Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive6

2over0
by

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

Request concerning 2over0

 * User requesting enforcement : Macai (talk) 23:26, 5 April 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) Blocked for 48 hours, without a prior warning, and without going through the proper channels.
 * 2) Topic banned for two months, also without a prior warning, and without going through the proper channels.
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): Nsaa requests basis for block, implicitly warning that this might not have any basis.
 * ATren warns that this is inappropriate.
 * mark nutley warns that I was not edit warring, and asks that the topic ban be rethought


 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : other sanction; lift of topic ban, blocking restrictions imposed


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Please bear with me

There are a few issues I'd like to bring up, so please bear with me. What I am presenting is abstract and I'd appreciate it if you read the entire thing.

Preface

As a preface, I am aware that posting this request is in violation of 2over0's sanction against me. However, I think it is acceptable for me to post this request because the point of the request is to contest his sanctions. I'd appreciate if I was not blocked again for the duration of this request's lifespan, so that I can participate in the ongoing discussion about it. I will, in turn, refrain from editing other climate change related articles, and even other requests on this page.

What I was sanctioned for

I've been accused of edit warring, and was blocked by 2over0 over it for two days. He also imposed a climate change topic ban on me that lasts two months. I believe he was referring to my edits to "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" on 03 April, 2010 based on the fact that it's the only article I've edited that day, as you can see based on my contribution history, and the fact that Short Brigade Harvester Boris commented on my page about how I supposedly violated 1RR. 

Why I believe I did not do what I was sanctioned for

First and foremost, I do not believe that I was edit warring. If you take a peek at WP:EW, you will find that it describes "edit warring" as:
 * Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches.

If you take a peek at EP:EW again, it also says:
 * Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion.

So let's see if the edits I made were "confrontational, combative, non-productive use of edits and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches."

In my first edit, I offer up a compromise between the "leak vs hacked" argument by describing the incident as both. This was not confrontational, I was not being combative (in fact, I was being compromising), and certainly not non-productive. I was not trying to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, nor was I trying to coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches.

Let's take a look at my second edit. In this one, I change the wording of the article to assert that scientists did some bad things as a fact, rather than simple allegations. Okay, someone did not like this, so they changed it back. An outright reversion of it. Fair enough, I guess. Still, I wasn't being confrontational or combative, and I wasn't trying to win, manipulate or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. So I guess I wasn't edit warring here.

Well, I guessed then that I should just cite my sources, then, right? So I did. This I guess you could say is my revert for the day. Still not really edit warring. I mean, I wasn't combative, confrontational, or non-productive (I produced some sources for my original claim), nor was I trying to win, manipulate or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches.

So on to my fourth edit. In this one I change one use of the word "incident" to "scandal". I wasn't reverting anyone's edit, nor was I acting in combative, confrontational manner, nor was I trying to win or manipulate any debates by being uncallaborative. So, so much for that.

Finally, my fifth and last edit on April 3rd on this article, I bring back the term "Internet leak", since ChrisO said he was going for concision, and it's shorter than "publication on the Internet" by a margin of about two. Not really a revert, here. I mean, if you look at what he changed, this is a very minor tweak, was an improvement on ChrisO's edit, as evidenced by the fact that it's still there well over two days later.

In conclusion, I didn't edit war, and I didn't violate 1RR.

Lack of proper warning

I was spoken to briefly by Short Brigade Harvester Boris about how I am supposedly in violation of 1RR. He referred to the violations as "technical violations". I asked him how he figured I was in violation. My final edit for the day was to inform him that I had made a response.

2over0 blocked me and topic banned me for two months about an hour later.

According to the probation's policies:
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions;

I was not given a warning, at least not in the common understanding of the word "warning", and if you want to be technical, certainly was not given a warning with a link to the aforementioned provisions. This means that he went against the way things are supposed to be done. You don't give someone a "warning" for speeding and then ticket them anyway for no reason. Figuratively, this is more or less what happened.

Lack of sanctioning process

While it may not be explicitly listed, the proper channels were not used prior to blocking and imposing the sanction on me. I was not informed of a sanction enforcement request, and I wasn't given the opportunity to explain myself or anything. Just bam, you're blocked, and topic banned for two months.

Everyone else seems to have been at least given a chance to express their side of the story. Even the request concerning WMC involved him having a window -- three hours or so -- to respond. This sanction went through no process whatsoever. I had no window, at all.

Relative heavy handedness compared to other sanctions

WMC was given his third sanction, this time for 1RR violation, a 24 hour block. Nothing else. On my first offense, I was given a one month topic ban. WMC was consistently obstinate and angry, and was consistently let off much easier than I.

Most users who did and said worse things than this got a warning or something of that nature.

Let's contrast this with my case: on my first offense, I was given a one month topic ban. I honored it, not wanting to cause a ruckus.

Now, I've been given a two month ban on climate change. This is very frustrating, and I don't think it's fair. Why fast escalation for me, but not others?

Ending argument

I was accused of something I didn't do, and was reprimanded for it without getting the warning that I was entitled to by the very rules my punisher was claiming to enforce, without any way to explain myself, or any form of recourse, and was given a notably stiffer penalty than basically anyone else. This is an abuse of power, and should not be accepted.

What I'd like to happen

I'd like 2over0 to be barred from making further sanctions for a while. Not long, just a week or two as a token that abuse of his power like this is not tolerated.

What the administrators will be deciding based on this long post

Administrators will be deciding the following:
 * 1) Whether or not I really did edit war,
 * 2) If I did, what the punishment for that offense should be,
 * 3) Whether or not prior warning is required before each sanction is imposed,
 * 4) Whether or not prior warning that links to General sanctions/Climate change probation is required before each sanction is imposed,
 * 5) Whether or not administrators are required to be even handed,
 * 6) Whether or not administrators must allow someone to explain themselves in an RFE of some kind prior to sanction,
 * 7) If any of the requirements apply, what the consequences for being in noncompliance of them are

The decisions of the administrative board will be made not just by the way they respond to the posting of this request, but by the actions they take in response to it.

@LessHeard vanU: I'm making this request so that administrators can collectively decide if they have to. Also, could you address the fact that no warnings were made prior to the ban? And the fact that this punishment is particularly heavy handed? Macai (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Comments by others about the request concerning 2over0
Are you asking for lifting the topic ban on you as well? NW ( Talk ) 23:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm hoping for, yes. Macai (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you reformat this request then? Remove the parts that refer to why you should be unbanned, and add them to sanction appeal. Place that either on this page or on WP:AN. The parts that refer to 2/0 should probably wait until after the community decides if the ban was appropriate or not. NW ( Talk ) 23:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Give me a little bit. Macai (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Nsaa
I've requested that justified both the block and the topic ban at his talk page. As far as I can see this block and topic ban of user is wrong and should be lifted immediately. We reason when we do actions like this, and when Macai is not even getting any kind of explanation on why, it should have been rolled back immediately. This looks like a misuse of the admin tools by 2over0. Nsaa (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning 2over0

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

AFAIK, Requests for enforcement does not form part of the Climate Change Probation area - whatever else, Macai should not be sanctioned for raising these issues there on that basis. As a general comment, I have no idea if all admin actions in regard to pages covered by the CC Probation (except obvious vandalism, yadda yadda) is required to processed through Requests for enforcement. If it is, a link to the decision would be appreciated. Until this is clarified, I am not prepared to comment upon the viability of 2over0's actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Peterlewis
by

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

Request concerning Peterlewis

 * User requesting enforcement : ► RATEL ◄ 12:46, 5 April 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)  I removed a BLP violation that amounts to vandalism from Global warming controversy
 * 2)  Peterlewis reinstates BLP violation and unsourced slur against Al Gore into article, calling my removal of this material "vandalism"
 * 3)  After I asked Peterlewis to apologize on this talk page, he refuses to withdraw and repeats that my removal of the slur was vandalism.
 * 4)  admin Vsmith removes slur again.
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1)  Warning by  Same article warning. Peterlewis replied that this amounts to action by "thought police'
 * 2)  Warned by TS of the probation on global warming articles
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Admins should take into account that this user has a pattern of edits that may be harmful to the encyclopedia and a history of incivility. He was blocked for incivility, in fact. ► RATEL ◄ 12:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : notified ► RATEL ◄  12:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Peterlewis
So Ratel is calling Peterlewis' edit "promulgating slur against a living person" on Peterlewis' talk page, and saying above that this is a "BLP violation and unsourced slur against Al Gore". Where's the BLP harm in listing among the "motives" that conspiracy theorists use, "A desire on the part of individuals, such as Al Gore, to promote their own agenda to secure financial benefits for themselves."
 * in an article titled Global warming conspiracy theory,
 * beneath a section titled "Participants", where "Al Gore" is also listed (with a footnote) as one "of those claimed to be participants in a conspiracy to promote global warming theory [who] appear prominently in other conspiracy theories"
 * in a section titled "Motives" beneath Maurice Strong and above Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl?

Are we supposed to think that conspiracy theories about global warming do not include the most famous proponent of the idea? That somehow the conspiracy theorists would have avoided mentioning his name? Anyone with the least familiarity about the AGW debate knows that Al Gore has been accused of having ulterior motives by someone. It's a technical violation of BLP that Peterlewis didn't provide the source. It's kind of like not having a source for the statement, "George Bush is said to have known there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war" in an article titled "Iraq War conspiracy theories".

''All editors are warned that the tolerance for WP:BATTLE and general gaming of enforcement requests is approaching zero. Franamax (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)''

Rather than engage in what looks like WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, why not just do this: It wasn't hard. I'm sure it took less time than Ratel took to fight over this, and probably less time than Peterlewis did. Is Peterlewis aware of WP:BLP and WP:V?

Oh, let me correct myself. It wasn't quite that easy. Of course it would be reverted. As a BLP vio. Of course. We can't possibly say that there's a conspiracy theory about Al Gore, now, can we? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Admins, please note that JohnWBarber restored the deleted material again . This complaint is now being treated by some users as a reason to start an edit war in which they are going to fight to add clearly unacceptable material. I suggest topic bans for anyone trying to re-insert this material. ► RATEL ◄ 23:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The content now has a cited source, and so is not a BLP violation unless the source does not support it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ratel, your comment on the talk page for that article indicated to me that you didn't read the thread. You obviously didn't read my statement above where I linked to the edit. You might want to take the time to read things through. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a Wall Street Journal article about some of the same issues "And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely." (my boldings) Climategate: Follow the Money Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God., so it's look sourced " unless the source does not support it" as LessHeard vanU states ... Nsaa (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * LHVU: and was in itself a serious BLP violation I would save words like "serious BLP violation" for edits that might possibly hurt the subject. That simply isn't possible in this case. This was a violation, but extremely minor. Worth a warning. Ratel's gaming the system is more serious. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Some editors here have missed the point, and turning this into a content dispute on this page. The facts are:
 * 1) IP editor inserts unsourced BLP vio into probationed article
 * 2) I revert
 * 3) I am reverted by Peterlewis and called a "vandal"
 * 4) Admin reverts Peterlewis
 * 5) On his talk page, Peterlewis refuses to apologise or admit wrong

The rest is just noise. It matters not if you can find some bloggy or op-ed source to suggest that someone surmises the edit to be correct. That has nothing to do with this. Please stop with the red herrings. ► RATEL ◄ 02:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The spirit of WP:BLP is not noise: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Where there is no possibility of harm there is no serious BLP violation, just a technical one. It is Contentious material that must be removed -- and it is not contentious that these conspiracy theories exist about Al Gore, which is all that the article ever claimed. I am not the one who brought up the idea that the passage is a "slur". If it isn't, you have no case. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Peterlewis should NOT have edit-warred an unsourced SLUR against a living person into a probationed article (in fact, into any article). That is what this is about, your obfuscation and hand-waving notwithstanding. ► RATEL ◄ 06:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Peterlewis

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


 * I certainly think that the diff provided, showing the insertion of controversial material about a living person without a source, is a violation of BLP. Even if it is an easy thing to fix, such a thing is quite unacceptable. Reverting with the summary "rvt vandal" was also totally unnecessary (this applies to both Ratel and Peterlewis). However, by itself, this incident is far too trivial by itself to block or topic ban for. If someone could provide more diffs of this being part of a larger pattern of treating Wikipedia as a battleground, I would certainly consider a long-ish topic ban. (The same for Ratel as well if someone wishes to file another RfE with evidence.) NW ( Talk ) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the article and various Probation pages, and am pretty sure that the article is not under a 1RR restriction and neither is Peterlewis; therefore it needs to be asked whether the edit was serious enough to constitute a violation of the probation by itself. I believe it does, and was in itself a serious BLP violation enough to have drawn a warning outside of the probation - you do not re-insert an unsourced edit after it has been removed as BLP vandalism without finding a source to back it up. "Fair comment" simply does not cover it. The attitude displayed by Peterlewis is also of concern generally, exampled noting the removal of the BLP violation as "vandalism", and not conducive to creating an appropriate editing environment (in this instance, Ratal noting the edit as vandalism is not inappropriate - since it was so noted when the original ip edit was removed). I feel that Peterlewis should be warned that his attitude and tone is deleterious to the probation area editing environment and that further examples of battleground mentality and actions will result in sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In agreement with NW and LHvF, the material inserted was a BLP violation if not sourced, but that this is a fairly trivial infraction, and absent more diffs showing a larger pattern, a warning to Peter Lewis seems what is called for, including a request that Peter Lewis explain better instead of revert warring. In agreement with LHvU that the article is not at this time subject to 1RR. Perhaps it should be, suggest extension. I would like to point out that Ratel's behavior in this matter has not be satisfactory either. Ratel was warned previously about improvement in approach being needed. I agree with JWB that Ratel is being unnecessarily battlegroundish. This doesn't rise to the level of a sanction by itself, but I suggest a further warning to Ratel that this sort of thing is encompassed by the warning already given and repetition may result in sanction. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Any objection to a close as I outlined? This has sat for 4 days with no further comment. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. NW ( Talk ) 19:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To summarize for the record:
 * Peterlewis will be warned about explaining rather than reverting, and warned in general that improvement in approach is needed, or there may be sanctions imposed.
 * The article will be construed to be part of the CC area (It already is), placed on Article Probation (it already is), get the {[tl|Community article probation}} tag (already has it), and get the 1RR restriction in line with other CC area articles that have needed it.
 * Ratel will be warned that he was being unnecessarily battlegroundish and that further such behaviour may result in a sanction being imposed.
 * ++Lar: t/c 23:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by Macai
by


 * Appealing user : – Macai (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not imposed by RFE council General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log
 * Sanction being appealed : Two month topic ban.


 * Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction : /


 * Notification of that editor :

Statement by Macai
Please bear with me

There are a few issues I'd like to bring up, so please bear with me. What I am presenting is abstract and I'd appreciate it if you read the entire thing.

Preface

As a preface, I am aware that posting this request is in violation of 2over0's sanction against me. However, I think it is acceptable for me to post this request because the point of the request is to contest his sanctions. I'd appreciate if I was not blocked again for the duration of this request's lifespan, so that I can participate in the ongoing discussion about it. I will, in turn, refrain from editing other climate change related articles, and even other requests on this page.

What I was sanctioned for

I've been accused of edit warring, and was blocked by 2over0 over it for two days. He also imposed a climate change topic ban on me that lasts two months. I believe he was referring to my edits to "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" on 03 April, 2010 based on the fact that it's the only article I've edited that day, as you can see based on my contribution history, and the fact that Short Brigade Harvester Boris commented on my page about how I supposedly violated 1RR. 

Why I believe I did not do what I was sanctioned for

First and foremost, I do not believe that I was edit warring. If you take a peek at WP:EW, you will find that it describes "edit warring" as:
 * Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches.

If you take a peek at EP:EW again, it also says:
 * Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion.

So let's see if the edits I made were "confrontational, combative, non-productive use of edits and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches."

In my first edit, I offer up a compromise between the "leak vs hacked" argument by describing the incident as both. This was not confrontational, I was not being combative (in fact, I was being compromising), and certainly not non-productive. I was not trying to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, nor was I trying to coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches.

Let's take a look at my second edit. In this one, I change the wording of the article to assert that scientists did some bad things as a fact, rather than simple allegations. Okay, someone did not like this, so they changed it back. An outright reversion of it. Fair enough, I guess. Still, I wasn't being confrontational or combative, and I wasn't trying to win, manipulate or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. So I guess I wasn't edit warring here.

Well, I guessed then that I should just cite my sources, then, right? So I did. This I guess you could say is my revert for the day. Still not really edit warring. I mean, I wasn't combative, confrontational, or non-productive (I produced some sources for my original claim), nor was I trying to win, manipulate or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches.

So on to my fourth edit. In this one I change one use of the word "incident" to "scandal". I wasn't reverting anyone's edit, nor was I acting in combative, confrontational manner, nor was I trying to win or manipulate any debates by being uncallaborative. So, so much for that.

Finally, my fifth and last edit on April 3rd on this article, I bring back the term "Internet leak", since ChrisO said he was going for concision, and it's shorter than "publication on the Internet" by a margin of about two. Not really a revert, here. I mean, if you look at what he changed, this is a very minor tweak, was an improvement on ChrisO's edit, as evidenced by the fact that it's still there well over two days later.

In conclusion, I didn't edit war, and I didn't violate 1RR.

Lack of proper warning

I was spoken to briefly by Short Brigade Harvester Boris about how I am supposedly in violation of 1RR. He referred to the violations as "technical violations". I asked him how he figured I was in violation. My final edit for the day was to inform him that I had made a response.

2over0 blocked me and topic banned me for two months about an hour later.

According to the probation's policies:
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions;

I was not given a warning, at least not in the common understanding of the word "warning", and if you want to be technical, certainly was not given a warning with a link to the aforementioned provisions. This means that he went against the way things are supposed to be done. You don't give someone a "warning" for speeding and then ticket them anyway for no reason. Figuratively, this is more or less what happened.

Lack of sanctioning process

While it may not be explicitly listed, the proper channels were not used prior to blocking and imposing the sanction on me. I was not informed of a sanction enforcement request, and I wasn't given the opportunity to explain myself or anything. Just bam, you're blocked, and topic banned for two months.

Everyone else seems to have been at least given a chance to express their side of the story. Even the request concerning WMC involved him having a window -- three hours or so -- to respond. This sanction went through no process whatsoever. I had no window, at all.

Relative heavy handedness compared to other sanctions

WMC was given his third sanction, this time for 1RR violation, a 24 hour block. Nothing else. On my first offense, I was given a one month topic ban. WMC was consistently obstinate and angry, and was consistently let off much easier than I.

Most users who did and said worse things than this got a warning or something of that nature.

Let's contrast this with my case: on my first offense, I was given a one month topic ban. I honored it, not wanting to cause a ruckus.

Now, I've been given a two month ban on climate change. This is very frustrating, and I don't think it's fair. Why fast escalation for me, but not others?

Ending argument

I was accused of something I didn't do, and was reprimanded for it without getting the warning that I was entitled to by the very rules my punisher was claiming to enforce, without any way to explain myself, or any form of recourse, and was given a notably stiffer penalty than basically anyone else. This is an abuse of power, and should not be accepted.

What I'm hoping for

I think this sanction should be lifted. It was unfair, heavy handed, and extreme. There was no basis for it.

@Prolog Please address:
 * 1) The lack of warning, which is required,
 * 2) The lack of procedure and discussion,
 * 3) The lack of explanation or basis for the topic ban on the part of the imposing administrator,
 * 4) The fact that every other time I've been punished for something, I've admitted to doing what I've been accused of (why would I lie this time?), and
 * 5) The fact that both the first and second punishments issued were considerably more heavy handed than many other similar cases

I'd really appreciate it. Macai (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

@2over0 Well, you have made many charges now, not just "edit warring". Your original ban really was for edit warring. Now you're shifting the goalposts. I know it might be taboo to compare this to a court room, but it's like charging someone with murder, but when the defense basically disproves that claim, changing the charge to rape, or something, and acting like nothing ever changed.


 * 1) I'm failing to see a battleground mentality. I'm simply stating facts. Naming the article "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" does imply that the notable thing about the entire situation is the hacking part, and supporting such is ignorant at best and POV-pushing at worst.
 * 2) Maybe sarcasm wasn't the nicest thing to use, but really, I've in the past discussed things with people who have a preconceived conclusion and will not budge from it no matter what. If your argument is that I'm not "suffering fools", then I do bring up WMC again. His punishment for this begins and ends with a 48 hour block, which I've already completed.
 * 3) Again, this isn't really a claim that's up for debate. The man's choice of words really were like that. I have no ill will for him, but if he will word things like a madman, it should be pointed out, not simply ignored.
 * 4) Suggesting someone see a therapist is not uncivil after they've gone on a threatening, accusatory incivility-fest with no contextual provocation, despite an active attempt to calm him down. The kind of behavior exhibited by Hipocrite was pretty extreme and inflammatory, and considering the lack of context in this particular discussion, my choice of words to suggest a therapist were particularly subdued. Besides, all of this takes place on talk pages. I thought this probation's purview didn't extend there? I seem to recall someone else being able to shrug off incivility accusations based on this fact. I'm sure I could come up with a diff or a link if need be.
 * 5) Discussing someone's past on the RFE page is not a violation of WP:NPA. If you disagree with this, then I suggest that your response to this is a WP:NPA violation since you accuse me of a laundry list of presumably bad things.
 * 6) How can you accuse me of violating WP:NOTFORUM and then cite an edit where I was explicitly talking about the wording of an article?
 * 7) I was discussing how the article should be worded with someone in this edit. First you accuse me of not discussing what the wording of the article should be, and then you call me out for discussing what the wording of the article should be. You can't have it both ways, 2over0.
 * 8) I am guilty as charged of being sarcastic.
 * 9) I was accusing someone who removed a comment on a talk page of vandalism. That's one of the things listed on WP:VANDALISM as...vandalism! If pointing out to someone that they broke the rules is now actionable, I suggest we sanction everyone who files a successful complaint on this RFE without exception.
 * 10) I later cited sources for that claim since they were implicitly asked for.
 * 11) Calling The Washington Post, The UK Telegraph, and The Wall Street Journal "blogs" is just silly, 2over0. They're not blogs, they're news sources.

While I'm aware that I'm supposed to assume good faith, I also feel that I'm being bombarded with accusations in the hopes that one will stick, and the sanction will be considered appropriate. Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid, but that's what this seems like to me. Macai (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by 2over0
Posted using my alternate account (confirm). 2over0 public (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, I do not believe that this appeal is in violation of Macai's topic ban. It would reasonably be construed to include participating in disputes at other sections of this page, but logically and morally we cannot prevent anyone from filing an appeal at an appropriate venue. It has been my understanding of the wording of the probation at General sanctions/Climate change probation that the intention is that nobody should be subjected to sanctions before having been made aware of the possibility. As Macai has continued to engage in the same sorts of edits that led to their first sanction, I do not feel that insufficient warning was given in this case. I am a bit busy over the next few days, but will make every attempt to make appropriate response here; the number and complexity of diffs here is fairly low, and I expect that this should be fairly simple to resolve. I was having a bit of a connectivity issue Saturday, and I see now that the full justification for this block and ban did not make it into the record. This was remiss of me, and for that I apologize unreservedly. The probation as currently worded encourages administrative action in the area of dispute, but does not remove my responsibility to ensure that everyone is aware of exactly why a particular action was taken. The next two sections are mostly copied from my records; if there are any formatting issues, I should be able to fix them in a few hours; anyone should feel free to correct them in the meantime.

I set the block at 48 hours as a reasonable escalation of a previous edit warring block at the end of last November. I set the ban at one month full and two months article but not discussion (running concurrently) as a reasonable escalation of their previous one month ban that expired about a month ago, on 03-07.

It is my understanding that enforcement of the probation does not require a thread here, though as always it is incumbent upon the acting administrator to understand any situation fully through careful perusal of the relevant diffs. If we would like to modify this aspect of the probation, either officially or as a gentle-editors' agreement, I believe Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation would be the best place to discuss this.

Block
Please see General sanctions/Climate change probation and.


 * unsourced contentious change without seeking consensus; WP:BLP
 * substantially restores with sources without addressing concerns raised on talk page; WP:BLP
 * the word "scandal", a perennial issue; talk page at time of edit shows limited discussion but nothing resembling consensus

When this block expires, please be more careful that your edits: adhere to the Neutral point of view policy by carefully summarizing all relevant sources, especially when editing the lead; adhere to the biographies of living persons policy through careful consideration of you choice of sources and appropriate attribution; and adhere to any consensus expressed at the talk page. Particularly, please wait for and participate in discussion to ensure that all aspects of an edit are not contentious whenever someone makes a reasoned objection to any bold edits you make. This is a collaborative project, and requires input from many points of view if we are to produce the best encyclopedia possible. Thank you,

Ban
Please see General sanctions/Climate change probation and.


 * WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND (first relevant edit after expiration of previous topic ban)
 * sarcasm 1, sarcasm 2 - while occasional levity can be fun, these cross over into accusing your fellow volunteers of editing in bad faith
 * boldly changes a redirect, reverts to own preferred version with zero discussion and an anti-collaborative edit summary.
 * Your comments are akin to that of a homeless man with a picket sign reading "the end is nigh". WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
 * if you feel the need to suggest that another editor visit a therapist, it might be better just to institute a one-sided interaction ban and begin avoiding that user instead of poking at them with a pointed stick. Other more productive and collaborative solutions include: comment on the substance of any issue without reference to other editors or any personal characteristics you may feel that they have.
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:NOTFORUM - participating in dispute instead of trying to cover it directly; WP:BLP
 * accuses identifiable living persons of collusion
 * WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND; note also - removed by StuartH, restored by StuartH
 * , accuses another editor of vandalism in relation to previous
 * accuses identifiable living persons of collusion - WP:NPOV, WP:BLP
 * verification failed, blog, WP:BLP; old sources - WP:NPOV as summary - The gig here is not to see if you can tease out a source to justify dubious text, but to base our articles on the best summary of the current evidence.

You show a laudable ability and willingness to seek out sources, but you still seem to be approaching this topic area largely as a battleground. Probably in a different editing environment this would be only minimally disruptive, but at present editors in this topic area very much need to avoid antagonizing each other (Hipocrite, you might also take this to heart) and be more proactive in seeking consensus supported by accurate summary of the range of reliable sources. When this ban expires, please try to remember that there is no deadline - little is lost and much is gained by spending the extra time and effort to convince your fellow volunteers at the talk page, even if it means waiting a day or three or accepting wording that you may not find ideal. As a final note, I remind you that the Biographies of living persons policy applies to all pages and all edits concerning identifiable living persons; please be extra careful when making such edits that your text is fully supported by the best possible sources and is properly attributed. Regards,

Further
By "connectivity issues" I mean "I was running two browsers, including Flash in 32 bit compatibility mode, a lengthy document full of equations and images, an old presentation, a couple spreadsheets, an analysis package from 1995 or so with poor memory management, a curve fitting package that three software layers down still thinks that it is being run on a command line in 1972, and a dozen or so pdfs when for reason or reasons unknown something decided it would be fun to just hang unresponsively until eventually a reboot was acknowledged." After rebooting, I saw that my edits to Macai's talk page and the sanction log had in fact saved, but did not check that the version was correct; for this I apologize. I can be hard on a system, but it should not show up in my activities here.

I stand by the block and ban themselves, though - Macai was made aware last time we were here that tolerance would be extemely low for anay further disruption. Nothing in the past month has been as blatantly anti-collaborative as copy/paste moving a page through move protection, but it is my opinion that a further warning would not be the best course of action here. I believe my analysis shows that the effect of Macai's continued editing in this area has been disruptive, both through blatant edit warring and through anti-collaborative tendencies such as treating the talkpage as a general forum, treating Wikipedia as a battleground, making personal attacks against their fellow volunteer editors, and failing to adhere to WP:BLP. If consensus here develops that some other sanction would better serve the encyclopedia, I would bow to that. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement on the issue of raising lengthy sections here before they are imposed. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by Macai
These were not "housekeeping" kinds of edits. They were controversial reverts of the kind the 1RR restriction was meant to cover. I'm particularly concerned about this edit because it violates BLP by having Wikipedia state in the lead that scientists "withheld scientific information", which sounds like it could be a serious charge. That part of the edit is sourced to a Telegraph commentary by James Delingpole (and even Delingpole's article has "perhaps" and "may" strewn all over it) and a Wall Street Journal news story. I looked at the WSJ story and can't find anything to back up "withheld scientific information". This is something I consider a serious BLP violation because of the first section of this Der Spiegel article. There is simply no way that this could be considered anything but a contentious edit. So could this one which came within hours of it. I don't think 2/0 should be deciding on topic bans and perhaps not blocks without going to this page for a discussion, but I don't disagree with either the block or topic ban, except that one month seems too short. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps show me reverting more than one edit within a twenty-four hour period? Since you're going to accuse me of violating 1RR, you should probably do this. Macai (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But if you think I violated BLP, you should file a complaint against me. I'll gladly discuss that in its own place. However, anything not directly related to the "edit warring" accusation is irrelevant. I'd also appreciate a reason why one month is "too short" for me, while other users get infinitely more lenient punishments for even worse offenses. Macai (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of filing a separate complaint against you. You were already blocked and topic banned, and it's being discussed here. I don't see any indication that you understand the seriousness of the BLP vio, and that leads me to support the topic ban. Reread WP:EW. At the WP:3RR section it states: a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, -- 1RR is an extension of that. The "Reverting" section of EW links to Help:Reverting which defines "reverting" as reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors. This edit at 16:19 April 3 changed the meaning of the lead to remove the idea that the wrongdoing was alleged and not proven and this edit at 17:14 on the same day, within 24 hours, did the same  -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By your understanding of reversion, any content edit that doesn't exclusively add data is a reversion because wording changes "reverse the actions of other editors". Furthermore, I wasn't banned for BLP violations, but for edit warring. They're not the same thing. Macai (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's about what my understanding of reversion is. The way I would put it is that the change should remove something from the article (or restore something) and it should be contested or controversial (something you would have known others would disagree with). If that happens enough times (1RR, 3RR), then I see a violation. Some editors may not see the earlier edit I cite as a revert because they may see it as a change to a longstanding part of the lead. I think removing the idea of "alleged" from the lead is a controversial move where we could probably find an edit that restored that word or idea to the article in the past weeks or even past couple of months. That's good enough for me, but others may have a different view of whether or not that first edit should be counted. It's true that WP:EW and WP:3RR has been understood differently by different editors and admins in the past, all over Wikipedia. If admins think you're in a gray area on this or even if they just don't see the 1RR, I can understand that and normally I'd want to lean toward leniency. But the BLP violation, frankly, makes me worry. I really wish you'd consider that policy and its implications, especially its implications here, very carefully, because I'm sure you'll be back either way. Your edits, as I described them above, did not look like efforts to be as accurate as possible. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to me from the admin discussion below that the overarching issue is not limited to a particular alleged vio of 1RR. But this discussion does raise an important issue of what exactly constitutes a revert. Presently, when one edits articles covered by this probation, a box is displayed above the edit box which says:"This page is under a 1 revert rule restriction due to the climate change topic community probation. Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period. Avoid edit warring and seek consensus for any contentious edits at [the Talk page]. Editors who fail to adhere to these standards may be blocked from editing for a short period."Note carefully the language "that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part" . Now, just today I made a series of edits to the article on Climatic Research Unit email controversy, all in the first paragraph of the lead, about half of which reversed some aspect of the edit of another user in part-- a word here, a short phrase there, etc., and at least one of which (w.r.t. the word "hacked") had been wrangled over by multiple editors just today. Yet, I consider none of them to be even partial reverts, and would sure hope everyone agrees with this upon looking at those edits. So I think the issue of what parameters are used in the assessment of what constitutes a revert is a conversation that ought be had in more depth in order to gain better clarity on it. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the page that I'm on. I don't consider your edits to be reversions. My understand of a "reversal" of an edit would be more or less clicking the "undo" button and doing little, if anything else. That's what I always understood a "revert" to be. You, well, revert it back to an old revision of the article. Macai (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No one should be sanctioned for uncontroversial, small edits like that. The problem comes when the edits are obviously controversial (contested by other editors). I don't know if that's an easy, bright line that everyone can or will follow, though. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Nsaa
(as posted previously before 2over0 ansver above ) I've requested that justified both the block and the topic ban at his talk page. As far as I can see this block and topic ban of user is wrong and should be lifted immediately. We reason when we do actions like this, and when Macai is not even getting any kind of explanation on why, it should have been rolled back immediately. This looks like a misuse of the admin tools by 2over0. Nsaa (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Block
 * I've just gone through all the diffs provide by 2over0 and if this is blocking ground he can just starting by blocking me to. I could have done exactly the same edits I suppose.
 * allegations -> pointing out. Yes the media has pionted it out. I see no problem with this proposal at all. every change do not need to be done at the talk page first.
 * Adding many references- When was it controversial adding four reference to support your edit?
 * incident -> scandal. It is extremly broadly covered in nearly all reporting on this case that's a scandal, but I agree that this is a controversial edit, but iff you are after controversial edits you can just go after the what I suppose is AGW alarmist who constantly remove leaked or hacked  sourced by no less than the Washington Post and a host of others, see Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy. Even through it was raised at the talk page before it was added. Just for setting this edit by Macai in a perspective on this article.
 * incident -> scandal. It is extremly broadly covered in nearly all reporting on this case that's a scandal, but I agree that this is a controversial edit, but iff you are after controversial edits you can just go after the what I suppose is AGW alarmist who constantly remove leaked or hacked  sourced by no less than the Washington Post and a host of others, see Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy. Even through it was raised at the talk page before it was added. Just for setting this edit by Macai in a perspective on this article.


 * Topic ban The topic ban diffs. looks like just normal conversations and your claim about violating of WP:BLP will never be accepted at WP:BLPN as far as I see. the diff that I found most disturbing was this one Your comments are akin to that of a homeless man with a picket sign reading "the end is nigh". You might want to tone that down some.. I've added the last sentence, and as you see this is a friendly request.
 * So both the blocking (it's probably not the correct place to discuss it?) and topic ban is unjustified as far as I see. Nsaa (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Kenosis
I was a bit surprised at the broad range of interpretations of 2/0's and Macai's respective actions, so I did some research of potentially relevant diffs. ....... Here are two sets of diffs, the first of which I think is relevant to a broader enforcement policy issue in the CC probation, and the second of which fills in a few important aspects of Macai's edits that appear to have been missed above in 2/0's presentation. It seems to me the last two might be a potential issue--similarly to what's happened to several other editors here-- the question being "was the edit at 08:41 1 April a revert under the 1RR rules?". I imagine if one wants to be strictly technical under the terms specified in the box above the edit box in articles within the probation area, one could easily argue it is. It might be reasonable to describe it as "slightly dangerous territory" under the CC probation terms, since this was a direct extension of the wheel war that got both Marknutley and William M Connolley blocked. But it doesn't seem to me to be per se a 1RR vio. This is the general sort of situation I was referring to in my brief exchange of thoughts with JohnWBarber and Macai above, where I advocated a more in-depth discussion towards clarifying what criteria might be involved in the decision about what's a revert and what isn't.
 * 10:19, 31 March Macai adds qualifiers to statements wrangled over between William M Connolley, Marknutley, Ratel, and Machan79. Nothing substantive has been reversed in this edit, it merely adds material.
 * 00:12, 1 April Macai adds a souced phrase that mining company director Ian Pilmer is also a professor of mining geology.
 * 08:41, 1 April Macai retitles section from Reception and criticism to Responses and reactions, removing most of the first paragraph of the section. Edit summary = I think this sublede should be trimmed quite a bit; also, saying that "scientists criticize X" implies all scientists criticize X as a rule, which is not false This edit, if one wants to be technical about it, reverses several earlier edits by multiple editors.
 * 08:53, 1 April Macai reverts Ratel

As to Climatic Research Unit email controversy, I'm concerned because the issues include not only WP:NPOV, but also WP:BLP involving potentially damaging accusations of serious professional misconduct leveled against living scientists, a number of which are named in the article.
 * 1: 15:37, 3 April Macai changes "with the unauthorised release on the Internet of thousands of e-mails and other documents" to "with the Internet leak of thousands of e-mails and other documents hacked from"
 * 2: 16:19, 3 April Macai's Edit summary = They're not just allegations, they're objective facts. Also, who cares if they were hacked or leaked? That's not important in this sentence. Macai changes "gained wide publicity in blogs and news media for allegations that the hacked e-mails showed climate scientists colluded in manipulating data" to "gained wide publicity in blogs and news media for pointing out that the e-mails showed climate scientists colluded in manipulating data"
 * 3: 17:14, 3 April Macai's Edit summary = Like I said before, these aren't allegations made by individuals alone, but by the mainstream media itself. NPOV mandates that we present them as facts, not allegations. Macai changes "Upon the e-mails' dissemination, people gained wide publicity in blogs and news media for allegations that the hacked e-mails showed climate scientists colluded in manipulating data" to "The e-mails showed that climate scientists colluded in manipulating data".
 * 4: 19:35, 3 April Macai's Edit summary = This is definitely a scandal. Changes "incident" to "scandal".

These diffs, all in the lede of the article, raise significant NPOV and BLP issues, in addition to 1RR issues. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Number 2 changes "allegations" to "pointing out",
 * Number 3 is, it seems to me, a revert of other editor(s) who rejected Macai's language, changing "allegations that the hacked emails showed that" to "the emails showed that".
 * Number 4 is, it seems to me, quite arguably a second revert of numerous editors who, as 2/0 indicated above, had already clearly rejected by consensus the use of the word "scandal" to describe the controversy or incident.

Comment by KimDabelsteinPetersen
I'm a bit concerned that this seems to be getting a close, without admins reviewing the evidence provided by 2over0. If this closes this way, then you are setting a bad precedence for yourselves, no matter what you agree that the enforcement procedure should or shouldn't be. Because it seems that the closure will be "procedural error - overturn - sentence served". May i gently and in a friendly manner remind you of WP:BURO?

It doesn't really benefit the accused (who doesn't know whether he did something wrong or not) nor the enforcement board (setting precedence) that this should close this way. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the relevant section from WP:BURO would be " Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." which seems to be what is happening here. FellGleaming (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Macai

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

It should be noted that during Macai's first topic ban discussion, lengths of even a year and three months were proposed but the user was let off with a month and a strong warning not to edit disruptively again. It's been less than a month since his ban expired and the disruption, repeatedly making highly contentious changes/reverts, happened on the same 1RR article. After a quick look, the block and topic ban seem appropriate to me. Prolog (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the interests of openness, I would draw attention to my remarks made during the previous request. As regards to the complaint of lack of notice in this matter, I would note that Macai had been put under general notice regarding further disruption at the subject article when notified of the previous sanctions. Since both the previous Request and the notification to Macai suggested that further sanctions for disruption would include topic bans of several months duration, I cannot find that 2 months topic ban to be excessive of itself. The questions that, I feel, need review is whether Macai was being disruptive sufficiently to draw a sanction without warning, and secondly whether 2over0 should have requested review either before or after enacting the sanction. The latter I would comment upon now; given the history of the previous request, I think it would have been expedient for 2over0 to have invited review, here, of their actions and preferable to have made a Request to enforce the warnings inherent in the earlier sanction. I will need to look at the substance of Macai's assertions that they did not edit war before commenting upon that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I am struggling to see the edit war and even more than one revert. I see the revert of Macai's wording in one instance as two other editors undoing each others changes which includes Macai's intervening edit, which I think Macai would be entitled to re-instate without incurring penalty under 1RR since that content was not specifically removed in the first instance, and it had consensus per the talkpage discussion. I consider it falls to 2over0 to provide the evidence of the specifics of the other/two reverts, because there were quite a few individuals "amending the interpretation of sources" in amongst Macai's edits. Of course, if it is not conclusive that there were the reverts in question then the topic ban should be reversed and consideration given to an amendment to the block log - the latter since it appears that Macai has substantially changed their attitude toward consensual editing since the previous incident. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not gruntled at all. I see a major communication problem here; it appears that Macai was blocked for matters as well as 1RR, but the details of what and when were not specified owing to connectivity issues - despite 2over0 editing for another hour. I note that both JohnWBarber and Kenosis have highlighted concerns outside of the previously noted 1RR, but these have not been fully considered as the block notice, block log, and the Probation log specifically commented on the one issue. I suggest it is difficult, at this time, to now review all of these further instances and put aside the subsequent "revelations" and determine if 2/0's good faith rationale for his actions were permissible within the previous warning to Macai. In truth, for the sake of expedience, I would prefer that the full article ban on Macai is reduced to time served, and that the article space ban be reduced to two weeks, and that all admins very swiftly retire to the Probation talkpage to agree whether all admin actions (outside of vandalism, etc.) made in regard to edits to pages covered by the probation should be either discussed first or at a minimum noted at the Probation enforcement pages for review - my instinct would be that if this were followed in this case then there would not be the issues in front of us, where there is reasonable concern over the relationship between the sanction and the originally noted alleged violations. I consider that there is enough discrepancy between what was originally recorded as the rationale, the sanctions imposed, and the subsequent listing of concerns regarding Macai's editing history immediately prior to the imposition of sanctions to make the extended ban(s) untenable. Process has failed the Probation, the articles and Macai (and possibly 2over0), and I feel it unfair that only one should be held to account. I urge all parties to close this by reducing the sanctions as suggested or otherwise agreed and to work out a form of words that requires third party overview by use of Probation enforcement pages so such misunderstandings do not happen again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I support reducing as you say, or better, to time served across the board. I'll repeat, I think 2/0 should have brought this here more expeditiously rather than needing to get this appealed first before we got an explanation. Please don't do that again. Do we need a hard/fast rule? Maybe, but I'd hope a word to the wise would suffice. ++Lar: t/c 04:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * NB: see Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement ++Lar: t/c 04:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there was edit warring either, although I do agree with JWB that the edits were potentially controversial, some of the wording introduced was slanted. I don't want to be excessively procedural, but I agree that this matter should have been brought here by 2/0 or some other party rather than having 2/0 unilaterally impose a block and further topic ban. The topic ban may well be warranted, but I'm not seeing it yet. If it is, we should impose it here, and 2/0 should be admonished, or at least requested not to do this again. Macai's point about unlevel playing fields seems warranted. NB: I opine here a lot but I have yet to be the admin who actually closed anything that resulted in a block being given to anyone. ++Lar: t/c 12:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we get this decided? Other views? Failing that I think I'll close as LHvU outlined regarding the ban itself, with my changes. Its been a few days. Note that there has been considerable discussion about process. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

1RR restriction on Global warming controversy incorrectly added, then fixed
by

Lar has just added a 1RR restriction (or at least a comment claiming that such a restriction exists) to Global warming controversy. The note claims that this is "per the probation sanctions logged here". However, there are no probation sanctions concerning Global_warming_controversy currently logged, and I see no good reason for a 1RR restriction on that article - the article is relatively quite, with less than 1 edit/day for April, and no contentious edits in the last weeks. A small amount of IP vandalism has been curbed by semi-protection.

I suspect this is a mixup. If not, I'd like to see an explanation. Also, I very much suggest that 1RR restrictions are announced in a page notice, as at Climatic Research Unit email controversy. It's not realistic to expect users to read all talk page headers before editing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, too. To be absolutely clear, the article in question has seen no significant edits since it was semiprotected over a week ago following ssome vandalism.  I assume Lar intended to target some other article. --TS 18:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he has moved the tag to another article and I've added an edit notice. So this is resolved for now, although all admins should be aware of the possibility of adding an edit notice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Last edit to that article was a week ago. And no editor in that dispute had more that 1RR. Typically pointless action resulting from this probation. -Atmoz (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It was actually a simple error, that originates with Ratel's evidence (he mislabeled a diff). Discussion was about Global warming conspiracy theory - but the closing admin (Lar), just checked Ratels evidence, to be sure what the article was - and the error propagated. Hasn't it has been remedied? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you check my piped link, that's the article I linked to. And if you check the history, from 3 April until the 1RR restriction was put in place, there were a total of 13 edits by 10 accounts. There was 1 revert by Vsmith on 3 April, 1 revert by Ratel on 4 April, 1 revert by Peterlewis on 4 April, 1 revert by Vsmith on 5 April, 1 revert by JohnWBarber on 5 April, and 1 revert by William M. Connolley on 5 April. How would a 1 RR have prevented that? -Atmoz (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It (the incorrect article being tagged) was a mixup on my part. I apologize for any inconvenience caused. Comes from not making sure everything lines up, (see my talk for more...) Ratel's diff (which is to the correct article but went via secure.wikimedia) did not match his statement and I was following that link so as to not have to work on secure. Sloppiness on my part. I think it's sorted now. I think adding a note to the talk page is a good idea too. As for whether it was a pointless action or not... ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

 * 1) 16 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 : ATren (talk) 13:38, 15 April 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)  - WMC comments out the RFC by Marknutley
 * 2)  - again


 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : I would suggest a one week block or topic ban, because shorter blocks have not worked


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : This reversion of the RFC was unnecessary and aggressive, unfortunately typical of WMC's editing style. WMC and MN are already on very bad terms with each other, so why would WMC twice comment out the RFC template? If this were the first time something like this has happened, I wouldn't bring this request; if it were the first time WMC did this kind of thing with MN, I wouldn't bring it. But given their interpersonal history and WMC's long history of this kind of thing, I'm requesting action. WMC could have simply made his feelings known in the RFC, there was no need to subvert the process entirely. ATren (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by William M. Connolley
Since FG has joined in, I think this is well worth examining. Yes, FG really removed a pic of the temperature record from the MWP article with the edit comment ''rv. Hockey Stick not relevant to article; other issues.'' That is not good faith editing; that is wanton destruction. This is also distinctly dubious, it removes important caveats William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And FG's aggresive reverting at Willie Soon‎ has got it protected William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for once again breaking civility and failing to AGF, but Willie Soon was protected because I requested action on the BLP noticeboard, not because of my "wanton edits".  I ask you to strike your above comment.


 * And since you bring it the Soon can of worms, please explain this revert of yours.   The second source you deleted specifically mentioned the paper was appearing in a peer-reviewed journal.    Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 22:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It was prtoected due to your edit warring. As to the second part, if you mean Armstrong, J. Scott, Green, Kesten C. and Soon, Willie (2007): Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit. Unpublished. - it says, Unpublished quite clearly. If you can find a ref saying it is published, feel free to use that William M. Connolley (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments By FellGleaming
Three more civility breaches by WMC, all in the last few hours. I didn't bother to look back any further. 

Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "MN's statement reflects a lack of understanding of the science, and was correctly removed. It is regrettable that he is adding material that he doesn't understand. It cannot be a co-incidence that this suits the POV"
 * "I note that MN is still pushing his bizarre "this is what all the sources call it" unmarked reverts"
 * "It's good to see you chaps finally coming out into the open and admitting you're a team. Full points for honesty, well done Cla and ATren!"

ZP5* Comment
Noticing the included PA "I suggest that someone like Cla - who for all his faults at least has some clue about writing without bias, and has a fair idea of what MN really means - goes in and rewrites the thing. Until that is done this fails the criterion for RFC listing; I've nowikied the tag ni the interim William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)" (sorry, could not find diff) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How is that a PA? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Per bold added to highlight.  The PA statement does not better the encyclopedia environment.  (see  for additional guidance.)

Direct rudeness (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions; (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities; (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety; (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen"); Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see random bold face in your copying of parts of WP:CIV - do you plan to make an argument that these or any other parts apply to the edit in question? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a claim, you seem to be disputing. We can let the readers decide.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark Nutley Comment
@Bozmo, please check the history of the talk page in question. I had in fact already changed the text of the rfc based on comments made by both CLa and WMC. [redacted] I do not see how the wording was any differnet to other RFC`s i have done. And they have never been tampered with. It is mentioned in the RFC that two editors opposed this text, so i dunno were your coming from there mate mark nutley (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you are permitted to make this comment. Hipocrite (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why ever not? I am being mentioned here after all mark nutley (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is you were not permitted to bring complaints about WMC here for another month. Is that not acurate? You are bringing a novel claim against WMC here, yet again - "WMC is under a probation not to alter other editors talk page posts, he broke that restriction." Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I`m not bringing a complaint, i am explaining to bozmo his misunderstanding of the situation. If i am incorrect in this then an admin can simply remove my comment. mark nutley (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that if an admin removes your comments you should, before mentioning WMC for another month, instead run it past someone who hasn't been frequently sanctioned for exactly the behavior you repeat over and over and over again? Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact i`ll remove that bit now to show good faith mark nutley (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Mark. When he detagged the RFC it read like a complaint "The following text was removed without consensus... i seek consensus to reinsert the removed text". If you want to get comments you should ask for them neutrally. "The inclusion of this text into this article is a subject of discussion because of a question whether... we are seeking comments from a wider audience". I would have detagged and asked for a reword if I had found it like that. --BozMo talk 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally that's not a big deal. As far as I can see he was being vaguely helpful but you took it badly. But trying to create another mountain on mole foundations seems a bit silly. --BozMo talk 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * BozMo, given their history, wasn't this apt to be taken badly? And don't you think it was unwise for WMC himself to do it, for that particular reason? ATren (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I`m not going to comment here again as i have no desire to drop myself ever further into the poop. I will say Bozmo i will take your comments about the RFC t oheart and redo it in the manner you suggest, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @ATren. Lack of wisdom is not really actionable. I don't see that it was deliberate baiting, hence the move to close. --BozMo talk 19:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the common defense of WMC has always been two pronged: (1) he's so intelligent that we don't want to lose him, (2) he's not wise enough to avoid disruption. At what point does (2) conflict with (1) and we either acknowledge that (a) someone so unwise can't be as intelligent as we're assuming, or (b) someone so intelligent cannot be so unwise as to be so frequently unintentionally disruptive. Either way, the continued use of this 2-pronged defense becomes less plausible with each new incident. ATren (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think I have ever said WMC is particularly intelligent in my various defences of him. He may be, I don't have the data to go on (if it turns out he is Shichidan at Go or he is a modest Chess grand master who has concealed it then thats a different matter). However WMC is particularly knowledgable, at least in some fields including broad science. --BozMo talk 08:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Amateur san dan certificate, though I no longer play at that level William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 7-3=4 ;) --BozMo talk 09:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if it just knowledge and not intelligence, then what makes him any different than any of us who pick up a book and learn? The repeated defenses of his behavior have always been based on the thesis that he is invaluable because he provides more than Randy in Boise with a stack of CC books. If it's just knowledge WMC possesses, he is nothing special and his long term alienation of all those Randys who had the potential to be WMCs is all the more distressing. FWIW, I never supported the "give him more chances because of his superior intellect" even when the premise was undisputed, because I believe collaboration is more important than pure intellect here, but if the premise doesn't even hold, then it's all the more perplexing. (And by the way, I'm fairly certain you are among those who used the superior intelligence defense, though I will have to find an example) ATren (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably that he picked up the book and learnt. Perhaps if someone else did that, they'd garner the same level of defference that WMC did. If you're arguing that the conversion rate of worthless POV pusher to valuable expert is a specific value, and thus WMC must have driven off a future valuable expert by driving off a lot of worthless POV pushers, then I'd like to see your data - both on the POV pusher count and the conversion rate. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW I do not think WMC has been treated in a manner exceptional for his level of contribution. However, there are very few editors who contribute as much but do so in the same manner. Jayjg, possibly? I have not come across others. Overall contribution is important: if only on a percentage basis. --BozMo talk 13:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By ATren's argument, why do you ever visit a physician when all you need is a couple of books to self-diagnose? Or why do you buy silverware if you could simply make it yourself by breaking some coal and ore out of the ground and put in a bit of work? Getting up to expert level in any field of science is a 10+ year full-time job even if supported by a suitable infrastructure (like, say a university with teachers and advisers). Now, William gets special treatment because he has been one of our most diligent admins and hence accumulated a couple of enemies, and because he very persistently strives for a fair and correct representations of some areas of science. Both of these have made him a target of POV-pushers both within and outside Wikipedia. Some admins have not recognized this campaign as bogus, so they do treat him worse than he deserves. Too bad, but life is not perfect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a physicians office, nor does it make silverware. The primary task here is collaboration to produce neutral summary material from other sources. It's primarily an editorial function. Given that, the superior intelligence argument has always been weak (in my view) but now even that argument is being diluted. So why is WMC's knowledge so valued when anyone can obtain that knowledge and do the same thing? And to Hipocrite: his abrasiveness on these pages is well documented, just look at the history of this enforcement page, but it's impossible to measure the value of those editors WMC has alienated, because they're no longer here. That's the crux of WP:BITE, that we work hard to keep new editors because they may be diamonds in the rough. And by the arguments made above by BozMo, any one of them could have risen to the contribution level of WMC, since there was no intelligence gap to overcome. So really, I can't prove my assertion, but I think I can convincingly make the case that in all the time WMC has been abrasive, the chances are good that a single editor could have risen to his level of knowledge, and a single editor who left because of WMC's abrasiveness is all that it would take to make his contribution net-zero -- again, because the premise is that inherent intelligence doesn't factor in. ATren (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument is to stupid to take serious. Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * but it's impossible to measure the value of those editors WMC has alienated, because they're no longer here - but this is potentially a valid point. Except ATren doesn't mention the many valuable editors who have been driven away. Perhaps he might care to attempt a list William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we survey this question to the folks who have participated in your RFCs, Arbcom cases and election run? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Either make the case or don't - don't bloviate about it. If you're saying one of the alienated POV pushers showed qualities of a good editor and was driven off by WMC, then find the alienated editor and show those emergent qualities and show the alienation. Then, of course, there's the problem that to reach WMC's level of expertise you'd have to have been working on it since before Wikipedia was created, so you'll have to show that when they were alienated they were already demonstrating at least semi-professional levels of knowledge and evidenced a forward progression of knowledge (as opposed to a meritless parroting of talking points). Untill then, you're just malingering, no insult intended. Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Baloney, Hipocrite. You know very well that there is no reason to show "semi-professional levels of knowledge" for any newbie editors who were treated unjustly rudely by WMC or anyone else at the AGW articles over the last five years.  When I started editing I made a string of errors and amateurish edits over several months.  It was the patience, kindness, and helpfulness of the WP:MILHIST editors that gently got me going in the right direction, the same thing that has been lacking on the AGW article talk pages.  You know who is primarily responsible for creating that atmosphere on those pages and shame on you for not only not doing anything about it, but trying to justify it as acceptable behavior. Cla68 (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking this a bit too personally. Comments like "baloney" and "shame on you" are needlessly harsh, and do not help us to achieve our goals of cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments like "baloney" and "shame on you" are extremely mild. Especially when we're talking about someone who calls his fellow editors "idiots", "yahoos" and "septics".  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't called anyone any of those things. I'm eagerly waiting for my apologies (multiple, now). Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)\
 * "Baloney, Hipocrite" says Cla68. "Comments like "baloney"...are needlessly harsh" says SBHB. "Comments like "baloney" ... are extremely mild. Especially when we're talking about someone who calls his fellow editors "idiots", "yahoos" and "septics"," says you. Even though we're talking about me, we're not talking about me? WHERE'S MY APOLOGY? Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Please try to keep up, Cla68. ATren stated that it's possible one of the editors he alledges WMC alienated would have reached his level of specialist knowledge. To do that, they would already have had to be at a semi-professional level before editing wikipedia at all, because it would take at least a decade to reach WMC's level of specialist knowledge. If someone wants to alledge that WMC has negative repricussions that outweigh his positives I'm fine with that argument (I disagree, but I'm not going to quibble). ATren, however, is arguing that he's driven away a single hypothetical editor who would now have positives that would outweigh his positives, which is nonsense. Do try to follow. Also, on Millhist - when you solve the atomic bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki article we can talk about the differences. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ssilvers Comment
This appears to be yet another attempt by global warming deniers to prevent Connolley from insisting on accuracy in Wikipedia articles in the climate area. I have often disagreed with Connolley, and he can certainly be brusque, but he edits in good faith, whereas his accusers are nearly always POV pushers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The message from the numerous WMC enforcement requests is an insistence on civility. Why the ed is allowed to circumvent the means to create a nice place to edit, must have something to do with their POV? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As this request is about MN, I would suggest creating a new request for WMC, rather than sidetrack this one. Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In all politeness .. check again please. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sheesh - I'm getting confused with everything here! Lost track of which side was pointing a finger at the other side here.  My sincere apologies, and I have struck my comment.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning William M. Connolley
Hmm. I propose to move this to a speedy close. AFAICT Mark had not understood the correct way to do and RFC (which would have been to request comments on whether a text block should be included, not to request explicitly in the RFC lede to overturn a decision by two other editors). WMC gave the RFC the best hope of survival by nowikiing it until it was reworded properly, and said he was doing this. His comment about Mark being incapable of phrasing it neutrally was a bit sharp but I think suspending the RFC pending appropriate wording was a no-brainer, and WMC did suggest Cla should do the reword. Obviously, Mark did not like it being WMC doing the suspension or the comment. Anyway I do not think it requires action here. --BozMo talk 14:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 24 hours without dissent... --BozMo talk 14:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 6 hours later... I agree! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Marknutley
by

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

Request concerning Marknutley

 * User requesting enforcement : William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : General sanctions/Climate change probation: civility parole; not-bringing-enforcement-requests parole


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1)  MN sneaking in an enforcement request (this  also refers; not sure if you consider it under your purview or not)
 * 2), ,  Incivility (also within his responses here: e.g. WMc carrys on with his crap)
 * 3)  This one is arguable - interested in the admin opinion
 * 4) (continuing, since no-one seems able to close this 20:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC))
 * 5)  (civility)
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) All over the place, including the talk page here. Do I really need them?
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Up to you folk

Note that MN, and now ATren, have tried to excuse the parole violation by nor is he in violation here, since he was requested diffs on the talk page. This is false. Lar asked for diffs, but he asked for them from specific individuals, and none of those individuals was MN (I see ATren is still wriggling: as the diff he has just posted shows, Lar was talking to KC). Note also Lar's I agree, the above is MN sneaking in an enforcement request all right William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC) [Oops: need to strike that: Lar asked for diffs, twice. However the diffs where he asks Mark are in relation to another matter: MN's answer is, still, trying to sneak in an enforcement request, as I think Lar acks William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)]
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Oh, and I also see that Nsaa is pushing and just adds "POV" without referencing any discussion on the talk page to the article - this is wrong; as you can see from the article talk page, where I discuss exactly this William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that NW has judged MN in violation of his civility parole and MN has accepted this William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that the from your glee club comment by Lar isn't just a minor bit of snark or indication of sharp elbows; it really is how he thinks. Given that, I think it is a fairly clear indication that he cannot possibly be considered nuetral in these matters (or, in the terminology that I've been using for a while, he is biased) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Pyng

Do you think you might turn your minds towards actually closing this one? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1)  christ almighty, you slap tags all over an article William M. Connolley (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Marknutley
With regards to the vandalism charges, i point you to WP:VANDAL which says the insertion of nonsense into articles which is what WMC did, wp:vandal also says reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive which he also did  With regards to the comments on my talk page i did not call any person stupid, i called the situation stupid. I also did not try to sneak an RFE in, lar asked for diffs over what this was about, so i posted the diffs. @At KC, what you are saying is, that when i ask advice from admins over WMC`s disruptive behaviour then i am trying to get and enforcement done against him? If i can`t bring a request then what else am i meant to do? I have no option but to ask admins for assistance when confronted with his behaviour. To suggest a vendetta by me is ridiculous, it is not me who is constantly being confrontational, it is not me who turns up at a newly created article and inserts junk. It stuns me that WMc carrys on with his crap and it is ignored, yet you suggest a topic ban for me for filing a COI report, laughable indeed. It is no wonder wp is going down the pan when a disruptive editor is given free reign yet when those who request he be stopped are the ones punished mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar did indeed ask me for diffs, Mark: It depends on the context. There are almost always better ways to phrase the matter. Do you have a diff? I would like to have WMC retract the sneaking attempt at an RFE and have it removed from this request mark nutley (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true I asked for diffs, yes. However, the diffs I wanted were specifically to whatever it was that WMC was talking about. It wasn't a blanket invitation to bring anything forward that one might want to. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So i made an honest mistake and am accused of sneaking in an RFE, when you asked me for diffs the conflict was currently about the diff`s i provided. Funny how AGF does not extend to that.
 * OK, I'm willing to AGF about that if others are. However I do think you need to stop calling things vandalism. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I already said i`m ignoring WMC from now on lar, he is not worth my time quite simply, i`ve had it to be honest. mark nutley (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignoring WMC might help a fair bit but I'm telling you to stop calling things vandalism. Those are two different pieces of advice. The second is pretty broad, you shouldn't call any contribution by ANY established editor vandalism. Not just contributions from WMC, from anyone. Trust me, it will work out better if you don't. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A topic ban is not fair, i am to be topic banned from an article i created and was trying to get up to GA status, an article WMC wilfully inserted junk into in a lame attempt to create trouble and make the article unstable. My attempts at improving an article were attacked and again wmc is being let off scott free and i am the one whose head i being called for. @ Bozmo what does 3RR have to do with this? mark nutley (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OIC. It was a specific reply to Lar saying "However I do think that WMC is not the best person to be bringing up requests for enforcement. Of any sort". Of any sort would imply he should not raise 3RR which I disagreed with--BozMo talk 09:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * With regards to WMC`s newest diff, just because i can`t be assed to argue does not mean i accept NW`s view of what i wrote. That issue was already dealt with so why argue about it. mark nutley (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley

 * I no longer edit this topic area except to revert Scibaby because Climate Change is the third rail of Wikipedia (touch it, and you die). However, I do watch the conflict of interest noticeboard (WP:COIN) and have done so for quite some time. Editors here should be aware that Marknutley recently filed a COIN request to ban WMC from two articles at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Now, let me make sure that my "Watch this page" checkbox is unchecked and note that if anyone needs more info they should use my talk page as I'm not getting dragged back in! Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(Ironically, I forgot to uncheck the watch-this-page button from my minor spelling correction. FIXED!) Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by nsaa
I'm amazed. How can this be incivility sneaking in an enforcement request ? I can't see anything wrong in any of the diffs. This is just WMC trying to divert the attention so people is engaged in this unproductive discussion. Throw it out and ask WMC not to file such request again. Why do WMC add shuck comments "he book has been enthusiastically and uncritically reviewed by the skeptics, and ignored by everyone else." and again "The book has been enthusiastically and uncritically reviewed by the skeptics, and ignored by everyone else." and just adds "POV" without referencing any discussion on the talk page to the article The Hockey Stick Illusion. A topic ban for him on these issues is highly necessary. Nsaa (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ?I believe that diff accuses me of sneaking in an enforcement request not being uncivil mark nutley (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'd say it's not offered as a civility parole violation, but as a violation of being "banned from bringing further complaints against User:William M. Connolley until 12 april" per General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log from February 12th. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True, sorry for looking at the wrong diff, stroked it out in my original posting. Nsaa (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to quote from the The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion:
 * "William Connolley, a climate modeller and sometime green politican, commented in a web forum called sci.environment that he thought McIntyre and McKitrick's claims about about the effect of short centering were 'probably wrong'.87 However, [...] the best he could come up with [...] ", p.177,
 * "Also in the RealClimate lineup where [...] William Connolley, the environmentalist-cum-climate modeller [...]", p.179,
 * and last at page 386.
 * Nsaa (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from being obviously out of date, what relevance does any of that have? It has my name on it, which is always nice, there is nothing worse than not being talked about, but otherwise what is your point? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagine it points to your conflict of interest with regards to the article mark nutley (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dubious, even if I'd read them. And not clearly relevant to this, even if true William M. Connolley (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not at all unreasonable to think that you have a COI in this area. ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone entirely ignorant of the situation might well think that. Such a person should bring a complaint to the COI noticeboard. Or perhaps to this board, making a clear complaint rather than snide accusations. If you, or anyone else here (other than those bared from doing so, of course), is such a person, then please feel free. Otherwise: we all know you are thoroughly biased, it really isn't necessary to keep demonstrating it quite so clearly William M. Connolley (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying it's not unreasonable to think you have a conflict demonstrates MY bias? That's rich. I think your making that claim (no doubt backed up by a chorus of "yes yes yes, he is!" from your glee club soon enough) is evidence of why your editing at WP has become a net negative. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reference to established editors and administrators as a "glee club" rather undercuts your frequent criticism of others' "snarkiness," methinks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I'll stop calling spades spades if you all stop digging. But you failed to address my point. ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure William felt that he was "calling a spade a spade" when he referred to you as biased. That's why that particular platitude is counterproductive in these sorts of situations. You can't call on people to stop being "snarky" or "uncivil" while at the same time defending your own right to "call a spade a spade". It's a goose/gander thing. As to your point, obviously a reasonable person might conclude that William has a conflict of interest; hence the numerous threads at WP:COI/N, most of which were presumably started by reasonable people. Perhaps reviewing those threads would be a reasonable starting point for addressing a COI concern? MastCell Talk 00:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by FellGleaming
I think it's important to remember the essential purpose of Wikipedia is to create quality encyclopedic entries. From the diffs posted above, it is clear that WMC was, as another editor points out, "inserting shuck comments" in a disruptive manner. I am also shocked and dismayed that at least one administrator has openly admitted WMC receives special treatment in this regard.

Returning to the issue of Knutley, since he did nothing but bring to attention acts which were clearly disruptive to Wikipedia, how can there be any discussion of action against him at all? User A disrupts WP; User B reports him...User B gets banned? To quote Shulze here, "what the fuck?" Nothing you could possibly do would have more a chilling effect on editors bringing to light such abusive actions. Had he brought a complaint without merit, that would be one thing, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. FellGleaming (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to remember the essential purpose of Wikipedia is to create quality encyclopedic entries - I am absolutely in agreement on this point. I've tried numerous times to interest the admins on this board in considering this point, and failed every time. If you can do better I wish you the best of luck William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your assessment (that the admins here are not holding that purpose firmly in mind) is actually incorrect. It's just that there is more to actually creating quality encyclopedia entries than merely putting words into the entries. Especially when there are folk who make it so unpleasant for others to work in the area with their snarky comments (and worse). ++Lar: t/c 22:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, "merely putting words into the entries" is a necessary step in creating a quality encyclopaedia. And I do quite firmly believe that we (as in the community of editors actually editing articles) do not want a semi-professional class of administrators or politicians. If someone is only here for the drama or to boss people around, they are not helping. Neither are people who have no problem with the vilification of scientists or other editors, but turn into shrinking violets if some bad bad words are used by others. But I don't think that's William's main point - the main point is that using roughly the level of intelligence embodied in grep may be easy, but is nearly worthless, while actually getting an understanding of the domain to recognise which edits are really disruptive is hard and takes time. So far, most of the admins here are of the grep variety. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a necessary step but unfortunately, it's not always a sufficient step. Especially when the area is a contentious one. ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Stephan Schulz
''If i can`t bring a request then what else am i meant to do? I have no option but to ask admins for assistance when confronted with his behaviour. (Mark)''

Mark, the very point of your sanction is that people found your enforcement requests/complaints/whines about WMC to be not helpful. It may be counter-intuitive, but Wikipedia has survived for a number of years without your input. It will likewise survive for a couple more years without your input in this particular area. So your obvious, and strongly recommended, option is to ignore WMC and his behavior. If it really is so egregious as you think, someone else will do something. If not, take it as a sign that you erred (once again, as in the cases that got you banned in the first place) in your evaluation of the situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are more than likely right stephan, and i suppose this is what i will have to do as it is now obvious that WMC can say and do what he wants and if i complain about it i am the one who is punished, it`s just a waste of my time mark nutley (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's how it is supposed to work. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not lar, but that is the way it is working, the majority of editors who have made complaints against wmc have been sanctioned, not him. I give up on it, i`m just ignoring him from now on mark nutley (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can completely ignore him when you feel you are being baited, you'll do far better. Your current approach of labeling everything as vandalism, and responding to snark with invective, and lashing back and edit warring and so forth... isn't working. It will end badly for you. Yes, the playing field just isn't level. It's probably not going to become much more level than it is now, which isn't very, either. Live with it. Be meticulous in documenting things, be completely above reproach as far as your own behavior, and hope for the best. (see DefendEachOther) That is all the advice I can give you. It isn't fair. But guess what, Wikipedia isn't fair. Sorry. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have nothing to be sorry for, i got myself into the shit :) and then was stupid enough to grab a shovel and start digging, Thanks mark nutley (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar's advice above is spot on. You really need to learn to stop reacting badly to these things. Walk away when you feel the frustration overtaking you, and when you come back seek the advice of those you trust. ATren (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Mark is someone who would benefit from mentoring. Much of the trouble he causes is due to simple ineptness, not due to considered bad decisions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ATren
KC's proposal is completely unacceptable given the history of this conflict, which has been escalated by WMC's repeated mocking of MN. Either both should be topic-banned or neither. Also, MN is not in violation on COIN (he is not forbidden from filing there, it was understood at the time that he was sanctioned specifically from filing further enforcement requests. The wording, however, is vague so perhaps the intent was misunderstood.) nor is he in violation here, since he was requested diffs on the talk page. KC, you should review the history of this debate before judging. ATren (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I was part of that conversation, which you seem to have missed, I am unlikely to have missed that Lar requested difs, and has MN provided same. I suggest you AGF and not presume I have not reviewed history prior to stating my view. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that even though i was asked for diffs i am still bringing complaints, but that in multiple venues, How can you say that when i was asked to supply diffs? mark nutley (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The two are not mutually exclusive - and I am not speaking of the difs. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something obvious here then, what exactly are you speaking of? If you think this is going off topic, ping my talk page, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

KC, I think you did miss this; the diffs are there for you to read. He asked Mark directly for diffs in a flurry of edits by you, Lar, and WMC. By the time MN responded, he was responded to Lar's second request for diffs, which came in the same thread and was indented under your comment. Here is the diff which shows Lar directly asking Mark for diffs: "Mark: It depends on the context. There are almost always better ways to phrase the matter. Do you have a diff?". In the next edit, three minutes later, Mark responded with diffs, but he put them at the end of the rapidly expanding thread. But the direct request from Lar was only 5 minutes old.

Further, it was my understanding that the sanction against MN applied to complaints in this enforcement only, so if the intent was different, it's quite possible that MN had the same impression. Indeed, he has indicated above that he was unaware of any restriction on filing a COI/N. For reference, here is enforcement request that triggered the sanction from Geni. Note that ChrisO specifically requested "I suggest barring Marknutley from making any further enforcement requests", and that he uses "complaint" interchangeably with "enforcement request". ATren (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

BozMo, why are you not concerned about the time wasted by the editor who is now in double-digits in enforcement requests, has a long list of token blocks and warnings he ignores, and makes blatantly bad POV edits with no sourcing? ATren (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @ATren. If you really want an answer to the question I do not think anyone should worry about everything. I haven't looked through all of WMC's contributions and (as with every other editor) pretty much notice what I come across or is brought here when I am looking at a case. Much of what has been brought here (not by you but by others) has done more to establish the reputation of complainants some of whom in my view have little credibility left. Some of it does look like bad behaviour but not as outrageous to me as to you evidently. Perhaps the more spurious complainants just hope something will stick but with more care would do better. I do not think it is unreasonable as an admin not to be bound to inactivity because I do not follow every edit on WP. I only watch a handful of CC articles. Anyway other admins are evidentally very interested indeed in WMC's conduct and will not doubt jump quickly on errors of judgement by him so I don't feel I would add much by following him too.--BozMo talk 21:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think it appropriate to take an editor to task for the total number of requests lodged against them, regardless of whether those requests were found to be actionable. By doing so we give incentive for people to file requests simply to bump up the tally against their opponent. Also (while acknowledging that this noticeboard is not a court of law) such an approach contradicts certain principles that are held as fundamental in most Western societies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you agree that BozMo's worry about time wasted on another (mostly spurious) MN request should not be held against MN himself? ATren (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The total number of actionable complaints against WMC is nearing double digits, is it not? How many of those have resulted in anything but token spats on the hand? Any?  Given the evidence here, I truly can't believe you're considering a topic ban against Nutley for reporting a valid offense, while giving the real source of the problem nothing but more ammunition to continue such actions. FellGleaming (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ZP5*
MN must appeal directly to admins for WMC issues, since by his CC sanction, he may not bring them directly here. There is no "sneak" .... it's the way to have indirect oversight on MN, so that WMC does not abuse MN's disabling probation terms. I find WMCs complaint on MN disability to be really unfair, when MN takes reasonable an appropriate steps to involve third parties. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an option you have not mentioned: MN could try actually following the rest4ictions already placed on him, and not make any complaints regarding WMC. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, see my reply to stephan above mark nutley (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, MN should not be left without recourse from any WMC harassment. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes but if you keep abusing a process, you eventually don't get to use it. Someone else may need to bring up matters instead of MN. He was under sanction not to open enforcement requests until the 12th... he couldn't wait 4 days? ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it only applied to here, my mistake. I have noticed that my COI report was closed by KC he also closed the following one saying it was being dealt with here, i have yet to see a mention of this yet however mark nutley (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar, FWIW, I was also under the impression he was banned from enforcement requests only, and that a COI/N request would not be covered by the ban. ATren (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly is "under sanction not to open enforcement requests" defined? It seems more than one editor has some question about what exactly that means.  Some admins are taking him to task for comments made on a talk page.  Surely that's not an "enforcement request", now is it?  FellGleaming (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the restriction: the verbiage is not "enforcement requests" at all; the verbiage is "bringing further complaints against User:William M. Connolley" - that's fairly broad, and covers all complaints, on any page. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) The word "bringing" implies carrying to a venue of some sort. If it meant any page anywhere on WP, then it would prevent him from even responding to a WMC edit on an article's talk page, as that could certainly be construed as a complaint. Since this is being closed, the point here may be moot in the case of MN, but for future actions, I would suggest such bans be specified more clearly. FellGleaming (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would certainly expect all noticeboards included in that restriction. Responding to an article talk page post is not bringing a complaint. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Mackan79
I don't see how this can possibly be called "sneaking in" an enforcement request. On the talk page, WMC was accusing MN of incivility with his comments; when Marknutley then points out WMC's edits that prompted his comments, WMC accuses him of "sneaking in" an enforcement request. Besides that, how is WMC still accusing anyone of incivility while continuing to call editors bozos and septics (on his talk page, right, because that doesn't bother him). Topic bans should not result from silly gags. Mackan79 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, if MN is not allowed to bring requests against WMC, then let's please also not allow WMC to bring requests agaisnt MN. Please let someone else do it. Mackan79 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So if A burgles B 15 times, let's put both into prison? What kind of logic is that? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "If A burgles B 15 times and B burgles A 15 times, let's put both into prison." If that's what you mean, yes. Else no. Neither party is blameless here. Both parties need to work on their approach. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Complain enough times, and you can be sure that something will stick - because as we all know (its an old police saying): everyone is guilty of something. That is the way it apparently is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it your assertion that there is nothing at all that WMC should change in his approach? ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. But that isn't the issue. I also agree that pedestrians should look before they walk, while at the same time being vehemently against speeding, and strongly in favour of hard punishment for involuntary manslaugter of pedestrians killed while not looking by a speeding car. You are too often addressing the pedestrian - and ignoring the speeding, perhaps this is because (as others have pointed out), that you haven't immersed yourself within the topic area, to be able to tell "good edits" from "bad edits", and thus have to keep it at a "surface-level". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The WMC edits in question here are "bad edits"; I think that's already been established without question. FellGleaming (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between opinion and perception - and what has been established. You statement that it has been "established" is an opinion not based on given evidence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that WMC filed this request, Kim, who is keeping it at a "surface level"? When editors oppose surface level evaluations only when it suits them, and otherwise use them to the full extent possible, there is an appearance that they are not principled in what they are doing. Mackan79 (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why I'm concerned about WMC bringing requests. He's a master at keeping the playing field unlevel, in my considered opinion. ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If not for WMC's continuing antics, I think there's quite some reason to believe that "skeptic" editors would not continue to make fools of themselves while criticizing him. I think a consensus would also be much easier to reach as to appropriate conduct in this area.  But yes, assuming that WMC is a smart person, you have to wonder if he doesn't prefer trying to rile up (bait) the aforementioned editors.  Perhaps he thinks it's necessary because otherwise the "civil POV pushers" would be able to go about their work unhindered.  I think this would be wrong for a few reasons, notably: 1.) I see very little risk of anti-science conservatives forming some kind of majority on Wikipedia on a high profile topic like climate change, and 2.) I suspect if not for these antics, admins like 2/0 could create a more functional environment that was more inviting to responsible professionals and better for sorting out bad apples.  But of course maybe I'm wrong and WMC really just can't help calling people things like septics and bozos, and in reality it's the "skeptics" who are running the charade.  I don't consider it an assumption of good or bad faith to say I think WMC has the better idea of what he is doing. Mackan79 (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This alludes to the point I've been making. Is WMC so lacking in self control that he simply cannot resist these antics, or is he smart enough to recognize the strategic advantage of baiting another into a fight on what has been historically a tilted playing field? Knowing WMC, I tend to believe it's the latter, which is actually a compliment to him (and a criticism at those admins who've kept the plane tilted). Intelligent people do what they're permitted to do to get their way, so as long as WMC is permitted to act in this way, he's doing the smart thing. It's up to others to level the playing field, but mere mention of that is met with strong resistance. ATren (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the latter is what is going on, I fear I myself am among the many that have fallen into the trap of responding to snark with less than ideal phrasing. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ATren, no amount of intelligence helps someone very much with self control or any emotional maturity (think Bill Clinton, but there's a horde of other examples). Someone could well recognize the advantages and disadvantages of a certain kind of behavior, but that doesn't mean the person can control it. (It might mean that someone who could control it won't try as hard.) Anyway, unless you have some diff or pattern of diffs to show one motivation or the other, it's useless to try to figure it out. You can simply say that either motivation or some other motivation is behind it. At the end of the day, the pattern of behavior is what counts anyway. Efforts to figure out motivation without some evidence may even be counterproductive (you just rile up a lot of other editors sympathetic to him). Diffs and quotes are the valuable things here. The only response to them is that they may be out of context or that we should have sympathy for the particular editor, and those responses are only so effective for so long. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this can possibly be called "sneaking in" an enforcement request. - those are Lar's words, not mine William M. Connolley (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My first use of the term "sneaking" was "Isn't WMC correct that you are sneaking a complaint in via the back door?" at 21:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC). I can't find the exact thing now, but I was clearly responding to something WMC said. Somewhere. He may not have used that exact phrasing but it was his implication. No matter. What does matter is that it did appear to me at the time that MN was indeed skirting or trying to circumvent his restriction on raising complaints. I've subsequently changed my mind, and I feel that MN was instead trying to respond to something WMC raised. Not very well but trying. ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
Before closing this, I'd like for an admin to advise Marknutley that characterizing other editors' actions as "petty pov pushing" doesn't help keep the temperature down on these articles. (Bad pun, sorry.) Regardless of whether it violates the letter of his civility parole it's not especially helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like good advice to me. I'd support such a reminder by the closing admin. Or MN could just consider himself reminded. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Response by William M. Connolley to suggestion by LessHeard vanU
The interaction ban sounds unlikely to be trouble free, and to cause endless bickering about the details, which are alarmingly vague. The menaing of words like "recent" and "major" are inevitably ambiguous. Oh, and I also protest that this has morphed into restrictions on me. If you want to do that, you should make a complaint for it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a suggestion of an option that might be explored, with matters of how recent and major might be interpreted if it were to be considered further. After I wrote it I considered that the "no blame" aspect was more than slightly naive as regards this arena, and you make fair points. I am sure the other admins will give both comments due regard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC: Protest morphing all you like, but when something is brought here, it ought to be evaluated from all angles. That is how, after all, the restriction on MN bringing forward complaints about you originated in the first place. If you'd stop baiting perhaps there would be less work to do here. ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another clear case of you doing the baiting you are accusing others of. Polargeo (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's really a stretch to claim this is "baiting", and you should explain further why you think it is. Again, these requests result in the requestor getting evaluated as well as the requestee. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You've [This was, I think, addressed directly to LHVU; but no matter it seems to apply to all] conveniently forgotten the violation of his civility parole William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So, no great hurry, eh? We can just let this sit for another couple of weeks before doing anything I suppose? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to close it this instant. I'm just not sensing a consensus for the way I'd close it unilaterally. ++Lar: t/c 10:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Marknutley

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


 * As Marknutley is in clear violation, here and on COIN, as well as on various usertalk pages, of his ban from "bringing further complaints against User:William M. Connolley until 12 april" it is clear stronger measures are required. Not only is he bringing complaints, but that in multiple venues. I propose either a topic ban, as this personal vendetta is content dispute related; or else a complete moratorium, with no end, in bringing complaints of any kind against WMC, to be enforced with blocks of increasing length. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I find myself in agreement with KC that things are whacked, some sort of further sanction, topic ban or even block (if this happens again) for MN is warranted. Forever ban on enforcement requests against WMC? Maybe a bit much. Perhaps resetting the 3 month ban on requests (as we do with other sorts of evasion, we reset the counter no matter how close we are) to 9 July (3 months from today) would be in order. Or even tack on a month and make it 9 August.... Mark could have waited 3 or 4 more days and the ban on requests would have run out.... but no. I would also like to suggest a ban on MN accusing any established editor of vandalism until he demonstrates a clear understanding of the meaning of the term. However I do think that WMC is not the best person to be bringing up requests for enforcement. Of any sort. Against anyone. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur on the additional ban on reporting vandalism - if we can agree on when and how he can demonstrate a clear understanding. Perhaps a mentor or several, of whom he can ask? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need an actual mentor. I think we just say "until further notice" and encourage him to appeal when he thinks he has learned the difference. We could apply a test at that point or something. Dunno. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Without a clear benchmark or method to determine when he can be released from this, I am not comfortable enacting it, so I must withdraw my support for any kind of ban and suggest we merely warn him that misuse of the vandalism templates (or similar false vandalism reports, whether using a template or not) can be construed as character attacks and disruptive behavior, and may carry consequences. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point. That approach works too. Perhaps also encourage him to ask for guidance if he really wants to make such a charge, before making it? ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind on a full reset. I don't think Mark thought he was sneaking in a request, I think he thought he was responding. It's always difficult to judge intent, though. Perhaps a one month extension as a compromise??? No change on the vandalism ban/warning/mentorship (whatever others agree with in this regard I will go along with), as the unfounded vandalism accusations have to stop. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Returning from holiday and finding all the above I have also (finally, regretably) lost patience a bit with Mark on this. I cannot believe how much time is being wasted on this page and I think we have gone far enough in proving our desire to be completely even handed. Given the time wasted above, resetting a ban when the last ban was worked around is also not enough. I support a topic ban. On Lar's comment on WMC, I think we should acknowledge WMC is expert at 3RR, aside the things he is not expert at. --BozMo talk 02:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref above, I am ok to move to a one month reset on this. I accept the various arguments on it not being deliberate. --BozMo talk 18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I propose closing as "Open verdict, assuming good faith: Clarification is given to Mark Nutley that the scope of not raising complaints against WMC is site-wide excepting user talk pages, and the ban is extended until xx/xx/xxxx. Mark should be more careful in the use of vandalism templates and formal processes in disputes, and make fresh efforts to assume good faith". --BozMo talk 09:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that following a reasonable complaint/request from WMC MN has struck through the vandal accusation and apologised  although to be entirely fair the accusatory tone remains. --BozMo talk 13:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What you propose is an acceptable closure which I would support (3 month ban from today?), but I would like to propose a complete ban on MN interacting with WMC for a trial period of a month. Maybe that would work more effectively? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean also banning WMC from interacting with NM? There is quite an overlap of editing arena... not sure --BozMo talk 20:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about just a one-way for the time being, but either would be acceptable to me. There are plenty of articles in the CC area; surely they can find a few to dive into that neither one is working on. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In a previous matter I was involved in, the formula was that neither editor was to edit articles within the general subject matter where there was recent major contributions by the other. This was a "no blame" restriction in that it didn't matter which party was at fault, but further interference by either was evidence that they were not inclined to work toward the betterment of the project - and the recent/major clarification was so that neither could accuse the other in regards to something they had either worked on a year back or had made a couple of recent typo corrections to. The bonus in this instance is that there are sufficient editors within the topic areas to ensure that most viewpoints are represented. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having reconsidered, I would oppose restricting WMC, as I see nothing to support it at this time. I dislike the idea of formally banning someone who has not done enough to merit it in the vain hopes of reducing drama. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I still stick to my change of mind. :) 1 month extension on the ban (from 12 April, the date of the slipup) on raising issues about WMC for MN. I do think at least SOME admonishment to WMC is appropriate as I think he baits and ought to be restrained, but I defer to others if there is no consensus for it.  SO that fits with the close BozMo proposes if the date is 12 May (he has xx/xx/xx in there now). ++Lar: t/c 11:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Admonishment to WMC is pointless, everyone knows where the line is and WMC will be reported when it is next considered he has stepped over it. Since WMC has not acted in violation of his restrictions so to attract a sanction and MN has, then I concur with the ban extension to MN as the only action in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Admonishment to WMC is pointless" (full stop)... That about says it all, I guess. Are we good on 12 May then? ++Lar: t/c 11:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Y --BozMo talk 11:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh!LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm probably not allowed to comment here as I am probably perceived (wrongly) as an involved administrator because I have actually edited climate change articles and even occassionally defended some individuals. So please feel free to move my comments out of this section if you judge me incorrect. However, I have highlighted Lar's baiting of various editors, including WMC (even in the section above), several times and yet I see Lar trying to push for sanctions on WMC because of baiting. As an admin I am not at all happy with this situation and I believe that if my own comments are moved up a section then so should Lar's. Polargeo (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming
by

Request concerning FellGleaming

 * User requesting enforcement : Hipocrite (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : GSEE


 * this diff alone is all I intend to report or discuss.


 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): He's been blocked for it.


 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : This line is a trap.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Look, I've unwatched all of the GW/CC articles except the scibaby SPAs. I go around and revert scibaby, and sometimes I forget to uncheck watch this page. Shockingly, this was one of the pages I scibabyverted -, and then didn't unwatch. Across my watchlist comes "original source says "leaked" emails," and I know - just know, that the edit will be problematic.

Here's a link to the source. Here's the source with every word but "hacked" or "leaked" or derivatives replaced with "..."

...hacked...

That's right - the article that "original source says "leaked" emails" according to the edit summary uses "leaked" not even once, but used "hacked" exactly once. The edit summary was not just false, it was 180 degrees removed from the truth. This kind of behavior is part of why the atmosphere at these articles is poisonous, and why I quit them entirely.


 * Fellgleamings' statement is false The sentence being referred to is "He wrote in The Washington Post that the (DISPUTED WORD) e-mails "do not undermine the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.""


 * This sentence follows with a ref. That ref is not to an AP article, it's to the washington post article (duuh, it's about what someone said in the WP). I know marknutley tried to create a way out for FG, but it's just not true or accurate. Don't fall for the wall of text. Don't get distracted - focus on what the edit summary was, and what it did. Hipocrite (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Further note - Felgleaming states that I "removed this description from the source's hidden title before reporting me." This is false - my edit to the article, which he failed to show, is here, and neatly avoids PoV pushing by both disgusting sides of this revolting stain on an encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC) FG has realized that he was totally and utterly incorrect in this part of his false statement and has retracted this part of it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears that this will be archived without action. How unimpressive. Reminds me why I stopped editing in this area. Will you at least warn FG that if he misrepresents a source again he will be banned from this topic area for a long time? Hipocrite (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

FG has again misrepresented sources. In this edit he removes the text "he later said the story was a publicity stunt." which is sourced to "Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt to boost puzzle sales." Here's what that article says about the incident - "A SCOTTISH aristocrat who claimed he was forced to sell his ancestral pile after losing a fortune on a $1 million puzzle has admitted that he invented the story to boost sales.... "[The house sale] was the story which the PR people dreamed up after we had three months of the best sales that any puzzle had ever had," he said... "I was selling the house anyway and they asked me if I would be willing to tell people I was selling the house because I was afraid somebody might solve the puzzle too fast. I said 'yes'. They said, 'Don't you mind being made to look an absolute prat', and I said, 'No - I'm quite used to that'. History is full of stories that aren't actually true." So, I guess I should revert him with the comment and continue to not report misrepresentation of sources? Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FG has again misrepresented facts in his responses here. He states that when he did this edit, the "source next to that claim" did not verify the claim, but rather, the second source following it did. This is false. Specifically, the source after the claim was (it's in the diff) "Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt to boost puzzle sales," which most certainly verifies the claim. When is this a pattern? Hipocrite (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, FG represents that this 15:02, 15 April 2010 diff is from "before I got involved." This is belied by the fact that this additional statement was filed at 14:44 15 April 2010, and that this 14:39, 15 April 2010 diff is from me. Pattern? Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Even further FG represents that "I placed my concern on the talk page BEFORE I made the edit in question." This is belied by the fact that FG's first post to the talk page in question in april is 15:02, 15 April 2010, but the edit in question is 14:29, 15 April 2010. Pattern? Hipocrite (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Still further FG now states "I immediately removed it as potentially libelous per BLP, posted a question on the talk page asking someone to explain the discrepancy..." FG removed the source at 14:29, 15 April 2010, then edited Sean Wilentz (14:32, 15 April 2010), then User talk:BozMo (14:55, 15 April 2010), then Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri (14:56, 15 April 2010), and finally, more than half an hour later, posted said "question," (which lacked a question mark, and wasn't a question at all) which was posted only after the content was restored. There's got to be a level where this constant stream of factual inaccuracies has consequences. Hipocrite (talk) Yet further still, at, specifically , Polargeo states "The two quotes that FellGleaming put into the article both came from the unpublished draft paper. Neither are from the actual paper even though FellGleaming changed the reference to cite the actual Interfaces paper he obviously didn't check out the fact that those quotes had understandably been removed from the article." How many times? Hipocrite (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by FellGleaming
This is the version of the article before I edited:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&oldid=355752585

The source ref for the article line that describes the emails as "leaked", is below. Forgive me for modifying the original ref & cite tags, but I'm unsure how to escape the text properly:

(ref name='AP 2009-11-21')((cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= |authorlink= | title=Hackers leak climate change e-mails from key research unit, stoke debate on global warming | date=2009-11-21 | publisher=Associated Press | url =http://www.startribune.com/science/70700047.html | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2009-11-24 | language = ))(/ref)

Note the article title says "Hackers "leak" climate change emails". Again, this is the text before I made my edit. If the AP is willing to title the emails as leaked, why is that not good enough for WP?

Also note that the reporting user removed this description from the source's hidden title before reporting me, which I find highly illuminating. See this diff:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_E._Mann&oldid=355770233

I also want to point out that the reporting user is incorrect when he claims I have "been blocked for this before". I have never made edit to this article or a similar edit to any other article before, much less been banned for it. Further, I believe the assumption of bad faith, along with the general aggressive tone as seen above, and his instant and immediate reporting of me for a single edit, as potentially actionable in itself. There was no attempt made to engage me in discussion, nor respond with civility, AGF, or even, apparently, an accurate assessment of the situation. FellGleaming (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To NuclearWarfare: I wouldn't open that can of worms, given WMC's own characterization of an entirely valid edit as "dodgy" skirts the restrictions on his conduct. FellGleaming (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning FellGleaming

 * Comment by Mark Nutley, perhaps it was good faith, the link in the article says "Hackers leak climate change e-mails from key research unit, stoke debate on global warming". Associated Press. 2009-11-21. Retrieved 2009-11-24. Perhaps this is what FellGleaming meant? mark nutley (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, mark, that's a different part of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And, honestly, mark, it would behoove you to at least TRY to fault poor behavior by your fellow whateveryoucallyourselvestoday. Hipocrite (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that article is a bit messy, i looked at the wrong ref. And yes i will fault Fell for his mistake, he should be more careful when looking at refs, as should i it appears :-) mark nutley (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In his edit, Hipocrite removed the "leaked" word from the article's title. My edit was made to the text to which that article was being used as source.  FellGleaming (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above is nothing more than a lie. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just rechecked; apparently my original search was mistaken. My apologies and I retract that particular allegation.  I do want to ask you to AGF and adhere to civility, however.  Notice I did not accuse you of "lying" regarding your incorrect statement that I had been banned for this action before. FellGleaming (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been blocked twice for violating this probation. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you you're looking at. I've never edited any article regarding the East Anglia controversy before today, and unless I'm reading my block log wrong, I've never been blocked at all. FellGleaming (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) you are reading your blocklog wrong,. Hipocrite (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That was 2 years ago, old news. There is no edit warring here, no incivility, nothing except a mistake. What action were you expecting from this complaint? You also did not adequately complete the section about what action was necessary - so what were you expecting as a result? FellGleaming may have been wrong, but did not edit war about it and was civil. You, on the other hand, left an edit summary of 'This bad faith hacked -> leaked garbage should earn people bans' which in itself is an assumption of bad faith and unnecessarily uses POV terms like 'garbage' which are extremely provocative. It may not have been your intention to provoke, but your choice of wording both in your edit summary and in the wording of this complaint could be seen as doing just that. Since you already reverted the change, and no-one has interfered with that, just what was the purpose of bringing the matter here? Weakopedia (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right, it was 2 years ago. I guess FG wasn't blocked under this probation, he was blocked under the far laxer rules of the pre-probation era. Even worse. Further, I reverted nothing. What do I want? What I really want is for everyone involved in this nonsense to be topic banned, but I'm not going to get that. I guess what I want for FG is for him to either admit that he was wrong and then get off with a slap on the wrist, or for him to get topic banned untill he can own up to his mistakes. Either or! Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is to request enforcement of sanction. What sanction do you believe that FellGleaming has broken? That isn't clear from your complaint, nor is it clear from looking at FellGleamings edits. Weakopedia (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The sanction states that "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits." I believe misrepresenting sources is an incredibly disruptive edit - probably the most disruptive edit possible. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten, you're right; I was blocked two years ago, for doing what you're doing here, making a wrongful accusation of bad faith edits.
 * By the way, how are you generating that block log? I tried earlier and it showed nothing.  FellGleaming (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You go to your contributions and click on block log. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I also want to ask specifically what do you believe I did wrong? Yes, I looked at the preceeding source, but since sources used by the article were already using the word "leaked" to describe the emails, what specifically do you feel was wrong with my edit?   An article source DOES say the emails were leaked; what specifically did I misrepresent?


 * You misrepresented a source. You stated that "original source says "leaked" emails." This was untrue. Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My edit did not misrepresent any source. You're referring to my description of that edit.  I don't believe that was substantially in error either, but even if it was, it's far from "disruptive". FellGleaming (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Further, I also believe a brief sanction against Hipocrite limiting him against raising issues against me may well be in order. I think the emotional tone of the remarks, made not only against me, but as he says, the "spineless admins", justifies such an action. FellGleaming (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should both be topic banned forever. Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Be careful what you wish for. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My list of proposed topic-bannings is long. If you'd like it, I'm happy to provide. Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tried to approach this with good faith, but considering Hipocrites language, tone, lack of specific allegation and his subsequent accusation that I am a sock-puppet I would reccomend that rather than close this complaint as malformed the admins take action against him for disruption, failure to AGF and use of inflammatory language both here and in his edit summary. Weakopedia (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Disclose your earlier account. Since you're not techincally in violation of WP:SOCK, it shouldn't be a problem, right? Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I should have said 'subsequent bad-faith, baseless and incorrect accusation which appears to be an ill-conceived retaliation for my disagreement with his bringing this matter here '. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I started trying to plow through this to understand what's up, but I ran into trouble when I got to "(because "good-faith" actors like this one here make it perfectly clear why I'd make a better admin than 99% of the spinless admin corps.)"... could we all try to be a bit more dispassionate please? ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't edit this page except when the odd confluence of SciBaby and obviously bad edit summaries make me, so while I'll try to be more dispassionate, what would be better is if you'd click the diff I've listed and read the two main arguments. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you are able to read my comment without getting tripped up now. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I one of the spin-less admins? Thanks! I figured you had me in the 1%... :) ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I decline to provide a figure as to the relative spinless vs. spineful admin set. I would note that I did not state that only 1% of admins had spine, rather that I would provide more value than 99% of all spinless admins, as spineless admins who are super-coders would be more valuable than me. I will, however, note that you certainly have Spine. Hipocrite (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought we were talking about spin? ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, that was my disability. Hipocrite (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar, do I need to bring a separate sanction request against the reporting user, or is the evidence presented here enough for that procedurally? FellGleaming (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Not warranted. I was asking EVeRYONE to be a bit more dispassionate. ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I have been extremely dispassionate throughout the entire incident, as were two other editors who came here to weigh in and were subsequently attacked.   I do appreciate my memory being refreshed on my earlier block, in which I was sanctioned for behavior far less blatant than what has been displayed here.  FellGleaming (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I looked. Am I to understand that this entire request is over one word? I've read the analysis and I agree, the source cited supports "hacked" rather than "leaked" and the article should in that area use "hacked". Claiming otherwise wasn't helpful. Misrepresenting the source wasn't warranted. But that diff, taken by itself, suggests that discussion is needed and clarification of what the source actually said ought to be given, and that ought to sort it. H's reversion reversion (with a somewhat strident edit summary "This bad faith hacked -> leaked garbage should earn people bans." ) should have resulted in discussion. Did it? I don't see it directly discussed, although I see WMC mentioned it (with insufficent context) in passing at Talk:Michael_E._Mann ... Doesn't bringing it here as an enforcement  request seem a bit extreme? What am I missing? ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This request is over the misrepresentation of sources. Misrepresenting sources is not acceptable. Someone who misrepresents sources is comitting actions that are frequently considered worse than vandalism (Requests_for_arbitration/Sadi_Carnot, Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance). The edit summary is clear that the source says "leaked." The source actually says "hacked." Further, my edit is not a reversion. The initial article said "hacked documents." Misrepresenting sources, FG changed it to "leaked documents." Showing an incredible knack for actually being an NPOV editor, Hipocrite changed it to "documents." I don't engage in "discussion," with editors that misrepresent sources. Further, as you should be well aware, the meaningless piddling over hacked vs leaked has been going on all over these stupid fucking waste of space articles for ages - to misrepresent sources to make an edit as blatently controvercial as hacked -> leaked (or back again, I don't care) is not only misrepresenting sources, it's misrepresenting sources in a debate that has been around the bend and back again. Do you get it now? Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree. Misrepresenting sources is not acceptable. And when done deliberately, it's worse than vandalism (MN, take note, I called it worse than vandalism, but I didn't call it vandalism ) Is this the only example of FellGleaming doing this? Do you have reason to believe FG did so deliberately? If this is the only example you have (and you urged us to look at the one and only diff you brought here) I'm not seeing this as particularly actionable. A warning to FG to be more careful seems warranted but more? Not seeing it. Is there a pattern?
 * PS: your tone isn't doing you any favors. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in going through FG's historical edits. That's what I'd do if I were still playing the one-upmanship games that this enforcement page was designed to propigate. If you believe that a warning not to misrepresent sources will keep FG from misrepresenting sources in the future, so be it - but I'd note that if your warning fails, misrepresented sources are far harder to fix than simple penis vandalism. If he didn't do it deliberately, he probably lacks the chops to be a content editor, as the single most important skill (er, only important skill, honestly) of a content editor is to accurately present sources. If you'd like to ban him from editing sourced content, I guess that would work also.
 * I am sorry that I am unable to distance my palpable anger from my writing. What you're seeing is an editor who cares about an accurate encyclopedia geting mad when an another editor is misrepresenting sources. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the accuracy in your edit? The AP says one word, the Wash Post another.  Why do you feel one is more accurate than the other?  FellGleaming (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lar, how many times do we need to see FG leap before looking? In this very thread he's accused me of doing something I didn't do, denied being blocked when he was, in fact, blocked, and now, apparently, he's talking about my edit where I changed leaked to hacked as being less accurate than his edit which changed hacked to leaked, right FG - you're saying that when I changed leaked to hacked I was doing the same thing as you? Hipocrite (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am saying your edit was less accurate than mine, yes. RS in the article use both terms, but "hacked" can mean many things, whereas "leaked" is much more specific: "To become publicly known through a breach of secrecy", which fits this situation exactly.  FellGleaming (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are saying my edit to the article earlier today, which you clearly reviewed since I linked to it above, changes the word "leaked" to the word "hacked," right? Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I misrepresented nothing. A source immediately above the text I edited called the letters "leaked".  I used the term directly from the source.  Hipocrite's source calls them hacked, yes -- but both sources are referring to the same emails. 


 * Further, I am formally requesting sanction against Hipocrite. He has not only brought a disruptive, baseless action, but used highly loaded language, accused me of both lying and bad faith,  and even attacked other editors who came here, even going so far as to accuse one of being a sock puppet...not to mention his comments about "spineless admins", and the snide remarks in the edit log for this page ("further falsehood", "don't fall for it", "my sarcasm is showing", etc.).   Statements like " I am unable to distance my palpable anger from my writing", and "I think we both should be banned", indicate he is more interested in climbing the Reichstag than a productive outcome.


 * Two years ago, I reverted an edit, calling it bad faith, then on a talk page, explained why I used the word "vandalism". For that I received a block.  The statements and actions here by Hipocrite are far, far above that line.  If there isn't sanction brought against him, I would like an explanation of why a double standard is being applied.  FellGleaming (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So you changed a statement without checking the source for that statement, just assuming the information would be the same as a previous source? <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 19:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They're the same emails in all sources. How would they magically change from "leaked" to "not leaked" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs)
 * Perhaps the problem is you shoved the word "leaked" in Michael Mann's mouth. Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? I did no such thing. The adjective was not part of Mann's quoted remarks.  Had I done so, you would indeed have an issue to complain about. FellGleaming (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In your edit summary, you wrote: "original source says "leaked" emails." The cited source is a Washington Post op-ed by Michael Mann. A logical editor, reading your edit, would conclude that you were attributing the word "leaked" to Mann. I understand that was apparently not your intention, but perhaps that clarifies where the concern came from. MastCell Talk 20:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) The definition of the term: " Leaked: to become publicly known through a breach of secrecy, e.g. The news has leaked."

Describing leaked emails as leaked is not misleading, with or without a source. In this case, however, reliable sources already in the article described them using that exact word. Double verification. Further, even Mann's own op-ed describes emails that became "publicly known through a breach of security". Thus, though he specifically did not use the word, even 'this source verifies that the emails were leaked. Triple verification. Had I attributed the word itself to Mann within a direct quote, that would be an error. But by standard rules of journalism, the statement "Mann said of the leaked emails, "xxxxx" " is attributing only the quote to Mann, not the preceeding adjectival phrase.

There is no error here, no deception, much less any intent to deceive. The edit improved the article. FellGleaming (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean, except for the fact you said "original source says "leaked" emails."" and the original source didn't actually say "leaked emails." - quotes yours by the way. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - you're now indicating that you paraphrased Mann. When paraphrasing someone, it is best not to use quotation marks, which are reserved by common understanding for direct quotes. MastCell Talk 21:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you both need to look at the article again. An original source DOES say the emails were leaked, and the quotation marks ARE being used for a direct quote.  FellGleaming (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept that this was a misunderstanding, and that you had no intention to deceive anyone or misrepresent sources. At the same time, your edit was perceived as misleading, for reasons which I hope are clear. Your responses tend toward unhelpful semantic hairsplitting and legalistic parsing. I assume that's largely a defensive reaction to the strong language used in the initial complaint. Maybe you could try to be a bit more careful in linking quotation marks directly to actual quotes, and Hipocrite could show more patience and consideration of misunderstanding, rather than malice, in such situations in the future. That would be a win-win, right? MastCell Talk 22:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you understand that the "linking of quotation marks" was already in the article. I did not change the quote one iota.  There is no hair-splitting going on here.  The emails were leaked; they were described in an article source as leaked; and my edit accurately reflected that.  FellGleaming (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do understand your perspective. I'm asking you to put at least a tiny bit of effort into understanding others' perspective. MastCell Talk 00:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You said, "when paraphrasing someone, it is best not to use quotation marks". But I paraphrased no one, and I used no quotation marks.  Hipocrite's statement above is not referring to my edit, but rather my description of the edit.   Nor do I believe defending myself here is "legalistic parsing".  I made an edit that improved the article, and I stand behind that assertion.  I have struggled to see Hipocrite's position, despite his prolific stream of insults and opprobrium, but it seems clear it's based more upon his disagreement with what he perceives as my view point, rather than this specific issue, and I fear similar outbursts from him await me in the future.  FellGleaming (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion Fell Gleaming is systematically attacking articles about people who support the scientific consensus on global warming, while at the same time preventing the addition of well-referenced criticism of articles about global warming deniers. Here are some examples of what I think are inappropriate edits made by Fell Gleaming in his attempts to weaken and make incomplete the bio article about Joseph Romm:, , ,.
 * Err are you seriously attempting to bring up for discussion edits made over two years ago? I'll be happy to defend them if you are, but other editors here might find such an approach rather nonsensical. FellGleaming (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

These are edits by Fell Gleaming which I believe are an attempt to prevent criticism of the article on Watts Up With That: and . Jack1956 (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first diff was discussed in talk, it was considered there was to much crit and thus an undue weight problem was being caused, after discussion in talk you can see some of it went back, your second diff makes no sense, you can see he revert a crit back in after an edit by a banned user mark nutley (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by William M. Connolley
is pretty dodgy too. I've reverted it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And you felt the need to announce this because...? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion abot FG. Recent BLP violations by him appear relevant. Weren't you pretending to be neutral? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a noticeboard to request sanctions gaainst a user violating the CC probation. FG added a section to the article which was sourced. You didn't agree with the validity of the sources and removed it. No-one has tried to reinsert the section, or any of the offending material, and the matter has been taken up on the talk page.
 * What aspect of CC probation violation do you believe this shows? And what remedy do you wish the admins to consider? Your diff shows the normal workings of Wikipedia - no misrepresentation of sources, no edit warring, no incivility, just disputed sourcing, which is no longer in the article and is being discussed.
 * So, no - this isn't a discussion about FG, it is a request concerning FG, and your diffs add nothing to the discussion. Weakopedia (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I say, recent BLP violations, which those edits were, are relevant. If nothing else, they are doing a good job of revealing your and AQFK's biases William M. Connolley (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Accusing other editors of bias is rather bad faith, especially when you have previously been advised of your choice of wording in relation to these probations. This is not a forum for your unfounded allegations nor slurs against other contributors. Weakopedia (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to contribute here? this isn't a venue for general chatter. Or at least, it would be good if it wasn't William M. Connolley (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From your talkpage - "You are also further notified that you shall not use demeaning or derogatory terms or phrases, broadly construed, when interacting with or discussing other contributors in respect of the General sanctions/Climate change probation area of articles (that is, not specifically on the article talkpages and probation pages but anywhere within the project)". Please try to abide by the restrictions your previous behaviour has necessitated. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop this pointless baiting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are you accusing of baiting? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whomever I replied to. What do you think? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend to be a mind-reader. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Thparkth
This is a trivial complaint not worthy of any response, not even the mildest of warnings. It should be clear to even the most casual reader that the language FellGleaming changed was not directly attributed to Michael Mann. It is obviously outside the quotation marks. It is a real stretch to claim that FellGleaming's edit put the word 'leaked' into Mann's mouth. It is also clearly consistent with the citation given just two sentences earlier which unambiguously refers to a "leak" of the emails (incidentally the linked source is no longer available but a quick Google shows the same story available from many other sources with the same title.).

Does that mean it was a good edit? No, I don't think it was. In this context, when we are summarizing Mann, it would be better to be consistent with the language Mann used in the article being summarized rather than being consistent with the AP story. But that's a judgement call - reasonable editors may legitimately differ. What's certain is that there's no reason to assume the edit - the one, single edit - was made in bad faith.

It is manifestly unreasonable that one edit, a very minor one, made in apparent good faith, with no edit warring or breach of talk-page consensus going on, should end up here - not just as a component of a complaint, but as the entire sum of the complaint. It stretches my ability to WP:AGF about the complainant.

Here is the process that should have been followed:

1. Revert the edit FellGleaming made.

2. End of process.

Thparkth (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Question by A Quest for Knowledge
Where and how exactly did I bait WMC? Diff and explanation please. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Reopening by MastCell
I had intended to ignore Hipocrite's continuing his stream of combative, personal attacks on me (the behavior for which he was admonished here two days ago), but since MastCell has chosen to reopen this, I would like to call attention to these diffs


 * 1)  "How many times are you going to misrepresent sources?"
 * 2)  "Sorry you are embarrassed you got caught again", "...no matter how bad it makes you feel".
 * 3)  "If you lack the intellectual capicity to understand why what you are doing is wrong, you need to be banned "
 * 4)  "...means that an admin actually sanctions your disruptive behavior."

Further, I question why MastCell chose a diff that specifically excludes the very heart of this disagreement. I saw a claim that a person "had admitted to a publicity stunt". I clicked on the source next to that claim, and it said specifically he "denied a publicity stunt". Apparently the source next to that one contradicted the first, but Hipocrite was unwilling to accept that, and continued his stream of personal attacks even after being requested to desist. I have asked MastCell why he chose to characterize a diff that had nothing to do with the situation as "my explanation"; so far I have not received a reply on this issue.

Finally, I point out that, once again, Hipocrite has chosen to engage in nonproductive behaviour for no good reason. I placed my concern on the talk page BEFORE I made the edit in question. I did not revert his reversion, nor respond to his insults, nor do anything but ask sincerely why the article said one thing, but the source another. See this talk page diff here, made before Hipocrite got involved:


 * 1)

[User:FellGleaming| Fell Gleaming ]]( talk ) 18:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There were two sources backing the statement. Is it your claim that you clicked only on the second one (which "denied a publicity stunt") and not the first one before deleting the content? MastCell Talk 22:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I opened EVERY online source in the article and began reading through them. When I got the source that specifically contradicted the text, I immediately removed it as potentially libelous per BLP, posted a question on the talk page asking someone to explain the discrepancy, then went back to reading the remainder of the sources.  Within minutes though, the invective began flying.
 * Further, the second source changes nothing. It was mischaracterized in the text (though subtly, admittedly) and, even if it had been 100% valid, the presence in the article is clearly a false light and given undue weight simply to poison the well against the article subject.   Are you honestly going to suggest its simple coincidence that all the usual AGW suspects had that page on watch?  Do we all here have an interest in generating good BLPs?  Is it acceptable to use these articles as Coatracks?
 * Finally, at this point I am more interested in your explanation for your conduct here. Why did you choose such a specifically misleading diff to present as "my explanation"?  And why the utter lack of concern at Hipocrite's  civility-violating diatribe which was on that very page?  These questions are in good faith, and I hope you will answer them.   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 22:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a long response, but it doesn't quite answer my yes/no question. Did you read both cited sources before removing the content as putatively unsourced? You seem to be arguing that you read only the second one (which is odd if you were going in any sort of sequential order) and then removed the material "immediately"; am I parsing correctly? MastCell Talk 22:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about you first explain why, even before reopening this, you mischaracterized my edit in the Mann article as "paraphrasing" Mann and said "it's best to not use quotation marks" when I did no such thing. Then, when I explained your error, you accused me of "unhelpful semantic hairsplitting"?   Then answer at least one of my good faith questions about your conduct above?  Then finally, explain why in Ba'al's name this atrocious claim about Monckton was even in the article in the first place?   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 23:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; is that a "no"? MastCell Talk 23:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC) (Adding:) Hipocrite has listed a number of new diffs which he feels represent continued inappropriate behavior. His complaint seems, to me anyway, to have some merit. However, in order to evaluate that complaint fully, it would be useful to hear your side of the story, and your explanation of diffs and comments on your part which don't add up at first glance. It is your prerogative to try to refocus the discussion on others, but I'm not sure you're doing yourself a service. MastCell Talk 23:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've answered your questions, but I don't intend to be baited. Do you intend to answer any of my questions? Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 00:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When this complaint was first opened, my take was that you'd been a bit careless in a minor way, resulting in a misunderstanding which Hipocrite blew out of proportion. In light of his subsequent diffs, there seems to be a more serious pattern where your claims don't match up with the factual record. That's concerning. It's possible that there are alternate explanations for the discrepancies noted by Hipocrite, and I'd like to hear those explanations in the interest of a fair resolution. When I ask you a very basic yes/no question to clarify one of those discrepancies, and you respond with aggressive posturing, that's a red flag. I'm not trying to bait you. I'm expressing my concern at the appearance created by some of your recent edits, and asking you to show me that this is a misunderstanding, as opposed to a pattern of careless, misleading or dishonest edits. MastCell Talk 04:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of this request? That we should sanction people for aggressively inserting baseless nonsense into Wikipedia? Yes please! Stamp firm and hard, never let the weeds of equivocation plant roots in the encyclopedia based on verifiability and the neutral point of view. There has always been a line in the sand: equivocate at your peril. --TS 23:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning FellGleaming

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

Here's my thinking. FG to be requested not to use quotes in ways that might mislead. Hipocrite admonished for bringing a rather picayune matter here straightaway rather than talking it out, and for the manner in which it was brought, which is unnecessarily combative. This matter is so small I can't see anything beyond that. Anyone else? ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. MastCell Talk 05:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * agree --BozMo talk 07:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Also would like to consider that Weakopedia and possibly AQFK are banned from interacting with WMC. It's not the subject of this enforcement action, but I believe that their edits in WMC's section above constitute baiting and battleground-ish behavior. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is the first time this issue has been raised? If so I suggest both of them get a warning for baiting. Making the fact we think it was baiting clear should do for now, they should get the chance to consider that judgement and react to it. --BozMo talk 08:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, before closing, I would like some further discussion of FellGleaming's subsequent edits as raised by Hipocrite above. In particular, this edit cited by Hipocrite seems to exhibit exactly the behavior that FG has been cautioned against; the sources removed clearly support the text, and FG's edit summary is misleading at best. FG's explanation - which apparently hinges on the claim that a "story cooked up by PR people" is not "a publicity stunt" - again follows on previous unconstructive hairsplitting. I'm concerned that there is a continuation of behaviors that have been identified as problematic. MastCell Talk 18:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, MastCell, personally I think that particular hair is thick enough to split. --BozMo talk 18:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Given evidence of an ongoing problem presented by Hipocrite above, I'm inclined to close this with a final warning to FellGleaming. He is warned to exercise basic due diligence in reviewing the content of sources before making claims about them or using purported quotes from them. In terms of establishing a pattern of concern, this is the straw that broke the camel's back as far as I'm concerned. Despite the specific caution by Lar above, FellGleaming uses a direct quote from a source which is actually nowhere to be found in that source. When the misuse of sources is brought to his attention, he responds aggressively. If not for his ultimate, hard-wrung concession that he had, in fact, misrepresented the source, I would propose a topic ban. Given that acknowledgement, I think it is reasonable to proceed with a final warning: FellGleaming is instructed to use sources scrupulously: to ensure that when he inserts quotes, that those quotes are actually found in the source he cites, and to exercise basic due diligence in verifying the content of sources before adding or removing content based on those sources. These aren't gray areas - this is an ongoing pattern of producing "quotes" that do not actually reflect the content of sources, and removing material as unsourced without apparently bothering to check the cited sources. While I'm not diminishing the importance of civility, the cavalier and misleading (at best) or unscrupulous (at worst) use of sources strikes directly at the project's goal of producing a serious, respectable, source-based reference work. I will plan on leaving this open an additional 6-12 hours for comment from uninvolved admins; I'm open to hearing their concerns that this closure is too harsh/lenient/whatever. Beyond that, this issue has sat open long enough and seems ripe for closure. MastCell Talk 22:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, this issue seems like something that far, far more harsh sanctions should be issued for. Falsification of sources is unacceptable. But I acknowledge that I am certainly one of the more harsh administrators when it comes to doling out blocks and bans. A final warning would be acceptable to me, with the understanding that next time it will be an indefinitely block. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If I thought that this was a matter of deliberate falsification, I would definitely push for a harsher sanction. I'm convinced that, despite the repetitive nature of the problem, it stems from carelessness (with an overlay of advocacy editing), rather than intentional deception. To me, the biggest problem is that when questioned, FellGleaming responds by aggressively going after his questioner, rather than addressing the (well-founded) concerns with his misuse of sources. It's OK to make mistakes. It's probably even OK to repeatedly make the same mistake, as here - as long as one is capable of admitting it when they've made a mistake. That last part seems like the major problem here, IMO. MastCell Talk 23:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MastCell, I agree and endorse your proposal. I do not have time to look at every diff but the ones I have looked at are not categorically deliberate (at least within the bounds of stretch language, choosing amongst grammatically possible nuance and not realising something was only in a draft). I have not seen an outright falsification. But there is a pattern of carelessness at very least and more care does need to be encouraged as a matter of priority. Also less aggression when sources are challenged.--BozMo talk 08:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

99.141.*
by

Someone please take a look at the recent edits of at Talk:Hockey stick controversy and my talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2over0 has blocked the ip for a week regarding personal attacks and harassment - personally I would have emphasised the BLP concerns over pa's, but there was certainly harassment of any editor who was not behind their viewpoint. Anyhoo, unless there is a block overturn I think this can be marked as resolved and archived in due course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, fine with me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming (2)
by

Request concerning FellGleaming

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


 * Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so:
 * 1) User claims that this source states "the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were."
 * After I challenge this,
 * 1) he invites me to "click on the link" After a further challenge,
 * 2) points out that "It says the largest problem is mental health...", which was not the claim.
 * 3) FellGleaming then repeats the mischaracterization of the source.
 * After my warning, below, then
 * 1) accuses me of making a personal attack, at which point I give up and come here.

48 hour block to prevent further disruption This and this should also be read. Clear what this user is doing, at least to me. --John (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Diffs of prior warnings:
 * 1) Warning by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
 * Additional comments:

Comments by others about the request concerning FellGleaming

 * If every time us AGW editors get in an argument with each other on article and/or user talk pages we bring a complaint here, then complaints such as this one will start appearing in this forum every 15 minutes or so. If you feel that FellGleaming committed a personal attack on you or someone else, then say so.  Otherwise, get over the fact that you and he disagree on the interpretation of what a source is saying and move on. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. My concern is that right after being told not to misrepresent sources, the user is misrepresenting sources again. I have no concern over personal attacks at all; that was FG's smokescreen against two users who challenged him. Hope that makes it clearer. --John (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla68--Not sure where you were coming from. Where do you see that as John's complaint?  All I ever saw was John question FG's misrepresentation of sources, and FG respond by accusing John of making a personal attack (though that characterization confused me as well).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that FG is removing content and giving specious reasons, such as this edit where he removed material cited to a Guardian enviroblog, written under the aegis of the Guardian's own Environment Editor, no less, and concerning an actual interview conducted with the subject by this editor. He's also making highly contentious edits, like this one, in which he appends "Al-Gore trained" to a person's name in a BLP. I think this editor needs a topic ban. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄  05:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's ok to remove negative information from a BLP if an editor feels that it isn't sourced adequately. As for the DeSmogBlog edit, here's the exact quote from the source, "James Hoggan has been trained by Al Gore as part of The Climate Project, an initiative designed to educate the public about climate change".  I was going to remove the edit when I had a chance, but I don't think it is a violation of any policy, just not necessary to say. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not quite a touchy feely as Cla68 suggests. It's not ok to remove negative information from a blp if an editor "feels" that it isn't sourced adequately. Where are you getting that from? There has to be a legitimate concern; one can't simply scream BLP if your concern isn't facially legitimate. Nor can you go around deleting all negative references of your favorite person, just because you don't like it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Appending "Al-Gore (sic) trained" to someone's name in their biog. page, apropos of nothing, is clearly an attempt to denigrate the person, since everyone knows the "Al-Gore" tag is like a red flag to a bull to the lumpenproletariat. And on the sourcing issue, the sourcing is fine. He never made any attempt to discuss it before deleting the (long-standing) paragraph with the comment on the talk page that this factual material is being used to "impugn" the subject. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄  06:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "it...is clearly an attempt to denigrate the person" -- If you had clicked on the source, you would see that Hoggan has appended that very same text to his own bio. I quoted directly from his bio. Is Hoggan trying to denigrate himself?  Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 06:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - now it may just be me - but is "Al-Gore" the same as "Al Gore"? From what i can tell, "Al-Gore" is a specific way to write Gore's name that is chosen to denigrate. At least i've never seen that way of writing outside of the "Gore is fat.." type of discourses. And if i click the source - then i can't find "Al-Gore" mentioned anywhere, but i do find "James Hoggan has been trained by Al Gore as part of The Climate Project, an initiative designed to educate the public about climate change."
 * This may be an interesting information regarding Hoggan in some section describing him, but to use "the "Al-Gore trained" Hoggan expresses ..." in a paragraph that has nothing to do with education or Al Gore, seems to be rather blatant POV pushing. Tsk tsk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ratel, I think this is piling on and quite inappropriate. Nothing you have mentioned here relates to this complaint. If you think there's evidence for a separate complaint against FellGleaming, you should raise it separately, rather than hijack this one IMHO. Thparkth (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article in question is very obviously not covered by the climate change probation, so this is academic. Even if it was, this complaint would still be extremely weak. In fact having read all of the presented diffs and the context, I don't see any actual substance to the complaint at all. Two editors disagreed on a talk page about the interpretation of a source? If someone "formally cautioned" me for disagreeing with their opinion on such a matter, I'd probably take it as a personal attack too. There is nothing here. Given the egregious inappropriateness of this complaint on every level, it needs to be closed and the complainant admonished. Thparkth (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you were to, you would be wrong as well. (N.B.--this is not a personal attack).--Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Statements by Fell Gleaming
John has brought up two incidents. I will address the second one first, as it is most clear cut. I removed from a BLP a derogatory claim that was sourced to a blog, and in my edit, described it as "blogs as sources". Brigade Harvester immediately visited my talk, with the message "Please Stop Misrepresenting Sources". I pointed out that there was not only one blog in the claim, but two. SBHB subsequently admitted they were indeed blogs (see here: ) but began quibbling over whether they were reliable enough to be used.

I then visited SBHB's talk page, with a polite request for him to AGF and to self-revert his allegation. He responded aggressively, asking me which one of us should "take this to the enforcement board". (See: )  I am unsure what exactly he intended to ask for enforcement for, however, since he already admitted the sources were indeed blogs. How can I be sanctioned for calling a blog a blog?

Incident Two. John, seeing SBHB's allegation on my page, made the same claim right below it, using extremely aggressive language such as "this won't be tolerated" (see here: ). His complaint was not over any edit I had made, but simply a statement I made on an article's talk page, in reference to a previous statement about the seriousness of Chernobyl.

John's complaint seems unfounded on two separate grounds. First, regardless of whether or not he believes I summarized the source accurately, this is what a talk page is for. To lay out a controversial position before it becomes part of an article. If you state something in error, it doesn't hurt the entry. Nor (in this case) did I even have any intention of using anything from that article in the entry, and John knew that. This was part of a tangential discussion on whether or not the entry should be renamed. John's complaint thus seems to not be made in any spirit of improving the entry, but simply to "spite me" for our disagreement in opinion.

Secondly, I don't believe my statement was in any way incorrect (though admittedly being on talk page, I used more dramatic language than I would have in editing an actual entry). My statement is above. The NYT article said:

Indeed, the report concludes, "The largest public health problem unleashed by the accident" is "the mental health impact." Residents of the region, who view themselves as victims of a tragedy they poorly understand, are still beset by anxiety that has prevented them from restarting their lives. "People have developed a paralyzing fatalism because they think they are at much higher risk than they are ... "Early on there were all sorts of claims being made ..."


 * http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/world/europe/05iht-nuke.html

The article states (a) the problem is "mental health impact", quantifying it as anxiety. It further states it was due to "fatalism" from "all sorts of claims being made". It further states (not quoted above), that victims should be provided "with realistic information about the minimal risks they face.". I summarized that as ""the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were." I think that's a wholly accurate statement -- though again, had I been writing this in an entry, rather than a talk page, I would have used much more restrained language.  Other editors might disagree with my synopsis, but I respectfully submit that is a difference of opinion, and cannot be construed a statement of fact.

I pointed the above out to John and asked him to admit there was no misrepresentation. John again responded aggressively, threatening enforcement action (see here: ).

Finally, I note that, since I began writing this entry, some other claims have been made that have nothing to do with the original sanction I am accused of violating. I will defend myself against those if an admin feels its necessary, but I believe that, for clarity if nothing else, those should be brought up in a separate issue. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 06:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment By Mark Nutley
This article is not within the CC enforcement area, this request should be chucked out mark nutley (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly second this Polargeo (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the warning as limited to any area. Rather, it states -- without area limitations -- that FellGleaming is warned to exercise basic due diligence in reviewing the content of sources before making assertions about them. He is warned to be scrupulous in his representation of sources and his use of purported quotes from them. He is further required to respond directly to the substance of future concerns about his use of sources and quotations and avoid aggressive posturing."  And that is a good thing, as the problem appears to be broader than any area.  When we wish to limit a sanction to a specific area, we state that, as can be seen in many warnings that all experienced editors have no doubt seen.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Epeefleche, I brought this complaint and request for enforcement on the common-sense basis that this problem user was warned to raise his game regarding misrepresentation of sources, and by implication this would cover the entire project, not just one area of it. Are we really to give FG the impression that it is ok to misrepresent sources, so long as it isn't on an area deemed to be directly concerned with climate change, rather than peripherally, as in the Chernobyl case? Come on! --John (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * John, your claim of "misrepresenting sources" rests on your inability to interpret one clearly written NY Times article. I understand you're upset over an opinion disagreement with me, but the text in this case is crystal clear.   Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 22:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for demonstrating again why I believe a block and a topic ban will be the only way to deal with you, FG. I am not in the least bit upset, but neither will I stand back and allow you to continue as you have done, as that would not be in the best interests of building our project. That you continue to maintain your view of the sources ("Crystal clear"? Really?) and that you continue to conflate content (and your dishonest treatment of sources) with user conduct, merely underlines the very real reasons for my concern with your continuing to edit any article on which you have a strong point of view. --John (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

?Applicability
Not sure this is climate change. Anyway I have to recuse because I work for a charity which is too involved in Belarus post Chernnobyl, but a general issue with the topic certainly exists with a very strong political pressure to paint a particular picture (downplaying the radiation impact, at least from our perspective) so I can see the problem on getting reliable sources which do not have secondary distortion to them. --BozMo talk 06:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not applicable. I am not a fan of FGs edits in any way but please throw this out instantly. I will strongly resist widening of the remit of CC probation/sanctions because the initial debate was not even advertised properly within the area in which these sanctions are being applied. As an active editor on certain CC articles to which the probation applies to I was not even aware of the discussion until TS started slapping the tags on talkpages. Look back at the intial debate. Seems only the absolute CC inner core and wikipedia hacks had any say and now this is called community consensus. I would laugh out loud if it wasn't so ridiculous and wasn't being policed by certain individuals who are so two faced they rival the god Janus. Polargeo (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree this request isn't applicable, although I too have problems with FG's edits (most recently the WP:ICANTHEARYOU stuff at Talk:Effects of global warming on Australia). Whilst admins who have taken an interest in FG's behaviour here might wish to consider this request under the general admins-can-do-what-they-like rules, this probation should not be involved William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above, the article in question isn't in the probation area. The question that this request raises, is whether the general admonishing in the previous sanction is applicable in general, or whether it is specifically limited to the probation area. Ie. is FG under warning not to misrepresent sources in general or in this area. I too have to mirror polargeo and WMC above, that i find FG's conduct in general problematic ((please check page-log around this section)), and his misrepresentation (or misunderstandings) of sources, and subsequent attitude when this is pointed out, as more than worrisome. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes there are plenty of grounds, as KDP has outlined, on which to sanction FG within the CC area without setting the precedent of taking into account any of his problematic edits outside of the area. However, punitve blocks are not the answer. The only sort of sanction that would be useful is to allow other editors the freedom to tidy up after him (as used to be to case) without facing any sanctions themselves for not discussing exhaustively why they are having to tidy up the edits with FellGleeming himself (a certain humorous essay comes to mind) and that isn't going to happen :) Polargeo (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really think it's appropriate for other people to "clean up" FellGleaming's statements of his own opinion on a talk page? Because there's not a single edit in article space referenced in this complaint. Thparkth (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Polargeo (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful comment. I would appreciate it if you could point out my error though. Thparkth (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At the time I made my initial comment you were wrong anyway. Sorry I hadn't realised the info had been removed pending a proper RfE . Sorry again. Oh and further many of KDP's links (just above) to talkspace are actually to threads about edits FG has made to article space this edit. Polargeo (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously this is only my opinion, but I don't regard issues raised by third parties in the "comments" section of enforcement requests as being part of the request itself. They might add extra weight to a complaint, or mitigate it, but they can't turn an invalid enforcement request into a valid one. Thparkth (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are completely correct. I myself requested that this enforcement request be thrown out. Polargeo (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

To keep everybody happy, and to keep the probation from appearing to overstep its terms of reference, I suggest that this request be closed and if any relevant issues remain a new request within the sanction area can be opened.

I would add that while I agree that the probation should focus exclusively on conduct within the probation's scope, cases that seem to evidence problematic behavior of much broader scope may influence the types of remedy that can reasonably be considered. It would be pointless to craft a remedy that simply resulted in the refocusing of problem editing on other articles. Tasty monster (=TS ) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony; the edits do not concern CC article related pages. If someone were to start a RfC or other form of dispute or behaviour resolution then it would be appropriate to link to previous Probation enforcement pages or other examples of concern within CC article related space. I would be inclined to dismiss this claim, although it seems that there is some substance to SBHB's further allegations so I will see if there is any way forward. I would also prefer if some of the other admins would comment before making a definitive statement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
Please don't close this quite yet. FG's interaction with me, briefly alluded to above, was on the Ian Plimer article which definitely falls within the probation area. He not only misrepresented a source (the U.S. Geological Survey web site is a blog?) but also spun my words to mean something that I did not say, which is a continuation of the "aggressive posturing" for which he has been warned. There are other examples of his misrepresenting sources following the closure of the last enforcement request involving him; see e.g., this exchange. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been a lot of relevant information removed . Please put together a new request as TS has stated. I know it is a hassle but it will be a lot cleaner and mean the sanctions are not overstepping their remit. Polargeo (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will follow Polargeo's good advice not to mix up the two issues. Consider my request above withdrawn. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is at least one open question here, and that is whether a general warning given here carries over into the rest of the project. We have at least one other case where this is (or at least have been shown to be) the case (WMC+civility+users' own talkpage). Personally i believe that such is the case, as it is comparable to any admin (outside or inside the probation area) giving warning with ultimatum- that is fully within the remit of wikipedia admins (subject to later examination of course). A ban/block is also within the remit of this area, and that certainly affects the rest of the project. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble with this enforcement request is that it was initiated on an article that is outside of CC sanctions and I believe should remain outside of sanctions. It is a bad precedent to change this and just because something may have been done before this is not the time to reinforce incorrect procedure. KDP and SBHB could put together a much better request than this that is likely to be actioned and will in the end be stronger. Polargeo (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Polargeo, I also consider the initial report falls outside of the Probation enforcement area remit - these further allegations might form part of a subsequent enforcement request, if it is the consensus to close this one procedurally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If removal of sections based on disagreements about sourcing is actionable, then should I open a request for this removal? This removal of sourced text doesn't even have the BLP defense that FG can claim for the Plimer removal. ATren (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is too much to expect you to bother read the talk page for that article? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it at all possible for you ATren, not to bring up some WMC thing everytime there is an enforcement request? I think we have gotten the message that you don't like WMC. And that you will persist until he gets banned. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, perhaps, until he learns to collaborate with people who disagree with him... ATren (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should get a new section in the template: "General comments on how unfair WP is, since WMC isn't banned yet for worse than this" - it would certainly reduce the amount of content in the other sections *sigh* --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by SPhilbrick
I can't believe we are wasting our time with this nonsense. Let's close this and move on to some more serious.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning FellGleaming

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

Hipocrite
by

Request concerning Hipocrite

 * User requesting enforcement : Nsaa (talk) 19:41, 25 April 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) 2010-04-25T18:38:31 Hipocrite (→Reception:  Rm some guys blog). This is an disputed area (I even give a strong hint on participate in the discussion in the previous edit 2010-04-25T18:35:02 Nsaa (Please discuss this removal on the discussion page and make a rationale for the removal Bret Swanson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#rv_why)), discussed at . It may be the case that this is not something we should write about, but just reverting others contributions like this is not Cooperative. And with a second revert in 24h the user is not following the probation rules
 * 2) 2010-04-24T22:21:21 Hipocrite (→Reception:  Some guy on his blog not notable (not RS)) First removal of the same paragraph (just to verify 24h break of rule.
 * 3) 2010-04-25T11:33:14 Hipocrite (→NPOV tag: Wifebeater!) Personal attack ... calls another user Wife beater
 * 4) 2010-04-25T12:44:11 Hipocrite (→Violation of WP:SYN: When you assume). Personal attack again.
 * 5) 2010-04-13T16:25:29 Hipocrite (→Talkback:  Fuck talkback) Extremely bad language.
 * 6) 2010-04-25T00:02:38 (→Climatic Research Unit emails:  It's like you're all functionally unable to write for the enemy. Perhaps you should all go edit other articles until you learn how.) Battleground mentality
 * 7) 2010-04-22T20:51:16 Hipocrite (actually, rv to me - added text has nothing to do with this book) removes most of the background section from here, no actual reason given
 * 8) 2010-04-16T19:20:27 Hipocrite (→Request:  dick) Personal attack – Calls another user Di*k


 * 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) : whatever the community decide

It may also be wise to take a look at this User_talk:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * @2010-04-25T20:54:01 LessHeard vanU: As far as I see the article is under probation per this edit first edit on the talk page at 2010-04-03T10:28:17 so the 1RR restriction applies. Nsaa (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

2010-04-25T19:45:24 Nsaa (→Requests_for_enforcement:  new section)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by Hipocrite

 * I eagerly await my vindication. Some guys blog is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, perhaps the fact that Nsaa is not fluent in English has led to his regretful lack of understanding about what "when you assume you make an ass (out of you and me!)" and "have you stopped beating your wife?" mean. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Further, what does this have to do with climate change?


 * Further, how is telling everyone they are fundamentally poor editors - and I explicitly included my "side" in that a battleground action here?


 * And finally, if telling someone they are being a dick when they are being a dick is a violation of these stupid rules, I'm guilty, lock me up. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Hipocrite

 * Comment by Mark Nutley The "some guys blog" hipocrite refers to is in fact the blog of Seth Roberts, a Professor of Psychology at Tsinghua University in Beijing I think this guy is capable of reviewing a book :) mark nutley (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Complaining about the wife beater comment is odd. He was quoting Bertie Russell's example of the fact that questions which contain implicit assumptions are not always answerable rather than accusing another editor. --BozMo talk 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't odd. He should have used quotes, if that was his intention. If someone comes up to you in a bar and asks if you abused your family today most peoples first reaction is not to think 'ah yes, good old Bertie'. Like it or not this is an international site and if people will use such phrasing whilst maintaining a battleground mentality then the odd thing to do would be to let them carry on. The phrase 'wifebeater' is inappropriate without context, and even then it is a stretch of the imagination to see how it could be appropriate to encyclopedia building. Weakopedia (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment @ LHVU The essay you cite is quite clear. It says 'The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as "a dick".'. It also says 'Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move'. That essay isn't meant for people to quote at others, it's for them to read and try to understand themselves. There is no need to make a grey area out of something which has a disclaimer saying it is not to be considered a grey area. Weakopedia (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * comment by WMC: if WP:DICK is considered offensive, then MN, who is under civility parole, should most certainly be santioned for calling another editors opinions "bollocks". I don't think this report is in good faith - it looks to me as though this report itself is part of a battleground mentality - it is a mere trawling for diffs. actually, rv to me - added text has nothing to do with this book)] removes most of the background section from here, no actual reason given is the most obvious example: here is a diff which very clearly *does* give a reason being reported as not. This is absurd; the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure we could trawl almost anybody's edits and come up with material like this. I think a warning is reasonable as long as it is recognised that we all have to pull our socks up in this respect. Nothing Hipocrite has said, according to this filing, is extraordinarily bad, nor is his general demeanor a detriment to Wikipedia or to the articles in the probation area. --TS 22:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Thepm regarding point 6. Hipocrite's comment seemed to be expressing his frustration with the battleground mentality of the other editors (that was my interpretation anyway). I was one of the editors involved here. It had become a rather silly argument about the use of 'hacked' vs 'discovered' vs 'released'. Hipocrite made a brilliant edit that used none of those terms but still retained meaning. I meant to congratulate him at the time, but never got around to it. Thepm (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Cla68: A few hours ago Hipocrite unilaterally deleted about half the content from the Ian Plimer article, even though discussion on the talk page was making good progress. He also did basically the same thing at the Edward Wegman article, including removing most of the reliable sources from the section such as the House hearing transcript and Wegman's report.  Hipocrite has ignored or responded rudely to requests to self-revert  .  I believe Hipocrite is being disruptive.  Check out this remark about NSAA, for whom English is apparently a second language "Editors who speak broken English should not be editing controversial articles".  If Hipocrite doesn't climb down from the Reichstag soon, I'm going to file a separate request for enforcement below this one.  The AGW editors recently had shown good progress at working together in a productive manner.  It would be a shame if Hipocrite was allowed to destroy this progress. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Hipocrite's edit does a lot to assuage my long term concerns about the way that article has been going, but I appreciate that it may not be to everybody's taste. If you think it's wrong, why don't you just revert it yourself and discuss it?  I don't know where the fashion for demanding that editors revert their own perfectly good edits came from.  We all know how to edit Wikipedia and we don't need permission to edit. --TS 23:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It was other editors who added most of the material, not me. If you read the talk page discussion, you'll see that Hipocrite didn't like it after the sources used in the "Volcano" section were attributed, which had been done to resolve (successfully) a budding content dispute.  Hipocrite responded by blanking the entire thing.  Not good. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a content matter which doesn't belong in an enforcement action. But while we're here, your view that the dispute had been successfully resolved is incorrect. I don't agree with Hipocrite's edit, but your implication that everything was fine until Hipocrite barged in is false. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The talk page discussion was progressing productively. When someone disrupts that because they apparently don't like the way the discussion is going, then that is a matter for this board. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Cla68, what's disruptive is your insistence that biographies of living persons be used as coat racks to discuss global warming. Hipocrite (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, don't go there please. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong that's an issue for another venue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by Wsiegmund regarding point 1. My edit and edit summary provides some context for that of Hipocrite. I think there are WP:COATRACK issues here and Hipocrite is following the WP guidance on this matter. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Hipocrite

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


 * From a brief review of the article The Hockey Stick Illusion and the points/diffs provided, I would make the following initial observations;
 * The article is not under a 1RR restriction that I am aware of, so points 1 and 2 in that respect fail - no opinion as to what appears to be an edit war. As for not discussing... the reverts do refer to policy, although no opinion on the validity of same, and follow the reasoning provided by another party in the discussion.
 * re point 3; not an accusation, but a figure of speech. Not really seeing its relevance in the discussion, but that is not the point.
 * Point 4, another saying - although it is pointed and teetering on incivility. Not optimal, but neither sanctionable.
 * Point 5. Yup, extremely bad language and likely bad faith - but nothing to do with a CC Probation article. May be something for a WP:WQA submission, but outside the remit here (even as an example of bad language, it shows H has been holding their tongue better in this area.)
 * Point 6. Agreed, there is some indication of battleground mentality and commenting on editors rather than contributions.
 * Point 7. I see a rationale within the edit summary - no opinion on accuracy.
 * Final point. A grey area, since there is WP:DICK and referring to people being dicks in regard to their actions may be considered permissible - but noting a person as a dick (without referring to the essay) is not and in any case is unlikely to improve the editing environment within the probation area. I am not seeing anything really substantive under which Hipocrite may be sanctioned. I think they could be warned about their manner of interaction and requested to interact more fully, and noted that persistent behavioural issues of a similar nature might lead to topic or interaction bans or short blocks, but would wish for other comments before committing even to that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)