Misplaced Pages

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

Request concerning Heyitspeter

User requesting enforcement

Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. - Perpetuates an existing edit war.

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

• Not applicable.

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

24-hour block, per 1RR rules on the article in question and/or clarification of 1RR and edit warring in general.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Heyitspeter

Statement by Heyitspeter

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Heyitspeter

• There is no 1RR violation on this page by Heyitspeter. The edit provided was made at 01:50, 28 February 2010. His next most recent edit was made at 01:15, 27 February 2010. As far as 1RR is concerned case closed. --GoRight (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  As I said above, we are not talking about a technical violation here. The reversion in question is a violation of the spirit of the rule in that it perpetuates the existing edit war. Consider the firestorm that would result if someone were to revert Heyitspeter's edit right now. I haven't edited the article for two weeks, but I certainly wouldn't dream of reverting Heyitspeter even if I think the current version is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• This request appears to be in retaliation for the request above against Nigelj as far as I can tell. --GoRight (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  Absolute nonsense. I discussed this matter with LHvU and Heyitspeter and I was encouraged to file the RfE. Please consider withdrawing your accusation. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  Per this which I was unaware of and Heyitspeter's comment below I withdraw this erroneous conclusion and apologize for having jumped to it. --GoRight (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

  I agree with SBHB that this would be an important clarification. Even so, however, I don't believe that HiP's previous edit was a simple reversion of that same content, so I don't think it probably matters to this specific case. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

1. ChrisO
2. WMC
3. Nigelj

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Heyitspeter

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

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

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

There is a plausible justification for the revert in question such that "continuation of an edit war" is not the only explanation. Heyitspeter has bveen open to discussion throughout. There is no suggestion of a sanction from uninvolved admins, thus I'll close this as no action. However for any readers, if you know darn well that you may technically be violating something-or-other in articlespace, put a note in talkspace at the same time. Franamax (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

User requesting enforcement

ATren (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

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

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

From the sanctions log page:

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

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

I suggest a month-long topic ban for repeated refusal to adhere to this probation.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Statement by User:William M. Connolley

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by ZP5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Given the fact that WMC has a long history of misconduct dating back at least five years., a one month topic ban seems too lenient to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  I vote we chain him to a fence and throw rotten cabbages at him. That's no less an absurd suggestion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Again, might I suggest a remedy here? I propose topic bans of increasing duration. If LHVU wants to start out at 72 hours or whatever, that's fine. I suggest, however, that the lengths of any future bans for this editor, if they occur, increase drastically in duration, from 3 days to one week, followed by one month, followed by two months, and so on until the behavior in question has been corrected. Obviously, the behavior is in need of correction. Note the vindictive motion by WMC in response below for an indication of his desire to self-correct. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment from clueless over here, WMC is once again wrong, please note the following Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen, and was asked about it in november He already knew the 2035 date was rubbish but stuck with it. mark nutley (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has been up for a week since the executive action, closing now. Franamax (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

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

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

Diffs of prior warnings

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

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

Prohibition from filing any further frivilous nuisance complaints, participating in deletion discussions of articles in the climate change topic area, topic ban on all climate change-related articles.

Additional comments

Discussion concerning ChrisO

Statement by ChrisO

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning ChrisO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I thought ChrisO's request was just as tendentious as this one. Why not topic ban both of them? That should take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  Feel free to explain how this report is "tendentious." -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ChyranandChloe

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

• Re. Franamax: As far as I can see, John does not edit Climate Change articles apart from the AfD and surrounding noise. So a topic ban would not be much of a sanction. On the other hand, it might help to keep an otherwise good editor out of an area where he may have problems to keep his cool. So, on the "not punitive but preventative" principle, I'd support a topic ban, possibly somewhat longer (not much of a hardship because the editor barely edits the topic anyways). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• JohnWBarber (formerly Noroton) has a long, long history of this sort of disruptive behavior, most of which has been built around promoting a certain agenda. I understand that changing his username was an attempt to put that sordid past behind him, but the "new improved" version has simply returned to the same old behavior. This retaliation is part of the typical Noroton modus operandi, and it was preceded by what was obviously a bad faith AfD nomination (see previous level 2 section). A topic ban of not less than a month is appropriate, but a review of this editor's block log indicates a block should also be considered. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Scjessey and I have an extended history in which I occasionally point out Scjessey's behavior violations and Sjessey attacks me. Here's a good summary from the last time we interacted. I had previously done some editing at the CRU incident article. I withdrew in large part because Scjessey's comments like this one -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I only wish WP:PLAXICO were still a valid redirect. Thanks awfully for drawing attention to previous bad conduct on your part so that I don't have to. Much obliged. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I am glad it is not still a valid redirect, the very existence of it was a bit of a BLP violation. I think maybe we should stop mentioning it and let it die away over time. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Looks tendentious and bad faith. I think this should lead to sanctions no JWB William M. Connolley (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions for JHochman

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

• The filed a very pointy AfD,
  • There is nothing pointy about an AfD in which it is credibly alleged that its existence violates WP policy. If you're going to make that statement, prove it.
• followed it up with an abuse of process,
  • What are you talking about?
• a tit-for-tat frivolous sanctions request,
  • You've given no reason to show that this was frivolous. ChrisO obviously violated the general sanctions multiple times.
• and continued to battle when challenged on this very thread.
  • This very thread is a discussion of an editor's actions. When criticized, I defended myself. Show "battle"-like behavior.
• The editor has received sufficient feedback from uninvolved editors already,
  • To do what? Withdraw the AfD? Not doing so is some kind of behavioral violation? What change of my behavior was supposed to be the result of this "feedback"? Maybe I don't understand what you're saying here.
• yet they continue to engage in the inappropriate behavior.
  • Provide diffs.
• Moreover, the editor has not been improving the articles. They are merely engaging in talk and project space disputes.
  • I've been trying to find time to look more closely at the Climate change denial article to show in some detail what it's faults are regarding POV treatment of the topics within it and bad sourcing. I've mentioned this at the AfD, and mentioned making edits to improve the article. The problem with WP:DISRUPTION is that it causes Wikipedians, like me, to get moved away from addressing improvements to the encyclopedia and instead deal with distractions and misbehavior (by, say, ChrisO). Several editors on both the Keep and Delete sides of the AfD have agreed that there are problems with the article. The encyclopedia is benefited if either the article is deleted or if its problems are improved. Either way, my criticisms of it are what encyclopedia building is all about. Continuing to ignore the now acknowledged POV and other problems of the article -- which was done through much of its history, isn't a benefit to the encyclopedia. That there are editors here who want discussion shut down is a great cost to the encyclopedia.

  I hate to do this, but you brought up a lack of content work (even though nearly all of my comments at the AfD are about article content). I've actually been looking very actively at possible changes to the article, and to prove that, look at this one content issue that I've been examining, both to show the POVFORK nature of the article and, if it survives AfD, to improve it: The second paragraph here is mostly about Dr. Frederick Seitz, and it goes on and on about his work doing research related to the tobacco industry. The idea that a whole section devoted to industry denialists associations with the tobacco industry is a WP:UNDUE issue related to POV. That a whole paragraph would relate to one man's research financed by an industry, none of which has to do with climate change, is a second UNDUE problem. The kicker is that the source is an opinionated magazine piece, raising WP:RS issues. But it gets worse: The original opinion piece at least had the decency to quote Seitz defending himself: ("We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent.") It was a BLP issue to use an opinion-piece source to attack a living person on Misplaced Pages, particularly while omiting that BLP's defense of his own actions. The only reason why it hasn't remained a BLP violation is because Seitz died -- but up until that moment, the BLP violation remainded. This is important both for improving the article and/or for illustrating the WP:POVFORK nature of it: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Now, this is one passage among many. I expect, before the AfD is done, to post a summary list there of the sourcing and POV problems. One problem I have with contributing to the article right now is that the title "Climate change denial" seems to conflict with the current focus of the lead: "Other writers reserve the term for those they allege attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial or other sectional interests. This article uses this second more restrictive sense of the term." I note that no other editor on Misplaced Pages has addressed the problem with the particular passage I've cited. The AfD gives several examples of other areas of concern, some of which have led to article changes by other editors. To say that I haven't already had an effect on the content is false. To say that I never will is premature. If you want me to focus on the article, deal with editors like ChrisO who have focused on personalities and so that I won't be so distracted and can focus on content. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions for JeHochman and Franamax

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

To LessHeardVanU

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

More Statements

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

ChrisO's list & JeHochman's comment

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

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

• Actually, the reverse is more likely true. If you familiar with Barber's history, which Jehochman and I have both referred to, you would see that the "nefarious scheme" you describe is by far the more likely scenario. Barber has become quite adept at playing the game, and a retaliatory filing like this is simply standard operating procedure. If you look at this behavior in isolation, it doesn't seem like much of a big deal; however, when viewed in the context of past transgressions it is amazing how much this guy gets away with. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Barber did also vote to delete the "Climate change exaggeration" article, right? If he voted to delete that one and everyone agreed, and then nominated the denial article also, that would seem to me a strong position. The problem, usually, is when editors take and try to apply a decision they didn't like. Mackan79 (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mackan, I appreciate your comments and thanks for taking the time, but you're wasting it: Jehochman simply isn't listening and isn't interested in listening. I've made all these points. But it goes further: He not only has no reason to consider the AfD nomination WP:POINTy, he already knows, for a fact, that POV problems have long been one of my animating concerns. Franamax, who also appears to be ignoring my comments, probably doesn't know this, but I discussed POV editing less than six months ago with Jehochman both on his talk page and mine. and at ANI and at ArbCom , so the idea that I would have any other motivation than wanting to delete a WP:POVFORK-violating article is ridiculous. LHVU can confirm that I get very animated on the subject based on discussions I've had with him in the past. Jehochman knows this about me and ignores it.

It's also obvious that ChrisO violated WP:CIVIL in various ways that I've laid out in detail. It's also obvious that WP:CIVIL is on the general sanctions page. There's no doubt about any of that. It's also obvious from this complaint and my response to his complaint that I was hurt by what ChrisO said in his repeated incivility. And it's obvious as hell that that's why I filed the complaint. An accusation that I was being "retaliatory" or "tit for tat" doesn't account for the obvious reason I filed the complaint -- I felt and feel I was wronged. All of this (except the links above about my longstanding concern about POV editing) is already staring everybody in the face. It's also obvious that Jehochman has no interest in anything less than a long block. It's also obvious that Jehochman and Franamax, neither of them, have detailed why they think I was being pointy or retaliatory. It's also obvious that a collaborative atmosphere is not encouraged this way -- the ostensible purpose of the sanctions, after all. I'm sick of this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning ChrisO

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

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

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

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

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

• I checked the CC probation log for JWB, and found only reference to this. I am familiar with JWB/Noroton's history, being a participant is some of it, but in these matters I do not tend to hold an editors past "difficulties" in other area's against them. I would comment that JWB's sanction record falls within specific area's of the encyclopedia and in others he is regarded as a useful contributor. In the area of CC editing he has only received the general notice of probation and has not been previously warned regarding his conduct - at least no logged warnings, and I saw only a passing note by WMC re 3RR on JWB's talkpage - and (AFAIK) the request regarding the AfD is the first time he has been brought to this page. Under the circumstances, and per practice as I have understood it, previous history either elsewhere or time expired such as blocks or desysoppings should not over influence our considerations upon requests on this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I did read your analysis, I thought fairly thoroughly. I just didn't agree with your assessment of the level of disruption, although we are none of us perfect. On reflection I am going to recuse from further consideration of this matter (and the other one related to JWB), as JWB previously initiated an ArbCom case against me, so I think there is a possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would make two points. Firstly, you may have been persuaded by the allegations that the AfD was pointy but that is not (yet) the consensus. You are then proceeding to a decision based on your own view of the pointyness of the preceding request. Perhaps you may wish to include the viewpoints of those who differ in their findings? Secondly, and this is a meme I find disturbing, it seems to have become accepted that the only way to "usefully contribute" to CC related articles is to edit to the status quo - that to attempt to incorporate viewpoints, sources, etc. that does not meet with the existing order (or editors) is perceived as disruptive. I disagree. It is the manner in which the articles are edited, regardless of viewpoint, that determines whether it is disruptive. That is how Misplaced Pages works - or should do, even if probations are required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing to different points of view is fine and should be encouraged. Engaging in endless talk page, noticeboard, and AFD disputes without ever adding anything to an article is problematic. Please show me a few diffs where this editor has attempted to make constructive edits to articles in this area. I have not seen any yet. All I see is battle. What do you think about the block log? Do you consider that the editor might be returning to former patterns of negative behavior? Jehochman 14:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am closing this as we aren't going to get any more done here than the following: the filing user is on notice not to use this page for retaliation. Jehochman 20:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)