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

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

{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request

| User against whom enforcement is requested          
  = <Username>

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

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

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

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

| Additional comments 
  = <Your text>
}}

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

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

---

Request concerning User:GoRight

GoRight warned
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and edit warring on William M. Gray following the implementation of climate change article probation. Diff: [1] (note edit summary: "rv: I dispute that this is WP:UNDUE. I assert that this is a tendentious edit because Chris is a well known AGW POV pusher who knows that there are other editors objecting to this change.") It should be noted that this followed my first and so far only edit to this article. GoRight previously reverted User:Tony Sidaway's edit of the same content: [2] without any edit summary or any explanation or comment on the article talk page. This conduct represents all four of the behaviours prohibited by this probation: edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. ChrisO (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) In response to Tony: I would certainly be content for GoRight to be let off with a warning. The important point about this article probation is that editors should be encouraged to raise their game and end problematic behaviours. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC) In response to Thparkth: I added the probation template message to the article's talk page [3], noticed some content I thought was out of place, and took it out. That was my first and only edit to the article. I certainly wasn't expecting GoRight's response, especially not after the initiation of the probation regime. This isn't a case of "using probation as a weapon" - his action was a completely unprovoked personal attack out of the blue. I was under the impression that we were trying to deter that sort of thing. Absurdly, GoRight is now attacking me for adding the template to CC-related articles, which one would have thought was an uncontroversial chore for which I've been thanked.[4] It just shows you can't please some people, I guess. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) In response to GoRight: The article probation notification was posted by myself to Talk:William M. Gray at 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) [5]. Your first comment about the probation was at 05:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[6] You made your edit to William M. Gray at 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[7] Therefore, at the time you made that edit, you knew the probation had been enacted. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) In response to Lar: Good idea. The point is to modify unhelpful behaviour, not to punish people. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requested (1) I dispute the validity of these sanctions as noted at ANI. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (2) However, in the interest of playing along, the Climate change probation page states the following: "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." Following the link to disruptive edits we find the following: A disruptive editor is an editor who: Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well." It is widely known that ChrisO has been pushing a pro-AGW POV all over the climate change articles over an extended timeframe and he knows that there are multiple editors who disagree with his POV. His summary above clearly indicates that he was aware that others had been objecting to his edit yet he persisted anyway, see "GoRight previously reverted User:Tony Sidaway's edit of the same content: [2] without any edit summary or any explanation or comment on the article talk page." By the above description this is tendentious editing and, assuming that these sanctions are determined to be valid, he should be blocked for 1 year for tendentious editing. In addition, the edit on which he is relying occurred prior to the enactment of these sanctions and so is wholly out of scope for any action against me. I cannot be sanctioned under this probation for behavior that clearly occurred before the probation was in place. HIS edit, however, clearly occurred AFTER the enactment of the sanctions to which he is appealing and so clearly DO fall within the scope of the sanctions. This should be taken into account whether or not the enactment of these sanctions is deemed valid. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) @ChrisO: Clarification. When I said "the edit on which he is relying occurred prior to the enactment of these sanctions" I was responding to your statement that I quoted above, namely "GoRight previously reverted User:Tony Sidaway's edit of the same content: [2] without any edit summary or any explanation or comment on the article talk page.". That edit occurred at 03:06, 29 December 2009 which was before the sanctions were enacted. I apologize for being imprecise. --GoRight (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by other users Does not appear to be a serious request to me. Suggest that User:ChrisO be cautioned against frivolous requests. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I think this request is rather premature. I'd rather let editors get a feel for how the system works before requesting sanctions. GoRight's use of edit summaries for accusations seem a little off and perhaps he should be warned about this (and having said that I think we could all raise our game) . --TS 05:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC) In my (completely unqualified) opinion, there is a danger that this probation protocol will itself become a weapon in the war between the two "sides" that it is meant to cool down. I think this request may be an example of that. Thparkth (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC) With the greatest respect for user:Thparkth opinion here, I do not believe this to be the case. In point of fact I note that User:GoRight and myself are on absolutely opposite sides of the climate "debate" and yet we both hold identical opinions to the enforcement request against both he and User:ChrisO. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Let me clarify for the benefit of both ChrisO and Nothughthomas that I don't think this is necessarily a bad-faith or even conscious action (using the sanctions as a weapon) but we are all human after all, and we all react fairly predictably when our feelings are hurt. Thparkth (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you for that clarification. As someone who was just blocked for filing a complaint against User:ChrisO I understand that some editors can take enforcement requests personally and in a heated way and all of us are in danger from retribution blocks/bans when we file enforcement actions against admins. That said, I think we should all calm down and take a deep breath and deal with these in a professional and judicial manner. I think it's heartening that both User:GoRight and myself have put aside our editing differences to come together in common ground on the User:ChrisO question (below) and it could serve as a model of team work for this enforcement question as well. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Some discussion has to be the first one. The one below is highly frivolous and doesn't count. Let us not let this protocol be used the way Thparkth fears, but instead do as Tony asks and raise our game... work through what was alleged here and whether it has merit and try to do the right thing. ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I concur. We should start from the recognition that GoRight is a known editor who has contributed to the discussions for a very long time. He should not be given special treatment; nor should he be abused. Those who push for harsh sanctions to be applied today will certainly, if successful, find the same standards used against their own conduct. We should first look to our own conduct and ensure that it is in keeping with the best Wikipedia practice. --TS 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks Tony. On the diffs given here's my thinking, the application of the article probation notice by ChrisO ([8]) seems reasonable enough, that article seems clearly within scope of the sanctions as a BLP of a climate (hurricane) research scientist. The edit by GoRight ([9]) may well have merit, I won't pass judgement on it, let the talk page participants decide that. But the edit summary GoRight used wasn't helpful, let's not cast aspersions needlessly. GoRight perhaps should be cautioned that we really need everyone on their best behaviour. I suggest we leave it at that for now. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC) GoRight's actual edit seems legitimate, at least in the sense that it was well-intentioned. Really the only question is whether he used intemperate language in his edit summary. Perhaps not just GoRight, but everyone involved, should be reminded of the expectation that they behave with the utmost civility and good faith to one another. Thparkth (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Is it intemperate to assert points that are clearly supported by policy as I have shown above? --GoRight (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC) It's intemperate if you do so using intemperate language! You could have - and in my opinion, should have - written that edit summary in a less confrontational manner. But I don't think it's a hanging offence... Thparkth (talk) What part of my statement used intemperate language? Seriously? Did I use any terms inappropriately given the policies as I have cited them above? Am I allowed to revert tendentious edits which are against wiki policies/guidelines and these very sanctions and to cite that policy or guideline as the reason? I not only cited the relevant behavioral problem that the description of these sanctions had directed me to, but provided a detailed analysis of why the offense was a violation thereof. In what way is this not a model example of an edit summary? For example, how would you have worded the edit summary while providing the same information? --GoRight (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC) T: Nod. G: What is being asked is that in future you raise your game. As an involved party, be on your best behavior, and cast no aspersions on others. Leave the judgements on behavior of others to the "mean old admins" who are trying to stay out of the edits themselves and who thus can try to make this regime work. We get that you oppose trying this. But we, the larger community, tire of these brushfires and are going to try this. With or without you. Unless you want to be watching from the penalty box, up your game. That applies to everyone. ++Lar: t/c 06:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC) This is an exceptionally provocative statement and rises to the level of wikithreat. Since this discussion has descended into a battle between (1) a cabal of admins on one side and (2) a vast and diverse coalition of free speech supporters on the other, I strongly suggest consensus for bringing in a fresh batch of admins to deal with this as tempers have clearly boiled over. Respectfully submitted - Nothughthomas (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (unindent) I haven't been involved in any of this climate change dispute, but I'm inclined to start quickly blocking any users who continue to start or stoke drama, hostility, or other types of disruptive editing around here. Enough is enough. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC) At risk of being blocked for having an opposite thought, my thought is that User:GoRight should not be subject to warning. I, more likely than anyone, would find his edits incendiary - as I am on the absolute opposite side of the climate debate as he and we have had more than one run-on - however I thought what he said was 110% perfectly reasonable and did not believe it violated any WP. I move to reject the warning proposal and counter-move to propose consensus for recognition of User:GoRight with a Barnstar for the contributions he has made to improving wikipedia. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC) You're welcome to have, and share, your views. VERY welcome. You are just not welcome to act disruptively by filing frivolous requests, engaging in mockery by using the exact wording of others, making claims about other people's rearrangement of sections, and the like. ++Lar: t/c 05:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I don't want to see these restrictions turned into the standard one-upmanship that everything on Wikipedia turns into, but "I assert that this is a tendentious edit because Chris is a well known AGW POV pusher who knows that there are other editors objecting to this change" is not acceptable behavior. Something is a tendentious edit because of the edit, not the editor. Hipocrite (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) See my statement above. And, BTW, you are completely incorrect in your assertion. Tendentious editing is a behavior of the editor, the "edit" itself is inanimate and incapable of exhibiting any form of behavior. --GoRight (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Agree with User:GoRight and I have just awarded him a Barnstar for the contributions he has made to peacefully resolving disputes. This enforcement page is a testament to good will when pro and anti-climate change sides can unite to support free speech. I wish those attempting to stamp it out could take a lesson from User:GoRight and my cooperation. Nothughthomas (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, in this case it appears these sanctions have become another uncivil weapon, with little purpose to achieving a productive and strong NPOV, which it wiki's first principle. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Agreed. User:GoRight should be exonerated and a public apology should be required of the original complainant under penalty of desysoping. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Note: Nothughthomas has been blocked by MZMcBride for disruptive editing.  Sandstein  08:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with MZMcBride and Hipocrite that the edit summary is exactly the sort of battleground-like behavior that the community sanction was intended to prevent. But this is a hasty request with no prior warning as required by the sanction. For now, we should close this with a warning to GoRight that he is subject to sanctions if he continues to make combative edits of this sort.  Sandstein  08:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I will repeat my question from above and direct it to you as well: "What part of my statement used intemperate language? Seriously? Did I use any terms inappropriately given the policies as I have cited them above? Am I allowed to revert tendentious edits which are against wiki policies/guidelines and these very sanctions and to cite that policy or guideline as the reason? I not only cited the relevant behavioral problem that the description of these sanctions had directed me to, but provided a detailed analysis of why the offense was a violation thereof. In what way is this not a model example of an edit summary? For example, how would you have worded the edit summary while providing the same information?" --GoRight (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Here are the words you put into the edit summary: "I dispute that this is WP:UNDUE. I assert that this is a tendentious edit because Chris is a well known AGW POV pusher who knows that there are other editors objecting to this change." I know how this kind of thing can happen when tempers are frayed, but still calling someone "a well known AGW POV pusher" is the sort of thing we all should be aiming to eradicate. Having said that I did think the filing was premature and I think Chris Owen should think carefully about the danger of appearing to use this probation as a weapon with which to settle scores, rather than as a safety valve to prevent the atmosphere steadily degrading. A word or two on your talk page might have been better, or he could have swallowed it during this early bedding-in period when we're all just getting used to working with the sanctions. --TS 09:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with Tony, also as regards ChrisO. GoRight, in reply to your question, calling a colleague "a well known AGW POV pusher" reflects a WP:BATTLE mentality and assumes bad faith. The edit summary is for voicing objections to the edit itself that you revert, but not for attacking the editor who made it.  Sandstein  09:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC) What is the politically correct way of saying that his edit "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well", is therefore tendentious and considered disruptive, and therefore is a violation of these sanctions? I was obviously prepared to make that case (see my statement above) which is why I said what I said. I simply wanted to be prepared to bring a case here, should it come to that, which it obviously did. --GoRight (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) One thing that would help (IMHO) is don't do it in edit summaries. The same point, made on a talk page where one has extra wordage to fully give context and where it can be part of give an take, will often seem softer. Edit summaries should strive to be as neutral and judgment free as possible. Again IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I'd like to make a note concerning an odd claim that NHT makes: "I am on the absolute opposite side of the climate debate as [GR]". This is bizarre; [10] or [11] show that he is on the skeptic side, just like GR. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; but there is everything wrong with pleading for GR and asking for extra weight by pretending to be on the other "side". [If you don't understand why supporting Beck makes you a skeptic, I can explain in tedious detail, but it would be better done not-here] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Wow, thanks for sharing that, very significant. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC) GoRight: On tendentiousness... Many people now have opined that you ought to be given a warning and that ought to be that. The very first real request is not the place to throw the book. But I have to say that your digging in and insisting that even a warning isn't justified... isn't making you look good. After this performance, if you turn up here again, I bet some people will want to treat you much more harshly than if you'd said "Thanks, I'll keep everyone's advice in mind" and went off and done that. IMHO of course. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Exactly so. And as a summary of the outcome of this discussion you're probably as close as we're going to get: GoRight should consider himself warned, no further action on this, the first occurrence under the article restrictions. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Result GoRight (talk · contribs) is warned that further edits of a battleground-like nature will result in sanctions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning User:ChrisO

Request Dismissed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ChrisO has reverted edits to dog concerning global warming without participating in the discussion in a meaningful way, even though that is an entry under climate change censorship protocols at present. He has also intentionally derailed a discussion in Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley though flippance (see most recent discussion on entries talk page). This entry is also under climate change censorship protocols, subjecting problem editors to exigent sanctions. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)</nowiki> The enforcement section is not an appropriate place to push POV. The dog article is under heavy and vibrant climate change discussion and is currently tagged for censorship protocols. Derailing a discussion is WP:DWIP. The fact that the derailer, and apparently only he, finds it to be "levity" is irrelevant. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I would now like to add to this complaint to note that User:ChrisO, a party to - and subject of - the complaint, is actively reorganizing the placement of the complainants (mine) text which has been intentionally ordered by me for maximum comprehensibility. This is irreconcilable with the fair and impartial adjudication of this complaint and clearly designed to evade and shirk responsibility through an initiative of confusion and muddying. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requested Dog is not a climate change-related article and is not under article probation. And I hardly think it's a hanging offence to be flippant in response to your assertion that this article probation (sorry, "censorship protocol" [12]) is reminiscent of Juan Peron's regime.[13] -- ChrisO (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I believe this request is in retaliation for my adding the article probation template to Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, which the complainant objects to. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by other users Does not appear to be a serious request to me. Suggest that the user bringing it be cautioned against frivolous requests. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC) To clarify, there does appear to be some edit warring going on, and it's climate related, but I think it's quite a stretch to say that the dog article is intended to be within the scope of this sanction unless someone is deliberately trying to prove a WP:POINT. ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Agreed. ChrisO has been editing provactively and attempting to WP:BAIT other users while unilaterally deciding which articles fall under these sanctions, assuming that they actually are valid sanctions since I have presented objections to the enactment thereof at ANI. See [14], [15], [16], [17]. --GoRight (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) what? ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I had started my edit prior to the entire page being reorganized. So to clarify, I agree with Nothughthomas, not Lar, in this instance. --GoRight (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Should probably be noted that the Dog article is only "currently tagged for censorship protocols" because Nothughthomas added the tag to it himself, and that only after he created the edit war himself. Thparkth (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Point of clarification: I initiated the "discussion." There is no "edit war" [sic] currently taking place in dog. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC) The edit history of Dog belies that assertion. Knock it off. We're trying to work through how to make this regime work and you are not helping matters with frivolous and tendentious wikilawyering. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC) If a user makes an accusation against me specifically and by name, I entertain absolute right to respond to that accusation. I suggest other contributors make the choice to stay on-topic. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Are new, nearly-single-purpose accounts really welcome to be taking these kind of actions? What can be done to stop random new accounts from showing up on climate related articles and making a bunch of reversions, gumming up the works with requests like this and engaging in what appears to be pointy editing by trying to get the dog article to talk about global warming. I don't see new editors doing whatever evils the scientifically-minded side is accused of and editing Apocalypse to state that global warming is the prophecied biblical end of the world, do I? Hipocrite (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Dog is climate change related? Sounds like wikilawyering to me. -- Pak aran 06:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Comment - ChrisO is now making accusations of bad faith editing against another editor over a CC related topic. See [18]. --GoRight (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Result Dismissed Prodego talk 07:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Unrelated / Supplementary Actions I've blocked Nothughthomas (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) for 15 minutes for disrupting this process and wasting time. This sort of frivolous wikilawyering will not be tolerated. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway

reverting obvious socks endorsed, avoid terms like SPA, encourage discussion if possible, thanks to Tony for raising matter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Tony Sidaway User requesting enforcement TS 05:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Tony Sidaway (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 [21] edit summary "Revert SPA", reverts content restored or added by User:Tender & Privat Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) I'm well aware of the global warming probation, and its intent. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I'd like a review of this edit to see if it violates the spirit of this remedy. I undertake not to perform similar edits until the end of the review, and if told that this is a violation of the global warming probation I will not perform such edits again. Additional comments by editor filing complaint In a single edit, I reverted two edits performed by User:Tender & Privat, an account that had been created just minutes before the edits. This account seems to fit the modus operandi of scibaby and other SPAs that have plagued the global warming articles for some time. I then issued a warning about the probation on User talk:Tender & Privat. Since this action could be seen as edit warring I have brought the matter to this page. I hope the form is acceptable. Discussion concerning Tony Sidaway Statement by Tony Sidaway I believe this edit is in keeping with the intent of the probation because reverts a specific form of edit by a banned editor or an existing editor using a false flag account, that was intended solely to disrupt the achievement of consensus. --TS 05:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comment, Lar. I'm also in favor of discussion with good faith editors such as Pete and reaching compromise on presentation of the facts. In this instance I'm really only interested in the question of whether it is appropriate to revert SPAs on an article subject to the probation. The question of the content I revert to (as long as it's not to a vandalized revision and there are no BLP issues in the revision I revert to) shouldn't matter. But I'd like more opinions on this, because I think that kind of scenario is likely to recur and we should settle it early. --TS 06:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Tony Sidaway I'm a bit confused by this request. (as in why you're asking for review) But I did some quick scans. A few observations: There appears to be robust discussion at the talk page of various issues related to the article. In a quick skim I did see this particular topic (under heading Talk:Hockey stick controversy#Richard Muller reaction )... where Tillman, who appears to be the editor who put the material in initially, or at least was working on it prior to the sock's appearance, expresses dismay about the removal. T&P appears to be blocked. (as a Scibaby sock, says the block summary, and Scibaby is known to be pretty determined in pushing particular climate related viewpoints, ), but Tillman seems to be an editor that's been around a while... climate is an area of interest but not the only thing this editor edits. I don't think Tony was wrong to revert the sock, but I'd rather see more discussion at the talk and some compromise reached if possible... leaving in the text for a while wouldn't hurt. But if I understand what Tony's driving at, the sock was, by revert warring this back in, interfering with the flow of conversation on the talk page, where the issue was already being worked. ++Lar: t/c 06:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Addendum after Tony clarified a bit, above: OK, I see. I think reverting an edit warring sock with 3 edits, (none of which were to talk, all 3 were to the same article), is perfectly acceptable. There's probably a line here somewhere where it becomes not so good to do that, though... where's the SPA dividing line? Somewhere well north of 3 edits, I'd say!... but eventually you shade over into revert warring with established editors which clearly isn't what we want to have happen. At that point, wherever it is (and again, it's a long way away from 3), you'd be in the wrong, you should have been encouraging talk page discussion, and/or bringing the matter here. But not this sock. Proof will be what happens next, if Tillman and everyone else engage nicely, that would be good, and will suggest you did the right thing derailing that war. Can we draw from the Obama experience (this regime is modeled after that one...) at all? Does this comment of mine help? ++Lar: t/c 07:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with Lar. I see no problem in reverting an apparent SPA whose only edits consist of reverting other editors in a contested area; that is usually a pretty good duck test for socks, and indeed Tender & Privat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now blocked as the sock of a banned editor. However, to avoid BITE issues, edits of new users that do not quack this loudly should probably not be so summarily reverted.  Sandstein  07:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I consider the use of the term SPA to be uncivil and baiting when used in this manner. It is unnecessarily provocative because it appears to imply wrongdoing by anyone that happens to be a single purpose editor, such as myself. You might as well have called them a troll or a POV pusher as far as I am concerned, and note that I was warned about using that particular phrase above. There is no prohibition on contributing to the project on a single issue and whether someone does, or does not, choose to do so has no bearing on their value to the project. If these sanctions are to be applied even handedly I would ask that Tony be warned that others may find his use of the term SPA offensive and he should avoid it in a similar context. I do not believe any further action would be required since Tony was obviously forthright enough to draw this to our attention himself. --GoRight (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC) You're obviously a well established Wikipedia editor and not what I would call a single-purpose account (SPA). If you read Lar's comment, he makes a point about a new account that is devoted to edit warring or another disruptive behavior. That's what we mean by a SPA--to the best of my knowledge this is the common meaning of the term on Wikipedia. --TS 08:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your explanation, but to be honest it doesn't matter to me. I still consider the use to be demeaning based on the prevailing attitudes associated with the term. Why do I feel this way? Because of conversations like this. V is a well established editor as was I at that time and still he sought to debase an degrade me for being an SPA. You wanted feedback on how your edit summary would be received. There's your feedback. --GoRight (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Single-purpose accounts have a poor reputation because single-purpose editors are so often associated with disruptive conduct. That's just how it is. The obvious solution from your perspective would be to broaden your editing so that you could no longer be considered a single purpose editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC) What term would you like to use, GoRight? "Extremely low edit count editor who edits only one article and was a likely sock" is a bit of a mouthful, isn't it? Even "ELECEWEOOAAWALS" is hard to type. Maybe "Elecewe"? Hey, that's kinda catchy.. elec-a-wee. Ok seriously, sometimes you have to use the term that fits. SPA has a broad meaning and you're way at the upper end of it, to be sure, and I wouldn't advocate calling you that. You're more of a "single interest area account" than a "single purpose account"... that account was a throwaway, a kamikaze, used for one thing only and whoever used it expected to be blocked quickly. SPA fits. See WP:SPADE. As ChrisO says, if you don't want to be called something, don't be that thing. ++Lar: t/c It was a scibaby sock, and is now blocked. You were correct. GR is an SPA so doesn't like the way they are put to the hiss of the world; he'll just have to live with it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I do deal with it just fine. I only commented because he was asking for feedback. --GoRight (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Your feedback is welcome and now I know that I should avoid using the ambiguous term "SPA", which may have offensive or confusing connotations for some of those who edit predominantly on a single subject. --TS 05:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC) My 2 cents. Tender & Privat has scibaby written all over it, so the reverts where entirely correct. I do not think it will influence the current discussion on talk, but a generally acceptable (and recognizable) edit-comment for reverting this kind of sock may be beneficial. As a sidenote: this sock should be added to the next scibaby CU check, both for confirmation purposes, as well as for the off-chance of a false positive. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Although you were right to think it was a Scibaby sock, perhaps it was best not to revert with that rationale. Perhaps reverting with a reason why the edits were wrong would have been a better way to go, just in case the account was not a sockpuppet and was merely a misguided editor (don't be so cynical, they still exist). Just my two cents though. NW (Talk) 18:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, I in my edit summary I should have clarified that the edit appeared to be an attempt to encourage edit warring rather than discussion. The content of the edit was not, to my mind, important. The fact that it was an evident attempt to throw a spanner into the works was. It may seem counter-intuitive to argue that reverting any edit can be justified as a means of stopping edit wars, but the acid test is whether I would have reverted the same edit by a non-sock. Had I done so I wouldn't expect to go unsanctioned. Perhaps it might have been a good idea to let the edit be, and I will take that into account in future. The risk of a false positive, which would alienate a new editor who just happened to make a contentious edit to a global warming article, is very low but past history shows that this is a non-trivial matter. As GoRight has pointed out, moreover, terms like SPA have a broader meaning and their use in this narrow context can be misunderstood. --TS 18:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I think the term agenda account may be more suitable. Many of the active editors on this subject - including WMC - are promoting an agenda, after all. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Tony Sidaway This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I would like to suggest a resolution here, as follows.... that it's considered usually OK to revert obvious socks as Tony did here, (with a reminder to use good judgment about whether the ID is an obvious sock or not) but that perhaps "SPA" isn't necessarily always a good term to use in edit summaries, and that steering discussion to the talk page is to be encouraged whenever practical as an alternative to a bare revert, and that this request be closed with no other action taken (except perhaps thanks and acknowledgment to Tony for raising it on himself). Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, close it. Calling editors names (such as SPA or troll) is usually inflammatory, and explaining reverts is best practice. Jehochman Brrr 14:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Editors

GoRight warned not to file frivolous or vexatious requests
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Multiple Editors User requesting enforcement GoRight (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Multiple Editors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [22] See any revert that was ever made after the probation was enacted which reverts material that had been previously reverted. The standard I am looking for is summarized in this warning from a different article. Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [23] - I added this AFTER filing this report. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Anyone that has reverted anything that had been previously reverted should get a 12 hour block to make the point about edit waring. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I am tempted to go in and do some reverting of my own, but that seems to go against the spirit of the sanctions so I am here to ask that you put a stop to it without regard to which side of the debate people are on. Also note that this template is insufficient since it assumes that the complaint will be about a single editor. Do these sanctions only apply to individual editors? How should I bring broader based complaints such as this? 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 Multiple Editors This is a ridiculous request, rather pointy and certainly disruptive. How about trying to provide diffs for individual editors. ::rolleyes: Spartaz Humbug! 09:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC) This request has meaning in regard to WP:Tagteam and the pending ArbCom cases. Admins must take this seriously or ArbCom cases could be required. I suggest the request be focused to a specific group of editors. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Multiple Editors Comments by others about the request concerning Multiple Editors Please make a specific request. General complaints about the state of editing on a given article should probably be addressed in other venues. --TS 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC) GoRight, you probably shouldn't use a template to complain that the template doesn't work right (your Additional comment #2). Your general complaint is not appropriate here. Further, your "Diffs of prior warnings" points to no warning, in fact it references a different warning placed by 2/0, which warning is not based on this probation. Your Additional comment #1 though, where you state a temptation to go in and do some reverting of your own - that's seems worthy of a formal warning for yourself right there. Franamax (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC) This seems a pretty frivolous request with an ridiculously wide scope - "Anyone that has reverted anything that had been previously reverted", seriously? I agree with Franamax above and suggest that discussions about the template should be directed to this page's talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Again 2 cents (i'm going to be bankrupt soon): Anyone who has edited on the climate change related articles should have been able to spot that Tender & Privat was a sock or at least not a serious editor. If you considered trying to enforce this users edits, by reverting them back, then i'd say that there is something wrong - but it is neither with the templates, nor with other users. If there is doubt in your mind regarding whether or not the user is a sock, then gently prod the user on his talk-page, and tell them to engage in discussion. Users coming out of nothing (ie. hardly no edits at all) and diving in by reverting a contested area, no matter what "side" they are on, are not serious editors (yet?). Now do not misunderstand that, they may well not be socks, but the behavior is not acceptable either way, so take them gently by the hand, if in doubt, and help them to take a constructive part of the project. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Frivolous request which, because of GoRight's other time-wasting and WP:POINTy recent edits [such as his RfAR/Climate change probation], probably deserves some kind of block. GoRight is misusing wikipedia procedures and should know better. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Multiple Editors This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I believe GoRight should get about 24 hours for WP:POINT violation. Does another administrator concur? Jehochman Brrr 14:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I may be too close but this is not the first frivolity from GR, plus GR was warned already (in a different context, but still). We don't want to discourage people reporting things but we want this taken seriously, and this sort of report isn't helpful. Perhaps another strong warning with a requirement of an explicit acknowledgment of the issue, on pain of a block if acknowledgment is refused? At some point we need to shift from warning to doing. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I'm too close to be considered independent but I concur with the idea of a block. Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Lame guys. The report above may be useless as far as things go, but it is far from block worthy. Not to mention the whole preventative vs punitive philosophy. Arkon (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC) For a first occurrence I would concur without hesitation. For the second or third (depending on how you count... see also the entire arbcom case request), I think a very strong warning and a requirement to state they understand, on pain of block, is reasonable. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Okay, the result here is that GoRight is warned not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests, or else they may be blocked without further warnings. Jehochman Brrr 16:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Psb777

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

Request concerning Psb777

User requesting enforcement

Viriditas (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Psb777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. 06:57, 4 January 2010 Edit warring. Psb777 reverts User:Dave souza [24] and restores previous version at 01:41, 4 January 2010 by User:A Quest For Knowledge
2. 08:55, 4 January 2010 Edit warring. Psb777 reverts User:Wikispan[25] and restores 01:41, 4 January version.
3. 11:27, 4 January 2010 Edit warring. Psb777 reverts User:ChrisO[26] and restores 01:41, 4 January version.

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

1. 09:05, 4 January 2010 General sanctions warning by ChrisO (talk · contribs)
2. 06:08, 31 December 2009 Edit warring warning by Viriditas (talk · contribs)
3. 02:42, 28 December 2009 Edit warring warning by jheiv (talk · contribs)

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

Topic ban due to incessant edit warring after multiple prior warnings and acknowledgement of general sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition to edit warring, Psb777 is currently acting under the radar and placing comments on user talk pages "rallying the troops" and encouraging a battlefield mentality. Viriditas (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

Discussion concerning Psb777

Statement by Psb777

I think there was no urgency required in determining a sanction here. I did not exceed the 3RR rule. I am not in the habit of edit warring. I have backed off leaving the other editor's version in place. I invited the other party to Talk, and I've been on the Talk page ready to talk where others would agree I have avoided being personal, despite some provocation.

If an impartial observer looked at who was doing the reversions and the edit warring I think s/he would not have indentified me as the culprit. Count the reverts. There has been a lot of gatekeeping going on. And not by me. Why am I singled out?

The upsetting thing about this is that within a very few minutes of the notification of this appearing on my talk page the sanction has been decided upon. Before I had a chance to write this. Or maybe not, maybe you have greater sanctions planned!

But a restriction to 1RR will not impact me. Within reasonable memory I have only reverted more than once on two occasions, I think. And, as I said, always I have left the "war" with the other persons version in place. So, in what way is what I do problematic or disruptive.

Or is this one of those occasions where you say, see, he cannot even see his own bad behaviour, that's what proves we really need to impose a sanction? :-)

No, I know what it is. I've got up a few peoples' noses by being successful in getting a consensus together to make some necessary changes to a seriously lacking NPOV article.

Anyway, let's see what happens next. Maybe by the time I press the save button there will be some description of what I am supposed to have done.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re comment by Ryan: I don't follow, where have I been warned about particular behaviour yet I have continued to do so. No, that's not correct. Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Further comment to Ryan: I think you've been fooled here. ChrisO may have placed a 3RR notice on my page but I had not and did not exceed the 3RRs. In fact I may have only done 2. I'll check. And ChrisO placed an edit-war banner on my page twice but that really should not be taken as evidence of an edit war, look for yourself. You must be aware that a common technique is to allege bad behaviour by others? Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re viriditus's "under the radar" comment. This truly is ridiculous. I am here under my own name, everything I do at WP is at WP. I don't take part in any off-WP chat sessions. I never ever send WP related e-mail to another WP user. There is no off WP coordination of 3RR avoidance etc etc. What Viriditus says is under the radar is most definitely ON THE RADAR with me. And what is on the radar? Me suggesting to two participants on the Talk page that they actually edit the article. Have a look! Or didn't V provide the links? Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is relevant. I was writing this while Ryan couldn't wait a few minutes before issuing a scanction. Thanks to Troed for his comment Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is where V says I was warned by him/her previously but you'll see, s/he backed off and agreed that perhaps she was wrong. V was fooled here too by ChrisO's placement of an edit warring tag on my page when I had reverted only twice and where I left the page at his preferred version, backing off first. In all fairness, if anyone needed a tag it was him, he having regularly reverted all suggested changes to the FAQ from any user. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the lesson to be learned here is always shoot first. Always be the person to make the allegation of bad behaviour first. Is that the lesson you are trying to teach here.?' Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think however that the lesson to be learnt really is always carefully check allegations of bad behaviour. Now, please lift the sanction so that you can see there is no need to levy one one on me. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit is listed incorrectly as a third revert whereas (1) it was to a different version and (2) the edit was discussed with and encouraged by Hipocrite on the Talk page - it certainly felt consensual and nobody complained of a third revert at the time or since, until now. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

can I ask Viriditas if s/he collated the "evidence" or was it provided by someone? Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I obviously can't add. I had thought it was 21 minutes from Viriditas's request to Ryan's imposition of the sanction. No. it was only 13 minutes. Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Psb777

• I don't know if this is yet ripe. It appears that normal editing of the article is resulting what appear to be fully agreed-apon improvements. Most of the credit goes to dave souza and Itsmejudith, though I'll take my share as well. While the earlier rote reverting back and forth was of little value, perhaps the example of forward progress by not reverting and instead evaluating consensus on the talk page and responding to the concerns of others demonstrated over the last few hours will work. At the most, warnings for all reverters would be appropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I hadn't realised this was already at this stage, repeating a comment I just left for Veriditas at Psb777's talk page: I'm one of the persons who Psb777 posted at the talk page to. I just want to note for the record that I in no way saw the post to mean anything but a friendly question as to why I was still only editing the talk page. To be frank, I hadn't even noticed the article was even open for editing again before Paul's notice. (And if anyone would ever believe I'd characterize myself as somebody's "troop" they would be sorely mistaken at that). I do however agree, fully, that there's a heated WP:BATTLE mentality over the article in question. It's not one-sided though, and Paul is one of somewhat few who actually participate at the talk page trying to move the article forward instead of just objecting to proposals. Troed (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your kind words. You would not have realised, as it was all done with such unseemly haste, during a period where all was happening consensually at the page for the first time in a while, so no hurry, even if you accept the allegation. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. I just took the time to look at the reverts this is all about. This was a widely discussed paragraph which had arrived at consensus in changing of sourcing. The persons above who deleted it are the ones that should be sanctioned, not Paul who correctly reverted them. There was no support, according to consensus at the talk page, for removing this complete paragraph which was actively discussed with good results. If you care to look at the article in its current state, we've arrived at something that seems to stick. Paul has been one of the persons who've participated in making this happen (and yes, I'm one as well), while in the list of names I see for the editors who removed it is one I can't recall having participated in the discussions at all. This is clearly not how the sanctions were supposed to work, I hope. Viriditas, did you really look this through? Troed (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll additionally go out on a limb (and if I'm breaking some Wikirules I do not know of I'm sorry) and state that if I was an admin, I'd see the sudden appearance and edit of this article, and this specific paragraph, by User:Wikispan as really strange in the context of the article having just been re-opened for editing and no previous participation whatsoever either with the article or at the talk page. Troed (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO

I feel must correct some misrepresentations in Paul's statement above. I did not give him a "3RR warning"; I notified him of the article probation, using the template at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Notification of probation, after he (re)added to the article some blog-sourced material concerning criticism of living people (which is of course disallowed by WP:BLP and WP:V). When he expressed an intention to continue reverting, I left a message requesting him to engage in discussion to find consensus and advising him against disruptive editing, as he was opening himself up to to possible enforcement action. I emphasised that I did not intend to submit an enforcement request. I'd hoped to encourage Paul to pursue discussion and avoid him ending up here, but evidently that hasn't worked. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I deny that I added any material in violation of WP:V or WP:BLP. There was no support for that assertion from anyone else. ChrisO has acted as gatekeeper at the article reverting every or practically every edit I (and others) have tried to do. I have always backed off and left his version and invited his participation at the Talk page. I am hacked off that ChrisO's repeated plastering of policy violation allegatios like alphabet soup which typically would go unsubstantiated, that he felt free to apply warnings of poor behaviour ad nauseum on my page without substantiating his allegations. In particular his repeated allegation of disruptive editing against my ongoing struggles to find consensus I found irksome. He continues, above, in misrepresenting the situation, as any person prepared to read the record would soon determine. Paul Beardsell (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

dave souza

• Mixed feelings on this, the enforcement of sanctions to make it clear that edit warring it not the way forward sends a sound message, but it's possible a strong warning or a general imposition of 1RR on the article would have been fairer at a time when Paul Beardsell had settled down to constructive discussion. My initial deletion of the paragraph in question was, in my view, justified as removing inadequately sourced material with clear BLP issues. That did not preclude the introduction of the better sourced version under discussion, but there was no consensus about the suitability of that version. There's a more general issue of a tendency for some editors to fail to assume good faith, but hopefully civility can be improved without sanctions. . dave souza, talk 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

nsaa

Interesting how this works. Here you have people totally disregarding a very well sourced statement as discussed now at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#About_.22trick_to_hide_the_decline.22_.E2.80.93_removing_well_sourced_comments.3F (again). As far as I've seen the at the WP:A/R has said the following about that kind of removals. Restoring "statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand." is just an action to restore a "disruptive" action, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive, so Paul Beardsell should not be sanctioned here. The people removing the stuff is doing the misconduct here as far as I see per the above cited WP:A/R paragraph. I see that they're attacking both the sources [28] and [29] used in this paragraph, since the content is so damaging to their (AGW-)Cause (my interpretion). Feel free to look into this also (Which resemble this case Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Pressmulti_-_removal_of_a_piece_with_millions_of_readers.3F_-_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia and you see the same pattern by the same group of users). Nsaa (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I missed this and I think it's about to close, but I have a serious comment so I'll make it here anyway.

This is the second enforcement request made on this page by ChrisO, and I must say I'm not impressed with either. I suggest that if ChrisO and others editors persistently use the enforcement page prematurely for borderline cases and for what appears to be settling scores or eliminating perceived "enemies" the whole probation is likely to fall into disrepute. I urge the uninvolved admins to be vigilant for such instances, and (as they did in the GoRight case, which was particularly egregious) be prepared to sanction editors who persistently bring half-baked and borderline cases without demonstrating an honest and civil attempt to resolve matters on talk pages. This enforcement page must not be allowd to become a part of the warfare. --TS 00:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For heavens' sake Tony, please read this properly. This request was submitted by Viriditas. I had nothing to with it and I explicitly told Paul that I was not intending to submit a request about him. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please accept my abject apologies. I don't know where I got the idea that you filed the report from. My general comments still stand though. I think we're in danger of losing the plot if this page becomes part ofthe war. --TS 00:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Psb777

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

As Psb777 has already been notified of the sanctions and has continued to revert, I've placed him on a 1RR restriction on all climate change articles for a period of two weeks. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That may have been a bit premature, I recommend letting discussion run a bit longer than an hour (Tony's, just above, has run for a day and a half and isn't closed yet) ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

An hour? 21 minutes. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement requests pages are to alert administrators to behaviour where enforcement may be needed. If any administrator sees problematic behaviour then they are free to act. I have seen behaviour from psb777 which I believe warrents a 1rr restriction and I don't feel the need to further discussion - others are free to discuss my implementation however, hence why I didn't archive.--Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Ryan. Prodego ^talk 18:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'm not (yet?) convinced this sanction is warranted. The previous requests we've had here (I know, I know, I'm sniping at the guy who proposed the scheme) had some back and forth and a rough consensus was reached on what to do before things were imposed. I think that's the appropriate approach. If we want folk to accept this regime, it has to be fair and it has to be perceived as fair. So now what? ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to putting the entire article on 1RR instead. But what can't happen is everyone feeling entitled to 3 reverts - there are too many editors for that. Prodego ^talk 18:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems a far better approach than where we are now. The more I look at the evidence given above, the more it seems (again, I may be misinterpreting it) that we've got the wrong person in the stocks on the charge of edit warring... sticking 1RR on the whole thing reduces the need to get into back and forth on who did what and why. (3rr is a bright line, not an entitlement, anyway) ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me - I'll remove the restriction on Psb shortly and put the article under 1RR. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorted? Closable? ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the outcome but still just a little annoyed at the process. It cannot be right to decide an outcome before the accused can even be expected to have seen the notification. 13 minutes! The initial adjudication made it fairly plain the decision was final. I think it is in WP's interests more than even the accused editor. You want someone to feel they've been given a chance to argue their case. Or the chance to say sorry! If that is not understood then it calls the whole process and thereby WP into disrepute. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. Maybe we need to take it to the talk page and thrash this out, because this moved too fast in my view. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Users ought not be sanctioned via this page until they've had a chance to respond, except for egregious situations like threats, harassment or severe attacks. If an editor ignores the notification and continues any objectionable editing, then they could be sanctioned. I also dislike 1RR for articles. That's a major step that should not be taken unless there has been a good, thorough discussion, which has not yet happened here. Jehochman ^Brrr 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with yourself and Lar on this one... this happened with far too much haste. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, this is a 1RR restriction. People should not be routinely making multiple reverts in contentious areas in the first place. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's along the lines of how I was reasoning above. Prodego ^talk 22:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered that he might not have known? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

JettaMann

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

Request concerning JettaMann

User requesting enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [30] Blatent violation of WP:BLP - "a Wikipedia arbitration committee found him guilty of violating a number of Wikipedia rules" - not true. This went on at the beginning of an RFC on the talk page, which has hardly even begun.
2. [31]. Over-the-top BLP violation - "I don't think this individual has any notoriety of any kind, other than for being caught for various Wikipedia editing infractions. That's pretty much all this page should say about him is that he was a Global Warming activist who got caught gaming Wikipedia."

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

1. [32] 10-day block by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with note "I would strongly recommmend when you come back from the block, even if you haven't been banned by then, you should tread very carefully in that area or preferably choose to avoid the field altogether, because if you continue behaving like you did you will most likely incur more sanctions."

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

Perminant topic ban, along with ban from all biographies of living persons.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is exactly the kind of "user" that makes dealing with these articles impossible.

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 JettaMann

Comments by others about the request concerning JettaMann

I disagree that second diff violates BLP. This seems like something better handled via a disruption route rather than being specifically related to the Climate change probation. Prodego ^talk 18:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a slightly unusual case in that the target of JettaMann's comments is both a BLP subject and a Wikipedia contributor. As such, I think the no personal attacks and civility policies are clearly applicable here. The claim that WMC is a "Global Warming activist who got caught gaming Wikipedia" strikes me as both a personal attack and a highly incivil comment that displays a battleground mentality - none of which should be encouraged. I would suggest closing this with a firm warning that any further incivility will result in blocks. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

JettaMan was blocked for 10 days by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on December 10 for "disruptive tendentious editing and personal attacks on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident". After the block expired he made one edit, a less than civil comment aimed at User:William M. Connolley, on December 22, before making the edits in question. Guettarda (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with ChrisO; these are incivil and battleground-like edits, though not so problematic by themselves that they require immediate sanctions. A final warning should suffice in this case. (Disclaimer: I have participated in that same content dispute during the past few days, after learning about that article through my OTRS work, though I have made no other contributions to climate-related topics that I can recall.)  Sandstein  21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Jettamann seems to have a modest but blame-free record of editing on other matters, but severely problematic behavior on the subject of global warming. He was blocked for disruption last month and as soon as he comes back he's already engaging in some pretty serious attacks. I suggest a warning that he faces a topic ban if he acts disruptively again. We could use this otherwise productive editor on other parts of the encyclopedia where his feelings do not overrule his judgement. --TS 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've sent the following note to Jettamann by Wikipedia email:

I'm contacting you by mail because you haven't edited English Wikipedia since 17:34 GMT on January 4th and since then a Wikipedia editor has filed an enforcement request concerning your recent edits on the article William M. Connolley and its talk page. A notification was placed on your user talk page at 18:34 GMT on January 4th.

A provisional remedy has been posted by an admin with a suggestion that you should be given up to 48 hours to respond before the case will be closed. Discussion is ongoing. You could be topic banned from articles related to William M. Connolley.

Please see the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#JettaMann

--TS 12:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony and with the proposal below but there is a small issue of a total non-interaction ban with William as they are more or less bound to cross paths at some point. Could we please clarify whether, if both users happen to turn up to an article, both are permitted to comment on the article content? Guy (Help!) 15:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They can edit the same articles, but JettaMann should not comment on WMC. Comment on the content, not the editor. If JettaMann is wise, they will put a fence around this restriction and not go anywhere near WMC for a while. Testing boundaries usually ends badly. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding: I will take a dim view of any baiting or goading of JettaMann by WMC. When an editor is restricted, others have a moral obligation not to encourage violations. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I've had absolutely no interaction with this user for longer than I can remember (indeed I can't recall any; anyone care to trawl back far enough to find any such interaction?) I find this "warning" gratuitously offensive William M. Connolley (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not in any way involved in Climate Change articles. If Jehochman is going to comment here or in other science-related matters (eg WikiProject Mathematics, where he has posted a link to his Masters degree in Computer Science), it might be an idea in future if he made sure that he had some familiarity with the matter on which he is commenting. At the moment his comments give the rather worrying impression that they have been made at random without forethought. This is extremely unhelpful. If he cannot stop this and in addition appears to have his own personal issues with William M. Connolley, then it probably is not appropriate for him to involve himself on this page. More administrators are needed to make these new procedures work smoothly, but not those who cannot stop themselves making comments that are at the same time clueless and offensive. Please redact your comments, Jehochman. Mathsci (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree (less angrily) with WMC. We don't ask BLP victims not to have contact with their abusers in other circumstances. If WMC were to start needling this (almost certain never to return) account, there would be no need to warn him at all - just block WMC till he stops. I don't see anything in my (not WMC, who has had zero involvement with this user to date) request asking for anything about WMC the editor, rather William Connolley the Living Person who was defamed by wikipedia in violation of WP:BLP on an article under general sanction. This is not about editor interaction, it's about editing an article disruptively. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Hipocrite, we (FSVO we) do exactly that. For well over a year now I have been a victim of an intermittent campaign of harassment which has included nuisance phone calls, posting of private data on the internet, visiting my house and posting observations on the internet and so on. This has lost the abuser two ISP accounts, but the police response is to avoid the venues where he arrives to abuse me; in practice this means I am being asked to accede to his demand to stop using several sites and forums because he dislikes my opinions. I was there first, he arrived solely to harass me, but the advice from law enforcement is to walk away and emphatically not to respond to him. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you live in a backwater country still ruled by a girl. You raise a good point. Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see how either of the quotes provided above are bannable BLP violations. The first - "a Wikipedia arbitration committee found him guilty of violating a number of Wikipedia rules" seems true. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley found that he used admin tools while involved (Findings of Fact #14) and that he edit warred (Findings of fact #14-1 and #14-3 and Remedy #7). It is a violation of WP:V in that it isn't sourced, but it's hard to argue that adding a true statement to an article once merits a ban. The second is questioning the notability of the subject on a talk page. This is commonplace and, while it is a bit harsh and could be viewed as a personal attack, I don't see how it merits a ban either. Is there conduct other than these two diffs? I am also concerned that disallowing a user to interact with WMC is in effect a topic ban because WMC edits such a wide range of global warming pages. I think the appropriate thing is either a warning or a topic ban of limited duration. Oren0 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The non-interaction provision is clearly not going to be practical if they are allowed to edit GW pages. No one can edit GW pages without crossing paths with WMC and this provision allows one-sided sniping, regardless of whether there is a history of such sniping or not, which is obviously unfair. The sanctions should be symetric in this regards. --GoRight (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning JettaMann

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

Provisional result: JettaMann is indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to William Connolley, broadly construed, and interaction banned from User:William M. Connolley. I don't see evidence here sufficient to topic ban JettaMann from all Global Warming pages. The previous 10 day block was immediately followed by personal attacks and violations of WP:BLP, per the evidence cited above. Just because somebody edits Wikipedia their biography does not become a free fire zone. Please keep this thread open until JettaMann comments, or until a total of 48 hours have passed from the initial filing, and then log the sanction, notify the user, and close this thread. In this case indefinitely means until suitable explanations, retractions and assurances are provided to ensure that the objectionable conduct will not recur. Jehochman ^Brrr 03:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Support all provisions of this proposed result. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also support all of proposal. --BozMo talk 22:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

Closed as unactionable. Please do not use this page as a mere extension of content disputes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning William M. Connolley User requesting enforcement Marknutley (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [33] This diff shows a revert on a good faith edit based on WMC`s own pov, in talk he says there was no support for the additional text but only he disagreed with it. [34] This diff shows changes made by WMC making widespread changes to contested text which was added before page protection. It was agreed as part of the removal of page protection that no contested text would be, added, altered or removed without a consensus as seen in talk/page protection [[35] Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [36] Warning by marknutley (talk · contribs) Please note, this diff is not a warning, when i tried to ask WMC why he had made his changes he did not reply but just deleted my question, as he would not give a reason for his changes i figured it was pointless warning him either. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I request a month topic ban on the article in question [[37]] Additional comments by editor filing complaint William M Connolley seems to have a major problem with any hint of criticism being in any article which deals with climate change. His mentality is that of a gatekeeper and any dissent must be removed. It is precisely because of actions like his that climate related articles have become battle grounds and wikipedia a laughing stock. I have argued in talk only to have my arguments ignored and changes made against consensus. William M Connolley seems to think he wp:owns all climate related pages and refuses to allow even the most minor changes without his say so. Please excuse any mistakes i have made in this as i have not done it before. Thank you. --mark nutley (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Response to Kim: Kim says i am throwing accusations around, i do not believe i am. I have said WMC broke trust when he edited contested text which broke the agreement here [[38]] He also says he gave up as there was no interest in the edit/content i would like to point out the folowing [[39]] Discussion ends with no replys from you or wmc [[40]] discussion ends with WMC linking to another article and not addressing the actual discussion. [[41]]Discussion ends with me asking for it to actually be finished. Please do not say i have not been produtive i have acted in good faith and the reason the current friction is in talk is due to WMC make edits without consensus --mark nutley (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=335853610&oldid=335853275 Discussion concerning William M. Connolley Statement by William M. Connolley Has anyone actually bothered to look at the diffs MN supplied? [42] leads me to a page entitled "Gnucleus, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". I could perhaps guess which edit he means, but I think it would be better not to guess William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC) [Added post-close: sorry, I had to go off and blog (just you wait, folks...) and now tht the diff is corrected the report is closed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)] Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley Fixed by me. Diffs were broken when I found them. Hipocrite (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Since I don't want to break protocols, would it be prudent or not to add something I would consider to be in the same spirit as that in the complaint, by Connolley, here? I'm purposely not linking since I, really, don't want to do something that's out of place. Troed (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I believe that if you have information that you consider material, and relevant to the general thrust of this report, you should add it (here in the other editors section). These should not become omnibuses, but more viewpoints and more evidence are highly likely to be helpful IF the additions are germane. That's my view. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you, and if you or anyone else feel I'm in the wrong here please remove it again. As can be seen in another case above there was a paragraph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident that was deleted and reverted a few times today. One of the almost-deletions not listed there, but equally against talk page consensus, was by Connolley. I reverted it since there was no support for such an action and Connolley had not engaged in a discussion to that effect before deleting a material part of the paragraph. He did add a comment to the talk page three minutes after the deletion, even though he referenced the talk page when doing it. As mentioned above, the contested paragraph currently rests happily at consensus having been achieved over many days by several editors. Troed (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC) One side note: 3 minutes after isn't the end of the world. It can take that long to formulate what you want to say on talk... if it was 60 minutes after, that would be concerning, but I've changed things with a "see talk" and then went and added what I wanted to say about the change on the talk, after... ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I've de-bolded "after", it's indeed the almost-deletion of a well discussed paragraph without previous support more than the actual timing I was after. Troed (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Discussion at the talkpage is basically productive; the edit in question underwent some discussion prior to being enacted, and has since been upheld. The last few talkpage threads and an open RfC deal with issues around the section in question. I have been monitoring this article, and do not see a need for any enforcement action at this time, though all editors should be aware that the threshold for edit warring is extremely low. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Some rather sharp elbows there, though... ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC) "Sharp elbows" seem to be acceptable from one side of this content dispute. UnitAnode 20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC) That is certainly a valid point, and it has not really gotten better in the last few hours. Especially in light of KDP's point below, I would not object to warnings all around, formal or informal, to stick to the sources themselves and how they should be weighted by reliability. My advice - once two editors have gone back and forth a couple times and their rationations on a matter are clear, let it drop for a day or two to see what anyone else has to say or what other thoughts may occur to you. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I disagree that it has been productive. I almost completely gave up even commenting or editing there, i had to go take a break (which is something i rarely do), since there appeared to be no interest in the actual edit/content - but instead was a large yelling quoir of wikilawyering and general refusion of even considering the problems, this digressed into GoRight making an edit that he claimed WMC supported, which he didn't. If you look at the talk page now, Mark is more interested in throwing around accusations than in addressing content issues. I had no idea where to take this issue, since i'd rather that people calm down than be the cause (or subject) of sanctions ... I considered notifying 2/0, but in the interest of keeping him outside of content issues/involvement that wasn't the solution either. Sorry for the rant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Am i allowed to reply to accusations made against me in this section? --mark nutley (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC) If KDP is allowed to make them, I'd say that you're probably allowed to respond. UnitAnode 20:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Nod. Here or in the "additional comments by editor making the report" section, above, I think (maybe this could be thrashed around on the talk page?). If the latter, maybe precis what you're responding to? ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I'd rather remove it/retract my comment, if this is going to be a rehash of the article talk page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Kim it`s fine i have responded in additional comments, i have no issue with you having your say :) --mark nutley (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC) ZuluPapa5* Statement The WMC editor's contributions and talk expressed on that page is typical ... many negative (no and not) comments with little offered for a productive NPOV path, then some attempt to change the rules. Marknutley appears to be content stymied by a group of editors owning a POV, and then seeks this request for help. The editor to be sanctioned has been cautioned about this aggressive behavior which essentially is: Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions. Reluctance to incorporate new sourced perspectives in an article. Reluctance to work towards compromise. Where will it end so Wikipedia may proceed to a NPOV without the disruptive editor? With the sanction, Wikipedia will see a NPOV once again. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC) The diff (both links are the same edit) looks like an example of WP:BRD, which is one of our oldest guidelines. The requester oddly omitted to mention that the edits reverted were his, and the warning was also from him. Interestingly, Marknutley also seems on the face of it to have edit-warred over insertion of the same text. So: Marknutley made some edits which WMC disputed and reverted per BRD, Marknutley "warned" WMC about reverting his edits, and now Marknutley wants us all to pile-on to WMC to back him up. I find myself strangely reluctant to accede. The function of this board is not to recruit support for your preferred content. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry JzG, i had assumed that the diffs would show it was i who made the edits which were reverted, i believe i showed the warning was from me but also user goright asked why WMC had made those edits. I do not expect anyone to pile on WMC, that is not my intention. I believe WMC is being deliberately confrontational in his edits and is not seeking consensus as was agreed before page protection was lifted --mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC) No, there is only one diff and the discussion on the talk page is extensive. You are asking for enforcement action against WMC when he has made an edit with a sound basis in policy as discussed on the talk page. This makes you look bad. Your best bet is to go away and edit articles on a completely different subject for at least 48 hours. There is plenty of time before the WP:DEADLINE and I think you need to stop taking this so personally. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I'll come at this from a different angle. One diff isn't going to do it. If you (whoever) want to make a case about one of the long standing, well regarded contributors in this area (from either side of the fence), and you want more than a "don't do that" as a result, you are going to need a lot more examples, and they need to be pretty meticulously organized and explained. Sorry, but that's just how it is (my perception). ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Comment by Sandstein I have problems understanding this request, which does not look actionable to me. The first diff, [43], makes no sense at all to me (a diff between 2006 and 2009 between two completely different topics?) The second diff, [44], is a single revert whose merits I can't evaluate, except that it fixes some misspellings and adds an interwiki among others, so it's a net benefit to the extent that I can understand it. The explanation also does not help me understand what the problem is supposed to be. This board is not for resolving content disputes through sanctions, but multiple meritless requests such as this may result in sanctions themselves. (Disclaimer: I've edited the article William Connolley, but no other climate-related pages that I can recall.)  Sandstein  22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Pretty sure the first diff is a typo. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that I should look at the version on the right side, and then go back one edit to see the actual diff... maybe a digit was omitted from one of the version numbers or something? ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Ya, that HAS to be a typo: from the first diff ...action=historysubmit&diff=335841586&oldid=33581158... one is one digit shorter than the other but all the leading digits the same. ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Diffs are fixed, i do not know how that happened sorry. mark nutley (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Result concerning William M. Connolley This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Closed, unactionable per JzG and Sandstein's observations. Please don't use this page as a mere extension of content disputes. Jehochman Brrr 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight

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

Request concerning GoRight

User requesting enforcement

TS 16:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [45] Disingenuous wrangling over the meaning of a common acronym (trolling).
2. [46] Participates in an edit war on Rajendra K. Pachauri
3. [47] [48] Accuses ChrisO of stalking and harrassment.

In aggregate and over such a short timespan these are evidence that GoRight aims to flout the conditions under which he was recently unblocked, and to continue with his war-like approach to Wikipedia.

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

1. [49] Warning by ChrisO (talk · contribs)
2. [50] Warning by Jake Wartenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [51] (transcribed to user talk page by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)): "that further edits of a battleground-like nature will result in sanctions."
3. [52] Warned by Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) "warned not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests, or else they may be blocked without further warnings"
4. [53] Warned by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs): "Please as a matter of urgency act to dampen down the hostility and alarm that has been caused by your behavior over the past hour or so. If you do not, I will have to submit a request for enforcement on the Climate change probation page." Response is here. Edit summary: "Why? I've met the terms of my agreement and the expectations made of wikipedia editors."

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

Anytthing that might stop GoRight rampaging like this.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here at 16:16, 7 January 2010

Discussion concerning GoRight

Statement by GoRight

Well, this appears to be the next logical step in WP:HARASSing me. I have responded to Tony's accusations on my talk page, so I see no need to repeat myself here. As far as I know none of my actions since being unblocked have violated the terms of (a) my promises for being unblocked, or (b) the terms of the conditions of the probationary sanctions. If they have in some way, it was purely inadvertent on my part. I suspect that there is little that I can say to affect the course of the discussion which will now ensue here so I shall take my leave. If further input from me is required please contact me on my talk page. --GoRight (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning GoRight

This report is frivolous. To address each point:

• "disingenuous wrangling" - what? WMC was haranguing an editor over nothing, as he often does, and GoRight is to be blamed for commenting in defense of that editor? Come on!
• "Edit warring" on Rajendra K. Pachauri - he made ONE edit, in response to a WMC revert of Nutley's revert. WMC has twice reverted that edit in the last 24 hours, with little effort to build consensus. Why is GoRight being singled out for doing less?
• accusing ChrisO of stalking - ChrisO was a visible presence on GoRight's talk during his recent block. It's not unreasonable to ask him to cease.

If GoRight's previous requests on this page were considered frivolous, this certainly fits the bill, and I would hope that admins would treat this report no differently. ATren (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, Lar's and Viridae's conflict with GoRight has apparently been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, why is it being raised again here? ATren (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My response to GoRight's unfounded accusation is here. This has nothing whatsoever to do with GoRight. I had been looking at User:Marknutley's contributions in relation to his ongoing discussion at Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri, saw his edits to User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect, read that page (currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect, nominated it for speedy deletion as an attack page - for which it was deleted by Denk (talk · contribs) - and found GoRight going apeshit on my talk page. I'd not had any prior contact or discussion with GoRight about Marknutley's page and wasn't even aware that he was involved with it until I checked the history after I'd nominated it for speedy deletion. This is a gross overreaction by GoRight and I agree with Tony that, along with the other behaviour that he notes, it casts serious doubt on the sincerity of GoRight's promise to reform. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning GoRight

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