Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive2

William M. Connolley

 * 1) 5 by

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 : TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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

Connolley edit wars with a global warming skeptic on the article about that same climate skeptic - he ends up banning him.
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1)  Connolley refers to skeptics as "septics," while I was initially suspicious about this given his past behavior I assumed good faith and said nothing about this apparent typo. However, he later linked his own blog from his talk page where he brags about denigrating skeptics in this manner saying that it describes their manner of debate quite well - implying, since "septic" has to do with sewage, that they are essentially shit.
 * 2)  Connolley controversially and against consensus removes a section that has been in the article for quite some time. He describes it as "boring" and not "sexy" enough in the edit summary. Note, he removes this and adds in the glacier criticism after I point out that his and KDP's refusal to allow the glacier criticism into the article is inconsistent - they were saying it can't go in since it refers to a specific report, but the article already contained at least two criticisms that were report specific.
 * 3)  This is his first reversion - re-deleting a section that has been in the article since February of 2005 in what honestly comes off as some sort of "revenge" edit for having to concede the inclusion of the glacier information.
 * 4)  Connolley breaks the 1rr rule for the IPCC article, while a skeptic would've been immediately banned for such an infraction, Connolley's edit stands for 3 hours without any admin action. Only when a skeptic asks him to self-revert does he do it.
 * 5)  Connolley essentially tells another poster that he is foolish - again, by linking to his blog where he explains that "no light can help the foolish see better."
 * 6)  Connolley's "spoon feeding for the hard of understanding" where he explains that when reliable sources are "wrong" we shouldn't include them. The problem (besides civility) is that "wrong" is a judgement call - wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth (Verifiability), and despite being a wikipedia editor for many years, he is arguing against core wikipedia policy. In fact, when Connolley was explaining how the newspapers were wrong and he was right, he claimed the IPCC had not broken its policies, but Connolley "proved" they had not by pointing to small section of their rules and said the rule wasn't there. He used this same argument when he first shot down the glacier segment(this diff is only a small part of the argument to confirm what I've said). Unfortunately for him, wikipedia policy was proven to be the correct way to go, the newspapers were proven correct, and Connolley was proven incorrect when the IPCC itself admitted they didn't follow their rules properly.
 * 7)  Connolley putting in a picture of a prominent climate skeptic. WMC says on his blog that, "The problem, of course, is that the picture makes Lord M look like a bit of a wacko." But that apparently doesn't stop him and his friends from attempting to insert it.

Connolly edits a climate skeptic's article to make it look like he believes in martians - an obvious attempt to discredit. When someone attempts to insert that he denied believing this, that it was mere speculation, Connolley's friend removes the reference and that edit also shows the current version, which doesn't even quote Singer, but does an even better job of making him out to be some crazy dude.
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):


 * 1)  Warning by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : = Indefinite topic ban.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Connolley had a six month topic parole on this very subject and is well aware of wikipedia policy. He continually ignores wikipedia policy when it disagrees with his viewpoint, is constantly uncivil, has a habit of BLP violations against skeptics and most importantly he has had free license to do this.

He has been doing this for years and encouraging the same behavior both through his actions and through demonstrating that the rules don't apply to him. He thinks those that disagree with his worldview are sewage - anyone with a bias like that is incapable of editing this group of articles in compliance with wikipedia policy, and, even more importantly, in the spirit of wikipedia.

If any more evidence is required then feel free to do a wikipedia or google search of his username - or just start here.

Oh, and the reason I included some older diffs towards the end was to demonstrate that this problem is systemic, long-term and incurable. In fact, I honestly think it'd be good for his mental health to quit editing these articles and I really mean that without malice.

Cheers, TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum I: Oren recently posted to the original research noticeboard about Connolley's behavior in these articles and this seems highly pertinent to this discussion.

Addendum II: A longstanding page that contains BLP violations against 6-7 climate skeptics. Connolley's denigrating epithet (septics) has a long and consistent use.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by William M. Connolley

 * Your reasons are spurious at best (User:Marknutley)
 * For the same reason that the Hitler article mentions that he was a dictator and that he was mentally erratic (possibly due to syphillus) - it is the truth, it is verifiable (User:Thegoodlocust)

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley
Please could you explain specifically how you think any of the above diffs violation probation? --BozMo talk 06:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit warring, incivility, BLP violations, tendentious editing - the diffs explain it pretty well don't they? Do you think I should take this to another forum considering the other problems involved? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If the diffs had explained it "pretty well" I would not have asked for further explanation. So, lets try to assume good faith with your list and start at the beginning. Where exactly are you claiming "edit warring", and with which diffs? I have been through the above list twice now and I am struggling to see what accusation, with support, you are making. --BozMo talk 10:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Assume good faith? Why are you saying I'm not? I believe policy states that telling people to assume good faith can be a sign of not showing it oneself. Anyway, look at diffs 2 and 3 - he is removing a section that's been in the article for 5 years, and he did it twice and without consensus. I understand that the pattern is usually "tag team action" so 3rr isn't broken, but no matter how obvious such a pattern is it will always be disputed. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. WMC says he uses "septic" because he doesn't like the fact that the term 'denialist' lumps them with Holocaust deniers. It's not like you can really expect people to use the misleading branding "skeptic". And it's more than a little misleading to use an arbcomm decision that was later voided by the arbcomm. Guettarda (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He complains because it won't "catch on" due to that. Refering to someone as "shit" rather than genocidal is hardly an improvement - and doing it on wikipedia, while bragging about it on his talk page is hardly good behavior. Oh, and if nobody minds, can any facebook friends please identify themselves as such when defending him in the future? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not use Facebook and have no intention to do so in the foreseeable future, if ever. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Likewise, if you disagree with WMC, you should also disclose that. Or, better yet, utterly ignore such a stupid request as "facebook friends please identify themselves".  Ravensfire ( talk ) 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My disagreement with him is both obvious and irrelevant. But when his facebook friends show up to defend him out of the blue or edit war with him on his behalf then I think that is relevant and should be disclosed. In this case, the second person who showed up to defend him is such a "facebook friend" (and I've noticed a pattern where they will occasionally show up to defend each other). TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding WMC's revert parole that you cite, you of course considered this, did you not? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So one of his friends makes an appeal for leniency and arbcom makes a mistake? What of it? He's been shown so much leniency that AGW advocates now accept that the rules don't apply to them. This has to stop. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From Heyitspeter: Even WMC's comments on this page have been very uncivil (e.g., a few highlights, NimbusWeb an "over-enthusiastic noob"..."What are you on, old fruit?"..."@MN:noob"..."If you don't want to be condescended to, I suggest you stop making quite so many mistakes.") I think it would help if he stepped away from the GW articles. The tenor of the discussion surrounding them has suffered as a result of his additions/subtractions. --Heyitspeter (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, isn't this comment by WMC (second of two at this diff), from the same page, a WP:BLP violation? I'm not clear on that, but other warnings I've seen around (e.g.) would suggest it is.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit: WMC is still making problem edits. e.g., "This entire section is stupid, <- including WP:V violation, and <- uncivil--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you editing a closed section? and no, that edit isn't the problem - the problem is the revert, which re-adds a very very stupid section William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

From EngineerFromVega: WMC has been acting as an owner of page IPCC and straight away dismissed my proposal for a change as 'silly games'. If I were him, I'd have taken a comment on a talk page with good faith.EngineerFromVega (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From MalcolmMcDonald: even as people discuss WMCs editing he has just removed 2 more of the key-words ("McIntyre" and "Balling") that readers need to navigate the GW topic and inform themselves. As the number of skeptics peaks post-Copenhagen and Climategate, the sacrosanct section on them (quaintly named "Debate and Skepticism") has lost more than half the names that were there yesterday. We know that "search" is the way to find things, William told us so: Good grief, how much spoon-feeding do you need? - surely it can't be right to remove the means to do so. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From Scjessey: While it is clear that WMC may have been a bit short on civility a few times (and this was noted and acknowledged in another thread), it is also clear that this is nothing more than gaming and harassment in an attempt to seek the upper hand in content disputes within this topic. It is important that any administrator reviewing this discussion examines the diffs, and not accept the spin that accompanies them. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From ATren: If I recall correctly, this is the third or fourth complaint filed against WMC on this page, all from different editors. This one in particular is both detailed and rationally presented, yet the "WMC is being harassed" meme still persists. How many well-presented and evidence-filled reports do there need to be before people stop blaming the complainant? Here we have evidence of WMC labeling people "septic", clearly a personal attack when one reads his blog entry specifically dealing with that smear. Then we have multiple cases where he's called editors foolish or a waste of time (see also ZuluPapa's evidence on talk, which WMC himself removed (!!)), the 1RR violation listed above, editing against consensus, and removal of talk page comments. And this is all from the probationary period -- I can dig up dozens of diffs from before the probation which demonstrate the same behavior. Now, earlier on this page, JPat was article banned for an entire month for making two reverts. That was overturned on appeal (though only after extensive explanation and apology by JPat) but it demonstrates the double standard of enforcement of this probation when editors like WMC get away with much worse for much longer. It's time for admins to take a close look at the evidence above, the disruption it causes, and take action once and for all against WMC. I suggest a lengthy topic ban, several months at the very least. If no action is taken here, then this entire "probation" is meaningless and should be dissolved. ATren (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @ATren, In all honesty the problem is that the complaints, as this one I am afraid, are incoherent, and not rationally presented. People are vaguely unhappy but no one seems capable of putting their finger on anything concrete which is specifically forbidden. What is the headline problem here? Perhaps there is some kind of general conduct complaint which is valid as an aggregation of these complaints none of which is good enough to stand on its own? Otherwise how is saying "septic" instead of "sceptic" or "skeptic" forbidden exactly? I objected to that ages back but couldn't really find a good policy reason to insist on it. AFAIK WMC is allowed to imply that an edit is foolish or that someone is being foolish because that is about the behaviour/action not about the person. He does not appear to make a personal attack. None of the edits quite look like an edit war. And glaring or facing off is apparently not a crime... --BozMo talk 15:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The current request was made because, in the editor's words, WMC "is constantly uncivil, has a habit of BLP violations against skeptics and most importantly he has had free license to do this." Remember the terms of the probation: "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." Civility is extremely important for increasing productivity and the likelihood of consensus, as opposed to the current battleground mentality we've seen on the articles in question.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @BozMo: You should consider the fact that not all editors complaining here have a one-to-one link to discuss and post. All complains are indeed coming from different editors and there is a genuine possibility of them being incoherent. Arguing on this basis is somewhat analogues to hiding oneself from the broader truth. EngineerFromVega (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @EFV I was not, I am afraid, talking about incoherence between complaints but that no editor had yet come up with a coherent complaint. This complaint will almost certainly get struck off because it fails to state a problem and demonstrate it. It is too much to expect busy admins to go fishing through all the edits of an individual to see if there is a transgression. Someone needs to pinpoint a problem, explain it and demonstrate it. --BozMo talk 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @BozMo: TheGoodLocust has already given detailed description of complaints in the first post. All other editors are presenting supporting arguments, which are bound to be a collection of isolated complaints. If you can kindly point out actual problems with the original post, others will be happy to discuss them. EngineerFromVega (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @EFV AFAICT he has given a list of diffs with his interpretation of them but not even attempted to give "an explanation how these edits violate" probation which we put in bold letters at the top of this page. He needs to pick a violating behaviour (e.g. editwarring, the first on his list) and then produce his evidence of edit warring. If he is not sure how to present this kind of argument he needs to go and find someone to help him. At present this is not a valid request for enforcement. --BozMo talk 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BozMo, for JPat's article ban, there were two diffs presented and little more, and you recommended strong action. Here, TheGoodLocust provides a whole list of diffs, along with discussion as to their relevance to this probation, and you're left wanting for more. OK, here it is specifically: personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith present in most of those diffs. In particular, calling opposing editors "septic" which is basically akin to calling them a piece of shit. The other diffs provide more examples. What more do you need? ATren (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If WMC was calling editors "septic," that would be problematic. However, in the list of diffs presented, I'm hard pressed to find that because the diffs are not clearly presented. If you would like to file a clear request, that would probably be helpful. I would note that I was strongly admonished for my reports earlier lacking substantial evidence by the same admin who restricted Mr. Patterson, so I assume he did more research than just clicking on my two diffs. Of course, since Mr. Patterson, at that time, had edited only two articles (and one of them he had not edited for over three(?) years) it was reasonably easy to follow all of his edits. I assume that the fact that WMC edits lots of articles makes it far more imperitive to file clear reports. Plese do so. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @ATren: He presented a list of complaints, but they were incoherent and more than a little dishonest. His evidence included a sanction from several years ago, that was voided. His evidence included evidence of WMC's decision to not use the (eminently acceptable) term "denialist" (and note, he's not using this for editors) because he thought it was unfair to tar them with associations to Holocaust denial. And so on. How can you defend that sort of nonsense? Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "he is last years (or the year before that's) stale pie. It was never notable, but pushed in by the septics at the time." - (emphasis mine) - this was TGL's first diff. Are you defending WMC calling editors who oppose him "septic", which is another way of saying they're shit? ATren (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. Someone should probably tell him that's incivil, and to stop being incivil. Perhaps even put him on a civility parole for a limited period of time. It's a shame this shotgun complaint was focused on all kinds of things and proposed an irrelevent topic ban. Throwabunchofshitseewhatsticks is not appropriate. Redraft the complaint if you'd like.Hipocrite (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Incivility is a violation of the probation. ATren (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Nonsequitor. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And if the beholder is you, Hipocrite, "WMC could be more civil." (see below). So why is this not a violation of the civility clause of this probation? ATren (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Uh, it is? We don't topic ban people for one shot of incivility. We tell them to stop being incivil. I'd happily tell WMC this if doing so wouldn't be adding support to the other bullshit in this shotgun complaint. I might even have done it if the complainer had any level of capital with me that I'd be willing to assume my reminder about civility wouldn't be used as ammo to further diminish the scientific accuracy of an encyclopedia. However, since the proposer, and every single one of the people arguing here (except, ironically, me), has merely lined up on their sides, I don't quite feel like giving an inch to be taken for a mile, yet again. Hipocrite (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC) From TenOfAllTrades. I'd be a snappish too, if there were such a concerted, ongoing effort to harrass me and smear my name on- and off-project. Forum-shopping and abuse of Wikipedia dispute resolution boards is just not on. I count three threads just on this page aimed at sanctioning WMC, two of which have aleady been closed as unactionable. There's another pair of threads on the talk page (action, deemed unactionable and/or misplaced), with a third section removed in its entirety as being a platform for a personal attack on WMC. There have been a couple of misguided attempts to use WP:COIN (Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 39) which were again unactionable bordering on vexatious. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From Hipocrite WMC could be more civil. Of course, all of the SPA's who have been following him around could stop following him around. Hipocrite (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd strongly recommend that anyone concerned over the ownership issues, incivility, and other problems displayed by WMC and others at the GW-related pages simply disengage. Let it become the echo chamber that many seem to wish it were. Let the embarrassment that it causes the project build, until it reaches the breaking point. Nothing is going to be done here. No one has the stomach to sanction WMC for his behavior. And he's adept enough at what he does, to be able to walk a fine line, in which he maintains a somewhat plausible deniability with regards to the practical effect of his actions. Reporting his behavior here is an utter waste of time. Unit  Anode  16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From Mark Nutley Interesting defence from WMC there. Get people to look else were by posting diffs to anyone but himself. I fail to see how what i wrote has any bearing on this case? --mark nutley (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The evidence that GoodLocust, I and other editors have worked up is more than adequate to demonstrate a clear COI, abusive POV editing, a long pattern of incivility, a BLP violating approach to smearing article subjects, wikilawyering over content, and abuse of editing privileges to keep attack pages in user space in an effort to harass and intimidate good faith contributors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, please, present it and show us what you only claim you can show (so far).--BozMo talk 18:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Numerous diffs have already been supplied. Which examples of William's COI, improper refactoring, wikilawyering over content, abusive POV pushing, incivility, and abuse of userspace for attack pages aren't you seeing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From ChrisO: I have to say that I, like BozMo, really don't see the gist of this complaint. It comes across as a grab-bag of disputable diffs and some frankly weird assertions (clue for ATren, "septic" does not mean "shit" - get a better dictionary). I've already said that I think WMC could stand to be less adversarial. On the other hand, this complaint looks like a pile-on by editors with a common POV who are seeking to relitigate issues endlessly in an attempt to get WMC topic-banned. It looks to me like a harassment campaign, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry chris but your wrong there :)
 * Pronunciation: \ˈsep-tik\
 * Function: adjective
 * Etymology: Latin septicus, from Greek sēptikos, from sēpein to putrefy
 * Date: 1605
 * 1 : of, relating to, or causing putrefaction
 * 2 : relating to, involving, caused by, or affected with sepsis
 * 3 : used for sewage treatment and disposal ; also : of or relating to a septic system


 * As the diffs presented occured in the last few days Chris, your argument that your fellow editors are trying to relitigate is demonstrably false. Also, you need to stop making improper insinuations about those who are working in good faith to address William's disruptive behaviors. His incivility, refactoring, attack pages in user space, wikilawyering over content, abusive POV pushing, and COI are all evident in these recent diffs from the last several days that have been presented by several editors, and the problem needs to be addressed. Should editors be allowed to carry out personal feuds with their personal and professional adversaries? Should editors be allowed to use Wikipedia to promote their personal POV? Is the continuation of William's long history of personal attacks, including the numerous examples from the last few days, something that should be allowed to continue? Should we allow editors to keep attack pages in their user space where they go after editors they disagree with? Let's stay focused on the core issues here and avoid disrupting discussion with irrelevant insinuations ascribing motives to those trying to deal with this problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Should editors be allowed to use Wikipedia to promote their personal POV?" I dunno, what do you think? Hipocrite (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @ChrisO: Once again, the "WMC is being harassed" meme. Where are the diffs of this supposed harassment from TheGoodLocust? Why aren't they being presented here? ATren (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, if you insist - "Honestly, the best thing to do in reponse is to play dirty. They break wikipedia rules all the time and know how to game the system with socks, email lists, and wiki-lawyering. A coordinated attempt to correct the bias on wikipedia is the only way to counter them – they’ve been doing it for years." - TheGoodLocust thegoo t.
 * "For example, the blog “real climate” is constantly used by Connolley et all as a “reliable source” to alter articles. And so we have an interesting situation where a (co)author of a blog can quote himself (or people with whom he has input) in order to make his own case on wikipedia. Hell, he can just make up or order any source he needs if he wants to – it is ridiculous." - TheGoodLocust
 * "Correct, he finally got booted off his own article and now relegates cleaning duty to two of his biggest lackeys – Stephan Schulz and Kim Dabelstein Petersen. Sorry, but having your friends on facebook constantly editting your article is just as bad but more subtle." - TheGoodLocust
 * "Let's test that out Connolley, we can topic ban SPAs for a few months and then see if that calms things down a bit. Besides, I think you'd welcome the break. " - TheGoodLocust
 * But hey, you know, orchestrating an off-wiki harassment campaign isn't haras... wait, yes it is! Hipocrite (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * Okay, I think that counts as wikistalking since I never posted any links to my comments at WUWT, but I encourage anyone to actually look at those links to get the full context on some of them. The situation is obviously frustrating and I thought I could vent at a "safe place" without being harassed for it. However, the one diff you provide for me to wikipedia, the last thing you mention, is blatant misrepresentation which is shown by this diff. However, if you don't mind bringing up links from off-wiki websites I noticed one a few days ago that accused you of being a sock account of another person on this page (also defending Connolley) - mind if we checkuser you to make sure? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Were in the above does TGL actually encourage people to harass WMC? What you have posted is not harassment it is someone speaking in a manner born of frustration mark nutley (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Where he says "A coordinated attempt to correct the bias on wikipedia is the only way to counter them," you know, because off-wiki coordination is A+! Hipocrite (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so we're bringing off-wiki evidence into this? OK, then, I'll start digging for WMC's off-wiki incivility too. Here's a start:
 * "the wacko POV-pushers lost... I've been busy with the wacko's on wiki, as you'll see if you visit Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident."
 * I'm busy right now, but I'll try to find more tonight. ATren (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that it's ok if the other guy does it? That's an interesting take, I guess. You asked for examples of harassment from TGL. I gave you them, in off (and on) wiki spades. You responded not with a "thanks," but rather with a "Oh yeah? Well, well, well, here's some minor incivility not directed at any individual off wiki by WMC." Do you understand why I think you're fully engaged us vs. them at this point? Have you commented negatively about TGL's offwiki harassment campaign, or onwiki incivility? Have I commented negatively about WMC? And with that, I take my leave. Hipocrite (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, TGL's evidence is all on-wiki. You brought in off-wiki evidence, to which I responded with similar off-wiki evidence from WMC, but this doesn't change the fact that TGL's evidence is right there for all of us to examine. WMC calls editors "septic", he calls them a waste of time, he removes talk page comments, he edits aggressively and condescendingly on both articles and talk. It's all there, regardless of who reported it. Would you prefer if I took the same diffs and start a new report? Would that disarm the "harassment" charge? ATren (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My "offwiki harrassment campaign?" You posted comments I made to articles about Connolley's abuse. I comment all the time at WUWT and he has been the subject of a few articles. Hell, he's been in all sorts of publications as examples of wikipedia's problems. For crying out loud how could I have harrassed him when he wasn't anywhere near the conversation? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The "topic parole" is a phrase I've never seen before. What is more relevant (but a full click away) is that the revert parole was revoked as an unnecessary move. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's interesting that you never heard of it Schulz since you are the one that appealed for it to be removed from Connolley. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After reading that Arb thing, again, i'm joining Stephan in never having heard of " topic parole". Could it be that you are misreading something? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh that is my mistake, I thought "topic parole" was an adequate enough description, but if you insist, not that it really matters, I guess we can call it "revert parole on global warming-related articles," but I don't think that really flows off the tongue as well. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So now that we agree on the name, can you explain why you harp on a revoked parole? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From Verbal: A stop should be put to this pathetic and continued (unorchestrated but pernicious) campaign of harassment against WMC, by block and sanctions against those responsible. Enough is enough, and those behind this are not only damaging the encyclopaedia by harassing a valuable editor, they are attempting to subvert a whole area of the project to suit a fringe POV. Verbal chat  21:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you feel it is appropriate to refer to other editors as "septic", as in "of, relating to, or causing putrefaction"? ATren (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From ChrisO (second comment): I recommend that this be closed. Nothing actionable has been posted, WMC has already been advised to take a non-adversarial approach, and the other editors have already been advised not to harass WMC. Nothing new has come up and this discussion is clearly going to produce nothing more than further bickering. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Advise" him all you want. WMC is who he is, and acts how he acts. He's not going to change, and he's not going to magically start treating those who disagree with his POV with respect. He doesn't need to be "advised", he needs to be "warned" that if he continues to engage in his own brand of disrespect and incivility, he'll simply be blocked. That's, perhaps, a message he would understand.  Unit  Anode  21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I had privately emailed Dr. Connolley last night asking him to slow down. His recent bitey and uncivil behavior has impacted the efforts to lower the temperature of discussion quite severely. He agreed to slow down somewhat. I recommend no further action as long as he keeps his word. --TS 21:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very disappointed that TS should have chosen to give a rather partial account of a private email conversation. I shall not be trusting TS to keep private conversations private in future. You may take it that whatever promises TS may have chosen to make on my behalf are entirely void William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, then, there's no promise. There needs to be an enforcement provision. ATren (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I say below: you should ignore TS's rather regrettable text entirely William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that's far less than is warranted for his history of abuse; but, if it must be that, then let's formalize it: the next time WMC uses condescending terms, removes talk page comments, bites new users, edits divisively, or engages in any other uncivil behavior, he is topic-banned for 6 months. Given his long history of aggression on these articles, that's a slap on the hand, but it gives him one more chance to reform his behavior. ATren (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that would be utterly ridiculous. Quite OTT. --TS 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not at all ridiculous. It's putting some teeth into the agreement, that's all, as is done all the time when editors don't abide by the rules. If he keeps to his word, it's an irrelevant provision, so where's the harm? ATren (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerns have been raised, he's promised to address them. If he doesn't then we discuss whether we need teeth. --TS 22:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is this comment from WMC as regards his promise to address these issues? Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please ignore TS's text, which is only muddying the waters William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Last chance, or not, action or not, the wiki has become well aware of this issue and whatever happens here , it is over, the wiki has had enough,multiple articles locked by edit warring and clear repeated incivility, that is the reason for this probation pages existence and if individual editors and groups of editors believe they can continue with the line walking on policy and civility that they have been doing for a long time they are living in the past, people are not blind and they can see exactly what is going on. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @ATren, Could you accurately raise what the issue is first? If the issue is "uses condescending terms, removes talk page comments, bites new users, edits divisively, or engages in any other uncivil behavior" then first complain clearly that this is the issue and justify that it is true. Then we can discuss which parts of it are against the rules. Then we can enforce it. For example the state of the talk pages (full of stuff irrelevant to the article) means removing talk page comments is not absolutely prohibited. Condescension is hard to define. Biting is clear, has he done this? etc. You might well succeed but at present what some people feel is recognised and other feel is simply asserted. --BozMo talk 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BozMo, let's start with TGL's first piece of evidence: is calling someone "septic" considered civil? ATren (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling somone a septic is uncivil. Since I haven't done it, I'm not sure what your point is. Calling someone a member of a pro-GW cabal is... well, what is it, in your opinion? Incivil, perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, discounting the diff I already provided, and the blog you provided from your talk page, anyone can do a wikipedia search of your use of the term septic and judge your actions from the results. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh look, you even created a section devoted to "septics" for the articles you edit. NPOV? There were quite a few results in that search - and they weren't flattering of your attitude. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, now that I think about it, that link shows you committing BLP violations against 6-7 individuals. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * With WMC's latest mini-speech, can we please finally deal with WMC's incivility. He's made it clear that either (A) he refused to agree to stop being uncivil, and what TS reported is untrue; or (B) he did agree to that, but he's so angry about TS revealing that he agreed to it, that he's taking back that pledge. Either way, it seems we can expect more of the same from him on this particular set of articles. Unit  Anode  22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be civil? What is this "mini-speech" nonsense. You haven't got a clue what I said to TS. You should ignore entirely his partial account of the conversation and make no deductions whatsoever from what he said: this has been a very regrettable lapse of manners by TS that has done nothing but muddy the waters William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What tony was doing was trying to help you, you should apologise for what you wrote not compound it with further rudeness --mark nutley (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that TS would even dare to mention this to Connoelly considering they share the same ideological perspective - kudos on that TS. His response to this revelation, as with the "revenge edit" I posted on my evidence, indicates a pattern of lashing out against perceived slights in unproductive ways. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, WMC, it's already out there. Requesting it be "ignored" now is a bit of locking the barn door after the horse already ran away. Either you made some sort of pledge, and you're upset that TS told us, or you didn't make the pledge, and TS is being untruthful. Unit  Anode  22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, to be fair, Connolley could've given TS the mistaken impression that he was going to cool off - a breakdown of communication could've conceivably occurred at either end. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From Alex Harvey: I already expressed my view that climate change probation is completely illegitimate, and nothing has changed my mind so far, so I can't really now say that I wish to see William Connolley sanctioned by it. Rather, it is my hope that there are at least a few honest, decent admins left in the community who are quietly finding this hypocrisy of banning GoRight whilst doing nothing about the POV abuses of the warmists hard to watch. To these people, I suggest you go up and read again what UnitAnode just said. This situation will, inevitably, take care of itself. The general public will not tolerate the abuse of Wikipedia forever, and that's a fact. Sadly, one possible outcome may be that Wikipedia itself will end up shut down, but more likely it'll just be forced to either reform itself, or it will be bought and end up commercial. I believe, this can all be sped up by appealing directly to the public, not to any Wikipedia forum. William Connolley just has too many friends here, and this cannot work. The general public, on the other hand, would be certainly on the side of having Wikipedia made into a neutral source of information. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
There's only good solution here. Give the tools back to WMC and bar all the harassers per Verbal. We've already lost Kenosis, we cannot let the climate change articles fall to the "skeptics". --- 32.173.35.150 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Give tools back to a guy who edit warred with people and then banned them? Including in climate change articles? Who are you exactly and were you being sarcastic?TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WMC notified us off-wiki that he was in trouble. Our forums have been watching and we are going to stop people like you from bothering him.  Kenosis is already gone, we cannot lose another.  -- 32.173.243.1 (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * TGL, ignore this, it's just someone trying to make a point. ATren (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What point? Every week or so somebody comes around complaining about WMC. Either he's the most unlucky guy in the world or we need to stop the harassment. He knows who's harassing him and what quicker way to stop it than letting him block them? Fine someone else block the harassers.


 * Where there is smoke there is usually fire. I've already demonstrated around 10 BLP violations against climate skeptics perpetrated by him (and there are certainly far more out there). It is clear that he can't edit these articles neutrally. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Many prior warnings
I counted three sections on this enforcement project aimed at sanctioning WMC, two of which closed to no benefit and further WMC bickering. There's another thread on the talk page which he abused to harass another editor, and a talk section that WMC removed in entirety from the talk page by edit waring. When will the offender get the warning message that his behavior is creating unproductive attention and long disruptive complaint sessions. If many warnings will not avail, then it may be time to remove the source for a while. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a case of throwing as much mud as possible in the hope that some of it will stick. By repeating the same complaints over and over again, complaints largely without merit, you are effectively trying to hound WMC out of the topic so that you can have a free reign. This sort of behavior is totally unacceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I plan on taking a long break after this is settled. Wikipedia certainly doesn't need me to improve articles nor does it need Connolley. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you have that partly right, I suppose. Besides, you aren't really a prolific editor of article space anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's because I prefer to persuade people that certain edits are the right way to go instead of tag-teaming my version with friends until everyone else gets fed up and moves on. I've editted many science-based articles without incident - only when I encounter certain groups do I get hassled about them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:10, 26 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.

Recent Locking of articles for edit warring
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Lawrence Solomon

Recently two climate change probation articles have been locked with the reason cited as edit warring, I spoke to the two administrators involved and noted to them that the articles were under probation and that I thought that considering the probation on the articles that if they were in need of locking, full protection for edit warring then they a report should be made as regards the editors involved as edit warring and article protection are two of the main issues that the probation was created to stop. Here on the 24th the article Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was locked for edit warring by admin User_talk:JForget. The admin User_talk:2over0 also locked Lawrence Solomon another climate change article on th 22nd January for edit warring here. I have asked both admins about the fact that locking articles under probation is worthy of a report here and I have requested this of both administrators here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the articles are now protected and editing differences are presumably being discussed on the talk pages (which is the purpose of protection), is there any remaining issue? --TS 01:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The differences are clear and well-documented - one side wants to go with original research and ignoring core-wikipedia policy and my side disagrees with that way of doing things. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you or Off2riorob or somebody else proposing the notification of protections please answer the question? I'd really like to avoid this section being turned into another bickerfest. --TS 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, imo the edit warring by editors that created these articles to be locked and protected for edit warring is exactly the reason that this probation page was created to stop. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Any Administrator that fully protects a climate probation article due to edit warring or such like should be required in future to make a report here as to what occurred to cause it and as to which editors were involved. This type of edit warring and article protection was what this probation page and conditions associated was created to deal with and such Administrator actions and the editors responsible for such actions should be reported here. Off2riorob (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the Requests for enforcement page - clear problems should be dealt with at the time of protection, especially if warning or removing a small number of editors could let the protection be lifted. I would think that there would be no problem with an admin seeking additional input and advice here (certainly I have considered filing, at least). If the same editors are engaged in problematic behaviours at several articles (hint: they are), that should be dealt with using individual reports; any such report would need to investigate thoroughly an editor's recent actions, so I am not sure what purpose would be served by adding to an already somewhat onerous enforcement burden. Did I miss the point? - 2/0 (cont.) 06:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that if Administrators lock articles for edit warring then clearly if they do that this probation has been violated and a report should be made here, not considered but should be required to be reported here. This is my simple point. If you, as you did, fully protect an article with the reason as edit warring, then a report needs to be made, who has been edit warring? The editors involved could at least be recorded here and if another article is needed to be fully protected and the same editor is involved in that then a sanction could be applied. Anyway, I have brought my point here and that is enough for me, the next time it happens I will immediately go to the admin concerned and request him to make a report here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not - the last thing this topic area needs is to scare people off with intricate, idiosyncratic, and arcane requests. You remain free (encouraged, even) to establish the patterns you describe using your own resources. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Tol
by

I'm rather uncomfortable with the involvement of User:Rtol (Richard Tol) on Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri. Apparently he is a co-author of a hack job on Pachauri in Der Spiegel and he seems to have been using the talk page to promote the same attack piece and a stronger version which is apparently to be published soon in the Wall Street Journal. Tol has publicly called for Pachauri's resignation so this puts Wikipedia in a difficult spot. There do seem to be potential Conflict of interest and Biographies of living persons issues associated with behavior like that. --TS 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not a hack job tony, don`t be so dramatic. Richard has already excused himself from debating on this particular aspect of the pachauri article. So as he has removed himself from the debate what exactly is the problem? --mark nutley (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an article that is "not a hack job" but calls for Pachauri to resign. How does that work?


 * If Tol had "removed himself from the debate" that would be all well and good. However he made two edits to the resignation thread this morning.  So there seems to be a marked distinction here between what some people are saying is happening and what is actually happening. --TS 11:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked richard to post any new links to the discussion. He replied to kims question about who Samson was. He has not put forward any arguments for inclusion of new text since he removed himself from the debate. This i believe is what you were worried about? --mark nutley (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I had spotted it too but I think that should be ok. If everyone knows who he is and he is only on talk I think we can live with it. On policy even heavily conflicted authors are allowed on talk in general, unless they are disruptive. However I think this thread should be moved from the probation page to WP:COI where it belongs. --BozMo talk 12:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * His removal seems to have been short-lived William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, we have other activists working on this file full-time. I suggest they all go. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just in this discussion. Until Wikipedia stops being a platform for a select group, I'm not touching any more articles. You can look through my edits. I didn't push a political POV, I just cleaned up a lot of sloppy writing. I thought my work had value, but now I believe Wikipedia is like Greenpeace: tens of thousands of dedicated, true-believing college kids standing on street corners in America collecting donations for a group that operates in secret and really plays them for fools. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like a clear outline of what qualifies as conflict of interest so we can apply topic bans to those who have, are and will violate these principles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In this particular case the conflict of interest comes from Tol being an active party in getting Pachauri to resign (ie. directly involved in the conflict). That Tol is also an economist with special focus on climate change is not a conflict of interest, unless he unduely focuses on his own work, or in other ways puts his own work before others, which in fact he hasn't. And imho his work on Economics of climate change is highly laudable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But this relationship doesn't work in reverse? As we both know Lawrence Solomon wrote an unflattering article on your friend WMC and yet he has no problem editing Solomon's article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He also wrote an unflattering story on me, which i've responded to. All that shows is that Solomon apparently has a conflict of interest with regards WMC (and me), but not the reverse. I have no grudges, dislike or personal involvement with Solomon (i suspect the same is the case for WMC). He can write whatever he likes. This has btw. been turned over on AN/I a couple of times. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, Tol is an active party in the Pachauri debate. WMC is not an active party in the Solomon thing. Notice also that Tol (imho) is welcome to write and contribute on the Pachauri article, but that he should keep away from the specific instance where he is an active party. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So two journalists and a scientist have a COI with Connolley but Connolley doesn't have a COI with them? Please enlighten me further. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Someone may not like me, but that doesn't mean that i have the same feelings towards them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actions speak louder than words. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh and here we have a journalist expressing his feelings that Connolley, as a friend of those involved in climategate, shouldn't have so much editorial control over that article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I found another, here we have Tim Ball, a climatologist, who wrote an unflattering piece featuring Connolley, being editted by Connolley. At what point is this a COI? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So, what you are saying is that external parties can "veto"/"out" editors that they do not like? Try extrapolating that into the future - whenever someone doesn't like an editors style, he can just "veto"/"out" him, by writing an Op-ed, doesn't matter if its correct or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be under the impression that those articles would perish without Connolley's contributions to them. I don't think any single editor could be that important for improving an article and the concious or unconcious desire to retaliate against perceived slights, something these pages have demonstrated Connolley has a tendency to do, is too much of a risk to ignore potential COI.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, i'm not of that impression. And i suggest that you either delete,strike or substantiate that Connolley should have an "concious or unconcious" desire "retaliate" against Ball, Solomon or Delingpole. (you can delete/strike this comment afterwards) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything about his retaliating against those people. I said he seems to have a habit of editing out of revenge (as shown by his removal of the Landsea section in the IPCC). However, of the diffs (I believe I linked them already), Connolley seemed quite intent to make sure that Solomon wasn't described as an environmentalist and also was keen to keep in content that appeared to discredit Ball's credentials (as far as climate is concerned). While such edits aren't especially blatant in denigrating these subjects, if someone wracked up a large number of these edits to such articles, then these small things add up to give an overall impression, as Delinpole's article says, of propaganda. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So removing Landsea from the IPCC article was revenge? On whom? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It came off as a revenge or retalitian for having to inlcude the glacier information after I pointed out that your arguments for exclusion were completely inconsistent with the standards of what was already in the article. Although, I suppose, you could say it was "revenge" against JonGwynne since I believe he was one of the people who originally pushed for its inclusion 5 years ago, and who filed at least one major complaint against Connolley. Or, if you prefer, this edit comes off as particularly retributive. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough i do not agree. That was the result of a long discussion on WP:WEIGHT, the removal of one old item, to give room for a new item, accomodated weight - and was (imho) a good compromise. You are reading a lot of bad faith into something that has a simple good faith explanation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) [btw. i just looked up the Landsea addition in 2005, and from what i can see the only objection WMC made on Landsea, was that it belonged in the body of the article and not in the lead where JonGwynne put it --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)]

lol, please show the discussion regarding the weight of the Landsea section. As far as I remember it there was no discussion about removing it, he just did it and added the glacier section after I made it clear that your arguments against inclusion of that section were entirely inconsistent. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nb. this has become off-topic, so i wouldn't mind that it got closed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I too am still concerned. I don't think COI or BLP are singularly appropriate. Richard Tol has co-written a hatchet job on somebody else and then he has come to the talk page of that person's Wikipedia biography to promote it. There seem to be both COI and BLP implications to this activity. Am I really supposed to be less concerned now because all he is doing is continuing to use a Wikipedia talk page to promote the idea that this person should resign from his position? That's the very reason he came to that page in the first place, and it's the activity to which I object.

I don't think this can even remotely be considered to be an acceptable use of Wikipedia. --TS 18:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's an accurate characterization of events I would completely concur with that view. What are the key things for a previously uninvolved person to look at to come up to speed, do you think? ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe this is in time-order
 * Rtol states he is Richard Tol on his user page.
 * first post by Rtol on the issue - states that "It is significant, because Pachauri may well have to resign if the allegations would be true."
 * German op-ed on the issue by Richard Tol. I don't speak german.
 * Rtol links to the german op-ed, stating it is the "First call for Pachauri's resignation in a major, by an academic, not anonymous" There is no note that he is the author.
 * Rtol notes Richard Tol wants to have RKP removed.
 * KDP notes Rtol is an author of the oped.
 * Rtol notes he "should not be involved in debating whether [his calls for Pachauri's resignation] should be reflected in Pachauri's article."
 * MN states that Rtol should have said he was a co-author.
 * Rtol notes that he was aware his peice would be publishd on Jan 24 around noon. (Complier's note - non responsive?)
 * WMC calls Rtol's pushing the piece and not mentioning he signed it "very poor faith," and calls the whole thing "tawdry."
 * Rtol states his opinion was clear for all to see.
 * Rtol states that the reason he did not mention he was the author of the piece before it was published was that "I never write about unpublished material." He further states that WMC should provide evidence of someone else's bias.
 * Rtol adds others who called for resignation to a list he curates.
 * Given that Rtol cannot recuse himself from the debate that he stated he should recuse himself from, I suggest he be recused from the debate by force. I further suggest that transparent dishonesty ("I never write about unpublished material." vs "More tomorrow" referring to his yet unpublished Der Speigel piece as evidenced by ) deserves attention. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's one of those situations where the bulk of any damage (by using Wikipedia to overpromote a resignation call) has already been done. Perhaps Richard might agree to stop adding to that talk page, though. --TS 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The concern seems warranted for discussion here; however, where has the editor crossed the line? It seems as if the editor has managed themselves within reason. Motion to close (maybe with genital precautionary notice).Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What sort of genital precautions did you have in mind? :P (just kidding - I know what you meant, it just happened to be an unfortunate typo). MastCell Talk 20:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WP:DICK was what was meant? or perhaps not. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I said it above and i`ll say it again, since Richard removed himself from the debate all he has done is add some links and answer a question kim asked. He is no longer debating for the new text to go in and is doing noting wrong. @ Hippocrate, richard posted the link spigel  Richard Tol (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC) says  I never write about unpublished material Richard Tol (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC) That`s a day later check your dates again and redact your statements about dishonesty please. mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will redact nothing. He said "more tommorow" when he meant that he was publishing his article tommorow. That's writing about unpublished material. Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is precisely the promotion of his call for Pachauri to resign, by adding external links, that is problematic in my view. He is creating a presumption that there is a general call for Pachauri to resign--a presumption that is at the very least rather premature.  --TS 21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Google news search disagrees and so discussion of it does not seem premature. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Talk:Global warming
I am at this point an uninvolved editor on the subject, but at Talk:Global warming there is a massive edit war brewing with several editors removing comments by others, simply because they do not agree with them. User:McSly and User:Kenosis have removed several comments several times. I did reaad the comments, but they have been deleted again. Several comments on differant threads have been hacked using WP:Talk and WP:Forum as their justification. I must point out that the users who are removing the comments seem, to me, to not agree with the other editors' viewpoints anyway. Several other editors are involved in this case and I did warn that I would report the problem here if the deletions did not stop. So here we are.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't vouch for every removal, but talk:global warming has a chronic history of inappropriate content. As the article is under probation perhaps this issue, if it is an issue, should be discussed at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. --TS 21:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but since we seem to be hitting several 3RR problems, it may be more sticky than all that.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, here is the comment I removed . It seemed to me to be pretty obviously against the talk pages discussion policies and that's why I removed it. Was I wrong ?--McSly (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is, as TS says, a long history of people using the GW talk page as a venue for discussing GW itself, not for discussing improving the article. And of old arguements being constantly repeated. There is a fun wrinkle in all this: most (though not all) of the ill-disciplined chatter is from skeptics, who would like to butcher the page in various ways (yes, I know, you don't agree, you don't have to, I'm just giving my opinion of course). But they can't, because none of the talk page discussions ever come to any conclusion, becasue they always wander off into the weeds. I even wrote a teensy essay about it: User:William M. Connolley/For me/Musing on the state of wiki.
 * Meanwhile, how about someone semi's the article talk page? That would help a bit.
 * @JJH: if someone has hit 3RR then there is a trivial solution: block them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've unwatched that page, due to the tone and tenor of some of the users that regularly edit there. I have noticed frequently that talkpage comments are removed, often -- at least seemingly -- as much because the remover doesn't agree with them as much as anything else. This needs a stop put to it. There's no need to squelch dissent. Unit  Anode  21:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not listening. No-one is squelching dissent William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're one of the reasons I quit trying to improve GW articles. And I distinctly remember you and either Kim or Boris removing talkpage comments several times after I'd asked you not to do so. That's the kind of behavior that chases editors away from the articles. It's a problem, and it needs dealt with.  Unit  Anode  21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dissent is being squelched as it has been for years. Either way, talk page comments are indeed being removed by editors who don't agree with them, outside of policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of it is akin to a little kid putting their fingers in their ears and going "La La La La" really loud so they don't have to listen to what is being said.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of these removals are reckless. At one point I was informed that there'd been a local agreement that newspapers would no longer be considered RS. I didn't protest this over-turning of policy but I did request to see the special procedures that were in place, My request was deleted. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs. Guettarda (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What for? There's no question it's going on. I've even done it myself, though that was an IP and I moved it to their TalkPage to continue the discussion if they had a point to make and it seems they didn't. There is a slight drizzle of trolling and spam, but that's very easy to deal with.
 * I recently asked what was the point of the article and whether it was meant to be informative, it sure doesn't look as if it answers anyone's questions (I described the tests I've applied, the article failed them all). The section was archived 8 minutes after the last contribution. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, remember the WP:TRUTH needs no diffs because it is obviously true; actual evidence would be redundant William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is degenerating already. In a last (and, I know, doomed) attempt to drag us back to reality: people seem too have the idea that any removal of talk page comments is outside of policy. This is wrong. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles. Comments that do not do this may be legitimately removed. "Dissent is being squelched" type comments seem to confuse free-speech in the sense of newspapers with comments on wiki, which is unhelpful. My prediction: this discussion, like so many at the GW talk page, will wander off into the weeds uselessly. Hopefully I'm wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "This discussion is degenerating already" and "drag us back to reality" could be taken as personal attacks towards good faith editors. The dissent is being squelched comments are also in good faith following WP:NPOV and have nothing to do with notions of "free speech" as they relate to governments. Your take on talk page comments seems to me, to mean that anything not agreeing with your own PoV on the topic is not an improvement to the article and thus can be removed at the slightest hint of clumsiness. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO SIMPLY STOP USERS MCSLY AND KENOSIS FROM ENDLESSLY REMOVING DISCUSSION FROM THE DISCUSSION PAGE?


 * I am really sorry to use all caps there but it seems incredibly hard to get any clear points across in the utter fog of confusion which seems to be DELIBERATELY sown here.


 * IN the name of God, can we NOT AGAIN HAVE THE COMMENT "THE TALK PAGE IS FOR IMPROVING THE ARTICLE". YES of course the talk page is for improving the article.  OF COURSE. OBVIOUSLY.  What happens is there is discussion on the talk page, (IE, DISCUSSION ABOUT IMPROVING THE ARTICLE) and  McSly / Kenosis simply REMOVE THE DISCUSSION and then slap on the cover-all comment "THE TALK PAGE IS FOR IMPROVING THE ARTICLE".  YES, THATS RIGHT, THE TALK PAGE IS FOR IMPROVING THE ARTICLE --- THE STUFF YOU ARE DELETING IS COMMENTARY DIRECTLY ABOUT IMPROVING THE ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 * It becomes incredibly ridiculous if every single time you remove something (McSly and Kenosis) you just blandly say "oh, the talk page is only for improving the article, that's why we deleted your comments" OVER AND OVER, when you are deleting comments directly about improving the article!!!!!!!!!!


 * Astonishingly you even deleted my comments (and others) ABOUT HOW YOU ARE DELETING COMMENTS which is THUS THE EXPLICIT REASON IT IS MAKING IT VERY HARD TO IMPROV THE ARTICLE!!!!! Can anyone see the irony here??


 * Can someone just get to the point and simply STOP mcsly and kenosis from endlessly removing ALMOST EVERYTHING from the talk pages????


 * Also you might want to actually READ MY PROPOSAL about this (which astonishingly - of course - THEY DELETED ... IN TWO INSTANCES WITHIN A FEW ******SECONDS******* OF IT APPEARING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 * I gabbed about this for ages at User_talk:MalcolmMcDonald#GlobalWarmingAd . For what it's worth I for one am in the category of simply CAN NOT BE BOTHERED ANY MORE as you will see is the only possible outcome any sane person would have, when they suffer this sort of "deletion insanity" from these two administrators (or whatever they are


 * I urge you, someone, anyone to just STOP Mcsly and Kenosis from this endless deletion frenzy. It is nuts.  It is weird.  It is bizarre.


 * 83.203.210.23 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Try collapsing nonsense comments instead of removing them. And people better be informing the editors on their talk page instead of WP:BITEing them and moving on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't nonsense. It was only clumsy and overlong. Ok to hat it, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant nonsense on the talk page. I collapsed in part for the personal attacks and informed the editor that they need to be discuss things calmly instead of just ranting and raving. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was unencyclopedic and clumsy (likely unknowing) with the PAs but straightforwardly in good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was nonsense either. This was a reader much like any other, someone who would not be protesting a sensible and worthy article even if they didn't agree with it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just chime in and say I have noticed in the past, not recently, but I haven't looked at the article in question in a while, that the pro-AGW crowd has a tendency to delete others edits, prematurely collapse or archive them, or even edit other people's comments. In fact, one of that group was recently warned by an admin for that sort of behavior (on AN, not GW articles). I suspect that this tactic is usually done against newer editors who are less likely to complain and more likely to get themselves 3rr banned by restoring their own edits. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said many times, that's how it's done. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still chuckling over the irritation and consternation expressed by the regulars at the Reliable Sources noticeboard after some of the GW regulars insisted that newspapers can't be used for GW articles. Actually, I'm glad that that happened, because it can be used forever as an example illustrating some of the kinds of behaviors that occur in Wikipedia.
 * Anyway, back to this edit war. I believe that in the past Scibaby socks were prone to leaving trolling and unhelpful messages on the GW talk page and I can understand their removal.  The problem is that sometimes the removals get too aggressive and end up being bitey to newbies who may not understand what is going on.  If it isn't happening already, I suggest that everytime someone removes a comment, that they also politely explain why on the editor's talk page, even it appears to be a Scibaby sock. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla, I can't find the RSN discussion which you find so amusing. Could it be the brief comment at WP:RSN, which seems to propose giving advocacy groups and newspaper op-eds priority over peer reviewed journals? Seems odd, I'd be grateful for a diff of the comments of which you speak. . . dave souza, talk 23:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those socks are socks, but aren't always what they seem to be. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If comment removal is turning out to be too controversial, then, it might be better not to do it anymore. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm thinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's a particularly sharp elbowed tactic when used by long term editors who ought to know better. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also reviewed the complained of actions, and find that they do not comply with WP:TALK and indeed violate WP:TPOC; you do not remove other peoples comments unless they violate policies such as NPA, BLP and the like. I also find that arguing a mechanism by which good faith content related comment may not be removed for a certain time period is also a good faith attempt at improving the article - even if it has or is rejected by the community, that fact should be noted and the comment allowed to stand. Now, I have only been reviewing the edits since the above ip started complaining of the removal of their comments but I think that all parties including the ip have exceeded the 1RR restriction for content that is not vandalism. I shall be blocking, and  for 12 hours per the CCP. I would suggest that had comment not been removed under inappropriate reasoning (and WP:TALK is a guideline it should be noted) and simply responded to - or not - then these actions need not have been considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that all parties including the ip have exceeded the 1RR restriction for content that is not vandalism - hold on. Which 1RR restriction would that be? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As far as I can tell, neither global warming not talk: global warming is under a 1RR restriction. The phrase is certainly not mentioned on the talk page, and there is no appropriate entry over at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um.... that would be the one only I was apparently aware of; my mistake regarding my skimming of the probation page. I acknowledge I am wrong about the specifics, but generally the warning about edit warring - and how 3RR is not an allowance per WP:3RR - indicates that the tolerance for revert wars is lower than most places, and I think my sanctions are in keeping with the purpose of the sanctions. I will correct my rationales at the various editors talkpages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC) I shall not get involved in a discussion over adopting 1RR on GWP pages, since I hope to remain uninvolved for a little while longer.
 * Also, according to General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log, neither Kenosis nor McSly were notified of the probation, let alone warned. Given that strict interpretation of WP:TPG has been the norm for a while (and overall quite helpful) on talk:global warming, I don't think these blocks are appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole thread/section has a strange lack of specifics, and a lot of claims about generalities. How about focusing on one archiving/removal at a time, and then discuss whether or not (in the context of what has been on t:GW) it was archived/removed correctly. That way it would actually be a learning experience instead of mudslinging, which is getting us nowhere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's helpful to call any of these comments, of whatever stripe, mudslinging. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is what the above comments best can be described with. Notice that mudslinging here isn't a perjorative, it describes a situation where people aren't listening to each other, and instead throw bald assertions at each other. The assertions may be correct, and one side or the other may be in the right, but it isn't moving forward in any way or form. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't call good faith comments on a talk page mudslinging. This is spot on the fuzzy, overbroad kind of thing that has brought forth these worries to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a lot of mudslinging on that talk page. Personal attacks are often intended quite sincerely and in the deepest of good faith.  This doesn't make personal attacks acceptable. --TS 00:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually referring on the above comments. Stating for instance that "dissent is squelched" but not providing any diff's is a bald assertion that cannot be answered by much other than equal assertions. Talking about archiving/removals without any context of a specific thread/case is equally unproductive. We aren't getting anywhere. I would again try to ask for targetted discussions and specific examples, instead of this (yes i'm going to say it again) mudslinging at each other (and there is no specific target applied here, it is quite generic). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's helpful to call good faith comments mudslinging either. What I'm seeing is a pattern of when someone makes a general observation, of asking for specifics, and when specifics are brought, each is dismissed as a special case, exception, or the work of an editor in disrepute. The issue here is that there's a general perception of one side trying to control the discussions (which in turn controls the content of the articles). Work on the perception if you want people not to allege grand cabals. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me. An anon ip just deleted another editors comments a few minutes ago. Another block please?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. It's just one of our resident trolls being a silly sausage. If you block the IP he'll just use another open proxy. --TS 00:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So semi t:GW. It has been often enough in the past William M. Connolley (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi'd it to stop anon antics. Vsmith (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting how there is such great concerns about bitting newcomers / driving them away but none about biting regular contributors / driving them away. Looking at this case it appears that Kenosis a long time editor of this project was banned without warning.  If this is the case these actions are inappropriate.  Blocks are not to be used for punishment but to prevent damage to the project.  Per WP:TALK Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.  Following this it seems reasonable to remove comments that are used for this purpose. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony's protocol
As a result of this discussion with LessHeard vanU I suggest we develop a protocol for editors to follow when they encounter off-topic clutter on talk pages covered by the probation. The idea is that we'd make sure that newcomers who just happen to come to, say, talk:global warming and then post a thread about something they read on a blog would not be bitten, but would be politely informed of the reason why their discussion is inappropriate. People (including regulars) who persisted after warnings would be sanctionable here.

Traditionally such off-topic discussions have been archived in situ, but often they are unarchived for various reasons. Perhaps really egregious unarchiving might be seen as sanctionable. I suppose that could be handled on a case-by-case basis.

As LessHeard vanU says, the important thing is to get people behaving themselves because they want to continue contributing.

In any case, I think everybody should read the thread and then come back here and comment on his proposal. --TS 01:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wonderful idea! As a technical aid, maybe something even simple as a "tag" around the off topic comment and when there are abundant tags among a few eds, then consider the collapse, remove option with consensus. The idea is the tag serves as a simple clean clear warning right in place.  It could even link to a more elaborate guideline or policy reminder. (Yes, tag wars would be eminent, but then maybe even that discussion could be put to another place.)   Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it ... a variation on these Template:Off-topic-inline, Template:Off-topic%3F for talk pages that would point to WP:TPG. The existing article tags maybe ok to start. Comments? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, I took this proposal for additional comment  here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A tag is better than removal. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Template's done. I called it "Template:Inappropriate under talk page guideline", little long, but it's self-explanatory in the wikicode. If you want to adjust the message or update the documentation, feel free, if you don't know how, just post it here and I'll add it in. There are five actions:"remove", comment won't display, but still will be searchable."collapse" collapsed, floated right, header is grayed out so it would be less intrusive."tag over", prints "Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines." followed by an optional reason on top of the comment. Background is 10% transparent so you can still see what's under it."tag", prints "[Inappropriate WP:TPG]" followed by an optional reason."no action", doesn't do anything, except in the wikicode.Error messages will print if you forget "action" or "comment". "reason" is optional. Examples are in the documentation. ChyranandChloe (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Seems really powerful, I pray for it's appropriate wp:civil purpose and application. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, do as you like, but I will most certainly ignore any such warnings when and where I feel it is warranted. Most of the time I see arguments archived in this way (and when I archive them myself, which I have done) it's a way to end a conversation which is spiraling down the hole; this is a good thing.  but too often I see conversations archived as a tendentious way of shutting up editors (I assume as a means of enforcing page ownership) and I never put up with that.  just an FYI, because I'm suspicious of this move on this page; I'll be keeping my eye on the applications of this template to make sure that it isn't abused.  -- Ludwigs 2  10:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Grateful though we all must be for making new tags available, I must question why this discussion is going on at "Requests for enforcement".
 * It is off-topic and should be removed forthwith. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What LessHeard VanU suggested--and it is well within the WP:TALK guideline too--is that off-topic material should be promptly moved to an archive page and the originator notified that this is not the purpose for which the talk page exists. Accordingly I have removed an off-topic item from talk:global warming, archived it , and notified the originator. I hope we can move towards more orderly use of the talk space. Needless to say, any edit warring over such archiving will probably end badly for all participants. Please raise issues arising from inappropriate archiving or unarchiving on this page. --TS 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm very happy with the idea that off-topic material should be removed (archive if you must, who cares, it is all in the history and no-one bothers with the archives). But you should note that this is directly contradicted by LHVU's second rationale for his block of K, which was that *any* removal (other than, one presumes, orderly archiving) of not-clearly-vandalism was blockable. So since people are being randomly blocked for failing to follow non-disclosed rules, I think you need to make the rules very clear. If the rules are "only material deemed archivable by TS or LHVU maybe archived early", then clearly state that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor sanity
It is good to see that off-topic cruft is finally being removed. This is exactly what we've been asking for for ages, over the screams of "censorship" and "suppression of dissent" from the ignorant. Its also what poor K has got blocked for doing; apparently what is "egregious edit warring" one day becomes highly laudable behaviour the next William M. Connolley (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Mind you, TS had better watch out. According to LHVU's personal rules, which he doesn't seem to worry about enforcing willy-nilly, TS's edit was against policy and presumably a blockable offence William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that, in common with WP:TPOC, LessHeard VanU draws a distinction between archiving, hiding, collapsing, userfying, etc, and outright removal. See my full description of the archiving in the section immediately above. --TS 13:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I will be much more impressed when the removed/archived/compressed material does not always involve posts that are contrary to TS and Connelley's agenda-pushing, and I take exception to Connelley's claim that people who are willing to listen to evidence against AGW, rather than accept it as holy writ, are "ignorant." 69.165.159.245 (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To repeat what I said at your talk page:
 * Your comment was archived because it wasn't about improving the article. The fact that most such disruptive material is added by people who imagine themselves to be climate sceptics does tend to make it look as if one view is being censored, but if you look at the page you will see that climate sceptics are vastly overrepresented in the comments there.
 * --TS 14:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WMC your comments are not helpful. Perhaps you're part of the problem rather than the solution? ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look in a mirror William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your frustration, I really don't see the need for you to be so acerbic all the time. I very much sympathize with your general position within this topic, but Lar's point is quite legitimate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You think the block of K was good? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My above comment was specifically addressing concerns I have about your recent civility, and was intended as a subtle warning from a sympathetic editor. I have not been involved in this discussion, or the events that preceded it; however, after a cursory review of what went on I would have to say that the block of Kenosis (if that is the one you are referring to) did not seem appropriate to me. I do not see any evidence of fair warning about the probation, although I suppose I could be mistaken (it was a very quick review, after all). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. And how does my civility stack up in the great scales of justice against the person who blocked K, and the person who defended that block on the grounds that K had indulged in "egregious edit warring"? Why are you commenting on my tone, when you ignore these very real offences elsewhere? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I noticed it, and I know that you are quite capable of rising above all that sort of thing. Two wrongs... -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, you are right William M. Connolley (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The damage to Wikipedia:

I think people should look at this Google thread to see how many people believe Wikipedia has been hijacked by realclimate.org: http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1ACAWCENCA362&q=wikipedia+climate+change+propaganda&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=


 * Oh yes, we're really going to pay attention to the opinions of www.taxpayer.com, Frank Luntz, climategate.com, climatechangefraud.com and a whole pile of other fools William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If any of the above are quoted in reliable, third party sources then "Yes". If not, "No". There is no suspension of proper Wikipedia practice regarding WP:RS, along with all the other relevant policies (including WP:NPA). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. Our anon is not proposing any changes to any articles, so WP:RS is irrelevant. The anon is proposing that we modify our discussion based on what other people think of us. Since the sources that the anons link throws up are all obviously unusable, the anons point fails on its own terms, let alone any others William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's already a wiki that caters to the likes of those people. Perhaps they should be directed towards Conservapedia? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (resp to WMC) If that is what the anon is going on about, then fine - we answered them; we stay with the consensus now existing. We can say that without evidencing our opinions upon the validity of the sources provided by the anon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ChyranandChloe's protocol

 * WP:TPG encourages "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." Now, if WMC or MalcolmMcDonald posted a rant like this, we'd take him right up to ANI. Newcomers are naive. Tony said we should develop a protocol, a way of dealing with newcomers without biting them. I think this is just saving the remove until they're informed and warned. Because to remove a comment without, they're likely to conclude, however unjust, that this is censorship. This is for individual comments:<ol><li>Ask. tag over their comment, and ask them on their user talk to be more constructive.</li><li>Admonish. collapse their comment, warn them on their user talk.</li><li>Abolish. If they duplicate a post, it's vandalism, repeating characters, revert. If it's something new, but still trolling or a PA, collapse and ignore. If edit war, block.</li></ol>This is for threads:<ol><li>Ask. State that the thread is unconstructive and ask the proposer to discuss an edit to the article.</li><li>Admonish. Tag the thread as unconstructive and warn the proposer on user talk to discuss an edit to the article.</li><li>Abolish. Archive, collapse, or remove as we've done before. If it's disputed, take it to WP:AN or here, article talk is not for meta-discussion.</li></ol> TPG encourages remove, but some of you guys don't like that, especially when we get a round in circles discussion. LessHeard said remove should only be used on "NPA, BLP, and the like." I think this can be agreed upon. Roung in circles? I think this is where the discussion would be. What do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, removing should be a later stage option (for disruption) and tagging an earlier one. We must consider this too Refactoring talk pages ... what is important for civility is maintaining good faith and remember some infractions can be easily corrected and the Template can be removed. (Like when PA can be redacted or when the offender self-removes the distraction by being made aware.) In addition, what I notice about the tool, is that it seems simple to extend the initial tag to a whole thread by moving the close code, when things get really out of control. Appreciate your work. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * well, I'd prefer if there was some option to partially refactor and refocus. My concern here (well-justified by what I've seen) is that some thread will have a potentially useful core idea that gets hijacked by a lot of cross-talk, and then the entire thread gets archived, leaving the person who started the thread feeling abused.  ham-handed removals like that do more to promote conspiratorial talk than just about anything I can think of.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Zulupapa, you got to realize that most threads don't start with good faith, especially when it begins along the lines "IPCC fun and games" or a commentary about how the editors are jokes. Discussion is a covenant often broken before we begin, and there isn't much we can do. This is why the first step is ask, people don't like being told what to do, and it is inherently their decision. Ask them in order to remind good faith. Ludwigs2, hijacked? Yes, I know what you mean. Too often. But refactoring isn't a silver bullet, use for "personal attacks, trolling and vandalism" under WP:TPG. Round in circles I don't think will be solved by tag your it, or a collapse-a-ton. I often want to blame the person's bad writing, or some people for raising PoV (all the time) and filling our heads with straw on some Amazon, rain-forest, or flames. I told the person that he was siding, that it was unwise tie up his comments like that, and most importantly to restart the thread with a clearer proposal. I think the person blew me off. When a thread gets off-topic and I care about it, I being my comment "My central point is... address this point." And if they fail to do so, I keep my comment short and say "You are not addressing my central point." When the person can put your central argument in their own words, that's when you know they're listening, and you're in an actual discussion. I don't know if I've answered your question on this one Ludwigs2, I'm sorry, feel free to blow it off and ask again. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Response from Kenosis
I'd like to request that this thread be kept open for a week. I've received several emails encouraging me to reconsider my response to the block by LHvU. LHvU's block might have been hasty--perhaps erroneous-- but so was my response to it. As it happens, I've gone four years and 20,000-plus edits--many in controversial topic areas--with a clean block log, something I happen to value a lot. Unfortunately I'm quite busy at present and will need to wait until I'm finished with the pile of RL work that's currently on my plate. ..... As soon as I have several hours to get back to this, I'd like an opportunity to present a perspective that might possibly be useful to the ongoing discussion about WP procedures for the more out-of-control pages including heavy-traffic talk pages on controversial topics such as GW. It would also be appreciated to allow me a brief opportunity to comment on my own actions prior to the "1RR" block, the speculative way they were characterized above (e.g. as having removed or userfied comments "simply because they do not agree with them"), and about a couple procedural issues relating to a block-without-prior-notice under terms that were not part of the terms of the climate-change article probation. I expect to have an opportunity to spend adequate time on this later this week... Kenosis (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to hear it. A goodly percentage of the disruption in this topic area stems from disputes on the talkpage, WP:NOTFORUM, and personalizing disagreements over content. We need some way to keep discussion focused on improving the articles without stifling legitimate debate. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

<- unindent> I apologize for the delay here-- time is hard for me to come by at present. Firstly I'd like to try to get at least one thing straightened out if I can. Joihutton says, in this section reqesting sanctions against users who reverted his/her edits, that comments at Talk:Global warming were removed "simply because they do not agree with them". This is attributing motive, without having presented any evidence in support of this conclusion. Yet, it would appear the block of me and McSly was based in part on this admittedly very effective introductory paragraph plainly designed to seek a sanction against two editors who disagreed about how to maintain the talk page. I see no diffs whatsoever presented thus far in this thread--yet there have been two blocks to date based on this one thread.-- purported "1RR" blocks of me and McSly, without any advance notice relating to CC probation or EW generally, blocks which were kept in place without apology or reversal, but for which instead the reasoning for the sanction was changed to a general "edit warring" block which would have required prior warning. Of course, JoiHutton is fully entitled to his/her opinion on such matters. But this particular minor "edit war" plainly had two sides, with JoiHutton the only user who opposed removal or userfying the irrelevant bloated--even hostile-- commentary by the anon IP. Ultimately other users came in and somewhat cleaned up the irrelevant bloat by a combination of removal of the most extreme bloat and collapsing the rest. .....If one looks over the diffs at the GW talk page beginning late 22 January 2010 and through 23 January 2010, it becomes a bit more evident what kind of content was either removed or relocated and userfied by me and McSly. Here are some diffs of relevant edits at Talk:Global warming leading up to LessHeardvanU's block of me and McSly. I will try to stick to the most reasonably relevant diffs within the cacophony of stuff that the GW talk page had become as of 23 January 2010. If there are any I've missed or gotten out of chronological order, please feel free to call them to my attention.

Then:
 * User:83.203.210.23, an anon-IP SPA (see: Special:Contributions/83.203.210.23), begins participating in Talk:GW here
 * William M. Connolley removes the comments by anon IP 83.203.210.23 here, reverting to the last revision by MalcolmMcDonald. The response by IP 83.203.210.23 made little or no rational sense if one looks at the thread "More IPCC Fun and Games" as it existed at the time. In the interim, in the thread "The article reads like an ad", we started to get more irrelevant bloated commentary (see WP:FORUM, which is policy-- recall also that WP:TALK is a guideline).
 * Revision as of 20:42 by User:83:203:210:23, 22 January 2010
 * Comments by User:83:203:210:23 removed by ChyranandChloe, reverting to last version by William M. Connolley.
 * extended comments placed again by anon IP
 * William M. Connolley removes anon's comments, reverting to last version by ChryanandChloe
 * User:83.203.210.23 places another extended comment here, at 08:30, 23 January 2010.
 * at 16:02, 23 January 2010 arguing again why the whole article on [[Global Warming] "reads like an ad". Although quite hyperbolic commentary by the anon IP that I wholly disagreed with, it was, at least in my estimation, material that could arguably be said to be rationally related to the section title. Throughout the successive diffs that follow, I left this material completely intact:
 * Revision as of 16:02, 23 January 2010-- Anon IP inserts further irrelevant bloat
 * MalcolmMcdonald responds by inviting anon IP to participate in GW article criticism chart labeled "how to improve the article"
 * anon IP 83.203.210.23 responds here with personal correspondence to Malcolm
 * Anon IP 83.203.210.23 reinserts correspondence w/ Malcolm
 * I remove personal correspondence w/ Malcolm in Revision as of 17:32, 23 January 2010 Kenosis (Undid revision 339561660 by 83.203.210.23 (talk) Rmvg comments way outside appropriate scope of WP:TALK)".
 * Revision as of 17:42, 23 January 2010 by User:Jojhutton (Undid revision 339562723 by Kenosis (talk) Not appropriate to remove other editors comments) here Joihutton reverts my removal of extended comments by IP 83.203.210.23 that are completely irrelevant to improving the article].
 * in Revision as of 17:56, 23 January 2010 Kenosis (→Reads like an ad: Userfying irrelevant) Here, I userfy the conversation between the anon and MalcolmMcDonald's, beginning with "Dear Malcolm:" to Malcolm's user page, rather than revert. (Incidentally, Malcolm had just removed a different IP communication to him to his own user talk [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=339386766&oldid=339386388 here).
 * Revision as of 18:32, 23 January 2010 Jojhutton reverts (Very Very Very innapropriate to remove other editors comments.)
 * Revision as of 18:34, 23 January 2010 (edit) (undo) Kenosis (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 339572402 by Jojhutton (talk) It is NOT inappropriate to follow WP guidelines. See WP:TALK and WP:FORUM)
 * Revision as of 18:43, 23 January 2010 Jojhutton reverts again (Undid revision 339572877 by Kenosis (talk) Next stop is ANI, for removing talk page comments)]
 * I replace the note about having userfied the content to Malcolm's user talk page with the edit summary Replacing note about userfication of material. Additional peripheral discussion at User talk:MalcolmMcDonald#GlobalWarmingAd)
 * User:McSly removes personal correspondence to Malcolm
 * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=339585515&oldid=339584937 unsigned comment by anon IP
 * Revision as of 20:00, 23 January 2010 by McSly (revert per WP:TALK and WP:FORUM
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=339587792&oldid=339587117 Revision as of 20:10, 23 January 2010 by Kenosis (reverting further back. Irrelevant WP:FORUM part of this section has already been userfied to User talk:MalcolmMcDonald)
 * Revision as of 20:43, 23 January 2010 by User:83.203.210.23 (Strange and pointless reference to Wikipedia:FORUM#FORUM - this time by Keosis? Strangely similar to McSly's (strange) comment just below?)
 * Revision as of 20:45, 23 January 2010 by McSly (Revert per WP:TALK and WP:FORUM (using NICE))

See also: userfied to here. Shortly thereafter a discussion took place between Malcolm and Martin Hogbin about where the chart of objections to the GW article took place, from here through here to approximately here. The "chart of reasons to oppose the GW article" was removed from Martin Hogbin's page here, and reappeared on Malcolm's user page here. A review of the history of this conversation can be seen here. Note that the GW-article canvassing-for-reasons-for-opposition chart has now been removed and so has the bloat that I userfied to Malcolm's user talk page.

In short, a key 3RR by Joihutton was, at a minimum, missed right from the getgo:
 * here, *here, and *here. Yet, blocks were imposed upon two diligent users under a 1RR ruling, later changed to a general "edit warring" ruling with no notice-and-opportunity-to-be-heard whatsoever as is standard for all sanctions including blocks except within previously disclosed "discretionary sanctions" arising out of an arbitration. As a matter of fact, no rules whatsoever were followed here, and no move whatsoever has been made by any other admin except for 2/0 who requested to hear more about this situation, which unfortunately has required more of my time than I can presently afford to spend on this project.

Along the way, on this page, LessHeard vanU issues the following decree with the edit summary (violations of 1RR in all cases, and a major misunderstanding of WP:TALK and WP:FORUM by some), proceeding to issue blocks to me and McSly only. Subsequently LessHeard vanU changes the reasoning for the block rather than rescinding it.

'''The problems I see with this action are, at minimum:
 * (1) 1RR was not part of the terms of the CC article probation. Even if it was, at least several more blocks of other users would properly have been issued.
 * (2) Changing the reasoning for the block retroactively is improper procedure, since the reasoning to which LHvU resorted would have required the block to be implemented according to established EW-block procedure.
 * (3) None of the block actions by LHvU fall within the proper range of "discretionary sanctions";
 * (4) According to the currently accepted rules for blocks, blocks for general "edit warring" are not proper without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, whether for 3RR or general "edit warring";
 * (5) None of the parties involved were given opportunity to present evidence to justify their actions--indeed the only "evidence" offered was the summary'statement by JoiHutton and some miscellaneous complaints and commentary about the situation at Talk:GW. '''

Before getting back to broader issues about maintaining out-of-control talk pages on controversial topics, I'd like to request that the WP administrative community consider the possibility of completely expunging the erroneous "1rr" blocks to me and McSly. Alternately, if this isn't feasible, I'd like to request that LessHeard vanU or another admin issue a one-second block with the edit summary to the effect that "Note:prior block was issued in error". I apologize for my hastily composed submission here. And thanks for considering my request. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have noted the above. I have nothing further to add to that which I have previously explained, but if Kenosis or another party requires clarification I will provide it here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the Probation
by

How far does the scope of this probation reach? In particular, are actions on user pages of editors involved in climate change that clearly come from participation on climate change articles covered? I found this gem, and consider it a serious personal attack, and possibly even halfway to a legal threat. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that KimDabelsteinPetersen is a single-purpose account and therefore qualifies under the umbrella of climate change probation? In his defense, I'd like to point out that there is one talk page and one article he edits frequently that is unrelated to climate change - the rest are all strongly related to climate change. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that Kim has more edits to his least-edited article in the top ten than you have to your most edited article, that's a bit rich... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a convenient way to tell how many of a person's edits consist solely of removing and reverting other editor's content? From my personal experience that seems to be his greatest contribution to wikipedia and, I imagine, a person can get quite a high edit could with such behavior which would make gaining adminship rather easy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I decided to look at his past 50 edits and, color me shocked, but of the actual article-space edits they were all reverts. I'm not certain why you always try and focus the conversation on me Stephan but it is rather disconcerting. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I kindly asked him not to attack other editors in climate change articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't know whether you've noticed but the topic here is a particularly savage attack on one of your fellow editors. Now is a poor time to add on your own irrelevant personal attacks.   --TS 10:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the attack on Kim and I asked the editor to stop. However, I've posted no attack against Kim here, but I did respond to a comment I considered rather rude that was directed at me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "He deserves capital punishment" seems like a death threat to me. -Atmoz (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That sort of behavior is grounds for a block regardless of probation. Regardless of how far behavioral standards have fallen, it's absolutely over the line. If it continues after the block expires, then let me know and I'll reinstate it. MastCell Talk 04:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with MastCell regarding that edit.
 * In general, I think behaviour on threads related to or clearly inspired by climate change disputes should be covered. The standards for the several talkspaces differ somewhat, but harassment at a usertalk page or edit warring at a noticeboard are unacceptable regardless and may lead to sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have already warned that editor (see log). He has repeatedly been posting frankly libellous material on the talk page of Talk:Michael E. Mann: see, , . He has also previously posted personal attacks against editors in general and this is not the first time he's gone after Kim: . I note that the personal attacks for which he was blocked were posted after I had warned him, and indeed the warning itself provoked a personal attack against me. This is clearly someone with a substantial history of making egregious personal attacks and disregarding warnings; I think a 31 hour block is insufficient in the circumstances. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Kim is an SPA, to be sure, but this sort of harassment of anyone, SPA or not, is totally unacceptable, endorse the block. It's an IP, you may want to ask a CU for a quick check for collateral damage, before extending the block too far into the future. (oh wait! I'm a CU... :) ) OK then... I am not seeing a high potential for collateral damage as there are no named editors on that IP or even on the whole range. So on the next occurance of this sort of thing, a much longer block is called for, in my view. Try a week next, then a month? ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you leave out the flinging of SPA accusations, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "guv"? Look, it's my job as a CU to evaluate this sort of thing. KDB is an SPA by any reasonable evaluation. It's a valid observation to make in context. Your comment and tone are unhelpful. You appear to be part of the problem. Up your game. That includes your edit summaries. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly does it matter whether i'm an SPA or not? Yes, i edit mostly but not solely in the climate change area, because that is where my readings over the last 3-5 years have been. I also edit Linux related articles (albeit seldom), and have a few lists that i maintain. Again: Does it matter to this? At all? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. Some are understandably concerned because most SPAs tend to edit Wikipedia to further an agenda. The species of SPA that edits because of knowledge in a particular field is rare, but desirable. Lately, there seems to have been an increase in the species of SPA that seeks drama; they confine themselves largely to places like WP:ANI to stir up trouble. So SPAs have a bad rep. I think the quality of your work speaks for itself, and I see no reason why you should have to justify your actions. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Conversely, I think it matters a great deal whether a participant is an SPA or not. In general SPAs are frowned upon and are not given quite as free a hand as editors who have demonnstrated wider ranging interests, and in part that's because many, but not all, SPAs do seek drama and do seem to want to push a particular point of view. KDP is an SPA, by their own admission, and therefore their edits are going to get more scrutiny, rightly or wrongly. But in this case, I think the jury is still out on what sort of SPA exactly it is that KDP is. High quality work to be sure, but is it scrupulously neutral and is KDP completely drama free? (but then, who among us is?) ++Lar: t/c 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are an infinite number of directions we could take each report. I think we're all in agreement that the range of topics editing by Kim is irrelevant to this particular report. Perhaps we could all strive for greater focus, to avoid turning each individual brush fire into a conflagration. This is a useful illustration of how threads on this page get off track. A specific request for specific action is made with supporting diffs (OK). One individual can't resist using the opportunity to goad another editor (bad). The bait is taken rather than ignored as obvious provocation (bad). Personalized argumentation about an issue irrelevant to the initial complaint dominates the thread (bad). I think we can all try to do better. MastCell Talk 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In some probations, SPAs are under different restrictions. So that would argue for relevance. I just went and reviewed the terms of this one and I didn't see anything specific though. Still I do think it's relevant. Argue over? no, not good. Note? yes, relevant. Done. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It may well be relevant to some other hypothetical enforcement request; it's just not relevant to this one. Since any available surface is being turned into a battleground (see above and below). I'm suggesting that we try to limit ourselves to dealing with the relevant, concrete specific of each thread, instead of noting/discussing/arguing about things that might be relevant to some hypothetical future thread. MastCell Talk 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree with Scjessey more. The quality of Kim's work definitely speaks for itself. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I too absolutely agree William M. Connolley (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at the IP range, Lar. I'm a bit hesitant to issue long blocks to IPs off the bat, since they may be shared or dynamic, but based on your investigation (and on edits like this) I think this is a long-term stable IP. I'll leave things where they are for now, but would have a fairly low threshold for re-blocking if things repeat themselves. MastCell Talk 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 31h to 1w to 1m is not an unreasonable progression in this particular case in view of a) the nature of the edits and b) the nature of the IP block. Suggest anon only of course, let them get an account if they want to continue to contribute. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have run its course, so I am closing the thread. Please unarchive if there is more to discuss. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri
by



The article in question is protected due to BLP concerns, but a feeding frenzy continues on talk. I would appreciate it if uninvolved admins would take a look at the talk page and ensure that the BLP is being complied with fully. --TS 16:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything terrible - some people are attempting to conflate the head of an organisation for the body, and that is being resisted. The claims that a mistake was made by the group are acknowledged, and so claims that the individual is responsible for the mistake is a simple case of misunderstanding. Of possible concern is that there what may be an attempt to have the acknowledged mistake noted in more articles than those properly relevant, but it isn't one that has been advanced on the talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had approached one of the worst offenders and he agreed to remove some of the worst material, in which he advanced positions rather than discussing the content of sources. There isn't an intrinsic problem on that talk page, and discussion is reasonably orderly considering the inflammatory material being advanced by some newspapers. --TS 21:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Gavin.collins
by

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

Request concerning Gavin.collins

 * User requesting enforcement : Dmcq (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1)  27 jan: Latest note from Gavin.collins showing problem with accepting scientific opinion can be a different article from the public perception. Refusal to follow dispute resolution process and soapboxing
 * 2)  Warning by me saying  it all looks like Civil POV pushing and saying yet again they should take his dispute to an appropriate forum if they disagree with the consensus.
 * 3) Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change 22 jan started thread which is still current saying title leader and hatnote ar POV and OR and article is a fork. Soapboxing
 * 4)  19 dec a third opinion says GC doesn't understand the subject of the article
 * 5) Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_10 19 dec started saying title is OR and content is POV. Soapboxing
 * 6) Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_10 14 dec started trying to change the article topic. Soapboxing
 * 7) Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_10 14 dec started saying the article is a fork. Soapboxing
 * 8) Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_9 10 dec started saying it is clear it is a fork. Soapboxing
 * 9) Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_9 9 dec started saying article is a content fork. Soapboxing
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) [<Diff>] Warning by
 * 2) [<Diff>] Warning by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : topic article ban
 * Sorry I see topic here means the whole business of climate change or global warming Dmcq (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I see topic here means the whole business of climate change or global warming Dmcq (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Not just the sections set up by Gavin.collins keep on saying the subject is OR and POV, suchlike comments have been put into a number of other sections as well. I would like to see them not continually reraise their concerns on Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change against consensus. Their concerns have contributed nothing to the article for over a month but taken up a lot of space and time. If they haven't consensus and still want to push they should follow the WP:DISPUTE resolution process and raise it elsewhere, they can then either achieve an aim or else they should abide by anything decided there. For this since they have repeatedly ignored requests to raise it to a noticeboard or otherwise follow a process I would suggest a topic article ban on anything to do with the subject matter of the article being point of view or original research. Dmcq (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Simplified version. I believe that Civil POV pushing describes what's been happening fairly accurately and I'm requesting a topic article ban because of a refusal to follow the WP:DISPUTE policy. Dmcq (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Gavin.collins has been posting a number of comments to my talk page at User_talk:Dmcq about this request. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by Gavin.collins
This request has arisen because Dcmq's disagreement with me about the status of Scientific opinion on climate change, for which there is evidence to suggest is a content fork - the name of the article is a bit of a giveaway. Instead of dealing with evidence that this article is a content fork as an open window, it seems that he is treating such criticism as unwelcome and a personal affront to him, which by definition precludes any access to reality that healthy criticism provides. I already explained to him that his personal attack on me is neither justified nor civil. If only he would assume good faith, I think he will see that discussion of the issues is both natural and constructive.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This comment was posted in the uninvolved admin section of the website, not in reply to a question:
 * Then in fairness you must step aside and let the discussions about the article content enter the dispute resolution stage if you are not keen on facilitating them. We are currenly discussing whether a referal to the Mediation cabal would be the way forward. Feel free to facilitate these discussions if you wish. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Gavin.collins
Is there a problem with the prior warning to be corrected, before proceeding further? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

From Nigelj: I seem to have spent a good while debating this with Gavin over the weeks, but it is a baffling point, and it never gets anywhere. I notice that he has involved himself in a discussion at WP:Village pump (policy) as well, where he put similar points forward and was told, "I think that's going off on a tangent", "Nah, Masem is correct", "the entire issue of notability is a red herring", "Gavin, I think you're missing the gist here" and "You seem to be conflating that issue with your pet notability issue, which isn't really helping the central topic here", by several experienced editors before initiating an AfD on one of their articles. --Nigelj (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Gavin simply guilty of being "wrong on the internet", a problem that can be resolved as soon as he realises nobody else agrees with him, or is there a conduct issue? --TS 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

From Short Brigade Harvester Boris: This may seem like a minor issue compared to personal attacks and the like. But the disruption caused by people attempting to wear down others by making the same arguments over and over and over again is one of the main things that causes these articles to be so difficult. Gavin appears to be so fixated on this issue that it is probably unrealistic to ask him to change his approach, so I suggest that he cease editing this article and its talk page (or be directed to do so).

As a possibly relevant aside it's hard to argue that one of the longest-standing articles on the site (since September 2003) is a fork. It's more plausible that other articles are forks of this one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Forcefully removing Gavin would deprive a Dispute Resolution. There was an RFC related to these issues that could be better addressed. Perhaps the message should be, time to agree for the next resolution level. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment from 2over0: The discussion leading up to my block of Gavin.collins six weeks ago (before the probation was enacted) touched on a similar topic. If this discussion indicates that some sanction is called for, would an article ban be sufficient? - 2/0 (cont.) 00:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My preference is for the least restrictive remedy possible, in this case an article ban (including a talk page ban). If the problem spreads to other venues it can be dealt with at that time. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree; however, no ban is the least restrictive remedy. The appropriate means to move the article dispute forward is where this should end up. AGF in Gavin, that he has a valid dispute, and this compliant can be closed. (Really, the other enforcement distractions may have kept folks attention off that page.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It should really have been enough with a trout-slap... But since that appears not to be enough, i agree with Boris, that the least sanction, is the most appropriate sanction. Article (+talk since that is where most disruption happened) is enough, that should be a sufficiently large trout, which can be expanded if needed - which i truly hope it wont. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how a "slap" to GC will improve the article, sounds like unnecessary punishment to me? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't finished going through this but I think the general sense of what is being said above is being firmly told by the community "stop doing that you are in the wrong and being a nuisance" should be sufficient to get a change in behaviour from editors but in the case of GC may not achieve any change. --BozMo talk 17:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As ever, it's Monty Python, and BozMo sums it up well. . . dave souza, talk 18:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I find the report deficient for any sanction. All of these sections are said to show soap boxing. I look at a short one, like this, and the report seems inaccurate. Then we have some general statements from editors who have disagreed with him that he doesn't get it. People make silly arguments all the time. In these contexts I often notice people preemptively saying that an issue that is raised has already been resolved, true or not, good argument or bad, without ever really engaging the issue. If there's real disruption fine, but I don't immediately see it. I also don't believe the purpose of this process is to preempt the need to address points in detail, or to pursue dispute resolution if necessary. Mackan79 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, one reason I see discussion not working on these pages is because someone makes a suggestion, and people simply say "you're wrong, discussion closed," rather than looking, as we should, for other possible improvements that may address concerns on each side. Then people fight about whether the discussion is closed.  I am sure there are reasons, but it is a major defect in the area that allows these disputes to go on and on without improvement.  Editors on both sides would be smart to keep saying "Well how about this then," to see where there can be movement, and IMO the dispute resolvers might do more to discourage the deadlocking and push things in other directions (which blocking does not necessarily do). Mackan79 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see that the administrators have a difficult task in trying to please everybody, but if every criticism of this articles weaknesses are simply dismissed, and improvements are blocked, I am not sure what is being achieved. It seems to me that this approach encourages groupthink which characterises debate and discussion as unhealthy, and criticism as evil. Saying that general sense is that I should be "Stop doing that you are in the wrong and being a nuisance" is just another way of Shooting the messenger. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with this this point. The problem I have experienced to date is that administrator intervention has not improved matters in this regard. Last time I made an improvement to the article by removing original research from the lead and replaced it with reliable secondary sources, I received a block. Before that, an RFC which I intiated was closed before a wide range of editors could become involved, and I received some "Some serious advice and warning" If adding solid gold sources such as these has become a crime, I can't see how any improvement to this article can be made if ""you're wrong, discussion closed" is the sole response.
 * GC, the trouble is not that you have a different view than the other editors, that is always encouraged, otherwise how would new input present itself? And it is also laudable that you are fighting for your particular viewpoint. But.... There comes a time when consensus is sufficiently established, and when you've turned over, and repeated, your arguments so many times, that it becomes disruptive. That point (imho) has passed a couple of times, in this particular case. It is the failure to back away from the horse-carcass that is the problem. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's a key point. The point of consensus building is that, at some stage, a consensus is reached and the editors abide by it. A consensus doesn't require everyone to agree with it, but it does require editors to recognise that there is a consensus and react accordingly. I've not been involved with Gavin or this particular issue but it seems to me, based on what's been said, that this is a classic example of tendentious editing, where someone repeats his arguments endlessly without ever acknowledging that the conversation has moved on. It's a form of low-level disruptive editing that can be extremely aggravating over time, to the point of driving away editors who are fed up with the endless circular arguments. Gavin's problem, it seems to me, that he is unable or unwilling to accept that he has (in effect) lost the argument and that it's time to move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As 2/0 advice, bring it in to WP:OR/N and argument the case there. Your edit above looks very good . You got a block for this on a technical reason, not for the content itself. Please bring it in on the WP:OR/N board which is the next logical step as pointed out by 2/0. Nsaa (talk)


 * I think a "key point" is that consensus can change, but there are editors who have banded together at these articles to give the impression that that they won't let it change. Unit  Anode  20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus changes when new information, or new analysis, or a new viewpoint, is available from respected sources. It shouldn't change because so many people are reciting the same erroneous or unsupported views that those who know what they're talking about get fed up with repeating themselves and find something more constructive to do with their free time. --Nigelj (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's what Ben Goldacre calls a "zombie argument". Except, I suppose, that the difference is that at least you can whack a zombie's brain to kill it for good, but these arguments just go shuffling on. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Zombies don't call for sources like GC did. GC's call for sources is what Wikipedia humanity is about. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

BozMo's suggestion may not be terrible, but let me request that we focus on where Gavin reraised this issue so as to prompt this request. It seems to have been his comment here. The comment seems to me directly relevant to WMC's suggestion that there be an AFD for Climate change consensus, which I believe he suggested was the content fork. Gavin commented that he didn't agree with that approach. Is this disruptive? I don't see it. Mackan79 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not making the case, I am only explaining my judgement which (as has been a courtesy habit) I leave for a second uninvolved admin opinion. As far as I went back Gavin.collins started arguing that "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" was a POV fork going back to at least 10 Dec and was still going on on 27 Jan . In this period it went through an RFC which was closed under snow, got taken to various policy pages, changed in form to rename, merge etc., went through article and individual talk pages, got GC blocked for making his change against talk page consensus breaking 3RR had warnings from different admins but still after all the explanation given by many parties (plus a few agreements on bits and pieces) essentially the second edit shows a deep seated view that he is right and anyone who disagreed with him is wrong. --BozMo talk 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes, I think you're right the last edit you link does look more like carrying on rather than trying to do something more constructive. There are almost always other options to pushing for a name change in any case. Mackan79 (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a larger issue here with Gavin's general discussion behavior. I'm not involved in the climate change stuff but have seen his contributions there and follows the same pattern that he has used in the past and currently at other places like WT:FICT, WT:N and so on. He has a very passive-aggressive tone, and presumes that policy and guidelines as he interprets them are the only correct answer, and generally is not open to the idea of "consensus drives policy". Everyone's free to their own opinion and the like and contribute to discussion, but Gavin seems to latch onto a specific cause with a few policy/guideline in his hands and fights even when there is strong consensus against him. The problem is there's absolutely nothing wrong (in terms of guidelines or policy for discussions) with Gavin's approach beyond rubbing people the wrong way and extending the useful life of discussion of a topic until he's either exhausted everyone else. There needs to be some understanding from Gavin to know when a discussion has passed an appropriate point and when consensus is overwhelmingly against his ideas and to just drop it. --M ASEM (t) 22:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The result of the mediation case was that the original research was removed, and replaced with sourced content. I don't wish to say that I am being stonewalled in this case, just that I feel three criticims of the article I made are, at least in part, valid, and I don't see why I should be forced out of participating in these discussions because some editors disagree with me, and have formed an opinion that voicing criticism indicates that I am acting in bad faith. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect, that wider issue is not really for this page which exists for raising and dealing with probation violations on Climate Change only. There are other places for that, this should close as soon as we have decided what we do on Climate Change articles. --BozMo talk 22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, sure, I understand that it's only in the scope of this topic, but I only offer these points in consideration of whatever remedy is needed here and Gavin's long-term behavior in consideration. --M ASEM (t) 23:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy I was quoting was WP:DISPUTE "If the previous steps fail to resolve the dispute, try one of the following methods. Which ones you choose and in what order depends on the nature of the dispute and the preferences of people involved.". I read that as saying it is wrong to keep on with an argument without progressing, basically that don't flog the dead horse is covered by the policy. Not that I think one should be completely policy bound anyway but it is better if one tries to stay within them. Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As Mackan79 has already pointed out, I am open to going through the process of dispute resolution, and the fact that I have been persistent is in no way a black mark against me. I have participated in similar case, in which my proposal to clean up the original research in the article Kender was stonewalled by multiple editors for an extended period using many of the same tactics that have been employed here, namely to attack me, and blame me for the disagreements rather than address the content issues.
 * I notice that mediation was started by BOZ (different from BozMo!) after months of disruption and it ended as stalled after a few more months. There was some improvement to the article but many editors just left, there's comments like 'It would most certainly NOT mean "working" with Gavin again'. I shall repeat again, it is up to a person who feels they have a dispute or problem to either progress it or drop it. Not doing so and continually going on about the dispute is a conduct problem as it causes disruption. Please follow WP:DISPUTE when you feel you have a dispute and you are not making progress, just keeping on soapboxing against consensus is disruptive. Dmcq (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fairness to me, I welcomed the Kender mediation as means to end the personal attacks which had become a feature of the discussions, but once the mediation process was over, it seems BOZ could go back to saying what ever he liked, but that is his business. A feature of our discussions was it is difficult to accept arguments in the absense of source that "there is not a problem" as being little more a brush off. Sourcing in the lead of the article Scientific opinion on climate change is key to understanding what this article is about, yet it is currently sourced by original research. You can label my patience and persitance as Civil POV pushing if you like, but we really ought to be focusing on the article's content issues, not what you think of me or what my motivations are. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your 'patience and persitance' is a conduct problem as you should follow WP:DISPUTE. Instead you are causing disruption. Follow the policy. Dmcq (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would it now be an article ban, just because of a general sense that he's difficult to work with? If he's so difficult to work with, then as he says, we should just ban him. I strongly oppose the strengthening of any sanction proposal on the basis of bluster, as this would be a bad idea even if it were applied evenly. Consider that yesterday WMC explained his problems as having to deal with too many "idiots." I'm still not sure there is disruption here to require a sanction; it is certainly micromanaging, but if there is such concern about his claim that this is a content fork then that seems to be the issue. Mackan79 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Mackan here. This instabanning of one side, while coddling the hell out of the other has to stop. Unit  Anode  19:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me understand this right. Is it that you are supporting that disruption should continue on this article talk page because you think Gavin.collins is a climate change sceptic and you think I am a believer and you think this would in some way balance WMC actions? This is your way of improving Wikipedia? Dmcq (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but that's a bit ridiculous, Dmcq. My view is that we should have standards, and we should be able to say what they are, and admins should apply those standards.  This will lead to much less disruption on the talk pages, because it will show that the system works the way a system is supposed to work. Mackan79 (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't want disruption can I ask you not to try making a point by supporting the continuance of disruption on this article thanks. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You can ask me anything, civilly, but I'm surprised you haven't picked up that I do not find anything about Gavin.collins' actions so disruptive that he should be banned. I do think your confrontational style on the talk page has been unhelpful, and clearly we disagree about whether editors should be prohibited from continuing to state civilly that they disagree with a particular position, where it is relevant.  I'm not sure that discussion will go further here at the moment. Mackan79 (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well why don't you raise the point somewhere if you believe my interpretation of WP:DISPUTE is wrong? I believe in ending disputes rather than continuing them. I do not think Wikipedia is a talk shop for people to go on about things for months or years on end without any new ideas, it is not a social network site for people with nothing better to do than complain. Dmcq (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would encourage Gavin.collins to appeal this article ban to the Arbcom. In such appeal, include relevant facts about the one-sided nature of nearly all administrative actions at this enforcement page. I don't think that the current group of "uninvolved" administrators will change course unless forced to do so by the committee. Unit  Anode  20:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt you can make a credible case that enforcement has consistently been biased one way or the other. After all LHvU and to a lesser extent Lar are involved, and they're hardly biased in favor of the "GWCab" as their friend Cla68 calls us (if anything the opposite). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They are, indeed, truly "uninvolved" admins. However, their sane voices are too often ignored. Name one major sanction against the "GWCab" that has arisen from this "enforcement" page. If you count the civility "requirement" about WMC, I'll just have to laugh. That is a joke, as was demonstrated when he flouted it immediately, and nothing was done. Unit  Anode  21:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Gavin.collins

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

Well I have finished reading this and have indeed given this user calming advice before to no avail, but am uninvolved on the probation definitions. I propose that rather than prohibiting Gavin.collins from any Climate Change articles we simply prohibit him from ever again initiating or contributing to any discussion on any page on Wikipedia on whether any Climate Change articles are POV forks or need merging or demerging. I think this is minimal in impact and will allow him to contribute to articles but will stop a prolonged discussion which has become tenditious, bordering on obsessive. Do we have a seconder?--BozMo talk 21:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could be, though the demarcation might get a bit blurry. I was more leaning towards an article ban, myself. On the other hand - Gavin.collins, would you be willing just to drop this particular issue? We can always come back here if the problematic points resurface in other issues. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you both feel that this article is not a content fork and that a mediation case would not be productive, then come out and say so and I will drop the issue. Likewise with the issue of the lead being comprised of originial research; if this is not an issue, then say so. The two issues are linked in my mind (together with the issues of the article's name, and the arbitary segregation of source scientific sources from other commentators), but I can decouple these points. Otherwise just ban me, and be done with it.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You remain free to seek mediation or other steps in the dispute resolution process, but your current conduct at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change has been disruptive. Whether I think the lead comprises original research is completely immaterial - that would be for No original research/Noticeboard. If you agree to stop blustering at that talkpage, I think we can just drop this and move on. I think that that is the best result you can hope for at this board, which is focused on behaviour, not content. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion on the content fork issue and haven't even read the article concerned to comment on the OR issue but I do notice a considerable weight of opinion against this going back many weeks, and that you keep arguing it absolutely relentlessly across different pages. I am not very keen on you starting again on a load of policy pages on this same issue but I would rather you carried on contributing to Wikipedia. But yes I would accept that you agree to drop this issue and find somewhere else to contribute as an outcome. Or what I proposed above which is intended to be light touch --BozMo talk 10:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly from above comment which I have moved to the right place Gavin.collins does not seem to recognise any problem with his behaviour, and just wants this process to get out of his way. I don't think a co-operative solution looks promising: I move to article ban. --BozMo talk 15:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Banned from Scientific opinion on climate change and Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change for three months, with the exception of being free to open a thread at an appropriate noticeboard (there does not seem to have been an WP:OR/N discussion, which would seem the next logical step) or a mediation case? Gavin.collins is arguing from policy (whether correctly applied or not I would not venture), so I think we need to leave pursuit of further dispute resolution open. Beating the same drum at the talkpage has become disruptive, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

 * 1) 6 by

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | Closed as mess. If you have a diff of WMC making some sort of comment that you find inappropriate, made after this moment (06:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)) then let me know on my talk page or something. But this section is a mess that will go nowhere. Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  06:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center; font-style:italic;" | The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

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 : Heyitspeter (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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

Violations on Climate Change project pages and articles

WP:Civil / WP:NPA an "over-enthusiastic noob"]
 * 1) "spoon feeding for the hard of understanding"
 * 2) "AQFK's assertions of impartiality indeed appear 'laughable'...Could we try to stick to reality, please"
 * 3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=338742824&oldid=338736723 NimbusWeb
 * 1) "What are you on, old fruit?"
 * 2) "If you don't want to be condescended to, I suggest you stop making quite so many mistakes."
 * 3) "@MN:noob"
 * 4) "repair for the incompetent"
 * 5) "this entire section is stupid"
 * 6) Unproductive jab ("utter rubbish").
 * 7) Adds an insinuation that an editor is a fool to his comment
 * 8) Adds an accusation of bias to his comment
 * 9) "MN is, as usual, defending anything anti-GW, regardless of reality"

WP:Consensus / WP:Disrupt violations
 * 1) Removes entire section with no consensus
 * 2) Again, 24 hours later
 * These removals were in violation of WP:V, a policy WMC knows well as a one-time administrator. See in particular "The code section was utter rubbish, based on a misunderstanding by Newsnight" (Newsnight is a programme on the BBC)


 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban, or other sanction)
 * Topic ban (Edit: I don't really care how it's dealt with, frankly, I just think it should be dealt with. Whatever makes the most sense.)


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


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : The current request is filed a) for enforcement with respect to William M. Connolley's WP:Civil and WP:NPA violations that weren't dealt with in the earlier requests, and b) for enforcement with respect to violations committed since those threads were closed (these include further WP:Civil and WP:NPA violations, along with WP:Disrupt and WP:V violations). WMC has received repeated warnings for his behavior and has demonstrated that he has no plans to alter it. It would help if he stepped away from the GW articles. His additions/subtractions are hindering, not helping.


 * (A little background: Two requests were recently filed against WMC, but neither dealt with the current concerns. The first covered his refactoring of user comments, resulting in WMC's being "required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done; he is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, and to promptly refactor any unintentional typos." (see original text here). The above diffs do not concern his use of the term "septic," as he has been formally warned about this. The second request was closed without result as it concerned refactoring too.)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by William_M._Connolley
was correct. As noted, there are no RS for that section (or rather, there are no RS for the first part; the rebuttal is fine, because it is by people who have a clue), and it is wrong. There is no consensus to *keep* that section William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

TGL said If I'm misunderstanding his actual role then he is free to correct me - yes, you're hopelessly confused. You can look at the papers if you want. GIGO does appear to apply William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning William_M._Connolley
My complaint listed some blatant BLP violations and the result was an ambiguous sort of "Please don't do that again" (without referring to the BLP violations). Honestly, if someone has a consistent long-term pattern of making BLP violations against skeptics (he does) then they shouldn't be editing those articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As for your comment on Newsnight, Connolley seems to have a problem with lots of sources (New York Times, BBC) when they don't get things "right" (in his mind). Unfortunately, he has been shown to be wrong in his declarations of what is correct and what is not, which is why WP:VERIFY is followed - not an editor's opinion on whether the sources are right or not. Honestly, this bending/breaking of wikipedia policy comes off as intentionally obstructionist and even when presented with evidence of his own WP:CIVIL violations he refuses to acknowledge the evidence that everyone else can clearly see. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

From Short Brigade Harvester Boris: One senses a "piling on" here: as soon as one complaint against WMC is closed another is filed, covering the same issues as in previous complaints (as TGL points out). Pressing the same issues over and over and over again until one achieves the result one wants isn't really in the spirit of dispute resolution. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I tried to make this clear. The current request concerns numerous violations committed since the earlier enforcement, and numerous violations that were not dealt with as a category by the earlier request (and not because they weren't actionable). Consider this a second installment to be dealt with while remaining cognizant of the other "ruling," rather than an attempt to push out that ruling. It's quite the opposite, really... (p.s., TGL didn't say that this covered the same issues raised earlier. He mentioned BLP violations which aren't under consideration.) --Heyitspeter (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As there are recent diffs involved, which do appear (at least on the surface) problematic, I see no problem with this request. WMC often uses his edit summaries to belittle sources, edits, and editors. He needs to stop this, or be stopped from doing it. Unit Anode  07:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Statement from Unitanode

From ChyranandChloe: How do we deal with civil PoV pushing? That's what I'm wondering about. Was civility intended to allow issues to be raised over and over again like a child at a toy shop until they get what they want? And that a stern no, you do not understand, would be impolite? ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

From Off2riorob: I would have thought that considering the only very recent additional civility conditions applied to WMC in reference to demeaning other editors that this edit on his talkpage from yesterday is a violation of those conditions, he clearly refers to editors as the idiots. Off2riorob (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

From ChrisO: Sigh - here we go again. It should be obvious to all by now that there is an ongoing campaign against WMC by his detractors on and off-wiki. Frankly it is hard to assume good faith of this complaint. At what point will this be declared vexatious? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, his off-wiki detractors include several journalists and scientists (and whose articles WMC edits). Is this what you were referring to? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of LS and Delingwhatver- who else are you thinking of? Can't think of any scientists. You can't possibly mean Watts-up-with-my-failure-to-understand-wiki can you? He's not a scientist. So who are these masked scientists? I think the world should be told! William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Timothy Ball for one. You've edited his articles, he's been critical of you and he is indeed a scientist. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

From Oren0: On the one hand, these repeated WMC threads are tiresome. On the other hand, these diffs are all from the last few days. What does it say that different editors keep putting up new diffs of the same type of behavior and nothing ever happens? It seems to me that the community needs to decide whether repeated and unapologetic violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA will be overlooked because WMC is seen by many as a longstanding positive contributor. Almost any other editor would have been sanctioned or banned by now. Do the rules apply to everyone or not? Oren0 (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the diffs cited by TGL are old - pre-dating the civility parole (or whatever you want to call it) imposed by 2/0 on 27 January. It is frankly debatable whether the two diffs post-dating that warning are violations at all. Using old diffs is not a sign of a good faith complaint. This complaint is almost entirely an attempt to re-litigate the last one, which was closed in a way that evidently didn't suit TGL's goals. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ChrisO, I'm the one filing the request, not TGL.
 * That diffs pre-dating the results of the previous request were included in the current filing wasn't hidden, it was pointed out in the "additional comments by editor" section. The earlier filing had nothing to do with the current violations. Would you retract the accusation of bad faith? I think there may have been a misunderstanding.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That diffs pre-dating the results of the previous request were included in the current filing wasn't hidden, it was pointed out in the "additional comments by editor" section. The earlier filing had nothing to do with the current violations. Would you retract the accusation of bad faith? I think there may have been a misunderstanding.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

From Mackan79 Unless there's something really bad here, which I don't see, I don't see the point in adding sanctions to sanctions that were just imposed. Try something and see if it works, don't try something and then immediately try another thing. Mackan79 (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking comment, on the basis of the above enforcement against Gavin.collins which was strengthened for some weak bluster on his part in response to the proposed remedy. WMC's comments yesterday attributing his problems to a group of idiots is at least equally problematic.  I do not agree with this pattern of enforcement, but if that is the standard then WMC's sanction should be increased in the same manner, and this report should not be dismissed. Mackan79 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

From Nigelj There is more to writing an encyclopedia than trawling through blogs and the popular media, finding something that mentions a topic, and sticking it straight into the article. People with very little background in climate change science, data analysis, computer programming, computer modeling or any other related field are going to have a hard time applying WP:WEIGHT and other necessary judgement calls to what they read in the popular press. Even the journalists and the bloggers are having a hard time getting up-to-speed, and many of them are failing to do so in this complex subject area. Some bloggers and journalists that do understand the issues, unfortunately are using the fact that they know that most of their readership do not, to blind us with science and pull the wool over our eyes for political reasons, or 'just because they can'. For the few regular editors who do understand the issues involved, having repeatedly to defend well-written and balanced articles against such non-expert or uninformed edits can be tiresome. Sometimes, the easiest way to close down a discussion that is based on false premises, and so is going nowhere, is to point out the obvious - that the contender is not fully aware of the facts. This may be disappointing to someone who feels that they have found a choice quote and wants it prominently displayed in the article. But, really, they wouldn't expect to be able to do that on the Laws of thermodynamics or Semiconductor device modeling, so why do they feel that they should be considered domain experts on complex global warming sub-topics? Without WMC and a few others' overview and expertise, WP would be little better than Conservapedia in these areas by now. People are going to have to learn to live with that disappointment. --Nigelj (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, calling other editors "idiots", and "yahoos" yesterday isn't a violation of his restrictions? That just doesn't make any sense. I fully understand that their is WMC fatigue at this board. However, that doesn't mean that he should be allowed to blatant violate hid "required to" restrictions, just because there have been 3 threads about him lately. If "idiots" and "yahoos" do not constitute a violation of it, what will? Unit  Anode  14:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lenience is usually given to users on their own talk-page when a sanction has just been invoked. Lets people blow off steam.  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. That "lenience" is for blocked users, not people who were just sanctioned for incivility. That doesn't even make any sense. Unit  Anode  17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's today's excuse. Tomorrow it will be he's being harassed. The next day it will be some technicality like "does linking to an offsite essay on fools really constitute and attack?" The next day it will be "it's been FOUR whole days since his last attack so cut him some slack". There will always be an excuse. ATren (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Phonetically noob looks like it stands for newbie, or is there a darker sense of the word? --BozMo talk 16:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet another justification from people regarding WMC's name-calling. Unit  Anode  16:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually Bozmo there are two ways to use noob although it can be used derogatory manner this was not the case when WMC used it against me, the context is everything with this word :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs)


 * Bozmo, see Noob. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well Nigel, I can only speak to my experience and observations where WMC and his friends do everything they can to keep out newspaper articles they don't agree with and, in fact, "blogs" are oddly enough not a problem when they link back to WMC's ex-blog (which they seem to do a lot). Your "expertise' argument makes little sense due to WMC's controversial edits regarding pro-AGW political organizations and his BLP-violating tendencies (towards skeptics), and, in fact, I believe he is was "climate modeller," which basically means he plugged in number into a computer program - this would give one very little expertise in the actual processes themselves (e.g. GIGO). TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering the complaint here is that WMC is not acceptably civil, do you think stating that he "basically plugged in number into a computer program" and "this would give one very little expertise in the actual processes themselves," and finally, stating he was involved in a garbage-in-garbage-out operation above, below or at the level of civility that WMC would have to demonstrate to avoid sanction, so that he can understand exactly what degree of incivility you consider appropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a background in comp sci and GIGO is a well-known and fundamental principle. If I'm misunderstanding his actual role then he is free to correct me, but to the best of my knowledge that was his role - and it doesn't make a person an expert climatologist just like coding a word processor doesn't make a person a good writer. Thanks for proving my earlier point about how those who comment on WMC will be attacked or threatened. Gee, I wonder why you guys think you can do that as much as you want? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm attacking you, I'm trying to figure out what you, think is an acceptable level of incivility. As I have a background in banking, I can tell you that calling my collegues "fucking assholes," is considered perfectly civil, but assuming that they do and do not understand certain things in the field in which they profess knowledge is considered a serious slight. As such, would it be appropriate for me to call you a fucking asshole? No, obviously not! As such, please refrain from questioning if an identifiable living person lacks the credentials which they have demonstrated, and avoid using lingo that while considered civil in your local area, is not considered broadly civil. (Like saying someone is working with garbage data). Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I specifically linked the GIGO article so it could be understood instead of misconstrued in order to make an incivility accusation. As I said, it is a well-known principle, and if you look at the context I was making it clear that making a modelling program isn't going to give a person a fundamental understanding of the data or how that data was derived. Seriously, try holding WMC to the same bizarre standard you are trying to hold to me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever you meant, remind me not to ask you to help with my CV: You make WMC sound like a data-input clerk who couldn't even get that right, inputting garbage and so getting garbage out. And you say he has 'very little expertise' in climate physics itself? On what do you base that assertion? --Nigelj (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if he has significant expertise regarding climate physics. The point I was making is that neither does anybody else. Being a "climate modeller" is something you'd put on your resume to show your programming experience - not an expertise in climatology. The problem is that people keep on fluffing up his credentials as a way of saying he doesn't need to follow wikipedia policies regarding sourcing, verifiability, BLP and civility. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. So you're here to bring him down a peg or two, using your knowledge of his academic and professional career. Good plan. --Nigelj (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You were the one fluffing up his record and saying other people were quoting blogs (not being critical of WMC's blog inserting activities) - I was merely correctly the record. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So why did you bring up your unverifiable beliefs about his career? WMC's reputation here rests on positive contributions he has made to Wikipedia over the years, he has to follow policies as everyone else has to. These policies include commenting on actual edits rather than making unsourced allegations about people's credentials. Please comply. You've made some allegations above, please supply diffs. . . dave souza, talk 21:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, here is a diff of him quoting his own blog. Are you telling me you were seriously unaware of him and his friends quoting his old blog as a reliable source? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, it's not his own blog, and at first glance it's expert opinion by Beate Liepert which appears to meet rs for selfpublished sources. Rather off topic, if you want to keep trying please take it to the talk page of this notice board. Thanks, dave souza, talk 22:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but he is one of maybe 10 contributors to that blog - it isn't like it is HuffPo where there are hundreds of contributors. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Thegoodlocust;
 * WMC dosen't contribute there anymore, and all, and was only involved in the technical side, basically. Could you please stop casting aspersions about identifiable living persons? I think everyone would really appreciate it if you considered removing all of your comments about WMC's real life occupation and competence.
 * With the most abject politeness
 * Hipocrite Hipocrite (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet he made a post after his apparent depature, and, indeed has blogged several times on the subject of climate change there. I didn't notice the website saying he worked only on the technical side of things - how would you know something like that Hipocrite? Anyway, I didn't bring up his outside occupation, one of his defenders did with the "expertise" argument for BLP-violations and incivility - I was merely correcting the record on what his actual expertise consisted of. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried asking polietly above. I'll try begging now. Please stop refering derogatorily to peoples offwiki careers and remove your prior discussion of how WMC was a glorified data monkey? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've collapsed the above comments as rather off topic and a personal attack referring to a users offwiki work. Can we keep civil and on topic? I believe sanctions may be in order regarding the attack in the collapsed section above. Vsmith (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you do Vsmith, you've long defended Connolley and his activity while sanctioning those who point out his faults and activities. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:AGF & WP:NPA. . . dave souza, talk 22:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What happened to the collapse? Might i point out something here to everyone, when a RFS is brought against WMC it very quickly degenerates into a slanging match. All this achieves is the entire request is ruined by the bickering, i see people annoyed at 2/0 for quickly closing these requests out. Look at what he has to deal with. I would ask everyone that is someone makes a comment they disagree with (like TGL and Hippocrite above) they should take it to the users talk page, and keep these requests for sanction to actually deal with the request and not fill it up with bickering mark nutley (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I broadly agree with MN above. Filing an enforcement request against WMC does not give one open license to denigrate him personally and professionally, as has repeatedly been done above. On the other hand those who have complaints deserve for them to be taken seriously (at least up to the point where they become clearly contentious). As a tactical matter in disputes like this the first "side" to quit slanging mud is the winner. Taking the high road gives your concerns credibility rather than turning the light on your own behavior.
 * And 2/0 is stuck in the middle. No matter what he does, someone will object that it is too severe / not severe enough / biased toward the other guy's side / biased toward the other other guy's side / ad infinitum. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * EC...Thegoodlocust decided to undo the collapse and keep up his attacks. I don't plan to edit war over it and I guess other admins watching are offline(?) it's Friday evening/night slowdown time I guess. Or just watch and let 'em dig a deeper hole... and my connection is really slow for this looong page (maybe snow 'tween me and the satellite?) Vsmith (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another admin asked for me for a diff and then you collapsed. Apparently I was either going to get banned for making unsubstantiated accusations or for uncollapsing your collapse. No wonder few people want to call out WMC with the chilling behavior of some admins - and I say few because I often see other uninvolved editors comment on the unfortanate state of the global warming articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note I'm acting as an editor, not as an admin. Your diff from 2005 does not say much about current behavioural issues. . . dave souza, talk 00:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The point was that NigelJ was criticizing others for using blogs as sources (not something I usually do), but WMC and his friends have a habit of quoting not just blogs, but WMC's own ex-blog. It was a minor point meant to highlight the inconsistency of criticism and as for the date of the diff it was just the first one that came up in a search - there are plenty out there. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From JPatterson - It is obvious to me that WMC is a valued contributor here and perhaps it is true that expertise, like love, covers a multitude of sins. What puzzles me is why someone with such a command of the science needs to resort so often to condescension and personal denigration of those who disagree with him. Poking and prodding frustrated editors has no upside that I can see. His defenders, and they are legion, rightly advise his detractors to argue the content and not make comments about the editor. Would that they would offer the same advice to William. If he would take it, it would go a long way towards blunting the criticisms of one-sided enforcement. And if he has grown so weary of fending off the hordes that he is no longer capable of civil discourse perhaps a break is in order. There are many others willing and able to take up his cause in his absence. JPatterson (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that I'd like to see WMC show more politeness, the stress of being hounded by persistent civil pov-pushers is some explanation but not an excuse. Having said that, he's shown care to make his remarks general and not personal attacks, and civil discourse isn't the same thing as extreme politeness, desirable as that often is. This whole section seems to be based on one revert one day, and after discussion another revert more than 24 hours later, complying with the letter of the sanction. Comparing his behaviour to other more egregious cases isn't useful. . . dave souza, talk 00:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Out of curiousity, how long has WMC's behavior been harmed by "persistent civil pov-pushers?" He's been making BLP violations against skeptics for many years - what is his excuse for that? And what is the excuse for not sanctioning him for such behavior? TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

From Heyitspeter: Just thought I'd point this out for those who love irony. It wasn't included in the above diffs. At this diff, you can see where WMC's response to the formal enforcement warning ("to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms") breaks the terms of that warning ("this is silly and a victory for the yahoo's"). Concerns with the grammar and civility of this sentence are brought to his attention, at which point he addresses the grammar concerns but declines to address civility, adding, "I lack your patience with the idiots," transgressing the enforcement again.
 * A condition for a personal attack is that it is personal. This is a personal attack. Talking about the stupidity/idiocy/yahooness of Wikipedia editors in general is an opinion, not a personal attack. Despite what it may seem, this is not Mrs. Merdle's Finishing School for Young Ladies. I can say "fuck" here. I cannot say "fuck you" (in the singular). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Stephan Schulz. Would you mind reading my comment one more time? I know this thread is getting very complex. This wasn't in regards to WP:NPA, this was in regards to WMC's ignoring the warning given in the earlier enforcement on this page. I quoted the relevant text in the comment you're responding to here: WMC was "warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms."
 * That said, if "warnings" don't hold weight then this may not be too important. --Heyitspeter (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is most definitely not a Finishing School, and we are also not toddlers (I hope). Given these things, when someone refers to 'yahoos' and their 'victory', it would take willful blindness not to acknowledge that this is directed toward a specific group of editors, and is -poison- to working collaboratively. In other words, WP:BATTLE. Arkon (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So is creating a page where he categorizes prominent climate skeptics as "septics" a personal attack, a BLP violation or both? I'd love to see a defense of this. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's absolutely ludicrous, Stephan, even for an ardent WMC defender. Claiming that insulting an entire subset of your opponents by calling them "idiots" and "yahoos" is just beyond the pale of what can be accurately called reasonable discussion. If I (or ATren, or TGL, or Heyitspeter) wrote, "The pro-AGW crowd are batshit insane liars", we would be blocked almost before we clicked save. Unit  Anode  00:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that you model the behavior you wish to see in others? A very quick look at your talk page shows you referring to another editor's comments as "utter bullshit," and that you have been warned by an admin for referring to good-faith edits as "vandalism." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, stop Boris. Comparing saying "That's bullshit" in reference to someone's statement is not remotely similar to saying that other editors are idiots and yahoos. As for the "vandalism" thing, I should probably let your utter misrepresentation of the facts fall on its own, but I'll just say that what the other editor was doing (while not, technically, "vandalism", as I acknowledged and apologized for), was WELL outside of policy. One way or the other, stop deflecting from the issue by attacking me. We're discussing WMC's complete flouting of what was supposed to be a civility requirement. I note also that your "quick look" (yeah, right) led you to the ONLY two remotely contentious threads at my talkpage. Unit  Anode  18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm the editor in question and I was none too pleased by the exchange. UnitAnode wasn't merely out of line to accuse me of vandalism and mass-revert my edits, he was just flat-out wrong as a content matter and pursuing an attempt to change policy.  I'm not going to carry onto this page a claim about UnitAnode's edits in a different topic area, and would not have said a word if I were not being accused here again, but this is the third major arbcom, article probation, and/or Arbcom-related topic area where I've seen this kind of behavior in recent weeks.  I'd appreciate a toning down by about 95% of accusations of misbehavior leveled by all sides at the long-term productive editors around here with which one simply happens to disagree regarding content.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not to condone in any way WMC's (do I have to spell it out every time, really?) approach. "idiots" and "yahoos" is indeed farther over the line on the WP:CIVIL scale than "bullshit" and "vandalism", though the effect is the same, to alienate people you're supposed to be collaborating with and cut off any chance for productive discussion. It takes us off track, and I don't think it's fair, to bring up UnitAnode's behavior, or mine, or anyone else's in this section, which is supposed to be about a single editor.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I said I was wrong to classify it as vandalism. That should have been the end of it. Please let it go. Unit  Anode  20:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, on the letting-go front I am responding to a statement you just made about me. I believe I just said that this section should not be a general forum for criticizing other editors.  If you're willing to do that, then let's do it!  We're in agreement about the substance of the present conversation, about 80% anyway.  You can have the last word but please don't put me down yet again here.  Thanks,  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for analysis
Comment to 2/0 Can I ask you to go through the diffs provided, and explain how each is not actionable, or not a violation of the probation? Arkon (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in seeing your diff-by-diff explanation of this as well 2/0. Unit  Anode  17:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I as well. ATren (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved administrator who agrees with WMC on actual content issues, I too would "fourth" this request. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree .. why not, we must be fair here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

These are listed in chronological order; if you find that I have made a copy/paste error, please bring it to my attention at User talk:2over0 or just correct it.


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340409866 - a link on his talkpage to Coton C of E Primary School
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340410221 - expresses disappointment in the sanction being lodged. Nobody enjoys being subjected to restrictions, long term productive contributors doubly so.
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340410412 - grammar fix in own post
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340410991 - removes a completed talkpage thread from own talkpage
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340411093 - ditto
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0&diff=prev&oldid=340414988 - finishing a discussion with me
 * 7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_the_IPCC_AR4&diff=prev&oldid=340415296 - recommends semi-protection if problematic edits continue
 * 8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=340416014 - comment on another thread here
 * 9) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340498713 - grammar correction in own post; touchy and ill-advised comment, but not actionable
 * 10) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=prev&oldid=340498951 - edit during discussion, citing WP:RS
 * 11) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=prev&oldid=340499005 - self-revert mindful of the 1RR sanction on Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
 * 12) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=prev&oldid=340499179 - disagreement over sourcing; unproductive comment
 * 13) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=340499412 - typo correction; argues WP:RECENTISM
 * 14) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=prev&oldid=340567886 - with reference to talkpage and WP:RS
 * 15) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=prev&oldid=340568156 - changes header level
 * 16) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=prev&oldid=340568355 - self-corrects previous
 * 17) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=prev&oldid=340568883 - argues that a source is unusable, with explanation
 * 18) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years&diff=prev&oldid=340569269 - removes a Citation needed recently added to a statement that is a major point of the linked article discussed in that sentence
 * 19) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ATren&diff=prev&oldid=340569669#Pachauri - comments that his last name was misspelled
 * 20) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=340570162 - refocusing a discussion here
 * 21) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=340570590 - argues WP:WEIGHT
 * 22) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=prev&oldid=340573404 - calling for discussion of a controversial edit
 * 23) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=prev&oldid=340573644 - adds a comment on another editor to the previous. I assume the quote is accurate.
 * 24) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=prev&oldid=340578505#Totally_broken - argues WP:RS and WP:BURDEN
 * 25) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glaciergate&diff=prev&oldid=340579239 - prod and redirect. This is out of process, but the content exists elsewhere and is highly unlikely to be a viable article; I have not checked whether those three redirects should be discussed at Redirects for discussion.
 * 26) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&diff=prev&oldid=340579570 - argues against particular attribution
 * 27) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&diff=prev&oldid=340579779 - ditto previous
 * 28) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=340579948 - requests clarification
 * 29) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340580143 - argues WP:BURDEN
 * 30) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Environment/Climate_change_task_force&diff=prev&oldid=340580309 - removes self from WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force with the edit summary: ldwd, guwf
 * 31) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tillman&diff=prev&oldid=340580882 - argues WP:RS of a source for a particular statement
 * 32) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tillman&diff=prev&oldid=340581867 - chatter related to WP:Dispute resolution (on the discuss personally and seek outside input side of the scale)
 * 33) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0&diff=prev&oldid=340582084 - more on Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
 * 34) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340582198 - removal of comment from own talkpage
 * 35) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=340582436 - requests specificity in talkpage discussion
 * 36) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340582621 - argues WP:RS of a source
 * 37) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Jones_(climatologist)&diff=prev&oldid=340582875 - WP:BLP
 * 38) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClimate&diff=prev&oldid=340582924 - rvv
 * 39) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340589461 - WP:RS and WP:BURDEN again
 * 40) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340589870 - removes comment from own talkpage
 * 41) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=340590621 - remains polite and on topic
 * 42) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=prev&oldid=340595888 - argues WP:Consensus
 * 43) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=340596061 - tyop
 * 44) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident&diff=prev&oldid=340601752 - fails to refocus debate
 * 45) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0&diff=prev&oldid=340609064 - requests refactoring of erroneous or misleading statement
 * 46) The graph in that section *is* the satellite temperature record William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 47) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=340610737 - adds suggestion that another editor take more care to previous
 * 48) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Jones_(climatologist)&diff=prev&oldid=340683098 same WP:BLP as last Phil Jones edit
 * 49) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=340684106 - polite discussion, a bit of a digression well within WP:TPG, and refocusing a discussion
 * 50) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0&diff=prev&oldid=340684639 - notes that there has been rather a lot of incivility at my talkpage lately; more on an earlier self-reversion
 * 51) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0&diff=prev&oldid=340703545 - a bit annoyed at me, but hardly the first time someone has suggested (or insinuated or demanded or requested or inveighed) that I take some administrative action or another (aside: I appreciate when people direct my attention to the latest flare up, but refuse to take action without investigating the current dispute)
 * 52) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0&diff=prev&oldid=340703589 - refactoring own comment
 * 53) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=340703934 - encourages appropriate participation at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
 * 54) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_climate_model&diff=prev&oldid=340716146 - tag removal with explanation; this differs substantially from how I would have treated it, but (a) tags in general are a bit of a policy grey area, and (b) it is irrelevant to this board
 * 55) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0&diff=prev&oldid=340717116 - it might be worth considering a mutual interaction ban, here; such an action would require considerably more evidence-gathering than is available at the present thread, though
 * 56) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0&diff=prev&oldid=340717485 - opines that I soft-locked The Wrong Version
 * 57) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=340744206 - comment on own contributions to articles
 * 58) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marknutley&diff=prev&oldid=340744450 - polite comment
 * 59) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0&diff=prev&oldid=340744774 - encouraging civility. The recipient of this encouragement is someone with whom WMC appears to tend to disagree, but filing down the pointy elbows is in general desperately needed around here.
 * 60) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850&diff=prev&oldid=340745018 - reiterating advice rendered by others
 * 61) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340755342 - science discussion at usertalk
 * 62) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340755396 - removes thread from own talkpage
 * 63) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0&diff=prev&oldid=340755724#mark_nutley - even if strained, there is something to be said for overt politeness
 * 64) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=340758902 - removes comment from own talkpage
 * 65) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=340759380 - from talk here:  that he is a fan of not denying science; suggests that Unitanode has a point of view
 * 66) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=340771409 - requests clarification here
 * 67) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=340772164 - defends an edit above

I venture to suggest that this is not the portrait of an editor we should be topic banning. WMC has been markedly more diplomatic in expressing his opinions since the recent sanction was imposed than at some times past. This is precisely what the sanction was meant to drive home - supporting or opposing an edit with well-reasoned policy-based arguments is good; supporting or opposing an edit with reasoning and reference to past history of the editor can be good or bad depending on how it is done, though sticking to the first approach should obviate any need for it; commenting on a specific editor or group of editors is usually bad, or always if a comment is denigrating or insulting. If he starts attacking other editors then we should do something about it, but at present I think the point is taken. There are plenty of people watching his edits, so I feel confident that yet another enforcement thread will be raised and further sanction imposed if and when he steps over the line. There is *far* too much drawing up the battle lines in this topic area and at this board, and quite generally it interferes with article building and probation enforcement both. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2/0, this wasn't what people asked for. Anyone can give a minimalist summary of a given diff. Also your descriptions are in many places misleading/wrong. I haven't looked through all of them, but some highlights so far include "AQFK's assertions of impartiality indeed appear "laughable"... Could we try to stick to reality, please" summarized as "fails to refocus debate", and "That you can't tell them apart is quite significant" summarized as "adds suggestion that another editor take more care to previous." In diffs 13, 21, 29, 39 you imply that WMC appeals to WP policy, which he emphatically does not. And compare your summary of what is currently diff #9 with mine.
 * Here is the request that was seconded, thirded and fourthed: "Can I ask you to go through the diffs provided, and explain how each is not actionable, or not a violation of the probation?" Please either edit the list you've given to match this request or create a new one. This is frustrating and unhelpful.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I looked at another diff after reading HeyitsPeter's analysis (which I thought was good), in this instance I looked at #37, where you say Connolley is defending WP:BLP, but if you look at the actual edit and the source, then the editor was going by the source (the Times) pretty much word for word. This sort of standard is entirely inconsistent as well since Connolley has been shown to violate BLP quite often (against skeptics) and much more blatantly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, it doesn't really matter in the end, as what was asked for wasn't a description of 67 diffs, it was an explanation of how each of the diffs provided in this request are not actionable, or not in violation of the probation (I hope it's recognized that [one of] these diffs could be determined to be actionable, 2/0).--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see your analysis (which was overall rather interesting) of his BLP violating categorization of prominent climate scientists as "septics?" I'd say that anyone compiling such a policy violating list is inherently incapable of editing those articles neutrally - his pattern of BLP violations is reason enough for a topic ban. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your glossing over his referral to those who requested sanction against him for his incivility as "the mob" and "yahoos" in #2 is quite disappointing. This was the exact type thing for which he was sanctioned. And the edit was almost immediately following the sanctions. Unit  Anode  20:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's time for an RFC/U to get the biased admins off this enforcement page. ATren (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Give people a chance... If I had a nickel for every time I came across as an asshole online over a misunderstanding I'd have a lot of nickels. 2/0's been open to changing his mind/perspective before due to concerns raised. It feels like the pattern you're following is "Mistake->Fuck you" where you could follow "Mistake->You made a mistake!->Sorry about that." or, I suppose, "Mistake->You made a mistake!->Fuck you->Fuck you." Just a thought. It's difficult to operate bilaterally with people that are explicitly attacking you.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with HeyItsPeter. WMC's edit here is a clear violation of assume good faith and a personal attack on my character.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying the Community's Patience
I think the sheer volume of insults, toxic debate, article ownership, and constant POV-pushing by WMC that have resulted in complaint after complaint, appeal after appeal, de-sysoping, and arbcomm work suggest that WCM has seriously tried the patience of the Wikipedia community and that he has become very much of a net liability to the project, and I would suggest a ban, at the very least from AGW articles and perhaps from Wikipedia editing altogether.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This spin-doctored fantasy stuff really has to end. There is no way that comment fairly reflects reality, and this entire thread is another example of the "fling mud until something sticks" approach I outlined in the previous anti-WMC thread. I think WMC could make a logical case that he is being unfairly harassed by ideologues. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with the solution proposed in the initial post of this sub-thread, the main thread isn't "flinging mud" at all. And if it were, WMC provides the dirt, mixes it with the water, and smears it all over himself with how he treats other editors. He calls people "idiots" and "yahoos", even after a motion is passed requiring him to stop doing so. He's become a problem editor, that much is clear. How to solve that problem is what needs to be discussed. Unit  Anode  17:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The problem here is that WMC is now under constant attack from editors who disagree with him. Under such an onslaught, he is struggling to remain diplomatic. Probation is designed to reduce conflict and calm down problem areas, but here the process is being abused by editors who seek to have WMC thrown out of the project. Shameful wikilawyering, basically. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Scjessy, when exactly has he been diplomatic? He has been uncivil to anyone who does not agree with him for years, I have looked at the history of his contributions and he has a terrible habit of putting sarcastic comments and insults into his edit summarys. So either he has been besieged for years and has valiantly kept his temper as you suggest (obviously not looking at his history) or he is just plain old rude and always has been. Do you not think that given his history people have just gotten fed up of it? and this is why they are complaining here? mark nutley (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh please. He responded to the warning not to use derogatory terms with two more derogatory terms! How can it be more obvious than that? This was not baiting; none of the so-called hoards of harassers appeared there, it was only 2/0 stating the decision. If I got a warning on my talk page telling me not to say "foo", and I responded with "FOO! FOO!", how long would it take for me to be blocked? The continued protection of this problem editor by his ideological allies must stop. ATren (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Mark and ATren. Claiming WMC is simply a victim of attacks is willfully ignoring the evidence at hand. Unit  Anode  18:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See how you all gather to pile on? You are making my point for me. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so our arguments in support of maintaining civil discourse are "piling on", "harassment", and "wikilawyering", while WMC's "idiots and yahoos" insults are no big deal? Perhaps you should consider your own position. I would suggest that the "piling on" and "harassment" charges are more aptly directed at those who defend WMC's smears, and who have defended this kind of incivility for years. ATren (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How is the world is calling your fellow editors "idiots" and "yahoos" being diplomatic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends on whether or not the yahoos are behaving like idiots, I suppose. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just so far over the line that I find it impossible to imagine you didn't know that it was completely inappropriate to post it before you hit save. Good grief! Unit  Anode  21:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Scjessey, you once said that "billions" would die due to global warming. I know if I really believed that then I'd feel obligated to do whatever it took to stop that - as such, your defense of WMC is not surprising.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't think anybody cares what you think. Your function on Wikipedia appears to be to provoke drama and assume bad faith wherever you go. Certainly there is little evidence of you having made any useful contributions to article space. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on this and your other posts here, you should either voluntarily remove yourself from this discussion, or be involuntarily removed by an administrator. You need to stop this stuff now. Unit  Anode  21:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a measure of understanding for editors on both sides, and I think this incident shows it. If you ban editors for petty infractions, as is often happening around here ("Ooh look what he said here. This is not encouraging"), then it looks bad when the same won't be applied evenly. It definitely shortens the time frame that this process will be widely accepted. Mackan79 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No-one has been banned for petty infractions, as you know well William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To the contrary. A couple of days ago, BozMo moved to ban User:Gavin.collins with this comment.  In your shoes, I know I wouldn't be comfortable having this reasoning applied to myself.  I'm sure you believe there are extraneous circumstances only in his case, but it was petty, as it would be here. Mackan79 (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I find that diff very interesting since Bozmo is saying Gavin doesn't recognize the problem with his behavior, which I must say is the same impression I have of WMC due to the several times he has denied (despite being shown the diffs) he has called other "septics." I do agree that a problem cannot be solved unless it is first recognized. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling opposing editors "yahoos" is "expressing disappointment"?
2/0, your analysis classifies WMC's statement "This is silly and a victory for the yahoo's" as "expressing disappointment". Further, when he called us idiots, you said it's "not actionable", even though both of these insult occurred just below (indeed, in response to) your own warning stating "(WMC) is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms".

2/0, how can you justify this position? If "idiots" and "yahoos" is not derogatory, what exactly is?

Frankly, this gives the appearance that the original warning was a sham, simply made to give the appearance of even-handedness. And your recent defense of his brazen violation make it seem even more so. Once again, I am asking that you step back from enforcement of this page. ATren (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. This "analysis" of his insults is quite odd. The "blowing off steam" de facto exemption isn't meant to apply to this type of case. It's meant to apply to blocked users who are angry at the blocking administrator. This smacks of rationalization of bad behavior. Unit  Anode  05:25, 31 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.

Move to close as no action. Heyitspeter, I usually look to you to be something of a moderating voice - what happened? This looks more like an attempt to drive off someone with whom you are in a content disagreement, and not like you at all. While the standard of discourse could be higher all around (hint: including at this page), this does not appear to be actionable. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole section is a mess that isn't at all productive. Close. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  06:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * }

TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC
,, #7 by

I am not at all impressed with where as far as I can see TGL did 4 reverts in 24hours and the other two named above did three each. Does anyone disagree with this assessment or that it is edit warring on articles under probation? --BozMo talk 15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought this entire topic, broadly construed, was under a 1RR restriction. If so, all of these editors should receive blocks. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If that isn't an edit war I don't know what is and the article is certainly under probation. So yeah a plague on the lot of them, er sorry I mean yes I agree there should be some sanctions. Dmcq (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've repeatedly asked for 1RR on the entire topic area. As far as I recall, I've been repeatedly refused. Sorry about the edit warring though - that was bad William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, KDP also joined in the edit-warring, with two reverts of his own. If there are sanctions for edit warring, KDP needs included in them. I'd support a 1RR for the lot of them. Unit  Anode  16:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Accused Mark Nutley I`d have to say no to your proposal Bozmo, we were all at it TGL should not be punished more than myself or WMC. Those guys were reverting an entire section based on the fact they did not like one ref. That`s provocation so some leeway should be granted to TGL. Put us all on 1R for being ejit`s and have done with it. mark nutley (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I should note that I actually took time to get copyright permission for the graphic used in the section I wrote up. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No - the whole editing environment has been allowed to deteriorate to the point at which good productive editors have started to behave like the disruptive ones. It's quick action against multiply-offending behaviours by individuals that's required, not teacher putting the whole class into detention due to his own failure, letting the situation descend into chaos. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whom are the good ones and whom are the disruptive ones? Are you saying we should be topic blocked? --mark nutley (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think some of the ones who've caused this are very good indeed and the topic can't possibly afford to lose them. But this quick-fire revert and PA stuff was always going to have a bad effect on everyone else. I want all this to stop so I can improve articles - it's now even more important that the Amazon savannahification/desertification/+ve feedback business be added to the main article than it was when I got knocked back. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A link for you, that clearly demonstrates why no tilted enforcement should be applied. Unit  Anode  16:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Before "logging" anything, please note that WMC also has 4 reverts there, and if that's the reasoning behind TGL's stricter sanction, then WMC should be 1RR as well. Also, KDP's 2 reverts should not simply be ignored. Unit  Anode  17:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The initial lean on this enforcement is revealing. The results may be balanced. Thanks UnitAnode for clarifying things in this tagteam issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding a final civility warning, yes, that would put one (much complained) editor over the top here for warnings. Unfortunately with little faith, the enviable will happen now or latter with drama.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just noticed this, but from looking at UnitAnode's assessment, it looks like WMC and I each made 3 reverts in 24 hours - not 4. Just thought I'd clarify that unless I'm missing something or having a brain fart. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the initial complaint accidentally included an edit or two as a revert when they were edits (to add more refs) and not reverts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I took that into account. I just took a look again. It's 4 for both of you during the edit war, which may have spanned slightly more than 24 hours. Unit  Anode  18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah I didn't realize the calculations sometimes went beyond 24 hours. I just saw his revert, saw that I'd been 24 hours and then reverted. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and to the admins, why am I getting stricter sanctions than KDP and WMC who've been tag teaming these articles for years? Frankly, if someone isn't open to reasonable discussion and simply reverts with either bogus excuses or none at all then the only thing to do is revert them back. I'd be open to suggestions on how to deal with such behavior, but this probation was specifically designed not to deal with their MO. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for yours to be stricter than KDP's or WMC's. Or more lenient. You all should know better by now, presumably. I advocate 1RR for the lot of you. I'd go with 0RR but that's not workable. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think I advocated 1rr when this probation was first proposed. If anyone cares I could easily show KDP/WMC tag teaming on other articles (both recently and over the span of years), and with WMC's prior unpunished 1rr broken I can't possibly see why I'd be sanctioned more than him. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The WMC, KDP, SS tag team illustrated in this dispute is a most prevalent and common issue from my observations. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments like this are not in any conceivable way helpful. This is just "shit-stirring", quite frankly. Perhaps you should be blocked for not assuming good faith by accusing editors of tag-teaming? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not ignore KDP's two reverts during the edit war. While I'd think amnesty for those who only made one might be acceptable, once he made the second one, he was fully involved. Any remedy that excluded KDP needs to be rethought. Unit Anode  18:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To the admins below


 * Again, please do not ignore KDP's 2 reverts in the proposed sanctions. Those who made only one could possibly be given amnesty, but to treat WMC, TGL, and MN one way, and not do the same to KDP would be a bit unfair. Unit  Anode  20:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here and here are a couple recent edit wars involving KDP - they weren't hard to find. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Any sanction that includes WMC (4 reverts), TGL (4 reverts), MN (3 reverts), and not KDP (2 reverts, and an SPA to boot), is illegitimate. Unit  Anode  22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I truly can not fathom how 2/0 can't understand that there's a big difference between someone who reverted ONCE and someone who consciously clicked undo the second time (and is an SPA to boot). Unit  Anode  02:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Hipocrite an admin?
If not, and he certainly isn't uninvolved, then why is he editting in the "result" section? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As my first comment (which was basically just a link to a summary of the edit war) was moved up here, Hipocrite has no business posting in the discussion down there. If no one else does so, I'll be moving his comments shortly. Unit  Anode  19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite's conversation with Lar

 * Could we also hit all four with a final civility warning and a no-alternate-accounts requirement? Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not clear MN needs a final civility warning, but a nice strong reminder never hurt anyone. Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How many final warnings do each of the participants get before we escalate to "we really really mean it" level final warnings? Haven't some participants already received their final warnings? ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, if you want to nominate me at RFA, Lar, and by "you" I mean "Lar, and no one else," then I'll accept, just to show you how unlikely it would be that someone with my tolerance level for worthlessness could retain their bits. But, you want to know what I would do, if I ruled the world? I'd put everyone who has ever added or reverted a disruptive change on "don't make a change that someone "on the other side" would ever consider reverting," probation, a "stop fucking around on talk pages," and a "strike one you're out" civility patrol. Then I'd block the fuck out of people. But that's just me. Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you were one already. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regretfully, I'll have to inform you that my history of slightly disruptive sockpuppeting and extensive (but lost) block log make it unlikley that I'll pass RFA. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Stephan Schulz
[In reply to LHVY's MAD suggestion below]: It's a bad idea, as everybody who can count to two will be able to force certain content in (or out). I'd like to see the aggressive CUing, though - at the moment it's significantly more work to remove the socks than to create them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment to Bozmo
KDP has been involved in far more edit wars in this topic area than I have (and recently too). Also, he was the first person on talk because he was responding to a reference someone else added (not me). This reference was then used as an excuse to constantly blank the section - despite the fact there were far more souces in that section and it wasn't originally used to write it up. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to cover all of the probation areas, I am reacting to the page which I noticed being protected. Working out cases against editors across a number of pages takes way too much time for me at the moment, but if by some strange chance I get a couple of hours free I will start with the editors whom I have happened to notice most around the place being argumentative which probably would include both KDP and you ...strangely prior to today I would not have had MN or WMC high on my list of people to check. --BozMo talk 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure go for it, I just wanted it, on the record, that the reversions (by Stephan Schulz and WMC) started before any conversation at all - and with poor reasons too. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I took out a version with the only source being tinfoil-hatted Icecap, and with a detailed edit summary to boot. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And by that logic when I restored the text, with the addition of the sources that the other guy took out, then I didn't really revert a 4th time. Thank you for the defense Stephan. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to read up on WP:3RR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It says a person shouldn't make more than 3 reverts in a period of 24 hours - which is something I did not do. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It also says that 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. Even one revert is often one too many. ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is really an understatement. The only reason I see not to have 1RR across the board is that sometimes there are situations where you are adding sources, or making a change that is technically a revert but clearly aims toward good faith consensus building.   It's isn't to protect revert warring, just so editors can put the burden of argument back on the other side.  I think we've known for a long time that such editing does nothing but degrade the editing environment.  The answer is to stop, discuss, and deal with the issue.  If there are not going to be topic bans here, which I think is what has been done before (see for instance the much harsher response here), please let's be clear that will be the result next time.  Based on what has been done before it seems a page ban for all of the involved editors would be better supported.  Mackan79 (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only harsher, but quicker! 6 hours start to finish. No diffs (other than the 1RR violation which I both tried to self-revert and started a TP dialog on), no fuss no muss, drop the gavel and move on. The hand wringing here over KDP is a laugh riot. JPatterson (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by KimDabelsteinPetersen
I am fully in agreement with a 1RR restriction on the article. But i am rather surprised about the discussions below on my contributions in this....

Yes, i did revert twice, and then stopped, because it became obvious that the content would be reinserted no matter if it was in compliance with our content policies or not. During all of that time i was (and am) in active discussion on talk.

If i may note: What is missing completely from the discussions here is context, and adherence to policy (broadly construed), and not only the limited policy on edit-warring. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Once you made the second revert, you were part of the edit war. Unit  Anode  01:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not believe Kim should be dragged into this, yes he did two reverts but he did start up a talk about it. I believe he should be excused the edit warring charge based on this. --mark nutley (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary ban for one week
Since it seems that at least some of the admins believe that i'm a negative influence and that i'm stirring up more than i ever intended ... and maybe i am "argumentative" (though why this necessarily is evil?). I will, effective immediately, voluntarily ban myself and contemplate this for a week. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC

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

The page is now protected but as an uninvolved admin I propose that we cut short the discussion and put Nutley and WMC on 2RR across all articles under the Climate change probation (except the articles already on 1RR of course) and put TGL on 1RR similarly, for the duration of these articles being under probation. As a general rule people who push the line should have the playing field reduced. Support? --BozMo talk 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As the administrator who protected the page edit warred over, that sounds good to me as well. I was actually contemplating much more severe sanctions, but this seems fine for now. Please note that tag teaming, whether or not it is to evade a restriction, will not be looked upon lightly.
 * BozMo, this sounds fine to me. Would you like to log the restriction in, say 12 hours if no uninvolved administrator objects? Parties: I'd highly advise against trying to get in your reverts right before the restriction is formally applied. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the 1RR of the entire area that two people requested above, I'm not so sure. That seems like it would lead to even more tag teaming and gaming of the system than we currently have going on, which is already a lot. I'm open to other opinions though; any comments on that? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would consider 1RR everywhere as a reaction to a problem everywhere but I haven't been widely across the probation space. This is a reaction to this single episode which was not impressive. I agree if there are no dissenting admins we should carry on and do it, but I will keep an eye on comments above the line for a little longer too. --BozMo talk 18:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, why would we put different people on different numbers of Rs? Put them all on 1RR. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also I think there's some merit in issuing some (some interim, some final, some final, final really!) civility warnings in this instance. ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

@Lar, my reasoning is various warnings on civility but this case is edit warring which is different. On edit warring I take the view that an RR restriction is a good measure of control. Certainly there are some civility issues with at least two of these editors but I think we should put a line around edit warring. --BozMo talk 19:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1RR for User:Thegoodlocust, User:Marknutley, and User:William M. Connolley sounds good to me. This is flat out edit warring by any definition, and is particularly deprecated in the probation area. Would three months be reasonable?
 * Most of the edit-warred text appears to have been added to the article for the first time here, by Thegoodlocust. Edit warring your own text into an article is extremely poor form. The relevant timeline for this paragraph is: text added by TGL; text reverted by User:Stephan Schulz; first revert by TGL; first revert by WMC; *then* the conversation at Talk:Global warming controversy was initiated by User:KimDabelsteinPetersen. An additional restriction on TGL to wait for consensus at the talkpage if any proposed addition of theirs is reverted for any reason (regardless of 24 hour rule, no restriction on requesting outside input at a noticeboard) seems in order. Similarly, we might impose a requirement for WMC to start a talkpage thread any time he reverts material that has already been reverted by anyone (meaning that the logic in the original edit summary was not found to be persuasive by at least one other person), if such a discussion does not already exist. These two sanctions could run concurrently with the proposed 1RR, and might be extended beyond the 1RR period.
 * There will likely be collateral Scibaby damage from the second of these sanctions.
 * Imposing 1RR for all editors at Global warming controversy would not be amiss. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Point number one sounds fine, but I would prefer six months. The next restriction is also good. I understand the issue with Scibaby, but I don't believe that taking three editors out of the picture would severely impact that. As for 1RR on Global warming controversy, I don't believe it is necessary. The current dispute has been quashed by the page protection; I am willing to watchlist the article and impose a 1RR if it turns out to be necessary in the future. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Point 1: If we can't solve this in 3 months, waiting another three won't help. So either 3 or 6 is fine with me. I'd extend to cover KDP too, though, they have some culpability here. I like the "start a talk page thread" requirement for WMC, but I'd go one step earlier, he has to start it for any reversion, not just rereversions. Couple that with a final, final warning on civility for WMC and that ought to do it. I agree with NW about Scibaby. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot, I'm ok with the proposal regarding TGL needing to wait for consensus before reinserting anything of theirs that was reverted. ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think given argumentive tendency I would require "clear consensus" not just "consensus". So where are we: "six months 1RR for MN, TGL, WMC on all article space covered by probation. TGL may not revert back in any of his own contributions once any editor has removed them without clear consensus on talk first and WMC must start a talkpage thread before repeating anyone else's revert" (I don't entirely get the logic on the last bit but it sounds ok). I would consider a review after 3 months with a possible removal if exemplary behaviour is displayed? I would not be surprised if within 6 months everywhere on probation is 1RR anyway depending on how we go on stopping the current problems, so MN may end up in the same boat as everyone else (which is fine). But then it would not be surprising if at least one of them is banned for disruption from all articles in Climate change pretty soon too. --BozMo talk 20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The other side of that coin is that one editor saying "no" shouldn't thwart consensus. TGL shouldn't be subject to gaming ... Here's my draft:


 * "three months 1RR for MN, TGL, WMC, KDP on all article space covered by probation. TGL may not revert back in any of his own contributions once any editor has removed them without clear consensus on talk first and WMC must start or continue a talkpage thread before (or concurrent with, defined reasonably... i.e. the very next edit) reverting anything" ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I dissent on including KDP. I did not notice or raise his behaviour and I would want more discussion on arbitrarily shifting the line. He did revert twice but they were only two reverts on this article this year (versus e.g. five for the good locust in 48 hours plus the original addition) and it was early on before the full swing of revert battle. He also started on talk first. If we are going to punish at a second revert we might as well put in 1RR now. Not that I think he is a saint...  --BozMo talk 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am late on this, so I will put this up for suggestion if the proposed restriction above is not agreed or is found to be ineffective; place content on a revert restriction - once a certain number of reverts of an edit is made in a determined time, then the subsequent trangressors get sanctioned (the warning could be in a commented out section next to the content). "Kamikazee" new accounts and ip's to be CU'd (/waves at Lar) aggessively and ranges blocked if appropriate, puppet masters also if found. I would also suggest that this MAD option be considered in any other area of pernicious edit warring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea. It's more work up front, I think (since you need the warning in the comments in advance of applying the sanction). But worth a try, if not here, then perhaps in some other situation. I'd want more details worked out first. ++Lar: t/c 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @LHVU. Maybe. But at the moment (despite not being around much) I am of the view that visible admin presence and action case by case is better than any sort of automated system which people may work out a way to game. --BozMo talk 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also argue against sanctioning KDP in this case, at least in part because he did start a meaningful talkpage discussion. Best practice at this point would have been to leave the material out for a reasonable period of discussion, but, well, if everyone did that we would have to close down the probation. I think for the TGL- and WMC-specific sanctions we should specify a time limit, preferably one somewhat longer than the 1RR restriction. TGL - actually, if the consensus is good then someone else can be relied on to add the material, we can reduce the potential for gaming by just having it as a flat ban. WMC - I would be fine with requiring talkpage participation with any article revert except blatant obvious vandalism; this is best practice anyway, and could be considered on a broader scale. I also like LHvU's ideas of aggressive CU and applying restrictions per content rather than per editor. I think it might work best on a per-incident basis to stop an incipient edit war by stating the rather obvious point that there is disagreement regarding a particular edit, and continued reverts will be considered edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, as always, trying to game another editor's sanction is disruptive. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, 2/0. Would you like to try a summary and see if we can rattle an agreement? --BozMo talk 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think KDP is very much a part of the problem here. Long term SPA and edit warrior. Random chance, at best, that KDP didn't edit war as much as the next fellow in this particular incident. I can't sign off on this sanction if KDP gets off scot free. Perhaps something not as stringent (1RR but shorter time period?) ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually think that it would be quite unfair to sanction KDP in this instance. I agree that I have seen him around as one of the more, er, argumentative editors active in the probation area, though he also tends to be one of the civil more editors in this area, on balance. The couple times I have checked I have found nothing in need of action, but it would not surprise me if a different set of actions justified a sanction. In this particular case, he offered arguments against and later removed a section whose creator was inappropriately edit warring it in. If editors cannot present their case and restore an article to the old consensus version pending further discussion and a new consensus, then we are opening an enormous can of worms and undermining the development through consensus of stable up-to-date articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I think this and this are simple edit warring as they remove the same thing more than once. That's edit warring. What happened on talk doesn't excuse it. KDP already knows not to edit war. ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By a similar metric, we should be sanctioning everything except the initial addition and the first removal - they were all the same or essentially the same text, and, as KDP mentions above, past a certain point it was clear that the only people who were going to "win" this would be the ones to stop the rerereverts and their consequent rererereverts. Not something I would reject out of hand, but I would like to discuss it first. This gets close to NuclearWarfare's focus on content-over-editor, below. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Who else do you have in mind? I think the 4 I named about cover it. But if you want to expand to include more editors that were also edit warring I'm not averse, as long as we keep KDP in, since they were garden variety edit warring. ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin and Yilloslime added and removed the text once, respectively, after it was clear that there was an edit war going on (they should be notified if we pursue this route). I am more worried, though, that we are treating people the same or nearly the same when their behaviours were very different - KDP was vocal on talk and removed a section whose creator was edit warring over it. Nobody broke the letter of 3RR here, so we need to focus on what behaviours are breaking the spirit of the probation. As I see it, blindly counting reverts does a disservice to the editors involved, as it fails to take into account that let's go work it out at the talkpage is precisely the attitude that we would like to see prevail across the probation area. Since go ahead and revert even though it is obvious that someone will rerevert immediately is one of the reasons for the probation, though, I could see the logic to a stern formal warning to wait for dispute resolution to catch up in any similar future situations. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

On the content restriction I really think we need to talk this one through a lot more before we try. I like the idea but I'm leery of putting it into effect on 1/2 a day's discussion without working out all the details. As a CU I am concerned about whether things can be checked fast enough if there's a hot war going on. Please understand I am not saying never, just not this sanction, unless we can hammer out the details somewhere a lot more crisply. (in fact I am very attracted to the notion of a content revert restriction, it's like protection but a different flavor of looseness than semi) ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have used a similar strategy as a "soft lock" on part of the article while leaving the rest open for editing. I think it has been enough in those few instances, but it does require active monitoring and plenty of warning. I agree that both of these ideas can be left for another day, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Partial proposed close (I think we are almost done except the KDP point): ''Until 2010-05-03 Thegoodlocust, Marknutley, and William M. Connolley are restricted from making more than one revert to any article in the probation area in any 24 hour period. Until 2010-08-03 Thegoodlocust is banned from reinserting any of his own text to any article in the probation area that another editor has removed from the same article for any reason. Until 2010-08-03 William M. Connolley is required to initiate or participate in discussion at the relevant talkpage any time he makes a revert to any article in the probation area, excepting to revert blatant, obvious vandalism.'' Does this look about like where we are? - 2/0 (cont.) 02:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With the exception of KDP, I agree, that's close to done. One nit is I thought we had a proposal on the table for TGL to be able to reinsert text if consensus for it could be gained. But I suppose if TGL can convince others of the merit of the text, some other editor (preferrably one from the other side) could actually do the edit. Which fits within your wording, so works for me. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * TO be honest Lar trying to introduce KDP into this looks to me like some kind of filibuster. If you really feel we should not move on edit warring without dealing with KDP then lets close this without action and you can bring a KDP example to the table for action? Alternatively if this kind of thing happens with every discussion we bring here I would rather blanket 1RR all articles on probation cos I don't have time. Two of the three here (WMC and tgl) have apologised anyway and there is a point where we admit the horse has died? --BozMo talk 07:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not object to putting in consensus language for the TGL restriction, but contentious edits tend to attract contending interpretations of consensus - your call. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Marknutley pretty much apologized as well near the start of the report, as well as reporting the edit war at my talkpage. We could downgrade this to stern formal warnings all around based on the currently protected status of the article ... but I think I would rather not. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * BozMo: characterizing my raising concerns as "Lar trying to introduce KDP" is unhelpful. (I didn't introduce KDP, the material was presented before I spoke the first time, and KDP edit warred, not me) my dissent as a filibuster is not at all helpful. Threatening to close this without action is also not at all helpful. I am starting to see why some participants question whether you are an "uninvolved" admin, although I also think they are looking at it through their own lenses, incorrectly. How about we remove Marknutley and KDP from the 1RR restriction, but issue them stern formal warnings that the next time they revert anything, regardless of what "#" it is, they will be added... no more "we didn't know" excuses or apologies will be allowed. (How many times has WMC apologized over the years, anyway? it seems to be a favorite tactic... do something bad and then issue an "oops" and get off scot free) Downgrading to stern formal warnings all around is completely unacceptable at this point. 2/0: As for the consensus matter as I said above, I think if TGL can convince someone else (from the "other side") to introduce the material via persuasion, they will have satisfied the consensus requirement so I'm OK with either wording. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @Lar, 2/0. I am certainly happy removing Nutley. Or all of them if you want. However step back and look what happened in terms of this procedure... I raised three editors actions on one article and asked for comments on the accuracy of the judgement on that instance. As always here others raised other issues above the line ("and the electricity hasn't been right since the war" etc). Everytime anyone raises anything people cloud it by raising other irrelevant issues, we know that. But it was certainly you, Lar, who picked out KDP from that discussion and introduced KDP below the line into the uninvolved admin discussion of results. I am not that bothered by what is unquestionably process dysfunctionality, life is short and we have to be pragmatic but it seems strange of you to dispute what you clearly did from the edit history. And as I said, I agree KDP is far from innocent across the board on edit warring and quite argumentative (KDP is generally opposed to me on BLPs which is where I do get involved) but the general issue of edit warring is not the same as this particular case. I do not have time now or soon to consider the general issue of edit warring across the whole probation area. If you wish to you can do so, with my blessing and good wishes, but I will have to back out of the discussion because I could not do so fairly, it would require too much time to read it all. If we are just considering this page to be proposing the same sanction on an editor who has reverted something out twice this year as one who has put it in and reverted it in a further five times this year would not be reasonable; your reasoning that if KDP wasn't guilty it was only by good fortune this time is also rather telling. I am not going to comment on the uninvolved bit which I invite you to strikeout. --BozMo talk 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can accept the logic and fairness to issuing a stern formal warning for MN and KDP with the understanding that 1RR or similar sanction will be applied next time they participate in an on-going edit war. I strongly encourage both of you (well, everyone really) to avoid any and all reverts except perhaps one revert with discussion of material that has not previously been reverted. This is a very severe interpretation of WP:Edit warring, but hopefully we can avoid situations like this in the future. There is a bit of grey area between reverting to get your way and partial revert as part of the consensus-building process, but I urge all editors to err on the side of caution. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed close: ''Until 2010-05-03 Thegoodlocust and William M. Connolley are restricted from making more than one revert to any article in the probation area in any 24 hour period. Until 2010-08-03 Thegoodlocust is banned from reinserting any of his own text to any article in the probation area that another editor has removed from the same article for any reason. Until 2010-08-03 William M. Connolley is required to initiate or participate in discussion at the relevant talkpage any time he makes a revert to any article in the probation area, excepting to revert blatant, obvious vandalism. Marknutley and KimDabelsteinPetersen are warned that further participation in any edit war in the probation area will lead to sanctions.'' The last sentence might need some work, but I would accept anything that follows that spirit. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me --BozMo talk 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. I would suggest a tweak to the last sentence, but I can't think of better wording. ++Lar: t/c 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment only, since I have not been involved in specifics; place "similar" as the penultimate word, so it makes it apparent that further violations get the same type of restriction now applying to TGL and WMC. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good tweak. Print it. ++Lar: t/c 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Closed and logged. Kudos to LessHeard vanU for correct use of the word penultimate (my pet peeve - using it to mean "really really ultimate). - 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)