned up and said so). In this particular case I think that we are in danger both of making ourselves look foolish and of escalating things. There is also a general problem of trolling on these articles lately: WMC has rightly pointed out the presence of a number of editors who have never made an original contribution to a single article in the topic except perhaps a revert, who are filling up talk pages with low quality comment. If we are to avoid looking stupid we need to show we are capable of addressing that issue rather than shooting the messenger when this is (undoubtedly uncivilly) pointed out. In general though my view on violations is that we should be probably more decisive and live with the knowledge we will make bad calls. If we are trying to work with consensus here though we should, as Lar said, be explicit. In this case LHvU you were not making a consensus block based on the discussion here, you were forming your own judgement and acting on it. I can live with that (especially for dismissing frivolous complaints which I personally think should be single uninvolved admin with one seconder). I can also live with the idea that no one admin should be involved in every decision here, and I don't like reopening things. But I have a problem with agreeing one process and living by another. --BozMo talk 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody here thinking that all the editors that filed enforcement requests against WMC, individually or collectively, can write a better article on global warming than WMC? If not there is a systemic failure in this probation if it leads to a result that sanctions productive expert editors of favor of less productive and less expert editors. If yes, I'd like to see any evidence... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything but stunned silence here? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's best to leave rhetorical questions unanswered. I think we already know your answer at any rate. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that someone or another opined as follows: while the "Science Team" (or WMC alone, as you specify) might do a better job (in terms of sourcing and clarity of writing, at least) on the areas that are purely scientific, it is just possible that the entire panoply of participating editors would do far better at fairly and harmoniously including all points of view, to the appropriate relative weights, in those parts of this topic that are not purely scientific ... what exactly would that accomplish in the context of this particular discussion? Nothing. So perhaps no one has articulated that view even if they themselves believed it. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, given what else people seem prepared to believe, that there are those glibly believing what Lar put as a strawman is not impossible, but it is never going to convince someone who considers carefully what it might involve. Sure WMC knows his stuff and provides a good basis for almost every argument he gets into (and wins most of them). But to the point on system failure, WMC is his own worst enemy. A clone of WMC who didn't rub other people's noses in it (and there are a few others) would never have run foul of these sanctions. But given the time the community is prepared to spend on people who are 90% troll 10% contributor and probably only half way through puberty it is strange we cannot engage more productively with someone who is 90% contributer 10% snark and has a serious knowledge base. --BozMo talk 14:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to comment here very breifly, just as a concerned editor, and only to say that I applaud your efforts in this area. "Civility" has to be more than an empty word. Wikipedia is truly meant to function with an atmosphere of collegiality, courtesy, and respect, both in tone and in conduct. only then can we truly get the mixture of views and ideas which is one great strength here. thanks! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to second that. BozMo, I think in general you've been trying very hard to be even handed here and you're doing a good job. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZP5, AQFK, ATren

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

Request concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren

User requesting enforcement: William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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

[54] ZP5 contrib history: no contributions of any value to articlespace on climate change
[55] ATren contribution history: ditto
[56] A_Quest_For_Knowledge contribution history: ditto
Another one: [57] Spoonkymonkey contrib history: ditto

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

See complaint above etc etc.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Ban from climate change articles under probabtion until they are prepared to actually improve wikipedia.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Climate change is fraught enough without kibitzers circling like flies around a corpse.

@ATren: I have no defense, because, frankly, I have no idea what I'm defending - err yes: that is indeed the point: you have no contributions of any value to defend.

@Cla68, Arzel: the silence of your inability to demonstrate valuable contributions from these editors is deafening.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren

Statement by ZP5, AQFK, ATren

I have no defense, because, frankly, I have no idea what I'm defending. ATren (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, defenseless where there is no offense. If you would like to contribute to something more valuable, I invite you here: User:ZuluPapa5/CAUC in exile as I ... while we patiently wait for peaceful times in these articles to avoid disruptive warriors. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge

The claimed violation is not listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Therefore, it should be immediately dismissed. Further, this request appears to be in retaliation for the above requests. I recommend that WMC be sanctioned for disruptively filing frivolous complaints and abusing the system. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

As the admins consider what warning/sanction is appropriate for filing this request, please consider the following question: Has WMC demonstrated anything to show that he's willing to reform his behavior? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren

This motion appears to be of a retaliatory nature. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a retaliation. Arzel (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems simple to disprove the request: just find some edits to climate change articles that you have made that are indisputably constructive. Ignignot (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well here`s some for ZP5 [58] [59] [60] some for AQFK [61] [62] I`ll look up some others if the guys are not online by tommorow but i`m tired and away to bed mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me amend my statement to include that the edits should be more than a typo fix, unless there are a whole lot of typo fixes. I don't think this is unreasonable - I think 2 of ZP5's qualify. Ignignot (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATren helped fix Fred Singer's BLP, to which WMC, among others, had tried to make negative. ATren deserves a thank you for doing that, especially since, perhaps as a result, he has been subjected to retaliation by one of the editors who opposed him on that article. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are volunteers. We volunteer what we wish, when we can. Should I begin to find an area of Wikipedia that I think you don't contribute enough to, then ask you to be banned from it? This is a dangerous road. Arkon (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that you (or anyone on this list) are or are not a "good editor". I'm just saying that it would be easy to disprove with a few diffs, which would lay this to rest quickly and quietly, although it looks like this might not be within probation scope, pending admin consensus. In any case - I don't think you can dispute that we all spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about climate change articles, and that not all of it is necessary. I have long been of the opinion that stopping the endless arguments is impossible, but keeping it to a dull roar is within reach. However, every day I believe that it might require some extreme measures to make that a reality. But as you said, I'm just a volunteer - some guy on the internet - and the only weight that my opinion carries is how much people assign to it themselves. I like to think that I am reasonable. Ignignot (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 other things came to mind. First: I think that one possible (although perhaps not correct or fair) solution is to ban some problem editors to reduce arguments, and then hopefully experience an increase in time spent actually editing articles instead of talk pages. Second: That I end too many comments with the word reasonable. Ignignot (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions can be found here:

Editors have been blocked for disruptive enforcement requests such as this. Arkon (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Like many other RfE's, this is bollocks. WMC should be whacked with the proverbial wet fish and the request should be dismissed. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What violation of the probation is being alleged here? I can't discern any from the request. Lacking any discernible claim of a violation of the probation there seems little need to waste valuable time looking through the contribution histories WMC has pointed us to. Perhaps a simple warning concerning the filing of frivolous requests and wasting the community's time is in order. I leave it to the administrators to determine if this is the case. --GoRight (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Lar and LHvU: Regarding the number of frivolous requests required to receive a warning. At the risk of dredging up old problems, I direct your attention to the following, [67]. This was my second request (the first was closed as being brought to the wrong venue) so this was the first request that was judged to be frivolous on my part and it garnered a warning on the first such request. It is somewhat instructive to review that particular request because in hind sight it was particularly on topic with respect to the probation and also quite even handed if I must say so myself. Anyway, if you are looking for a precedent to follow this would have been the first such warning issued under the probation. I leave it to you to decide if the standards should be "relaxed" from what they were then. :) --GoRight (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sanctions appear to be serving the purpose of 'levelling the playing field', as was discussed at some point when they were being proposed. So, now those who by their own admission know very little about the subject have equal control over the articles as those who are life-long, world-class and career experts in it. And they have far more control over this RfE page, where they appear to thrive. --Nigelj (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As WMC just got blocked for 48 hours i think any further sanctions a step to far, Im with what LHVU says below, just tell the guy not to file silly requests again mark nutley (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Following thread was moved from result section, which is to be edited only by uninvolved admins. Feel free to discuss (on my talk) if you think I erred... this is in response to Lar saying "we did sanction with less than 3 last time IIRC but I could be confused" ... ++Lar: t/c 05:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

How would you know, given that more than 90% of the so-called "sceptic" editors are socks? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would Lar (who has only recently put aside his CU tools) know? I think the clue is in the reference to CU - unless of course you are asking how he knows he is confused (although the later comment about socks then confuses me); good question, if you are confused how are you supposed to know? Deeeeeeeeep, man! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As any good self-help book will tell you, it's not the size of your tool that matters, but what you do with it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't write self-help books. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case trust me. It's not the size of your tool that matters, but what you do with it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you seriously need to consider whether you're adding any value here with these oblique comments of yours. If you have something specific to say, please say it, plainly and specifically. If on the other hand you just want to snipe, I suggest you not do that. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this time I follow your example and avoid clear answers, remaining an international man of mystery. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not an acceptable answer, on a number of different levels. Stop sniping at people. You can't go around accusing admins of being clueless and the like indefinitely without either putting up or shutting up, as the saying goes. ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong thread? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're doing the sniping thing in more than one thread actually. Needs to stop. In all threads. ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren

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

I do not believe this to be a legitimate request, within the scope of the probation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This board is not capable of reviewing an editor's entire contribution history. If you want to make a case that they are politely disruptive by engaging in circular discussion, please point out specific threads using permanent links. Please also consider whether it would be useful to start an RFC on each editor. Before you do that, find a second party to review each editor's contribution history, and if necessary approach each editor and try to coax them towards productive contributions. Jehochman ^Brrr 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that WMC be warned not to file frivolous requests or requests that give the appearance of revenge, and that WMC be further warned that the next such may result in sanctions, such as, for example, disallowance of further filings, as we have done to other editors when adjudged to have been filing requests unreasonably. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should think there needs to be a recent history of filing poor faith requests before we warn editors, let alone sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps... How many poor faith requests before the first warning, in your thinking? ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three? Seems sufficient for anyone to understand what constitutes a poor faith request. Fourth time draws a sanction. As I inferred in an above section, I feel that once there is a warning then any clear violation draws a sanction. The only proviso would be that if there were intervening good faith requests; then the clock is set back a bit - we are attempting to stop serial poor faith requests only. LessHeard vanU (talk)

We did sanction with less than 3 last time IIRC but I could be confused. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile discounting this list of accounts (which is not a good one) whilst I don't propose with any blanket actions against editors who have not contributed, perhaps the way that we treat argumentative behaviour could be different for accounts with a significant track record of helpfulness or contribution. There are some other accounts not listed here which look more trollish (I am not going to start listing and PAing them) and plenty turn up and are a nuisance before eventually being identified as one of several socks. Be nice to have some sort of established editor distinction. Meanwhile I think AQFK has withdrawn from Climate change articles. --BozMo talk 22:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of sources

WP:NOTFORUM applies. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's been an arbitrary shut-down of a discussion regarding the British Institute of Physics and the Information Commission discussion of the CRU's science. It may well be that the discussion for on another page, but Tony Sidaway's decision to archive an ongoing discussion without any attempt at consensus seems true to pattern and high-handed. I believe Global Warming is as good a place as any for this discussion, and, if there is a better place, the people engaged in the discussion should be notified and the discussion moved to a more appropriate page. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed two recent discussions that appeared to relate to an ongoing Commons Select Committee Inquiry, and seemed to have little or no direct relevance to the article Global warming. In the hatnote for the collapse I directed further discussion to a more appropriate talk page, the intention being not to close discussion but to prevent duplication, and to keep discussion on talk pages focussed on improving the article in question. In my opinion this was the correct thing to do.

I have asked the above user to explain what relevance the matter has to the article Global warming, and his response suggests to me that he genuinely believes that this matter relates to the entire subject and affects many articles; I think this view is unlikely to win consensus and suggest that he set more modest objectives and continue to make his case until there is adequate support for his ambitious premise. There are more appropriate pages on which to do this--arguing for the item to be discussed in the article to which I directed him, or a related article, should be easy and should quickly gain support. On that he may build.

It isn't unusual for articles on general subjects to attract off-topic discussion. It's extremely common on this article, and I think this is the correct way to deal with it: gently but firmly direct discussion to the talk page of a more appropriate article. --TS 01:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the sanctions regime is that we are not supposed to interfere in any way with discussion by others, no matter how inappropriate or off-topic. Someone can correct me if that's wrong. (Personally I find the best thing to do with unconstructive discussion is simply to ignore it; responding in any way only encourages such things.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a correct understanding. There are some folk who are enjoined from interfering because of prior interferences that were inappropriate but it's not a blanket prohibition, although I invite correction. I agree that ignoring unconstructive digression is often the best approach. ++Lar: t/c 11:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This epitomises the problems with this large array of articles, persistent pov pushing on the basis of emerging news. Uncorrected Evidence 39 from the Institute of Physics states –
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner.
This sounds damning, and in good faith, editors feel that this new information is so important that it must be put in main articles about global warming. One problem – the Information Commissioner (ICO) has issued no finding, it made an (as yet undisclosed) statement to one persistent reporter that there was strong evidence sufficient to make a case that the university had failed to respond properly to a request to release private emails, but the ICO would not pursue that case as it was time-barred. The reporter misrepresented it as "hiding data", and the IOP seems to have fallen for that misrepresentation.
There's a vocal lobby claiming that climate change science is an international conspiracy and fraud, and it's not widely appreciated that by "American standards, all British newspapers are tabloids because they don’t distinguish between what is true and what they make up."[68][69] There's an understandable lack of critical analysis about such news claims, particularly when WP:V is interpreted to mean that if something appears in a reliable source like a newspaper, we should add it without any further research or cross-checking, These sanctions by focussing on etiquette enable such pov pushing. Enforcement of content policies isn't on the agenda, should it be? . .dave souza, talk 07:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be, but I suspect it will be harder to get to clear cut resolution of matters brought. Especially when sources are subject to a litmus test as you seem to be suggesting be done. I'm not sure I agree with that view. If a widely read newspaper reports something and doing so is significant to the overall perception of the issue, it is not our place to denigrate the paper as being too tabloid.

I'm not opposed to trying to enforce content policies, properly interpreted, but that may just be because I'm "domineering", "tend to dismiss reasoned argument" and my "judgement appears to be poor" who shows "little evidence that he's really there to contribute to building an encyclopaedia" rather than because it's actually a good idea. If you can't win on strength of argument, attack the folk doing the enforcement in whatever venue offers itself. Right, Dave? ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re editor role

Sounds like you have a conflict of interest, Lar, I take you as I find you. Enforcing content policies is harder than enforcing civility, a point examined in the essay WP:Civil POV pushing. . . dave souza, talk 11:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you form preconceived notions, (or worse, ascribe characteristics to your aversaries that you yourself possess) and then try to make things fit your desired narrative. Far more likely you have a conflict than I, actually. My point stands, but thanks for reminding others of that essay. If you'd care to continue disparaging me, I suggest you take it to my talk, I'm not going to let your attempts to shift focus deter me from impartially commenting here. ++Lar: t/c 12:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "civil POV pushing" essay is part of the problem, not the solution. See this for an opposing view. ATren (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Lar, I have the preconceived notion that articles should reflect majority expert views, and pages devoted to minority views should refer to the majority view and not present issues from the minority viewpoint. I also think we need good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. When a journalist writes about "How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie",[70] we should research the mainstream view,[71] and give it due weight. I've no wish to disparage you, nor be pushed off the subject by you.
@ Atren, I see that essay as complementary, and good advice. The civil pov pushing essay is something for uninvolved admins to be aware of when dealing with such content disputes. . . dave souza, talk 13:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how people behaving civilly can be considered worse than people behaving uncivilly. You jerks. Ignignot (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar's comments above suggest that he is sufficiently embittered toward at least one of the parties in this dispute that he should withdraw from enforcement in this topic area. He brought in comments from his Steward review -- an issue unrelated to the present topic -- and is shoving them in Dave's face. Carrying a grudge into an enforcement page is wholly inappropriate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not see any evidence that Lar should withdraw.SPhilbrick T 16:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sphilbrick, agreed. The comments are relevant because they show Dave souza (and others) holding grudges against an uninvolved administrator about matters relatd to this page. Which will be taken into account, I would hope, in appropriate circumstances. Those who don't want to be reminded of casting aspersions should consider not casting them in the first place. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, you raised comments from the steward !vote, and seem to have a grudge against me for expressing an opinion based on your actions. I've no grudge against you, and will be delighted if we can both put this behind us, and focus on aricle improvement. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments you made directly relate to this topic area and enforcement page, we have little or no interaction elsewhere. If you seriously think there is an issue with any of my actions here on en:wp, there are myriad avenues open to you to pursue the matter, and you should do so. But raising them there (when they have nothing to do with my stewardry work), and then disavowing their applicability just won't fly. Pointing that out to you is not "having a grudge", it's keeping you intellectually honest. Take this matter to my talk, or better, drop any further accusations going forward, unless in the proper venue. Clear? ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responded at your talk page, dave souza, talk 17:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignignot: But civil POV-pushing is still POV pushing. The core problem remains. And AFAIK, there is no appropriate venue to settle this dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally, I think that essay on Civil POV pushing should be deleted as being inherently uncivil. It is written from a biased perspective from the outset. It is written in such a way what it specifically excludes certain editors who clearly have a POV which they aggressively push and yet they wish to consider themselves as NOT being POV pushers themselves. The type of thinking embodied by that essay is distinctly flawed and it contributes significantly to the toxic nature of the current editing environment on these pages. --GoRight (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point re sources

(outdent) It is my understanding that Talk pages are the place to resolve POV differences. Tendacious editing is a different animal entirely though. When people never resolve the POV differences we have a problem. Obviously if everyone agreed on NPOV there would be little if any uncivil behavior, but in the absence of convergence at least there won't be lots of internet rage. Ignignot (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave, responding to “articles should reflect majority expert views”. I don’t believe this position is supported by policy. My apologies for being slightly off-topic, but only slightly. Some of the content disputes are rooted in the belief that if an article makes mention of science, material can be excluded, even though from a RS, if it does not meet the invented hurdle of “majority expert view”. This is contrary to the spirit and intent of Wikipedia. I’ve stated before that I have no problem with a rule that, in the case of conflicting reports, that expert (e.g peer-reviewed) sources trump non-expert, but I do not agree with the decision to exclude information because it does not meet your criterion. I think some of the passion in the edit warring arises from your belief that your view is policy, and pushback from editors who have a correct understanding of policy. I could be wrong about policy; it wouldn’t be the first time, but if WP really has a policy allowing the exclusion of material from newspapers because the reporters don’t meet your definition of expert, I’d like to see the policy.SPhilbrick T 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A very novel interpretation of policy at best. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick - Agreed and very well said. --GoRight (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. i have never seen such wholesale violations of WP:AGF as at global warming. It is usually totally acceptable everywhere else for editors to add material from newspapers and periodicals. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy and civility

Ok, so you didn't like my quick paraphrase of "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Note I didn't say "should only reflect majority expert view", minority views should be shown fairly and proportionately, while articles giving more attention to minority views "should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Was trying to keep it short, sorry if there were any misunderstandings. My understanding is that when describing the science, the clear majority scientific consensus has most weight. When describing "controversy" about the science, that still applies. When describing political and social aspects, other majority reliable sources can be appropriate, preferably academic analysis rather than reflecting directly campaigning material from any "side". Of course, if you hold other views I'll be interested to hear them. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignignot, I've only been involved in this topic space for a few months. As far as I can gather, this POV dispute has been going on for years. Clearly, the community has failed to resolve this problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)I guess I just feel that all editors have POV issues, and that there is no way to make them go away without getting rid of everyone. I see Wikipedia as more of a process than a result - the disagreement results in articles going back and forth on minor details, which is fine. I doubt there are many articles without POV arguments - and the ones that don't have them are not interesting. So I think resolving POV issues for good in this topic is impossible, but that constructive work has been, is being, and will be done despite (and often because of!) the disagreements. Incivility has a tendency to divert people from working on articles and spend more time yelling at each other, on admin issues, and in general not thinking of the topic, and instead thinking about the other editors. I don't particularly like the essay on Civil POV issues because it is so easy to point the finger at people who are in honest civil disagreement with you and then ignore them, breaking the BRT process down. To actually punish someone for that kind of behavior defies belief because inevitably there was a person arguing on both sides. That a "Civil POV" editor would be punished when compared to the other "Civil NPOV" is simply a matter of if he or she holds a minority view, something that is supposed to be in the article anyway. And after the POV editor is gone, inevitably another will come to replace him or her, after the article is slowly changed into the "NPOV" viewpoint. Somewhere along the way both sides of the climate change debate fell into the habit of goading and borderline PA and repeated admin action - and what has it resulted in? A tale I tell to you now, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. A few are banned for crossing the line, but others always replace them. My own personal feeling is that any incivility in climate change should be punished very harshly, and that if you are in a grey area then you get punished just as hard. Currently we have a back and forth reminiscent of kids fighting in the back seat of the car - and if a verbal reprimand doesn't work, then we'll just have to turn this damn car around! Ignignot (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There obviously is a long term problem with POV pushing in the global warming articles. We devote far too much attention to a very small number of scientists who express dissent from the climate change consensus, for instance, and we've spent a lot of time discussing issues that are, for the most part, only being discussed because they're on various "climate skeptic" blogs run by non-scientists. We're faced with pushes, continually, to relax our sourcing standards--Delingpole's opinion pieces, for instance, have been described as "reliable sources" simply by virtue of being published by the Telegraph, and similarly Booker's recently published book is being described as reliable because it's printed by a reputable publisher. Over time, this kind of pushing does damage our coverage, and it ought to be possible to identify such activities and clamp down on them. --TS 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the repeated pushes - to rename articles, to allow non RS, to delete articles - people keep bringing them up, sure. If no one responded to them after the first in depth discussion, it might put quite the damper on arguments and talk pages with 100 archives. My ideal is that if something that has been brought up before is brought up again, it gets one response: see faq # blah, and if people want to argue about faq # blah, then take it to RfA - perhaps a specialized set of admins that are familiar with the usual arguments and can therefore close repeated requests quickly, and if the same user keeps bringing up the same thing, sanction? - and have this process in BIG BOLD LETTERS at the top of the talk. And that everyone gets along in a field of magical unicorns farting love on each other. Ignignot (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the FAQ approach (which does work quite well, I find) is that POV pushers will simply claim that the FAQ is out of date, and then the debate goes off again. It's well nigh impossible to convince a determined POV pusher who is sure that right is on his side that the reason he failed to prevail the last 18 times is the same reason he'll fail the 19th time, because things haven't changed and he still lacks consensus. --TS 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then just throwing an idea out there - maybe a single, centralized climate change FAQ, with a segment for each topic, with the FAQ on the topic mirrored on the appropriate talk pages. You can't change the FAQ without discussion on the FAQ page, which would be a good single place for a knowledgeable admin to keep an eye on to nip any repeated arguments in the bud? I'm sure my sweeping solution to all of our problems will work. Ignignot (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've helped to write two FAQs: one for global warming and the other for the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Although ostensibly about related subjects there isn't any significant overlap, and I think the approach of keeping specialist FAQs for talk pages that encounter a lot of repeated discussion works well enough. I'm not, by-and-large, in love with the idea of any individual--admin or not--sitting watch over a talk page and associated FAQ, although I don't see a reasonable alternative on especially repetition-prone pages such as those two. Where I would draw the line is somebody squatting over all the main articles and imposing a single monolithic FAQ, because I think it would be easy for things to get out of sync, and rather than just updating the FAQ as one does you'd end up with a kind of bureaucracy, which is not a good idea. My approach is that we keep the FAQ as up-to-date and accurate as possible by normal editing, and that's enough to see off most POV-pushing expeditions. Quite thrillingly so, which is the joy of FAQs. --TS 18:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the off the cuff idea obviously wasn't a good solution to anything - Jim Crow-ing the way to actually make edits is not exactly fair. When the FAQs address a specific issue that someone re-raises they work great, because they cut off future discussion quickly. As someone above pointed out though, a lot of the edit-warring and vitriol is essentially about news. There is of course WP:NOTNEWS but that just gets thrown out the window in the political articles. However bringing up current events something I am at least somewhat sympathetic to, because where do you draw the line? But the rhythm of the arguments is so predictable that you can almost waltz to it: "Hey this new development completely changes the article" -> "No it does not matter at all" -> "yes it does and it is a WP:RS" -> "no they are a blog/shill/don't get it/are self serving/not secondary/things are different now" -> "why don't you WP:AGF you smelly person" -> "stop with the WP:PA already you imbecile." -> arbitrary other wiki policy linking (BLP is a favorite), eventually spilling to talk pages, diff mining, Rfe... I guess the question is, can you be tendacious without repeating yourself? I still favor strict, harsh enforcement, punishing even borderline cases, but I was raised that way. I've seen first hand that if someone can give you enough pain, and is arbitrary enough on enforcement, that even a mess of poorly socialized nerds with too much time on their hands can be brought into line. Kind of. Ignignot (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I do notice with talk:global warming is that the pointless repetition dies down a lot when it's semi-protected. I'm not sure whether this is wholly due to scibaby being locked out, or just general lack of non-logged-in editors coming in with material from a blog or newspaper article. I do wonder if it would be worth implementing talk page semi on other articles for that reason. It isn't really an onerous requirement that somebody register a username, make three or four edits anywhere on the wiki, then wait three or four days, and it isn't as if the articles in question were crying out for more talk page participants. --TS 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to have veered far from the topic.

I don't think there's any actionable problem here. I tried to redirect discussion to a more appropriate venue and the originating editor rejected the move. There's certainly room for differences of opinion here, as long as the editor is willing to attempt to make a case in good faith for inclusion in the global warming article (he is.) I note also that the talk page was recently semi-protected and so there is a lot less of the usual clutter originating from banned editors, so this discussion, while not ideally placed in this editor's opinion, is not likely to cause problems. --TS 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SBHB, I can see where you would get that impression (my fault, at least in part), but I do not think that it is really the intention of the probation to supersede WP:NOTFORUM. Without further comment on the mess above, I also note that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force has not received much attention of late. Perhaps that would be a good target for discussion of all the sources that get raised at Talk:Global warming but are not really suited to that page. We should not expect every new editor to know the hierarchy of articles, but Talk:Global warming should not become the AN/I of climate change content discussion. Would an edit notice including the FAQ and some advice for finding a more specific article be a good idea? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The problem is not lack of information, the problem is, mostly, lack of goodwill and lack of clue. Unless you can force-feed certain people (including certain admins) an extra-strength clue supplement, or unless you (plural, including certain admins) start to look beyond surface civility and whining, nothing useful will happen. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I totally disagree with that. the issue here is civility. Maybe if you global warming guys stopped labeling all the editors who dare to think differently as idiots, or as suffering from "lack of goodwill and lack of clue," then you might start to absorb that issue. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not all of them are idiots. And only the better ones are honestly clueless. And if you think civility is more important than a decent encyclopedia, we have different views of the project. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility IS important. Saying that it is "less important" than writing a good encyclopedia is simply a disingenuous way for you to say that civility is not important, period. Please try to reread WP:CIVILITY. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How uncivil of you to misinterpret my words. And how wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you seriously need to consider whether you're adding any value here with these oblique comments of yours. If you have something specific to say, please say it, plainly and specifically. If on the other hand you just want to snipe, I suggest you not do that. ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] Oh, Ok. So you're the victim of incvility. fine got it. Here is what you said:

Oh, not all of them are idiots. And only the better ones are honestly clueless. And if you think civility is more important than a decent encyclopedia, we have different views of the project.

here's how I "interpret" what you said. "Oh, not all of them are idiots." --some of them are idiots. "And only the better ones are honestly clueless." you are accusing a group of people who disagree with you of malice, based mainly on the fact that they happen to disagree with you.

and: "...if you think civility is more important than a decent encyclopedia, we have different views of the project." you're implying that my views of the importance of civility somehow pose a threat to the encyclopedia. AND, you think civility declines in importance when placed against the backdrop of writing an encyclopedia--in other words, everything else that we do here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then of course, there is this going on, and there's no doubt it is affecting us here. Civility rules are important, but they don't protect the articles from random, cherry-picked trivia forced into place by people shouting (civilly) "verifiability not truth" and bringing RfE sanctions down onto all who disagree. What does Conservapedia call these snippets? Carry outs? Take aways? I forget. --Nigelj (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think there's plenty of doubt that is happening here. The article is full of examples of very extreme wording. While tempers flare in here, you'd be hard pressed, even with cherry picking to find many quotes here that would belong in that article.--SPhilbrick T 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Where is the request - per the template at the top of the page? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section needs to be moved to talk. --BozMo talk 22:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the request, i think:

There's been an arbitrary shut-down of a discussion regarding the British Institute of Physics and the Information Commission discussion of the CRU's science. It may well be that the discussion for on another page, but Tony Sidaway's decision to archive an ongoing discussion without any attempt at consensus seems true to pattern and high-handed. I believe Global Warming is as good a place as any for this discussion, and, if there is a better place, the people engaged in the discussion should be notified and the discussion moved to a more appropriate page. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not seem to meet any condition for this request for enforcement page. It should be on the talk page--BozMo talk 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was asking (using this page as a kind of megaphone) that in future I relocate such discussions and notify the editors instead of collapsing with a hatnote suggesting a possible new venue. I'm unwilling to do that as it seems more disruptive than my current policy. --TS 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing this request with a note that WP:NOTFORUM still (or perhaps especially) applies to talk pages in the probation area. Anyone should feel free to reopen the thread if the discussion here is better kept here than moved elsewhere. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scibaby and enablers

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

Request concerning Scibaby and enablers

User requesting enforcement: Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Scibaby (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

[72] POV-pushing against consensus by sock
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby Latest CU report
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive CU Archive
Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby 592 (and counting) confirmed socks
[73] Scibaby enabler comparing concerned editors to pigs and dictators via literary allusion.

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

N/A, already blocked sock master.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Adequate range blocks and active patrolling by neutral admins, checkusers, and all well-meaning editors. Strong warnings against editors who support obvious Scibaby socks in discussions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Scibaby (and/or related sockmasters) have disrupted the climate change articles for a long time. Undoing the damage has been left to a small group of editors supported only through cumbersome processes. In particular, ~~apparently no "sceptic" editor has ever found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption~~ "sceptic" editors have rarely if ever found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption (one case of a borderline sceptic editor has been found). As a result, a small group is left with both the effort and the risk of dealing with this sockmaster (or group of sockmasters). In particular, they alone carry the risk if an action is misinterpreted or in honest error. This is not acceptable.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [74]

Discussion concerning Scibaby and enablers

Statement by Scibaby and enablers

Comments by others about the request concerning Scibaby and enablers

I don't think this is remotely actionable. We're a volunteer project and we cannot order anybody to do anything. Handling scibaby stuff is something I do from time to time, but it isn't an important feature of editing the climate change articles. --TS 23:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More aggressive range blocks are certainly possible, although we need to take collateral damage into account. More semi-protection is possible. Creating a more streamlined process for dealing with mass sockpuppeteers is possible. Coming to an explicit a-priori understanding that good-faith reverting of plausible Scibaby edits will not be interpreted as edit-warring is possible. Granting more leeway to admins to block likely socks is possible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this here? WP has well-entrenched rules to deal with socks. I see nothing proposed here that would enhance the ability of anyone to directly address the socks themselves. What I do see is a proposal to issue warnings to anyone who supports an obvious sock. It has been said many times that Scibaby socks are easy to spot. That may be true to some people, but not to me. If there are definitive signs, I don't know what they are. If I see someone new proposing something I think is positive, I intend to support. If it turns out to be a sock, I strongly object to the notion I deserve a warning. This sounds like a backdoor proposal to create an entirely inappropriate policy. I propose that this entire section be struck. To the extent it is sensible, it is redundant. To the extent it is not redundant, it is anathema.--SPhilbrick T 23:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP's rules have not been designed for narrow-focus POV-pushing mass sock-puppeteers and do not work particularly well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does Scibaby do besides readding paragraphs about bovine emissions? The diff you provided above shows an apparently problematic edit, but doesn't seem to be a huge problem, such as blanking or mass moving of article pages like Willy on Wheels used to do. Willy on Wheels was a huge problem for awhile but eventually gave up. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One point about Scibaby is that it's an extremely tedious and obsessive sock. It's also incredibly predictable. Elsewhere today I suggested that we might perhaps consider more frequent semi-protection of talk pages on some of his target articles, simply to stop his timewasting. --TS 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think semi-prot of talk pages is unreasonable. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per TS... maybe edit filters are an approach to combat the bovine emission insertion problem and other well known areas of interest. ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been quite a bit of time since scibaby focused primarily on bovine emissions. Take a look at the "contribution" history of the latest 20 or so socks. Hir is still recognizable/predictable - but also still capable of surprises. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of talk pages would be the best way forward, if the community agrees that the problem should be addressed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am worried in principle that with the talk pages and articles protected, there will be no place at all for IP editors to make a contribution. In practice I doubt this has much effect. I'm certainly not saying that if you semi a bunch of talk pages that, "the terrists have won." Ignignot (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has been resolved.

Stephan, consistent with [75] consider this your "polite note" that I believe your comments regarding skeptics and what you see as their level of dedication to the integrity of the project seem to unnecessarily attack a number of editors in good standing and, therefore, the "refactoring or removal" of that part of your comment "would be appreciated". Let's all try to promote a more collegial environment moving forward. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. --GoRight (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show me an example where a "sceptical" editor has ever disagreed with a Scibaby sock, or reverted it, or reported it at SPI, and I will refactor accordingly. Until then, my comment stands. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not focus on the "enablers" portion. We may have a chance here of getting consensus on more sensible handling of Scibaby, and I'd not want to mess up that chance. --TS 00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan - I was unaware that reverting Scibaby was somehow an official litmus test for caring about the integrity of the project. Since Scibaby tends to promote a skeptical perspective on the issues it should not be surprising that the AGW proponents would be more active in trying to keep his edits out. However, it is Scibaby the user that is banned and NOT their POV so your comment is clearly inappropriate and an attack. It is a sad state of affairs when we can't even get the administrators to adhere to the civility restrictions which have just recently been proposed for these pages.

Consistent with [76], the above notification, and Stephan's refusal to refactor his incivility I would ask that an uninvolved administrator refactor it for him. Specifically, the portion of his statement that I think is objectionable would be "In particular, apparently no "sceptic" editor has ever found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community." --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with GoRight. Stephan should replace the words "maintaining the integrity of our community" with "reporting or reverting Scibaby sockpuppets." Keeping in mind that it's now wee hours of the morning in Germany, we should give Stephan a reasonable time to repond. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly acceptable suggestion and given the time I perfectly agree with giving him time to respond and am more than willing to accept that the time may have been a contributing factor. I have certainly been in the same situation myself. --GoRight (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed per Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Comment_refactoring

How many socks are you requesting enforcement against exactly? 57? 205? Heyitspeter (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting action against the sock master(s). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat. 57? 205? The one you list has already been blocked indefinitely [77].--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken record? As I said, I'm looking for action that is effective against the sock master(s). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we're both spinning in circles, so in that sense the metaphor holds. I asked you a question twice and you haven't answered twice.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. Sock master: A real human being. Sock puppet: A disposable Wikipedia account created by the sock master (see there). I'm looking for sactions that are effective against the sock master (see there) and as a consequence reduce the disruption caused by the sock puppets (see there). Some examples of possible actions are listed above (see there), I'm sure this groups of brilliant brains can come up with more than I can after 5 minutes of thinking. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that your enforcement request shows examples from one sock master, Scibaby, who has been blocked, whereas you use the plural. You also appear to be requesting sanctions against "scibaby enablers." Who?--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint allows for the case that Scibaby is several cooperating sock masters. The convention with the (s) is short hand for "sock master or sock masters, as appropriate" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of WP:SPADE, I suppose I should make myself more clear. This is what McCarthyism is. Please close this request and warn the filing editor.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to this comparison. Please refactor or strike per Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Comment_refactoring. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is unambiguously apt. I honestly can't find any feature of McCarthyism that doesn't directly apply to what you are here attempting. Please bring any such incongruity to my attention.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot put people into prison for contempt, we cannot force them to witness against other, we are not even asking them to witness. How is it like McCarthyism in any way? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting to instill in the community a diffuse fear of a faceless enemy (a "Scibaby [or] several cooperating sock masters"), are brandishing an as yet unrevealed list of names of people who sympathise with this faceless enemy whom you intend to penalize on that basis, and you are trying to take this unspecified opponent and unspecified list of names as a justification for the removal of restrictions on controls of said community. That is what McCarthyism is.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. No. No. No. The last is debatable but irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In particular, apparently no "sceptic" editor has ever found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption." - Now that I think about this in the light of day hasn't User:Oren0 assisted with the Scibaby situation? I seem to recall him complaining about Raul's lack of attention at some point and that became a part of his rationale for RfA. Am I remembering incorrectly? --GoRight (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[78]. Seems I remembered the RfA part correctly. Now I seem to remember Oren0 self-describing as a skeptic. Am I wrong on that point? --GoRight (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[79]. See the fifth user box on the right. He considers himself a skeptic. So have I demonstrated that there has been at least one skeptic who has assisted "in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption"? I'll stop there. Perhaps you could refactor that bit just a tad more in light of this? But no matter how you refactor this it will still have a sharp elbow feel to it. Just something to think about. --GoRight (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly stood for RFA pledging to take up the slack on the Scibaby front after the main admin dealing with it was hounded off of the subject. Of course, actions speak louder than words - his entire log of blocked users is located at [80], of that, the only Scibaby sock appears to be Phaert Kut, who was tagged but not blocked by Raul, and while he reported one Scibaby sock right around his RFA, I see no other SSP or RFCU reports. Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak definitively on his entire effort with respect to Scibaby and I won't bother to dig through his contribs for diffs. My recollection, which has been pretty good thus far, is that Oren0 was helping with Scibaby since long before the RfA came up, and that RfA was well before Raul resigned his CU tools. So the timeline is important for context.
I don't think that this is a huge point to argue over other than it illustrates that rash(ish) accusations can sometimes contribute to the level of animus and discontent, regardless of whether that was the intent of the author, or not. I am willing to assume that was not the intent but this makes it even more important to point out so as to simply raise awareness of potentially inadvertent slights. I would not be doing anyone any favors to let these things pile up to the point where they actually DO become a big deal. It is actually unfair of me to go away mildly annoyed or disgruntled over these types of statements without saying anything because doing so deprives the good faith editors of the opportunity to at least correct any inadvertent slights in real time. --GoRight (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do recall reporting Scibaby socks. Some examples: [81] [82]. I have also blocked at least one. Quite frankly I haven't done anything with him lately because I haven't really seen many of them around and I've been editing much less. Oren0 (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Micropoint granted. Please take the above to read "in particular, only a single "sceptic" editor has, since time immemorial, found it necessary to help in maintaining the integrity of our community with respect to this persistent disruption." I'll have to admit that I consider Oren0 sceptic (if wrong), but not "sceptic". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What of this? Are you going to keep your word or not? I think the distinction between sceptic and "sceptic" is lost on most. And it's worth noting that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: I would lay a wager that others have at least reverted those socks, if not reported them. But going through the contribs seems pretty pointless. Oren0 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. A sceptic is someone who does not take claims at face value, but rather insists on evidence. A "sceptic", on the other hand, can roughly be characterized as someone who applies the sceptic principle, in extremis, to positions they don't like (effectively demanding that things that typically require an advanced scientific degree to understand are explained to them at 3rd grade level), but blindly repeat all kinds of nonsense from cooky blogs, self-published websites and unqualified politicians and lawnmowers if it supports positions they do like. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will you delete the added sentence or at least refactor to take out "borderline." Oren0's userpage has an infobox reading, "this user is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming."--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually i am a sceptic and i do believe i have reverted a vandal attack, dunno if it was sci baby though [83] so do i get a prize? mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current disruption

To illustrate the problem: User:Frendinius is certainly not a new user. He is quite likely a Scibaby sock. He is currently pushing POV edits (some more subtle, some less) on a number of articles. In particular, he is pushing for the inclusion of two recent Scarfetta & West papers of limited applicability and essentially no weight into global warming. Can the neutral (and "neutral") admins here indicate if simple reversion of this obvious sock will be considered edit warring? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to try to engage this one in case it's a false positive. When this one is blocked, however, treat its successor with considerably less indulgence. The signs are unlikely to show with such great frequency in innocent edits (not least because the style is disruptive in itself). Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 09:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not be true. It's a bit moot now, since the sock has been blocked. But that does not answer my question. I want a clear statement if the level of certainty for socking was sufficient to trigger the exception to edit warring (assuming we still have the exception that allows socks to be reverted on sight). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Actually the innocent edits are rather clear indications of scibaby, and a reversion to old established patterns. Of course i could be wrong, which is always possible, but from prior experience, i'd say that this one is scibaby with around 98% certainty. False positives are always possible of course, but the trouble is the amount of disruption that can be generated within the time it takes for a SPI case to run ... where upon of course a new socket gets generated, if it is not already maturing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is painfully obvious. Minor "fix up" type edits to get around the autoconfirm barrier are hardly unique to scibaby, but once the sock "matured" it slotted into the patterns smoothly.

For my part, I would say that reverting an obvious if unconfirmed sockpuppet falls under the vandalism exception. Questionable cases should be given the benefit of a doubt and engaged (though anything that makes this game more fun for scibaby should be avoided), and if an edit is taken up by an editor in good standing normal WP:BRD rules come into play as though that editor had made the original edit. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It feels as though such a policy is so open for abuse, and so inherently in tension with WP:BITE, that it would be better not to implement it. Something to think about.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can take up the problems on the sock puppet policy page. It's what we do. The socks are all either identified by the classic duck test or, if the socking is more subtle, submitted to a sock puppet investigation. Feel free to express your opinion of the individual cases, and to gather evidence of any abuses. But for those of us who do care about the integrity of Wikipedia (and I include all reading these words in that group) the constant socking on the global warming articles is something real and any consistent opposition to the standard containment policy currently in effect would need very good grounds. As far as I'm concerned the only discussion on this page about dealing with socking, so far, seems to have been advice. 2over0's advice is well within standard policy. The fact that some editors don't take steps to deal with these malicious sabotage attempts is, to me, rather shocking. What are you waiting for? Why are you objecting to people taking steps to enforce Wikipedia policy? --TS 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is shocking is that the bar has been moved once again. So-called "skeptics" have long had to defend accusations that they were socks of Scibaby; then when they obviously weren't Scibaby socks, they had to defend any edit made resembling Scibaby edits; now we've arrived at the point where even non-action against Scibaby socks is viewed as some sort of transgression. This is yet another example of how skewed this debate has become, when you have an enforcement request specifically trying to sanction editors for doing nothing. ATren (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'd appreciate it if you started over and removed your current comment (and I suppose this one as well) for its several inappropriate insinuations and general argument structure. Then if you still want to we can talk about policy, which, contrary to your enthusiastic claims, neither supports nor precludes 2over0's proposal.--Heyitspeter (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to have made my meaning plain. I'll try again, this time in more terse and precise language.

Firstly, 2over0's advice is well within standard policy.
Secondly (my personal opinion) the suggestion that there is a problem with employing standard sock puppet policy on the climate change articles is rather shocking.

Please disregard the prior comment, which appears to have given the impression that I was saying something else, possibly something rather nasty and inappropriate. I apologise for being less than precise in the prior comment. --TS 16:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My position on Scibaby: First and foremost Scibaby and his sockpuppets are in violation of policy and to the extent that policy allows his edits to be reverted on sight (preferably AFTER being confirmed a Scibaby sockpuppet to avoid WP:BITEing newcomers) I have no problem with that and if he is making edits that I do not agree with I will even help with the reverting, where I see it in the normal course of my activities. I do not plan to make pursuing Scibaby some sort of obsessive compulsive activity on my part.
Not all of Scibaby's edits are bad edits, though. And so, where he makes a good edit even if it is properly reverted per policy any other editor is free to come along and should they believe the edit has merit, PER POLICY, they are free to adopt the edit as their own and defend it as such WITHOUT being labeled a meat puppet of Scibaby. As someone who has had to defend himself against such ludicrous accusations I strongly object to that characterization.
I also object to the apparent insinuations that anyone who sees merit in the occasional Scibaby edit should also be labeled as not caring about the integrity of the project. This contention is obviously unhelpful and I would kindly ask that others refrain from trying to make such claims.
I could make the equally valid, or fallacious as the case may be, claim that to the extent those in pursuit of Scibaby are reverting otherwise good edits, which they are allowed to do per policy related to sockpuppets and banned users, they are likewise undermining the integrity of the project. The argument can be made in both directions, but making these types of argument in either direction is unhelpful in improving the editing environment, IMHO, and so they should be avoided. --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC) And yes, I just made such an argument but only to illustrate that they CAN be made and for the purpose of highlighting that they are, in and of themselves, unhelpful and counterproductive.[reply]
That's a common attitude, but since Scibaby typically trolls and edit wars in favor of giving undue weight to extreme minority positions on the science, it's worrying that we encounter that kind of ambivalence so often. Editors who typically oppose the scientific consensus on global warming, and there are many such, have to ask themselves whether they're truly editing Wikipedia in order to properly reflect the science, or simply to push their own minority points of view into the article--either themselves or by sitting on their hands and criticising those who are taking steps to stop a banned editor who performs sabotage of a kind that--quite openly in apologias such as the above--they support. If the latter, then they do no service to Wikipedia. To the extent that there are editors who push this "well he's doing no harm" attitude into Wikipedia in these particular circumstances, they are enablers of the banned troll, and quite openly so. --TS 17:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"To the extent that there are editors who push this "well he's doing no harm" attitude into Wikipedia in these particular circumstances, they are enablers of the banned troll, and quite openly so." - This is a rather strong statement. What part of my post suggests that I am pushing a "well he's doing no harm" attitude? Let me refer you back to: "I have no problem with that and if he is making edits that I do not agree with I will even help with the reverting, where I see it in the normal course of my activities." Do you actually have a problem with this position? If so, why? Policy does not require that all such edits be reverted, although it does allow that they can be, nor does policy prevent such edits from being reinserted by other editors who agree to take personal responsibility for them.
If my statement quoted above is suggesting any sort of attitude, I submit that it is a properly focused attitude which both accepts and endorses the enforcement of policy while avoiding hysterically throwing the baby out with the bath water. Good content is good content no matter who first draws the community's attention to it.
I fundamentally reject your premise that all Scibaby edits are prima facie bad edits. This statement in no way supports Scibaby, BTW. Scibaby unequivocally is violating policy and should not be making any edits at all, but once they are made that doesn't automatically suggest that the content in question is forever verboten anywhere on the project. Such a position is logically flawed, not in line with either the content or the banning policies, and as such it does NOTHING to protect the integrity of the project as is being asserted. Rather, it does quite the opposite IMHO. We evaluate content in its merits, not on who made the initial posting thereof. --GoRight (talk) By way of constructive feedback, personally I find the tone and the insinuations in your comment to not be in line with promoting a more friendly and collaborative editing environment.

I'm not aware of a single substantial Scibaby edit that, after careful analysis, turned out to be justified. Some look good on the surface, but if looked at more carefully, they all have extreme weight problems, misrepresent sources, or use unreliable sources. If you find an edit that really is good, there is nothing wrong with assuming it. But given the history of bad edits by Scibaby, I think the onus is on the reinstating editor to carefully check the edit with a proper sceptical (to the edit) approach. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not aware of a single substantial Scibaby edit that, after careful analysis, turned out to be justified ..." - With you being an AGW proponent I am not surprised by this statement, however others are certainly allowed to hold a differing opinion, I assume.

"the onus is on the reinstating editor to carefully check the edit with a proper sceptical (to the edit) approach." - I don't believe that anything I have said is in conflict with this, so we seem to be in agreement. --GoRight (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is it. The vast majority of all Scibaby's edits are facially trolling. There is a small minority that might be mistaken for good faith but poorly thought out edits, but they all push the same minority point of view, which isn't what we do at Wikipedia. The current stance of so many editors is not defensible. To the extent that they adopt this "well he does no real harm" stance, those editors are enablers. I apologise that I did not really think this through earlier, and so was rather lukewarm about the problems that stem not directly from Scibaby's edits, but from problematic behavior by those enablers in relation to those edits. We're here to write articles that correctly reflect climate science. not the warped propaganda of Scibaby. --TS 23:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the above to Stephan.

"The vast majority of all Scibaby's edits are facially trolling." - I don't believe that anything I said contradicts this.

"The current stance of so many editors is not defensible." - I am unaware of any monolithic block of editors who hold or advocate pro-Scibaby views. Do you have some examples of such common opinions being shared by "so many editors"? Lacking such evidence this would appear to be a straw man argument.

"To the extent that they adopt this "well he does no real harm" stance, those editors are enablers." - Can you show me some examples where editors are claiming that Scibaby does no harm? Lacking such evidence this would appear to be a straw man argument.

"We're here to write articles that correctly reflect climate science." - This statement is incomplete and misleading. Where we describe the science it is true that we wish to properly reflect that, but of course this perspective only accounts for a small portion of the WP:RS with the majority comprising the social and political aspects of the topic, per WP:WEIGHT. --GoRight (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this concrete. The last thirteen confirmed socks of Scibaby are as follows:

Waylon O. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Terminizer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Trensor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Lunar Golf (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Xsten78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Wellpoint32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
JesseSimplex (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Wilson and Two (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Fred Gharria (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Clarke Simpson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Moral Equivalent (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Titulartitle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
AnodeRays (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

His sock Waylon O. recycles a long-dead zombie argument renaming an article and falsely characterizes a Guardian news article as "idle comment." The Terminizer and Lunar Golf socks are used to attempt to edit-war the following summary statement out of the "Criticism" section of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: "Others regard the IPCC as too conservative in its estimates of potential harm from climate change." The stated grounds; "No source supporting this claim," handily ignoring the extensive and authoritative discussion of IPCC's poor treatment of Arctic Sea Ice extent.

The Trensor sock removed the summary of Hell and High Water (book) as "Improper, poorly worded summary" without any further attempt to explain this removal. He used the Xsten78 sock to make three disruptive edits: remove the entire section on global warming from Precipitation (meteorology), edit war to restore a section from James Hansen that has long been excluded on grounds of due weight.

Wilson and Two and Wellpoint32 were used to troll various canards about the science onto talk:Global warming. JesseSimplex restored a bit of nonsense sourced to some blog or other and changed "reduce global warming" to "reduce the potential effects of global warming" in climate change mitigation.

Fred Gharria and AnodeRays were used to dispute the hacking of the CRU against the reporting of all reliable sources. Clarke Simpson and Titulartitle were used to push minority science views and promote a political agenda at talk:Global warming. I seem to recall noticing that Moral Equivalent accidentally made a valuable edit, but only because the quote attributed to Schwarzenegger was probably not made when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 was signed into law but a year or two earlier. Moral Equivalent's stated reason was nonsensical, however.

So the argument that there is a legitimate political and social dimension which SciBaby is somehow fighting to restore is not supported by a view of this editor's actual edits. He's a disruptive troll, nothing more. His presence, abetted by some editors, is a detriment to balance and discredits any legitimate criticism of our coverage of the social and political issues related to global warming. --TS 13:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Thank you for your perspective on how to frame Scibaby's edits. While it is instructive I shall again simply refer you back to my previous statement which remains true: "The vast majority of all Scibaby's edits are facially trolling." - I don't believe that anything I said contradicts this.

(2) "His presence, abetted by some editors ..." - Since you are repeating your claim I shall repeat my request for examples of editors who are abetting Scibaby. Lacking such examples this would still appear to be a straw man argument.

(3) "So the argument that there is a legitimate political and social dimension which SciBaby is somehow fighting to restore is not supported by a view of this editor's actual edits." - Another straw man argument. No one ever claimed that Scibaby had a "legitimate political and social dimension". This is your creation, not mine. My reference to social and political was within the context of the relative WP:WEIGHT of various WP:RS when compared to the scientific aspects of the topic which are represented by peer-reviewed sources. None of that has anything to do with Scibaby, although given the context of the discussion I can understand your confusion. I apologize for not communicating more clearly and I hope that this comment clarifies my earlier meaning.

(4) I suggest that we take this to your talk page if you wish to continue to hash through this. I think everyone agrees that Scibaby is violating the policies against abusive socking. Until you can demonstrate some widespread abetting for Scibaby I decline to accept your premise that such support even exists, much less that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Scibaby and enablers

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

I am not sure about the forum for this but having a more serious look at how we handle socks and trolls is needed at some point. --BozMo talk 07:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scibaby is banned and any sock found should be blocked on sight. Describing anyone who subscribes to views expressed by Scibaby as "enablers" is unhelpful, unless there is evidence of collusion, since it should be AGF'ed as an individual expressing their viewpoint. Trolling, in any form, is a different matter and I agree that finding a way of minimising the disruption caused by such individuals does need review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably out of scope of this enforcement area to implement truly effective measures against socking itself (although I am taken with the novelty of using this EA as a pretext to implement such, and I in fact have outlined measures that I guarantee would be effective, I think I'll pass) Suggest this be closed no action, although I concur with LHvU that if specific trolling activities are raised, they should be dealt with if possible. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the points above regarding talk page semi-protection are worth considering. Scibaby disruption/trolling of talk pages is a problem and within the scope here. Seems such action should be considered and either be supported by or rejected as unworkable by admins watching here. I see it as a partial solution. Vsmith (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to that. But it is a step I would take very reluctantly. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scibaby has been an ongoing problem. I think we can implement the following steps:
1. Create a permanent section on this page where suspected Scibaby socks can be listed and resolved in an expedited fashion. We can email the functionaries list and get a couple of checkusers to watch the page. There should be no need to re-explain and go through the extended paperwork at WP:SPI each time. Scibaby can generate new accounts rapidly; we need a response that is equally rapid.
2. As a rule, any accounts listed as suspected Scibaby socks may be reverted without limitation, and without fear of sanction. It is not edit warring to revert a banned editor.
3. Editors who have an unacceptably high error rate when listing accounts as Scibaby socks may be ask to desist from that activity.
4. Editors may adopt any good edit as their own. If Scibaby starts making good edits as a form of disruption, these could be left in place, and the account(s) blocked. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JohnWBarber

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

Request concerning JohnWBarber (talk · contribs)

User requesting enforcement: ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: JohnWBarber (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

[84] On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration , denounces Climate change denial as an "AGW-related op ed piece masquarading as an encyclopedia article... it would have been a wise move to put that one up for deletion at the same time to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other. It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold."
[85] Nomination of Climate change denial with comment "A screen shot of this article should be used to illustrate Wikipedia policy on POV forks."

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

[86] Notification of article probation by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Prohibition from any filing any further deletion nominations or participating in deletion discussions of articles in the climate change topic area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: As many have observed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination), this is a bad faith nomination explicitly meant to prove a point - namely that it would produce an "exercise in hypocrisy", to quote JohnWBarber. The article has already been through three AfDs which have produced substantial majorities in favour of keeping the article. JohnWBarber is clearly aware of this. He has offered only a minimal justification for deletion and no new arguments, so he clearly does not expect the nomination to succeed (and indeed it is failing overwhelmingly). This is a classic example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point - he has deliberately started an unneeded controversy which has so far sucked in 19 editors and counting, for no better reason than an apparent desire to score points. This topic area has more than enough unneeded drama and tension; self-indulgent posturing and point-scoring of this kind should be discouraged, as should abuses of AfD. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 3 March 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.

Discussion concerning JohnWBarber (talk · contribs)

Statement by JohnWBarber (talk · contribs)

I'll have more to say later, when I have time. But I can address this immediately:

1. He has offered only a minimal justification for deletion and no new arguments, An editor with a collaborative attitude, instead of a WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude, would take these two edits, to give just two examples, as airtight proof to the contrary. [87] [88] ChrisO can read English. Perhaps he can find where these two arguments, based on facts, reasoning, policy and common sense, have been brought up before. I'd like to see the diffs.
2. so he clearly does not expect the nomination to succeed (and indeed it is failing overwhelmingly). Not only can ChrisO read English, but I strongly suspect he can tell time. It hasn't been even a day since the AfD started, they normally run a full week, and the vast majority of editors in the continental U.S. would either have been asleep or at work for all this time. The other AfD ran for seven days and received quite a few votes on either side. Why would I expect this one to fail?

For these reasons, ChrisO's complaint strongly appears to lack good faith. I think filing frivolous, nuisance complaints here is or should be something admins should deal with. If I need to file my own complaint against ChrisO in order to have that (and his other conduct) examined, I'm prepared to do that. I'm also prepared to cite chapter and verse from WP:CIVIL on a multitude of comments by editors on that page directed at me personally (in ChrisO's case, specifically ill-considered accusations of impropriety [this complaint] and lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information [see #1, above]). Has ChrisO engaged in this conduct before? Shouldn't editors be told to avoid harassing other editors with frivolous complaints? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like I've got a moment now to address some more of this. In the two diffs ChrisO cites, I don't understand what part of the general sanctions I'm supposed to have violated. Would ChrisO please point that out to me? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franamax, thanks for taking the time to look at this. This is a curious statement: further behaviour which links the two disparate issues ("we must have one of: both denial and exaggeration articles; or none at all") - sanctionable. It's my opinion that editors who can't offer a good explanation for wanting one article and not the other are acting hypocritically. I thought it was adequately on-topic and useful to mention once in each AfD page. To continue an off-topic discussion on an AfD page, or any page with a hot controversy, could be potentially disruptive, if only because distracting (or perhaps if it riled up people unnecessarily). If that's what you meant, I have no problem with it. As I recently said on the newer AfD page, it might be worthwhile asking an individual editor why he or she voted one way on one page and another way on the other -- because the explanation could be very useful to the closing admin. I'm not sure I want to get into that now (I've made the AfD longer than I expected), but if I did, it would be very much on-topic, it wouldn't be disruptive, and there is no policy I know of for an admin to enforce. I appreciate the time all the admins have taken to look into this, whether or not I end up disagreeing about it (or worse).

SPhilbrick, I think there's precedent for including AfDs in sanctions involving individual editors, so I don't see much difference with a general sanctions regime which the community imposed -- it's supposed to include pages related to the subject. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO's comments are worth thinking about (emphasis added):

Specifically disruptive editing. I'm not assuming anything; the intent is very clear. In the first diff, JWB talks about nominating Climate change denial for deletion "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other". He talks about what he thinks that would show: "It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold." Then he nominates the article for deletion to prove his point that "editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other". His lack of serious intent is clearly visible in his very brief deletion rationale, which is basically the same as the failed rationales of the previous three AfDs. Yes, he advanced further arguments later in the discussion, but only after people had pointed out the WP:POINTyness of his actions.

ChrisO sounds disappointed that I didn't live down to his initial expectations. If, as he thinks, I at one point had bad motivations, I should be punished for that. The idea that disliking hypocrisy is "unserious" is bizarre. Chris really should think more about hypocrisy, as I show below.

The problem with all of this is that AfD is an inherently disruptive tool and should only be used with caution, especially where it concerns contentious articles. If AfD is "an inherently disruptive tool", it sounds like Wikipedia has a big problem on its hands, because we have AfDs all the time, at the drop of a pin. Does Chris think he and his ilk own the article and others can't mess with it? What else could his comment mean? It isn't as if Chris has some overly scrupulous attitude toward sharp debate: [89] [90] The idea that AfD "should only be used with caution", especially a contentious one, must be imported from some alternate universe, because nowhere is there any such advice to be found anywhere on Wikipedia. Nor is it common sense. In fact, in a collaborative environment, we're free to run ideas up the flagpole. Chris strains to find bad faith in my motivations, perhaps because he thinks my first comment about hypocrisy was directed at him and his POV allies. Of course, my statement was directed at POV pushers of any side and very broadly (hypocrisy is the other side of the same coin that POV pushing is on -- you can't POV push without being a hypocrite). No one was named, bad behavior was the target, and it was prospective, not pointing fingers at past actions. It was meant to get real POV pushers to stop in their tracks and think about what they're doing to themselves and to the encyclopedia -- something useful for this project.

It should never be used to prove a point. Nominating an article "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other" is categorically point-scoring. Using AfD this way is an abuse, and does nothing to lower the temperature on CC-related articles. Given the tone of ChrisO's comments and the nature of his actions, ChrisO is not the most credible person to be worshipping at the temple of lower article temperatures. When I looked at the article's history, I found it had been a good long while before the last AfD. I also had a serious rationale for the AfD that I put in my opening statement. If there's any good reason to have an AfD, then it can't be sanctionable as a WP:POINT action. If admins had to figure out motivations for people who put up AfDs, how could they possibly weigh good and bad motivations together? If there's any good motivation, and it's obvious, the admin needs to assume good faith. Otherwise editors would be blocked for good-faith nominations because admins aren't mind readers. I had a perfectly acceptable good-faith reason for that AfD from the start, which I stated clearly at the top of the AfD. I would not have started it if I didn't. It should never be used to prove a point. No action on Wikipedia should be done only to prove a point or even primarily to prove a point. That my serious rationale was later demonstrated even more clearly a little later in the AfD discussion should have been a reason for ChrisO to be satisfied -- that ChrisO filed the complaint anyway shows bad motivations. ChrisO's eagerness to jump in my head to rummage around for a bad motivation is matched only by his ham-handedness in doing so. His eagerness to shut down debate and villify someone he disagrees with is inimical to Wikipedia, which depends on a collaborative atmosphere. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning JohnWBarber (talk · contribs)

@LHvU - I don't think that it is appropriate for the admins to go looking for offenses that haven't been alleged after the fact as you comment seems to suggest. I don't believe that the probation enforcement requests are intended be a venue where ill-specified charges can be brought up in the hopes that something might be made of them. The requester's should be asked to make specific charges to be investigated, IMHO, but I guess the admins get to decide what is appropriate and what is not in that respect. This page is meant to facilitate the resolution of specific identified grievances not to serve as the launching point for fishing expeditions. --GoRight (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the request is to topic ban JohnWBarber from AfD's relating to CC related articles - with regard to the ongoing AfD's noted. I am only saying that admins should not preempt those processes by taking a view on their appropriateness before the discussions are closed. Only when they have been closed, and the closing statements will likely influence any decision here, should they be reviewed. My comments upon PA's and the like is commenting that there is nothing like them that requires immediate action from admins here - we can afford to wait. I trust I have made myself clearer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. OK I think I understand your fundamental point better but something still seems out of kilter here. I agree that not preempting or prejudging the other processes is a good point. So I see your point about needing to wait for the outcomes. On the other hand, doesn't it seem odd to be accepting and discussing enforcement requests which are dependent on the outcome of future events?

We seem to have run into some sort of time paradox here. We better be careful to get this right or the universe may suddenly implode or something! :)

Given this, the question becomes whether you and the other admins prefer to leave this request lying about on the off chance that actionable allegations materialize, or you close this request as no action and instruct that it be resubmitted at the appropriate time should conditions at that time warrant further investigation? --GoRight (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think probably the latter approach is better. But I'm not yet sure. ++Lar: t/c 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@LHVY: I don't see your point at all. By that argument, you should bring edit warring to WP:3RRN to wait if the community decides it really is edit warring, and civility breaches to WP:WQA to see if the community thinks an alleged civility breach really is one. The potentially disruptive act - the pointy AfD nomination - has been done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisO - What portion(s) of the current probation are you alleging have been violated and how specifically are the diffs you provide supporting those allegation(s)? Also, you appear to be making bad faith assumptions about intent here. Do you have any specific evidence to support that? --GoRight (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for admins - Do admins have the authority to carry out the requested remedy? I don't doubt that ArbCom has this authority, but it isn't obvious to me that admins can do this. The article probation terms allow admins to place restriction on edits to climate change articles, but I think of AfD as a Wikipedia process page, and the fact that an Afd discussion may be about a climate change article doesn't make the AfD a climate article any more than an MfD of a Template makes the deletion discussion a Template. Yes, I realize the phrase "broadly construed" is included, but I assumed that was to make sure the umbrella cast widely over articles, so, for example, if there's a problem with an article about sea level, no one can say that sea level isn't technically climate. It also picks up talk pages, but I wouldn't assume it applies to any process page. If someone felt the need to file an ArbCom request, could they be prohibited from doing so if the subject matter had anything to do with climate? I don't think so.--SPhilbrick T 01:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally say that the mandate applies in whatever project spaces disruption may be occurring. The obvious exceptions are the sub-spaces specifically devoted to discussing disruption, so the AN's and RFAR's are open to anyone if they really want to go there. WQA and possibly even 3RR are largely subsumed by this process. 3O is probably still OK. The key is whether the work is tendentious or not, and once or repeating over time. As I recall, the original set-up discussion was about "articles" but then I could counter with "broadly construed". The intent though, I think was to end disruptive editing on CC in general. Franamax (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously claimed that climate-change related disruption on user talk pages is covered, so I don't see why AfDs shouldn't. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the merits of this complaint, I think it's clear that the admins here would have the authority to enact such a sanction if they wanted to. Oren0 (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this activity as clearly disruptive enough (if it is disruptive at all) to merit any action. One of JWBarber's arguments was that recent apparent changes in public opinion appeared to be unrelated to denialism, and so it was worth checking to see if consensus had changed as to the significance of denialism. This appears to me to be a legitimate question. --TS 08:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@GoRight - Specifically disruptive editing. I'm not assuming anything; the intent is very clear. In the first diff, JWB talks about nominating Climate change denial for deletion "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other". He talks about what he thinks that would show: "It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold." Then he nominates the article for deletion to prove his point that "editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other". His lack of serious intent is clearly visible in his very brief deletion rationale, which is basically the same as the failed rationales of the previous three AfDs. Yes, he advanced further arguments later in the discussion, but only after people had pointed out the WP:POINTyness of his actions.

The problem with all of this is that AfD is an inherently disruptive tool and should only be used with caution, especially where it concerns contentious articles. It should never be used to prove a point. Nominating an article "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other" is categorically point-scoring. Using AfD this way is an abuse, and does nothing to lower the temperature on CC-related articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning JohnWBarber (talk · contribs)

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

I think that unless there are examples of vandalism, personal attacks, and the like - none, it must be noted, which have been alleged - I cannot see how admins can act until the AfD is concluded. We will likely then need to review the AfD findings, determine if there is a cause under the probation to act upon, and then decide what if any sanctions to enforce. This is also not to say that this is not a good request, but one that likely needs the other process to complete before it can be properly reviewed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "I cannot see how admins can act until the AfD is concluded" ... agreed. And perhaps not even then, the request seems to be taking things rather far afield. But perhaps. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am saying that I wasn't minded to look at it in any detail, since the AfD process will evaluate whether it was a legitimate request or not - no need to re-invent the wheel. However, if there are others who are willing to review before it is closed then fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no cause for sanction here (recognizing that I'm a little new at formally evaluating this stuff). There is no pattern established and no egregious single violation.
- The first diff which "denounces Climate change denial as..." I consider kinda like a userbox - thanks for letting us know where you're coming from on each and every manifestation of the core problem you perceive.
- The AFD nomination is fairly POINTy, although if the editor truly believes there is an injustice of some kind, a nomination 17 months after the last one is not unreasonable - for the very fact that if it is unreasonable, it will be crushed.
- If there is further evidence forthcoming where the two incidents are further linked, such as "symmetry" arguments in both places, I would reconsider a sanction.
Summarizing, always good to know where someone stands; don't need to wait for outcomes of the AFDs to decide here; further behaviour which links the two disparate issues ("we must have one of: both denial and exaggeration articles; or none at all") - sanctionable. Franamax (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has sat for a few days with no further comment. That's starting to feel like a close no action to me... let the AfDs run to completion (if they haven't already, I neglected to go check first). Perhaps a caution about the matter Franamax analyses regarding linkages? ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO

User requesting enforcement

JohnWBarber (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, specifically "Interact civilly with other editors;"

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

[91] This was the first edit (at 20:35, 3 March) in which ChrisO assumed bad faith, stating that the nomination of this AfD was (a) "Bad faith, tendentious nomination" and (b) "The nominator's disruptive WP:POINT-scoring is a significant violation of the article probation regime in this topic area, but that's best dealt with elsewhere" To be a WP:POINT nomination, I would have had to have no adequate reason for the AfD. But I stated a perfectly adequate, policy-compliant reason at the very top of the AfD page, [92] which Chris saw (and later referred to in his complaint above). [93]] ChrisO assumed bad faith, a violation of WP:CIV#Assume good faith ("Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.") There was no strong evidence whatever, therefore, he also violated WP:CIV#Identifying incivility, 1(c) by making "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" A single, or even a few violations of WP:CIVIL wouldn't be worth bringing up here, I don't think. But as I show, this happened repeatedly.
[94]At 21:27 3 March, ChrisO filed his claim against me here. By this point, he not only had my initial statement at the AfD to show him that there was sufficient reason not to believe the AfD had been filed as a WP:POINT, he also had additional comments I had made by that point, showing detailed reasons for thinking that the article violates WP:POVFORK policy ([95] [96]). Normal AfDs where the nominator states reasoning and doesn't otherwise violate any policies or commit acts that in themselves cause disruption, cannot be WP:POINT violations unless there is some overwhelming reason outside the AfD that definitely proves it. For this, ChrisO cites a comment I made at another AfD (my earliest comment in this) [97] Since there is no evidence whatever that it was the sole or even principal reason for my filing the second AfD, ChrisO is completely without proof. He must assume bad faith for the nomination in order to make the accusation here. Filing this complaint was the second time he's violated WP:AGF and therefore violated WP:CIV (which has a section on AGF). It is also a violation of WP:CIVIL to be "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them." (this section [98]; see 2(d)). It is also a violation of WP:CIVIL to be making "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" (see 1(c), same section). Since ChrisO was without evidence, this was a frivolous, nuisance complaint, therefore a violation of WP:DISRUPTION.
[99] In filing this, ChrisO stated: He has offered only a minimal justification for deletion and no new arguments ChrisO's statement is factually false, as he had every reason to know. He can't possibly have missed the long comments I had made by that point in the AfD (the two additional comments I mentioned in the previous paragraph: [100] [101]) Each of these diffs prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that ChrisO's statement that I had "only minimal justification" is untruthful: It is impossible for ChrisO not to have known about those diffs and impossible for him to call them "minimal justification". Yet well after I made each of them (19:47 3 March and 20:15, same day) ChrisO filed the complaint here (21:27 -- he had edited the AfD page twice after my later long comment -- at 20:35 [102] and 21:05 [103]). It is another violation of WP:CIVIL 2(d) to be "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them."
[104] When multiple editors told him he was wrong, ChrisO continued to repeat the same evidence-ignoring allegation, insisting "His lack of serious intent is clearly visible in his very brief deletion rationale," as if a brief deletion rationale (something common in AfDs) was the same as the lack of a deletion rationale. He then stated, "Yes, he advanced further arguments later in the discussion, but only after people had pointed out the WP:POINTyness of his actions", as if that somehow proved that filing the AfD was a POINT violation to begin with. I had the policy reason for the AfD from the start, as proven by the first line. I had the arguments on the page shortly thereafter. There is no way that anyone could believe that this proves that my motives were in bad faith and that the AfD was meant to prove a point and cause disruption. The reasons for the AfD are evident on the page. ChrisO saw it, recognized it and mentioned it here. And it didn't matter to him. This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption.
[105] Despite having it pointed out to him by numerous editors on this page and despite being presented with the facts in my response to his complaint, ChrisO repeated the same, exact WP:POINTy accusation over at WP:ANI at 15:04 5 March, as if nothing had been said here. His statement at ANI included the sentence: He then posted the deletion nomination for Climate change denial - the article's fourth AfD nomination - with the following rationale, in its entirety: The implication here was that this was the only argument I had made at the AfD ("the following rationale, in its entirety", saying nothing else). He wrote this despite it having been pointed out to him that I had made other comments which reinforced the proof that I had made the nomination in good faith (he was responding to that point here [106] earlier, at 08:49 4 March). It is a violation of WP:CIVIL to be "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them." (this section [107]; see 2(d)), and of course, more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption.

Diffs of prior warnings

[108] notice of climate change probation by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Prohibition from filing any further frivilous nuisance complaints, participating in deletion discussions of articles in the climate change topic area, topic ban on all climate change-related articles.

Additional comments

ChrisO never had a reason to make the accusation that I'd violated WP:POINT from the moment he saw my policy-related reason at the top of the AfD page. If he had any doubts, he could have asked me. Personally, I thought the article's violation of WP:POVFORK was so obvious that everyone would see my reason right away. I immediately gave more detailed reasoning in the AfD. The existence of another comment, elsewhere, about a possible AfD does not prove that that other comment is the sole or even main reason for later starting the AfD when proper reasons are evident, and they were evident. And yet, repeatedly, ChrisO pretended that the single earliest comment was the sole motivating factor for an AfD that was filed normally. He did this: (a) First at the AfD, when he already had seen I had referred to WP:POVFORK policy at the top of that page; (b) Second, here, when he had already seen substantial arguments at the AfD (and acted as if they weren't there); (c) Third, here in his response to his complaint, after other editors told him there was no WP:POINT violation; (d) Fourth, at WP:ANI where he forum shopped the same, tired allegation, inserting it into a discussion that had nothing to do with the topic of whether or not the AfD should have been given a WP:SNOW close. In addition to the other WP:CIV and other violations I've detailed above, ChrisO also violated WP:CIV#Identifying incivility 2(a) "Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility" because his repeatedly bringing up an accusation, first at the AfD, then here, then at ANI -- always while not having any reason for it -- is an act of taunting.

Discussion concerning ChrisO

Statement by ChrisO

This is really blatant retaliation - JohnWBarber should be ashamed of himself. As I said in my earlier comments, I thought that JWB's AfD of an article that's already been AfD'd three times, in pursuit of an apparent WP:POINT, was irresponsible point-scoring, Many others have said so too on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination), often in much stronger terms than anything I've said:

User:PhGustaf: "Nothing has changed since last three Keeps; nomination is apparent retaliation for an apparent drama fork from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration"
User:KimDabelsteinPetersen: "nothing has changed from the last AfD's, and this nomination seems to have a WP:IDONTLIKEIT character, as well as a (poorly thought out) WP:POINT to stall the AfD at CCE."
User:StuartH: "Article has survived three previous WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations, and the nomination appears to be a WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nomination from the Climate change exaggeration deletion nomination, as suggested by the nominator's above request and comments on the other nomination page."
User:Stephan Schulz: "pointy and pointless nomination"
User:ScienceApologist: "Bad faith nomination due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration"
User:DroEsperanto: "First, frivolous nomination. Nominating an article for AFD so you can gather evidence to accuse people of hypocrisy is WP:POINT to the max. (And no, I'm violating WP:AGF, since (1) this was the nominator's stated intention (see diff), and (2) he/she already asked people how their votes here compare to their votes there.) Second, this is an article that has already been here (three times) and this AFD presents absolutely no new evidence to support its deletion."
User:Verbal: "Nomination gives no reasoning, and is clearly disruptive"
User:Oren0: "Keep as a bad faith nomination, per this"
User:Beyond My Ken: "WP:POINTy nom"
User:Plumbago: "A pointy nomination of a well-sourced topic seemingly in response to the parallel nomination of a badly-sourced, POV-fork neologism"
User:Nigelj: "WP:POINTy nom, discussed mostly by our current crop of people who do things like this."
User:William M. Connolley: "bad faith nom"
User:Unit 5: "Move to delete seems to be self-serving and has nothing to do with the good of the encyclopedia."
User:Dave souza: "this looks like a tendentious nomination of an article"
User:Tanthelas39: "Funny that JWB accuses people multiple times of 'wikilawyering', when that's all I see him doing."

I have done no more than express the concerns of many people, including multiple admins and numerous uninvolved users. Instead of addressing those concerns, JWB seems to be doubling down. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68: Fifteen other editors, at least half of them uninvolved, including several admins, have expressed the same concerns. WP:GS/CC provides that "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits." Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is clearly a form of disruptive editing. I brought those concerns to this enforcement page for review in good faith. Where is the fault in this? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning ChrisO

Despite my attempts to bear with John, this is a stretch too far. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic and make substantive comments. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very much like retaliation for the enforcement request that ChrisO filed against JohnWBarber immediately preceding. How about if everybody involved dials it back a notch and we use the enforcement board for clear and obvious violations, not as a continuation of the feud? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's only retaliation, then it's a friviolous, nuisance complaint. If there's something to it, it's not. This general sanctions regime was created for a purpose and to fill a need. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have a hard time endorsing a sanction against someone who is right. I think it's clear that your deletion nomination of climate change denial was tit-for-tat for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration. You practically said so yourself. It's true that there are valid problems with the climate change denial article but it doesn't appear that you had those primarily in mind when making the nomination. I don't see anything wrong with pointing that out. Generally, I have found ChrisO to be quite reasonable and your repeated actions of jumping on people who disagree with you to be unproductive. Oren0 (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor detail: I think you're missing a tat. [109] Kinda knocks a hole clear through what you're pointing out. Oh, and look what I found. I'd forgotten all about it. I was objecting to ChrisO's behavior well before any of this. [110] Odd. I was criticizing him for something completely different from disagreeing with me. Here's another break in the pattern: TonySidaway and William Connolley try to shut down the discussion and I didn't exactly jump on either of them, did I? [111] [112] [113] (I did say the actions were disruptive,[114] and I did object to Tony's attempt to close the AN/I thread,[115] but I think you'd be hard pressed to call it "jumping on"). So perhaps I might not be making out-of-control accusations here, although that's really best judged by looking what I said above. What I'm saying might actually be worth looking at with an open mind. Oh, and another thing about that "tit-for-tat" business: That comment that I made just before the AfD I filed -- it wasn't directed at only one side. [116] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that there are valid problems with the climate change denial article but it doesn't appear that you had those primarily in mind when making the nomination. Answered in my complaint, above -- in granular detail -- and in my response to ChrisO's complaint. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SBHB: there's no feud - the concerns I expressed about about JWB's conduct were shared - and previously expressed - by many other people, including multiple admins. Bringing here concerns about conduct perceived as many as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is the right thing to do. On the other hand, using this process as retaliation is categorically wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought ChrisO's request was just as tendentious as this one. Why not topic ban both of them? That should take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to explain how this report is "tendentious." -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ChyranandChloe: This is retaliatory. I think JohnWBarber feels insecure as he willfully ignores that this section is "Comments by others" in order to frame, disparage in some cases, what others have to say about the request. If replies were wanted, they'd be written as a question. The finding of fact and the ultimate sanction isn't decided by us, although we do shape its outcome, it's decided by the administrators. Therefore I propose a rule that: (1) we present our view and our evidence addressed to the administrator, they have a critical reading capacity, let's not treat them as incapable; (2) other can, of course, write their replies in their own sections (similar to arbcom cases), or in the sections belonging to others if requested. Otherwise this back and forth seems to be a competition for the last word that increase rather than decrease drama and contentions. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Franamax: As far as I can see, John does not edit Climate Change articles apart from the AfD and surrounding noise. So a topic ban would not be much of a sanction. On the other hand, it might help to keep an otherwise good editor out of an area where he may have problems to keep his cool. So, on the "not punitive but preventative" principle, I'd support a topic ban, possibly somewhat longer (not much of a hardship because the editor barely edits the topic anyways). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JohnWBarber (formerly Noroton) has a long, long history of this sort of disruptive behavior, most of which has been built around promoting a certain agenda. I understand that changing his username was an attempt to put that sordid past behind him, but the "new improved" version has simply returned to the same old behavior. This retaliation is part of the typical Noroton modus operandi, and it was preceded by what was obviously a bad faith AfD nomination (see previous level 2 section). A topic ban of not less than a month is appropriate, but a review of this editor's block log indicates a block should also be considered. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scjessey and I have an extended history in which I occasionally point out Scjessey's behavior violations and Sjessey attacks me. Here's a good summary [117] from the last time we interacted. I had previously done some editing at the CRU incident article. I withdrew in large part because Scjessey's comments like this one [118] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I only wish WP:PLAXICO were still a valid redirect. Thanks awfully for drawing attention to previous bad conduct on your part so that I don't have to. Much obliged. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for JHochman

JeHochman made the following statment, none of it backed up with evidence:

The filed a very pointy AfD,
- There is nothing pointy about an AfD in which it is credibly alleged that its existence violates WP policy. If you're going to make that statement, prove it.
followed it up with an abuse of process,
- What are you talking about?
a tit-for-tat frivolous sanctions request,
- You've given no reason to show that this was frivolous. ChrisO obviously violated the general sanctions multiple times.
and continued to battle when challenged on this very thread.
- This very thread is a discussion of an editor's actions. When criticized, I defended myself. Show "battle"-like behavior.
The editor has received sufficient feedback from uninvolved editors already,
- To do what? Withdraw the AfD? Not doing so is some kind of behavioral violation? What change of my behavior was supposed to be the result of this "feedback"? Maybe I don't understand what you're saying here.
yet they continue to engage in the inappropriate behavior.
- Provide diffs.
Moreover, the editor has not been improving the articles. They are merely engaging in talk and project space disputes.
- I've been trying to find time to look more closely at the Climate change denial article to show in some detail what it's faults are regarding POV treatment of the topics within it and bad sourcing. I've mentioned this at the AfD, and mentioned making edits to improve the article. [119] The problem with WP:DISRUPTION is that it causes Wikipedians, like me, to get moved away from addressing improvements to the encyclopedia and instead deal with distractions and misbehavior (by, say, ChrisO). Several editors on both the Keep and Delete sides of the AfD have agreed that there are problems with the article. The encyclopedia is benefited if either the article is deleted or if its problems are improved. Either way, my criticisms of it are what encyclopedia building is all about. Continuing to ignore the now acknowledged POV and other problems of the article -- which was done through much of its history, isn't a benefit to the encyclopedia. That there are editors here who want discussion shut down is a great cost to the encyclopedia.
I hate to do this, but you brought up a lack of content work (even though nearly all of my comments at the AfD are about article content). I've actually been looking very actively at possible changes to the article, and to prove that, look at this one content issue that I've been examining, both to show the POVFORK nature of the article and, if it survives AfD, to improve it: [120] The second paragraph here is mostly about Dr. Frederick Seitz, and it goes on and on about his work doing research related to the tobacco industry. The idea that a whole section devoted to industry denialists associations with the tobacco industry is a WP:UNDUE issue related to POV. That a whole paragraph would relate to one man's research financed by an industry, none of which has to do with climate change, is a second UNDUE problem. The kicker is that the source is an opinionated magazine piece, raising WP:RS issues. But it gets worse: The original opinion piece at least had the decency to quote Seitz defending himself: ("We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent.") [121] It was a BLP issue to use an opinion-piece source to attack a living person on Wikipedia, particularly while omiting that BLP's defense of his own actions. The only reason why it hasn't remained a BLP violation is because Seitz died -- but up until that moment, the BLP violation remainded. This is important both for improving the article and/or for illustrating the WP:POVFORK nature of it: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Now, this is one passage among many. I expect, before the AfD is done, to post a summary list there of the sourcing and POV problems. One problem I have with contributing to the article right now is that the title "Climate change denial" seems to conflict with the current focus of the lead: "Other writers reserve the term for those they allege attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial or other sectional interests. This article uses this second more restrictive sense of the term." I note that no other editor on Wikipedia has addressed the problem with the particular passage I've cited. The AfD gives several examples of other areas of concern, some of which have led to article changes by other editors. To say that I haven't already had an effect on the content is false. To say that I never will is premature. If you want me to focus on the article, deal with editors like ChrisO who have focused on personalities and so that I won't be so distracted and can focus on content. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for JeHochman and Franamax

One further point: I saw none of these kinds of comments from JeHochman or Franamax when ChrisO's frivolous, nuisance complaint was made, and yet I've shown with evidence that ChrisO was violating behavioral policy. If my civil, on-topic discussion in the AfD, none of which is disruptive, is sanctionable, then what is the point of having a discussion on a divisive issue? If even OrenO, just above, is admitting that the article has serious problems (and I've identified many of them at the AfD, as you would expect in an AfD for WP:POVFORK reasons on a long article), that tends to indicate that a WP:POVFORK discussion is justified. If it's justified, it can't be WP:POINT (or we're simply engaged in censoring opinions here). Franamax, JeHochman -- please address these pionts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)added last comment to JeHochman -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC); added to comment about my editing the content -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To LessHeardVanU

If there's a clear way you can show me that my complaint here is frivolous, I'm certainly willing to listen. It's hard to guess what is or isn't a complaint likely to succeed when I'm basing it on repeated behavior that the climate-change general sanctions page says is sanctionable. I wouldn't have filed this if there were only one or two examples, but ChrisO's violations just went on and on. I'm willing to abide by whatever rules everybody else is expected to abide by. I thought I was doing just that. No one has shown how ChrisO's actions don't violate WP:CIV, etc., or how that isn't a violation of the general sanctions. There's nothing vague at all in my accusations. You may say it's nit-picky even if they're all true, but it isn't a small matter to me, since I've had to spend time defending myself from behavior clearly against policy instead of address AfD/content issues. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Statements

I've always been on the side of not sparing the rod - I would suggest both JeHochman and LessHeardVanU's proposals to both be implemented. Ignignot (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO's list & JeHochman's comment

In an AfD related to a hot political topic that gets a lot of participation, there will be these kinds of attacks on the nominator for nominating in bad faith. The response of the nominator should be to justify the AfD and show that it wasn't a bad-faith nomination in the only way possible to prove it: by showing actual policy problems with the article that are related to reasons for deletion. That was my response, and I've done exactly that. By doing that, I've shown the AfD was not disruptive. Unlike those other editors that ChrisO lists above, ChrisO kept on repeating his accusations, on page after page, well after it had been shown to him that the nomination was within policy and had good motivations. His actions, after a while, became disruptive. That was why this complaint was filed. As the top of the complaint makes clear. There is a reason why WP:DGFA#Rough consensus tells closing admins to discount some comments: They are often incredibly wrongheaded and against policy. If deletion policy itself recognizes the unreliable nature of AfD comments made briefly by editors whose depth of understanding of the subject is unknown, they shouldn't be relied on here, especially after I've proved otherwise. I guess this is the source of one of JeHochman's objections. If so, he's giving in to a mob mentality. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything retaliatory here. I saw the AfD on Climate change denial and certainly did not perceive it to be a WP:POINT. One would have to presume that JWB does not believe the article should be deleted, and I think that's extremely unlikely. Many editors have expressed doubts on the talk page of that article about whether it should exist. I also saw ChrisO's comment on the AfD accusing Barber of bad faith, and considered it an unsupported personal attack. But then a lot more editors did the same, so I guess that's how it goes. To close as no action is one thing (I would close as no action), but much of the rest of this strikes me as utterly failing to consider the possibility that an editor was acting in good faith, and was personally attacked, and thus does not believe that he should have been. I would say that is much more likely than some nefarious scheme to get ChrisO. Mackan79 (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ChrisO

This stronglt appears like a retaliatory filing. Gaming of this board must be discouraged. This request is therefore rejected, and I will leave it to the next admin to sanction or warn the filer as appropriate. Jehochman ^Brrr 07:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my feeling too on first look a while ago, though I'm still mulling. Is a CC topic ban of 2-4 weeks duration a reasonable sanction? Franamax (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subsequent comments on this thread seal the deal. I was thinking one to three months. How about one month? Jehochman ^Brrr 12:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where there is dispensation to topic ban someone from CC related editing for filing enforcement requests, even if an allegation of bad faith is upheld. There is, as I noted in the request brought by ChrisO against JohnWBarber, no determination that the AfD was made in an abuse of process - there are allegations, but no decision. Also, there is no pattern of similar disruption to the present request, and some of the most recent requests are pretty much of the same type - generalised complaints of one or more editors conducting themselves in a way that does not meet with the approval of other editors, and all split down a line that defines GW advocates and sceptic/denialists. If we are to sanction on the first instance of an alleged frivolous complaint here, then a few of the requests above (and archived) need reviewing. If it is felt that action needs to be taken to reduce the number of "unlikely to succeed" requests, then I suggest a strong warning to JWB specifically and all other editors generally that further instances of irresponsible requests may result in the filer being sanctioned. When adopting a new stance it is an imperative that notice is provided before topic bans or blocks are enacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is WP:POINT. This editor's name is on the log as having been notified that disruptive behavior in this area will not be tolerated. How is it that they haven't been notified? The filed a very pointy AfD, followed it up with an abuse of process, a tit-for-tat frivolous sanctions request, and continued to battle when challenged on this very thread. The frivolous request alone is not enough to sanction, but as a continuation of the pattern of abuse, it is. The editor has received sufficient feedback from uninvolved editors already, yet they continue to engage in the inappropriate behavior. Moreover, the editor has not been improving the articles. They are merely engaging in talk and project space disputes. The cost to Wikipedia of banning them is virtually zero, and the benefit is substantial.
Prior account of the filing party: Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note the block log includes entries for disruptive and tendentious editing. In light of this accounts past history of bad behavior, culminating in a three week block for disruption, and a one week block for sock puppetry, I think we could justify a one month block for disruptive editing here, not a mere topic ban. I'd rather place a topic ban because the account seems to make a substantial number of non-controversial and productive edits in other fields. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought filing tendentious enforcement requests (if demonstrated) gets you a ban on filing enforcement requests for a while, not an outright topic ban. I think a topic ban may be a bit much. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please address my comment in full. You appear to have failed to read my analysis. Specifically, address the issue that the filing party created a pointy AFD immediately prior (a retaliatory one), and had an extensive block log including disruption and sock puppetry. I think those circumstances are aggravating factors that justify a sanction. There is clearly disruption going on here. This is not one frivolous request out of the blue, which would be excusable. No, it is not that situation. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 904: / Line 904: @@
 ;ChrisO's list & JeHochman's comment
 In an AfD related to a hot political topic that gets a lot of participation, there will be these kinds of attacks on the nominator for nominating in bad faith. The response of the nominator should be to justify the AfD and show that it wasn't a bad-faith nomination in the only way possible to prove it: by showing actual policy problems with the article that are related to reasons for deletion. That was my response, and I've done exactly that. By doing that, I've shown the AfD was not disruptive. Unlike those other editors that ChrisO lists above, ChrisO kept on repeating his accusations, on page after page, well after it had been shown to him that the nomination was within policy and had good motivations. His actions, after a while, became disruptive. That was why this complaint was filed. As the top of the complaint makes clear. There is a reason why [[WP:DGFA#Rough consensus]] tells closing admins to discount some comments: They are often incredibly wrongheaded and against policy. If deletion policy itself recognizes the unreliable nature of AfD comments made briefly by editors whose depth of understanding of the subject is unknown, they shouldn't be relied on here, especially after I've proved otherwise. I guess this is the source of one of JeHochman's objections. If so, he's giving in to a mob mentality. -- [[User:JohnWBarber|JohnWBarber]] ([[User talk:JohnWBarber|talk]]) 18:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
+*I don't see anything retaliatory here.  I saw the AfD on [[Climate change denial]] and certainly did not perceive it to be a [[WP:POINT]].  One would have to presume that JWB does not believe the article should be deleted, and I think that's extremely unlikely.  Many editors have expressed doubts on the talk page of that article about whether it should exist.  I also saw ChrisO's comment on the AfD accusing Barber of bad faith, and considered it an unsupported personal attack.  But then a lot more editors did the same, so I guess that's how it goes.  To close as no action is one thing (I would close as no action), but much of the rest of this strikes me as utterly failing to consider the possibility that an editor was acting in good faith, and was personally attacked, and thus does not believe that he should have been.  I would say that is much more likely than some nefarious scheme to get ChrisO. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 06:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 ===Result concerning ChrisO ===