Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive3 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive3

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

User requesting enforcement

Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [1] Incivility, PA (before warning)
2. [2] Ditto
3. [3] Ditto
4. [4] BLP violation (after warnings)

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

1. [5] Warning by Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. [6] Warning by dave souza (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Either topic ban or block would be appropriate.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Everything that needs saying said above.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

Let's face it: The topic has been hi-jacked by a group of people. They have the power, and they do whatever they want. They violate the wikipedia-rules and make misleading or even plainly false article-contribution. They seem unstoppable atm and the damage to wikipedia's reputiation is already very high and likely to grow. Which is very saddening. Feel free to topic ban me, if the truth has been too violating for them.

update: In fact, a topic ban would be the best thing for everybody. 1) the complainers have their wish. 2) to me it doesn't mather whether my contributions get deleted or whether i can't make them in the first place. 3) this topic ban may, all long many others, serve as a hint to future wikipedians, making them aware of how a good project can be manipulated/hi-jacked by a ideologically motivated group.

2. update: i wouldn't advice a indefinite ban since my ip gets changed about every quarter year, so there's a chance someone else might be punished instead. TheGoodLocust ist right, I stopped all contributions except for my talk page after I saw the warning.

I think it is pretty clear that this is a disruptive single-purpose agenda IP with little discernible value to Wikipedia. Not only are the contributions often disruptive, hostile and uncivil, but even some of the edit summaries leave much to be desired. I would recommend at least a topic ban, but I also think an indefinite block should be considered. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor could use some mentoring, but I think he has potential. I should note that the one diff provided "after the warnings" occurred only just a couple minutes after the warning and, in all likelihood (considering the acknowledgement of the warning came later), wasn't even read before his edit. I suspect WP:BITE may have also affected his behavior as well considering the topic area. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where they've made any contribution to the encyclopedia, except removing some dead links with a snarky edit summary. Curious if you saw something I missed. JPatterson (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is clearly a reasonable person, and I noticed he had an eye for detail that wikipedia would benefit from. I agree he should be less snarky and needs more knowledge of wiki-policy, which is why I suggested mentorship and perhaps a topic ban/probation for a month or two. My feeling is that he has potential, and any reaction from WP:BITE and the general problems at the GW problems should take that into account - also if he stopped making contributions after being warned (not noticing a warning for a couple minutes is forgivable for an IP), then that should give him some latitude. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The probation was not devised to stop trolls and SPA's from disrupting the article space, since there are sufficient general policies, practices and guidelines to do that; the probation was intended to provide the appropriate conditions so that editors could contribute according to policy and guidelines and not be tempted into improper conduct. Having the ability to contribute to these pages is insufficient to be allowed to, there is a need to show that they will do so exclusively non disruptively. The ip has shown little indication of intending to, despite their grasp of the subject. That said, if they have not edited since the warning outside of their talkpage - and we AGF of their newness to the project - then perhaps a final Final warning regards conduct would be appropriate? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, my main problem was the RfE when the only diff he could provide was minutes after the warning. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....of course after already having been warned for the first time about BLPs back in November... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(shrug) Since the ip is changed quarterly we may have only some 3 weeks of sanctionable time left.... unless.. the ip is fibbing! Surely not, because no-one would fib on CC related articles would they?! Perhaps, then, a block on the account until 1st March when we can find out if the editor has changed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 142.68.95.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 142.68.92.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Could an uninvolved admin review and determine what, if anything, should be done about this user? Hipocrite (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could kindly tell him about the probation on these articles? He doesn't appear to read his talk page though and so he might need to be informed through one of the talk page threads he is frequenting. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes, I had forgotten about the requisite hoop jumping. Now corrected. Hipocrite (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed to refer to additional IP. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that doesn't work, for this and any other IP that isn't participating, a short block with a reason pointing here is not unreasonable, in my view. Blocking an IP mars no records except the IP's. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't work. The IP's most recent contribution was "John Costella is a reputable researcher with credentials that exceed most editors in here."[8]. John Costella is a 9/11 truther, a JFK conspiracy theorist and a host of other fringy things. His website is [9]. Hipocrite (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[10] looks highly useful too. If there are any admins here not too busy on matters of civility to deal with actual BLP problems, how about you block the IP and semi the talk page? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 142.68.92.131 blocked and logged - the other ip was too stale to justify sanction. If, as I suspect, the two are the same editor and a fresh addy starts up the same charm offensive then a request for sprotect might be made (noting that there was no original request). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Too early for the fulsome thanks I'm afraid [11]. I think you need the semi. noting that there was no original request - you want proactive (or at least, the portion of that article that is sane) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reviewed the edit history of the talkpage - the last 500 edits. I noted 6 ip's and two new accounts. Of the 6 ip's two are those in this section and one is in the section above, as at writing, and only one of the remaining three do not appear to be AGF. One of the 2 new accounts is also not AGF. Neither of these two accounts have more than half a dozen edits to the page combined. There may be a couple of new accounts whose username page is not redlinked, but otherwise everyone appeared (far too) familiar to me from these pages. I don't see what sprotection would achieve, since we would be disallowing contributions from the majority of ip/new accounts that are not already noted on this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all recognized Scibaby socks will be bluelinked due to tagging. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks from WHOIS that all three are Halifax, but on two different /16 ranges, making a rangeblock problematic. They are acting like the same user, though, so I applied a WP:DUCK block for 31 hours. Oh, and thanks LHvU. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add 142.68.165.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to the list (recent diff). Does this constitute block evasion? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCKed (and they edited an earlier comment from the 142.177). They appear to have access to the full 142.68.0.0/16 (65,000 addresses). I have never made a range block before - would it be justified in this case? Does anyone know offhand how to check for collateral damage - are other anon users active in this range? - 2/0 (cont.) 02:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a big range. How long did you have in mind? Let me run a quick check for collateral damage potential and pop back here in a few. I'm more concerned about named accounts than I am IPs but if I see a lot of IPs too... we'll have to think. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results: I checked 142.68.0.0/16 It's a busy range. It has a lot of traffic. Most of it is named users which we avoid by using anon only, of course. But even so there are significant contributions from anons to areas other than climate change. How much? I was doing it by eye, so this is a guestimate, but I counted dozens of contributions from our pals, and many, but not as many, from other IPs. Perhaps 30-50% of the total are everything else. Do we want to lose those for a day or two? We could, we have before. I would not go much beyond 3 days though I don't think. Up to you guys. Hope this helps. If you need other checks, please ask. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lar :). That sounds like RBI is the best plan for now. Hopefully they will find something else to do for long enough that the block does not get reset. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

142.177.62.236 (talk · contribs) and a week or so of semi for the talk page, at this point, I think. Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say rangeblock anyway, at least for a few days. This is becoming intolerable. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now a new IP again: 142.68.164.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need an admin's attention to this as soon as possible. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page has just been protected. I was about ready to nuke that part of Canada. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think an anon only range block is not out of the question. There will be some collateral damage but I don't think it is unacceptably high. ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident is increasing in volume and vitriol. Perhaps some final warnings are in order? Hipocrite (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was civil for most of the day but it's taken an unfortunate turn of events the last few hours. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were you to have used the template you would have seen this text at the top of this section: Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Please get some diffs together if you have time.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that 2over0 has aided and abetted the most disruptive and uncivil editors by taking their side, collapsing threads where their behavior is discussed, and attacking editors who bring the issues to appropriate venues for discussion, even as he continues to sanction a good faith editor inappropriately on nebulous accusations. When admins abuse their tools to push a POV and encourage disruption we get more of it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pop some diffs up so those of us who haven't been following it know what you're talking about, please. --John (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner or late CoM will be banned from this page if he continues writing this kind of histrionic nonsense. His new method of disruption - attacking one of the few administrators willing to police this page - seems counterproductive. Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree diffs would be good. I agree that we should avoid histrionics. However there has to be some vehicle available (whether it is here on this page or somewhere else I do not know) to raise concerns about admins participating in enforcement, if such concerns are warranted they need to be acted on. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately although perhaps desirable, that's not really workable, because it's very hard for any administrator - no matter how well intentioned - to remain totally impartial (cf the difference of opinion between you and LHVU below). On the other hand ChildofMidnight here and below seems to be writing highly charged but unsupportable statements attacking a series of editors. In that case, perhaps the only solution is WP:DFTT. Mathsci (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate vehicle to raise concerns about administrative action is WP:RfC. As is has always been. You all can read more about it at WP:ADMIN. Certainly if I thought an admin was "aiding and abetting" disruption, attacking editors, and abusing his tools to push a POV, I would pursue that avenue. Heck, if I seriously believed that (as opposed to employing it as hyperbolic rhetoric), I might even go straight to ArbCom. This is pretty basic stuff, and I don't really understand why it should be news to anyone here. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [12] An edit to the lede of the aritcle, Sirwells sought no consensus for his change, did not discuss his change on talk at all, and did not state a willingness to revert his change on request.
2. [13] Another edit to the lede of the article, yet again Sirwells sought no consensus for his change, did not discuss it on talk at all, and did not state a willingness to revert his change on request. Furthermore, this was part of a slow-moving edit war and uses a basically deceptive edit sumamry.
3. [14] In this edit, which is not to the lede, Sirwells has no edit summary, sought no consensus for his change, did not discuss it on talk at all, and did not state a willingness to revert his change on request. This edit was part of a series of edits where neither side was willing to compromise at all.
4. [15] This edit, which was the final straw, has a false edit summary, as the change had been rasied multiple times in talk.
5. [16] This talk page snark is a direct copy of my previous attempt to fix Sirwell's behavior here

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

1. [17] Direct explanation of problematic editign behavior by Hipocrite (talk · contribs)
2. [18] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. ...

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

Indefinite 0rr probation across entire topic area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Unless this is solved, I'm going to give up on my attempt to cross the line and improve these articels, and instead go back to my bunker.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Other than name, rank and serial number, all you'll get is this (regarding last nights edits): I had not noticed hipocrite was working collaboratively with jpatterson on his huge edit. For that, I'll admit to making a mistake. Although I am still not convinced he had consensus on such a large edit (it was quite large), I would not have reverted it if I knew he had "crossed the line" and was working with others. When I saw both QuestforKnowledge and Jpatteson come to his rescue, I self reverted. I don't want to be the cause of hipocrite giving up on this noble cause.

If hipocrite promises not to "go back into his bunker", I'll promise to never revert anything by Hipocrite. Sirwells (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address this comment by Lars in reference to the warning I placed on hipocrites talk page: "...strongly encourage Sirwell to refactor that snarky echoback or apologise for it. We can't force that, but we can strongly encourage it, and warn that further such will not be tolerated."

I don't what "refactor" means, but regretfully I cannot apologize for the warning I placed on hipocrites talk page for the following reasons:

1. The warning was sincere and justified in my opinion. hipocrite made a huge edit to the clime-gate article. I find it impossible that he could have obtained enough consensus to justify his edit. At best, hipocrite should have made the changes in smaller bites, so that the rest of us have a chance to weigh in on his changes. The cut-&-pasting was, admittedly, laziness on my part. If it's that big of a deal, I can revise the warning so it is more specific. However, if I do so, I should point out that hipocrites warning to me a few months ago was even more vague than mine. I believe that hipocrite should be made to abide by the same standards on which he (aggressively) pushes on others.

2. hipocrite has recently gone on what I consider to be a very immature and unjustified smear campaign in an attempt to have me banned. Using vulgarity and making demands on admins, often with threats behind them. (see my comments to his talk page). Due to his recent behavior, any apology made on my part has no possiblity of being sincere.

3. hipocrite has essentially pre-emptively rejected any apology I might choose to make. So I am not sure how it makes sense to issue apology for something to which such apology has already been rejected. (see hipocrite's talk page).

Sirwells (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request is a serious one? Maybe I just don't get what is so objectionable about the diffs. However, I do find it objectionable that you threaten to go back into a "bunker" mentality if the outcome of this RfE isn't to your liking. That's far worse than any diff you've provided. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you feel that way. He's on your "side," so you have to defend all of his actions and attack all of mine. Hipocrite (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, some WP:AGF. And this after writing in the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" that you plan on heading "back to [your] bunker" if this request falls through...?--Heyitspeter (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, if you like I can provide diffs of the many times I've "crossed the line." TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too doubt you, so yes: a few diffs would be useful. Don't mess this bit, though: dump them on talk William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing - that wasn't hard at all. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's telling that Hipocrite is requesting a no-revert restriction a half hour after Sirwell reverted his edit, and due to alleged violations that do not involve reverts. This incongruity suggests that we have a content dispute on our hands. (I say this irrespective of the question of whether sanctions should be brought against Sirwell. I haven't carefully reviewed all the edits.) --Heyitspeter (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh update and apologies, the diff Hipocrite calls the "final straw" did concern a revert (the same one linked to by yours truly). Above comment stands, of course, as this only backs it up, but consider the last clause of its first sentence appropriately attenuated.--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course. He's on your "side," so you have to defend all of his actions and attack all of mine. Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why straight to 0RR? I'm not seeing that. In fact I'm not seeing a strong case here that Sirwells behavior on the page is worse than anyone else's. Unless we see similar reports for a good fraction of the participants on that page (on both sides) I'm not sure I can support any sanctions whatever at this time. My read of the evidence shows engagement in the talk page. Can more specific diffs be provided where he was specifically asked to justify the edits in the first two diffs? That talk page is problematic for a variety of reasons. ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I do think mimicking a warning back to the editor who warned was unnecessarily snarky. An admonishment for that seems in order. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in order, but it's not going to happen, it's not going to get apologized for, and it's not going to get retracted, because this is a war, and if you leave the bunker, you get shot. Hipocrite (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm particularly disturbed by Hipocrite's "do what I want or else I'm going back to the bunker" post. Completely inappropriate. UnitAnode 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps H isn't feeling that his efforts are appreciated enough. I don't see any of his allies thanking him for them, and not many of his adversaries. (how unfortunate that these terms, allies and adversaries, fit...) I think he's trying hard. More people should. I'm willing to overlook a bit of lapse due to apparent frustration. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but this isn't the only page where he said he'd act out due to this. Also, on this very RfE he's accused two editors, myself and Peter of basically being blind partisans. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we're serious about changing behavior, then we need to employ incentives. Hipocrite has been making an effort to cross the battlefield and collaborate constructively. That sort of behavior should be incentivized. If someone attempting to collaborate is treated no better than someone who is clearly a single-purpose partisan warrior, then there is no incentive to collaborate. In fact, there's an incentive to be a partisan warrior, because at least you have some protection in numbers. I suspect that's what Hipocrite was getting at. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're not. It is. I quit - every so often I'll show up at the article to make an edit, but trust me, the only people who will really like my edits will be people on my side. Hipocrite (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think we are serious. But it will not happen overnight. Or even in a week. It may take months. Throwing in the towel after a few days isn't how to effect change. Please reconsider. Your efforts HAVE been noticed, and they ARE making a difference. Even a little difference for the better is an improvement. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Prove it. Hipocrite (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • That your efforts made a difference? That's my opinion. It's not an easy thing to measure objectively but it's my belief that it's the best way forward. Or else everyone in this articlespace is going to get sanctioned, eventually. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • But why should it take months? I've been trying to mediate between the two warring factions for 3 months now, and I've been accused by both sides of being a member of the other. Why not just ban them all and let neutral editors write the article? We'd be done with the article in less than a week. Instead, we have all this drama. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How long do people need to wait for someone who writes a factually misleading edit summary and drops a steaming pantload on their talk page regarding a topic under probation to get a stern talking to? Hipocrite (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also note for the record that Sirwells is standing behind the warning he dumped on my talk page - [20]. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose any action pending further discussion, see above. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibble: the diff labeled as a warning from me is just placing the probation notification template. I did, however, strongly concur with Hipocrite's concerns with Sirwells' editing, having navigated to their talkpage for very much the reasons expressed in it. The snarky warning Sirwells posted to Hipocrite was not on, but I think that a warning would suffice in this case. Any editing sanction should be limited to no more than one year per the remit of this probation, and should probably be restricted to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident at this point, though there have been unproductive edits elsewhere in the past. That article is already subject to revert restrictions, which would make the minimally invasive sanction either 0RR or article ban.

Pending further discussion, I think we should close this with a warning about respect for their fellow editors, unproductive comments, and seeking consensus, without prejudice to revisiting the issue at a later date. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you. However, I'd like to go a bit further, to strongly encourage Sirwell to refactor that snarky echoback or apologise for it. We can't force that, but we can strongly encourage it, and warn that further such will not be tolerated. ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we can meaningfully require an apology and refactoring should be left up to Sirwells or Hipocrite, but that sort of thing shows a definite disregard for the WP:CIV pillar. I agree that an apology and refactoring would be indicative of a collegial spirit on Sirwells' part. Proposed warning: Sirwells is warned to seek and adhere to consensus at article talkpages, and to abide by the civility policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, we can't force. But we can encourage. And we can say absent any apology (and signs that there is an intended change in behavior) the next time will be much more severe. That's a kind of incentive. ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

ChrisO (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [21] Copy-and-paste move of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident to a POV title without any consensus, evading indefinite move-protection and violating GFDL
2. [22], [23] Self-justification with implicit acknowledgement that there was no consensus in favour of this POV move
3. [24] Explicit admission that Macai is "overriding consensus".
4. [25] Assertion that "move protection is overridden as per WP:NPOV".
5. [26] Deletion of move-protection template (apparently in the mistaken belief that this turns off move protection)
6. [27] Provocative incivility
7. [28] More incivility

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

Topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor was involved with Climatic Research Unit hacking incident back in December but has just reappeared to demand that the article's title be changed to "Climategate scandal" (cf. WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal). Despite being told repeatedly that his proposed title blatantly violates NPOV and WTA, despite the fact that it has been discussed literally dozens of times before and despite being notified of the article sanctions, he is attempting to force through a POV copy-and-paste move (which also violates the GFDL - see WP:MOVE#Before moving a page). Additionally he has behaved disruptively and provocatively on the article talk page - as LHvU has said, "provoking the bear with WP:POINTy sticks". I note also that this editor has previously disrupted other articles with politically-inspired vandalism [29]. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. [30] Notification of article probation
2. [31] Warning by LessHeardvanU
3. [32] Warning by Seb az86556
4. [33] Brief AN/I thread

I'd like to point out that ChrisO, the one filing this request for enforcement, has made ad hominem attacks on me prior to a topic ban request being made.

Then we have Scjessey, who says that everyone who disagrees with him should be topic banned.

Besides, calling the Climategate scandal (which it is a scandal; it's made a real big hit to the credibility of AGW to both the public and the mainstream news media, which happen to be more or less the two things that dictate what makes a scandal a scandal) the "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" is like calling the Lewinsky scandal the "Oval Office impeachment incident".

We have a bunch of people bringing up WP:WTA over and over again, ignoring the basic reality that Climategate is over; it came, and it went. Just because people - or even mainstream news- are talking about it doesn't make it not historical. Granted, it's pretty recent, but that doesn't make it nonhistory.

I haven't even started on those people who don't want the Climategate article to matter-of-factly state that CRU scientists conspired to exclude scientific opponents from the IPCC. I mean, how else can you interpret "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow" (a bit more context there)? The entire article is a big white wash, focusing on a hacking (and even that is seriously questionable) incident that nobody honestly cares about.

Failing to call the Climategate scandal the Climategate scandal is POV. It's a scandal, and plugging your ears and screaming "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" doesn't change that.

It's fucking absurd.

As for all the things I'm accused of doing: the only thing I disagree with is the POV assertions - I consider myself pretty neutral on the topic. Other than that? Guilty as charged. I'm not going to try and make them seem like anything other than what they are.

However, some of the things I did I see as necessary per WP:IAR. That's right; I played the "fuck your rules" card. The consensus on the subject was retarded and in my own perspective in noncompliance with WP:NPOV, which I think is a great idea and basis. It's necessary to break rules sometimes to improve Wikipedia; it just so happens I put my money where my mouth is and actually did it.

Now, as for the punishment that I have no doubt I will receive: go wild. Topic ban, or even block me if that's what you feel is necessary. I don't want to give the impression that I'm doing the whole martyr thing. To be quite frank, I'm saying this because it doesn't bother me that much to be banned (or blocked, which is effectively the same thing as a ban).

Surprise! I don't give a shit.

Have fun, kids.

I think it is regrettable that HiP encouraged Macai in this: Hahaha beautifully argued. I'm in.--Heyitspeter (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's also regrettable that others, notably Nsaa, are using this latest incident to push yet again for changing the title to a POV term. I'm considering whether to raise an enforcement request for a general injunction against such tendentiousness. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably (at least by some) the current title is POV too. I'm not sure a NPOV title exists, if by that we mean a title that satisfies everyone, or even almost everyone. I note that Climategate is a redirect to the article, so I'm not sure that the title HAS to be "Climategate" If this matter is well and truly settled, even in light of current developments, an injunction may be in order. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist (he is pro-AGW I think) suggested "Climate Research Unit emails," which I thought was NPOV and so I backed him up on that suggestion. It is unfortunate that Macai was a bit brunt with Scjessey, but it is understandable considering the battleground environment Scjessey is promoting with his constant belittling of Christians (I'm not a Christian) and Republicans (I'm not a Republican). He has also flat out said people should be topic banned for disagreeing with him (and basically that nobody else's opinion mattered) and I believe ChrisO threatened another user that he'd go to this page over what I consider to be a content dispute. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider refactoring this last comment of yours, TGL, since it's basically garbage that you made up that has nothing at all to do with the matter at hand. It is exactly this sort of problematic behavior that should result in you getting indef blocked from Wikipedia. Certainly your value to the project thus far has been too negligible to quantify. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do one better and provide a diff of the last insult of yours that I noticed [34]. So the public believes in "dumb things like Jesus?" Was that really appropriate? TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely off-topic. Please stop the bickering, both of you. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider refactoring this last comment of yours, Scjessey, as "your value to the project thus far has been too negligible to quantify" is not in any way a helpful statement. ++Lar: t/c 23:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it false? Have you seen any evidence that TheGoodLocust is interested in the project to assist the project, as opposed to push a far-rightist PoV? Honest question. Hipocrite (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many "far-rightist" do you know that want all drugs either legalized or decriminalized, are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and atheist? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can all of you just hold it down? Scjessey and Hipocrite, you are not helping your case by characterizing other editors like this. TGL, same advice. Even if you're responding in kind, just don't do it. No, make that especially if you're responding in kind. If the other guy starts acting like a jerk then by taking the high road (a) you bring his misconduct into sharper contrast with your own good conduct and (b) you just, might, maybe, set a good example that he will take up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone attacks and/or mischaracterizes me then I'm going to defend myself. That being said, I've been far more polite in this discourse and as far as I can tell my only crime was to provide the context for the civility accusations against Macai (esp. since Scjessey features so prominently in the dispute). TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting TheGoodLocust's actual perspectives aside, what relevance do they have? I mean, having a personal political opinion and disagreeing with you about how a Wikipedia article should read does not an argument for bias make. Furthermore, I'm surprised that this user is apparently hated enough to have tomatoes thrown in his face even when someone else is on the pillory. Figuratively speaking, of course. Macai (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never dealt with this editor or this topic before, but somebody who violates a move-protection by copy-pasting an entire article (thereby breaking the article history > copyvio) and then leaves a defiant "I-am-right"-message in reply definitely deserves some sort of sanction. Excuse my language, but ain't never seen that kinda %$#* before... this user obviously hasn't the faintest idea about consensus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think he knows about consensus, he just doesn't care about it. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meatpuppetry? I've never been clear (e.g.)--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Seb raised the issue on AN/I (see here); my post to his talk page was a notification that I've raised the issue elsewhere. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone totally uninvolved, I find this behavior totally inappropriate and I mean anywhere in the project. The minimum that should happen is a broad topic ban, though I think this may even reach a larger sanction such as blocking for a long time. I think the issues raised by multiple uninvolved editors says it all at this point. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a copy paste move is never an acceptable approach. If an editor knows better (and editors with some history on the project all should) it's sanctionable, especially if followed by belligerence. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macai has been an editor for longer than you have, Lar, so I'd say he does know better (or has no excuse for not knowing better). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My brief interaction with the editor leads me to believe that the editor is disinterested in contributing to the encyclopedia, but only in causing disruption. I do not even believe their action in recreating the article under the alternative title was sincere, since they were surely aware that it would be reverted, and may have been simply a method by which they would outrage and annoy those editors which which they feel they are conflicted. My attempts, as an uninvolved admin, to have them change their approach was rejected and when I noted my admin status they responded by inviting me to block them (as apparently in a partisan manner, since I was warning them). I do not believe that there is any benefit in allowing this individual to continue editing the topics covered by the probation, or indeed the encyclopedia generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Macai won't express awareness that his action was incorrect, I would support a sanction under the article probation or a block. A copy-and-paste to avoid move protection is obviously wrong. Some issues are subtle, this one is not. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are articles supposed to be moved? TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is move-protected, then WP:Requested moves should be used. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By clicking the "move" tab displayed at the top of every article (except ones that are move-protected). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to know, I've never had to do it before. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave for others to decide whether these ([35][36]) cross the line of tendentiousness but they bother me. The drawing of sand lines should somehow be discouraged. JPatterson (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In considering the length of time that Macai is to be topic banned, I'd like to draw the admins' attention to the end of the #Statement by Macai above: "Surprise! I don't give a shit. Have fun, kids." Does this sound like someone who is willing to be more constructive after a short break? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone who doesn't like to play bullshit political games. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed close: Macai is topic banned from any and all edits to articles and discussions related to climate change until 2011-02-07. A lengthy block might also be in order for this sort of thing. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a typo in there somewhere? Presumably his topic ban didn't end an hour and a half before you typed this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ngh, corrected to one year from today - thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find [37] helpful at all. But I think a topic ban for a year may be a bit extreme. Can we try a month, or 3 months, and revisit if this behavior continues after? ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not seeing any mitigating factors here - disruptive user causes disruption and is banned or blocked for it. Macai has never performed a move properly (I have not checked for other improper copy/paste moves), so I do not think that the method of the move is an aggravating factor, just the extreme disregard for their fellow editors. They have not been sanctioned here before, so I suppose we have no data regarding whether they are willing to change their behaviour in response to a firm indication that that sort of thing is not acceptable for Wikipedia editors. I could see the logic to closing this with a one month topic ban and a strong warning with the understanding that repeated disruption will lead to escalating sanctions. If they come back and start editing productively, great; if they come back and start editing disruptively, the cost to the project can be minimized with reference here and swift action. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any mitigating factors either. If I had I'd say start with a warning. But I think a year is a long time for a first offense. I endorse the suggestion to start with a month and a stern warning that no further such shall be tolerated. A year would be fine for the second offense, and that should be made clear. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I follow your logic here, and I think it makes sense - thank you. If there is a next time and if there are other matters to consider then, we can take those into account. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[38] ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is incorrectly formatted then this complaint can be removed. I am, however, going to warn WMC regarding his continuing use of inappropriate tone and ask him to redact the comments directed toward the other editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If CoM was a little more 'on the ball' he'd have spotted this rather conclusive discussion at the article he wanted to link to and realise why it is the wrong article, and what's going on in the bigger picture. Then people may have more patience with this reverts. --Nigelj (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of WMC's point, that it was in the wrong place, appears correct - per due diligence I read a couple of edits prior to the one linked and all those since. WMC's tone however is improper, and the choice of phrase(s) pretty adjacent to that which he has been required to refrain from. On that basis, and only that basis, I have warned WMC. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If CoM wants to avoid being called out for making pointless malicious reverts, then he should avoid making them. A glance at the talk page he was linking to would have shown him his error. His revert has, correctly, been re-reverted (not by me). I've now made the article he linked to a redirect, which is what it should be. History of climate change science is the correct link, but it didn't belong in that section, it belonged in see-also, which is where it already was William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why couldn't you say this without the condescending, accusatory language? ATren (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you ponder the text just below this, and then ponder why you're not going to go and warn CoM William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your justification is "Look, he did it too!"? And, BTW, the link you post wasn't directed at you, so I can't see how it relates to yours. ATren (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, my point is that your pretence of caring about civility is only that: a hypocritical pretence. You can be bothered to comment here, and oh look guess which "side" you've decided to comment on. Can you be bothered to chide CoM, even very faintly, for worse? Oh deary me no, that would be far too much trouble. Couldn't you at least pretend to be balanced? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what does this have to do with YOUR continued incivility? The CoM diff is not related to you nor to this probation. ATren (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to LHVU's first comment: this isn't a properly formatted report, and therefore we're free to talk about any related issues here. Incivility from CoM is relevant: CoM is being hypocritical: if he can't take it, he shouldn't be dishing it out. The difference, though, is that my comment is entirely accurate (indeed, if anyone cares to dispute that, I haven't yet seen them do so): that, I would guess, is what annoys him. If you're not interested in incivility in general, but only in a grossly one-sided version, please declare your biases now and I'll stop harping on about it. But it would be better if you could drop your hypocrisy William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Speaking of incivility... shall we all just pretend that [39] didn't happen? Your disruptive nonsense is absurd. Wikipedia is infested with disruptive POV pushers and trolls - hmm, happy with that? Perhaps this kind of civility enforcement on good faith editors who call out master harassers and master baiters is why we keep losing good editors Nope: that is obviously Quite OK: not a peep of complaint from LHVU on CoM's talk page. Can you say "one sided"? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to make a complaint about CoM, start a new thread. This seems to be little more than an attempt to muddy the waters, with comments unrelated to GW articles, from CoM, regarding how you expressed your view on the Climategate article. I happened to agree with your view, but you're enjoined from expressing such views in an uncivil manner. Scottaka UnitAnode 22:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love it nobody realised that 'septic' is Cockney rhyming slang for 'Yank'. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ WMC were`nt you also meant to stop calling people "old fruit"? And of course your also not to edit others posts are you? mark nutley (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[40] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don't really care (talk • contribs) [reply]

I think you'll find that is bollocks (that is "bollocks" in the LHVU "bollocks is really quite acceptable" sense, not in the sense that everyone else uses it in, of course) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made similar capricious, clueless and offensive edits just to make a WP:POINT against a perceived opponent. He has been blocked for that in the past, as is appropriate for someone who periodically treats wikipedia like some giant game. Even the editing that went into the title of this section suggests schoolyard taunting: the different uses of Will, William, Connolley, etc, is not what a good faith editor would do. Mathsci (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [60] WP:BLP violation, accuses "McIntyre and his ilk have already trashed the investigation before it has even got off the ground"
2. [61] WP:BLP violation, repeats above accusation.
3. [62] WP:NPA and WP:AGF violations, says my "heavy-handedness" is "quite troubling" and fails to assume goof faith: "particularly for someone who 'has no dog in this race'"

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

1. [63] Warning by A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs)
2. [64] Warning by A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs)

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Scjessey has twice violated WP:BLP on the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article talk page[65][66] . I tried discussing the situation at his talk page but he deleted the discussion both times I tried to talk to him.[67][68] Scjessey responded by saying that I should never post on his talk page again.[69]. WP:BLP violations should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (emphasis NOT mine). The burden of proof lies with the editor who adds or restores the material. So, after I removed it the first time,[70] Scjessey should have discussed this on the thread I opened on his talk page.[71] Instead, as I said Scjessey deleted the discussion, re-added the WP:BLP violation and launched into a personal attack against me.[72]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[73]

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

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

User requesting enforcement

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [74] Removes 'Code and documentation' section without consensus
2. [75] Removes 'Code and documentation' section without consensus
3. [76] Removes 'Code and documentation' section without consensus

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

1. [77]
2. [78]

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

WMC has resumed his edit-war by deleting yet again the 'Code and documentation' section of Climatic Research Unit hacking incident without consensus. While WMC is allowed one revert per 24 hours, I do not think he should be using his 1 revert to resume an edit-war.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[79]

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

• WMC has not violated any restrictions imposed upon him - any alleged violations of restrictions now standing were historical. The matter of there appearing to be a slow edit war does not fall under Requests for enforcement, but WMC would not be the only party reviewed if there were. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Differ on one point. Slow edit wars are within the remit of these sanctions. In spirit anyway, if not explicitly named. I have to review the diffs provided to see if I concur with the rest of your assessments (likely, but not certain, I will) so hold off a close for a bit please. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with Lar that slow edit wars are covered. Heyitspeter brought this to my talkpage here before this was filed, and I replied that in my opinion the fact that most of the material is still in the article changes the context of the most recent edit sufficiently that it is more normal editing than edit warring. The article is currently protected until tomorrow (though Hipocrite has requested that that be reviewed, so I may lift it in a few hours after checking the current situation) and under a content revert restriction (any comments on that are particularly welcome). Support leaving this open a while for further review. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes, edit wars - slow and otherwise - are covered, but that implies that there are more than one party participating (otherwise it would be blatant disruption/vandalism). I have returned to the discussion that A Quest for Knowledge started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change#WMC has resumed his edit war at the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident to try and determine if there is an edit war, and to determine where consensus lays regarding the content. This request, however, specifies an allegation that only WMC has been violating his restrictions, which I feel is a different aspect and not sustained. Hopefully, the related matter of an alleged edit war can be dealt with at AN/CC. I will not, of course, move to close until there is a consensus to do so.LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think if someone alleges person X is edit warring, it's not impermissible to also point out that persons Y and Z are too. (it's not a defense for X, it won't mean he gets off, it's just relevant) And if appropriate, sanction them, after they have a chance to respond to the allegations. We should not stand on whether the Is were crossed and the Ts were dotted properly. That is, just because this report started out about one person, if in the course of working it we find other problem areas, deal with them too. ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...and then Enforcement becomes a venue for claim and counterclaim; I understand that there needs to be an accounting of all relevant violations of probations, restrictions, and straight forward violations of policy, but I suggest that Probation Enforcement isn't it... PE might be considered as the AIV of CC related matters - the yeah or nay of one person violating the terms. More involved reviews of conduct of various parties regarding various restrictions needs a more discursive venue. PE needs swift and certain responses to requests, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Something more along the lines of "don't tell us that here, start another report if you want to talk about Y or Z" then? ++Lar: t/c 01:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes. There is also the AN/CC noticeboard for more involved admin review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User requesting enforcement

ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

1. [86] Gross incivility and baiting. see prior threads on this page and his talk page. Countless.

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

a week's block or a ban. Enough is enough.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

William has been warned repeatedly for this kind of disruptive behavior. If he's allowed to make this kind of comment then please don't bug me when I respond in kind. If editors are going to behave like childish jerks, then they should expect to be treated like childish jerks, whether or not they have 2over0 or other admin buddies are there to watch over them. If action is not taken after yet another example of his improper behavior then the gloves are off. If admins can't be bothered to put a stop to his baiting and abuse I am not abiding by any further efforts to play paddy cake with disruptive and antagonistic propagandists. Bring it!

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

He apparently watches this page. So if someone wants to notify him have at it. I've been accused of seeking out conflict when I post to his page so I'm leaving it to others.

I don't seem to be able to edit the section above - and I consider myself involved because of the prior complaint. Please move it as required. I noted that I had already dealt with this issue, when it was presented previously - formatting issues notwithstanding. WMC is warned against further infractions. There you go. Dealt with. I do not understand why the previous report is collapsed, even though resolved, and this one remains open when it is in respect of the same matter. Since WMC is sanctioned in regard of another complaint also regarding this matter, I think this one is moot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User requesting enforcement

Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. [87] The edit alleges a number of plainly wrong and libelous facts either directly about or indirectly affecting living people. It a spiteful and despicable collection of half-truths taken out of context - about the Hockey stick and the scientists involved in it, and about Phil Jones in particular.

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

1. [88] Warning by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

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

Topic ban and/or strong warning.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The edit violates not just the probation, but Wikipedia policy in general.

[Meta-comment: I'll only be online sporadically for the next two weeks, and may not be able to reply speedily to requests.]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[89]

Did Phil Jones try to commit suicide or only "consider suicide"? This can't be the real issue involved here. I see this complaint as part of a longstanding and outrageous pattern in which anything that doesn't fit the GW party line gets deleted from the talk page. How am I supposed to "interact" if my comments get deleted? What is the purpose of the talk page if only one point of view can be expressed? The radiosonde and satellite data is most global and objective temperature record available -- and it does not show global warming. Yet this information is hidden in middle of the article and attached to disclaimers.[90] Meanwhile, the data record created by Jones and CRU is still touted at the top, the last several months of swirling scandal unmentioned. Kauffner (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Indefinite topic ban? I only see additions to discussion being comments somewhat adjacent to the specific point raised, and precious little interaction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Topic ban, based on this presentation seems a bit harsh. I think a stern talking-to with plenty of eye contact would be adequate. Any errors made seem understandable given the secondary literature on the subject, although the tone of the post was rather polemical. Any BLP issues here seem pretty subtle, although comments about a person do need to be carefully worded, and certainly not malicious. I suggest a stern warning, then we move on. Objections? --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support stern warning for now. --BozMo talk 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a warning specifying why their contributions have been unproductive could help here. If the behaviour continues, a topic ban of up to a year would seem in order.
• Proposed close: User:Kauffner is warned not to use talkpages for further tendentious and unproductive commentary unrelated to improving the associated article. Kauffner is further warned the the Biographies of living persons policy applies on all pages, talkpages included. If whoever posts the warning includes a few gentle words about reliable sources and maybe WP:NOTNEWS, I think productive contributions may be forthcoming. Kauffner was notified of the Obama probation, but has not been sanctioned, so I think it is best to leave any wider issues aside for now. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support proposed wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, more NPOV language has been suggested and you've rejected it. The problem with the current title is that it assumes a crime (hacking) was committed even though security experts have said it was most likely a leak. This is especially important since a lot of the defenders of the climategate scientists have tried to distract from the contents of the emails by shouting that they are victims of some horrible crime. I suggest you work towards improving the current title and then you wouldn't have to worry about people wanting to change it so much. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I have no objection to good-faith discussions, but we need to stop the repeated bad-faith attempts to introduce those two POV terms into the article title. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure your diffs show that the attempts are actually bad faith, not just bad faith in your view. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the likes of Macai's recent intervention in the section above this one. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that action as evidence of bad faith during discussions about moves. ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article name change proposal is headed for a content RfC. If consensus in the RfC is to change the name to some variation of "Climategate" then it will be so. That's how we do things. As long as the article content dispute resolution process is allowed to proceed without disruption, I don't think there's a problem here. Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already told you, NPOV cannot be overridden by a consensus of editors, which doesn't exist in this instance. Go and read the 2nd para of WP:NPOV if you doubt me. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how do we know what NPOV is? There is no absolute NPOV, so we try to reach consensus on what is NPOV. The point is, many editors believe that the current title is POV, and that is what discussion must resolve. ATren (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in this case we don't have to try to decide if it's NPOV or not. After seeing a neutral article in the Japan Times, among others, which referred to the incident as "Climategate", I was convinced that that title is now the de facto phrase used by the press. We report what the sources say. We have procedures for deciding consensus on issues like this one and those procedures, in this case likely an RfC, should not be preempted by administrator intervention. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If consensus states that some form of "Climategate" (which a ton of reliable sources use) is more NPOV, we need a firm commitment that ChrisO, and the other editors who support the current, extremely awkwardly-worded title, will not claim that they know better, and move war over it. UnitAnode 07:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, this is the only Gnews result when searching "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident", which I thought was telling. Read the article. The one-sided nature of the Climategate article is giving WP a black eye. UnitAnode 07:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to search in Infotrac and NewsStand tomorrow and see what I come up with. Cla68 (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current name is enormously problematic, as has been discussed repeatedly. First of all it's not clear that hacking was involved, the information may have been leaked by an insider. This has been reported in reliable independent sources and we may well be misleading our readers. Yet those obstructing corrective improvements continue to dig in.

The same group of editors engaging in this obstruction are the ones 2over0 is protecting despite their insistent incivility, edit warring, and wikilawyering. It's time the editors causing problems be brought into line with our policies so the disruptions and distortions of the article to promote fringe propagandist viewpoints are stopped. The denialist editors who want to ignore all the reliable coverage of this scandal shouldn't be permitted to distort our content in an effort to suggest that the only relevant part of the incident is the accessing and publication of the information. The controversy over the information released is the most widely covered aspect of the incident, and its aftermath has already resulted in official findings of impropriety and further revelations of unscientific misinformation campaigns and misconduct. These issues need to be included in the encyclopedia per our core NPOV policy.

The title leaves out the controversy over the e-mails and focuses solely on another aspect of the event that isn't anywhere near as notable. There are very reasonable suggestions for incremental improvement such as adding and e-mail controversy to at least make the title more appropriate and inclusive.

This outrageous request to keep a completely inappropriate title and to prevent anyone from discussing the needed changes is another in a long series of disruptive attempts to prevent the article from being improved to make it neutral. It's outrageous and I think ChrisO should be given a break from his disruption of constructive article work. This kind of abusive obstruction isn't acceptable, it's damaging the encyclopedia and its contents, it's damaging to collegial cooperation, and it's gone on for way too long. It needs to be stopped. If ChrisO doesn't want to be part of the solution, he should be stopped from adding to the problems. A ban of he and William from this topic is certainly long overdue.ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? Not only can we not call it by it`s known name Climate gate now we are to be banned from talking about it? Bet Orwell never saw this one coming. Sorry guys, you do not have the right to censor wikipedia, if people want to discuss renaming the article then they can, regardless of what you think is best. --mark nutley (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems what ChrisO (and now LHvU) are saying is this: it doesn't matter what the reliable sources call it. We're going to use our original research and synthesis to call it a convoluted, potentially misleading name. And we're going to quash any discussion of change because -- dammit! -- we know what's best! Amazing. UnitAnode 13:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. "Climategate" is a POV nickname. We do not use POV nicknames. WP:NPOV#Article naming directs us to use descriptive names that do not take sides "for" or "against" any given issue. "Climategate" fails this because it takes sides. The media has no requirement not to take sides; we do. Therefore we do not slavishly ape the media; we find neutrally worded descriptive names. Compare "Killian documents controversy" with the POV media term "Rathergate", for instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't take side if we uses it as everybody else. Please re-read our policy on WP:V (we uses (secondary) sources). Quote it like 'Climategate' and we follow the standard used by (nearly?) every secondary source reporting/writing on this controversy (yes this is what most uses, some use scandal instead). Just take a look here: Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Climategate_usage. Yes, the name was established on/by a skeptic (blog), but have we etablished that it's meaning is not WP:NPOV by WP:RS sources now? Why are The Guardian, The Independent (and all the other media reporting on it) then using it? Are they now Skeptics and not true believers in the AGW hypothesis? Nsaa (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If editors are persistently repeating failed arguments for article moving for weeks on end and refusing to accept the results of the move discussions, they may be sanctioned for disruptive editing. We'd do this in any case, and I see no reason to tolerate this conduct just because they're engaging in this behavior under the noses of admins watching on a talk page under community probation. That should make our standards tighter, not more slack.

I think this page could also benefit from a cleanup, as there are clear signs of an attempt to turn this discussion into yet another move discussion. --TS 13:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole point of the request was an attempt to tamp down move discussions. So, I think it can be forgiven if people discuss the relative merits of moving the page to a less neologistic, and more reliably-sourced, name. UnitAnode 14:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  During my time editing that article there were about half a dozen failed move discussions. I take it that there have been more, all of them failed. No new arguments having emerged (I can see from above that this is so) then repeatedly nominating these moves could be disruptive. Deliberately wasting time on pointless arguing on a talk page is disruptive. Repeatedly "asking the other parent" in the hope of a different result is disruptive. Defences could be made, but the presumption is that those still presenting the same failed arguments are engaged in deliberate and knowing disruption. In particular, raising the same arguments on this page, where such discussion is inappropriate, may be disruptive in itself. --TS 14:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess the question is, how much embarrassment will have to be visited upon the project by forcing the article to stay at such a neologistic name before people are willing to do anything? UnitAnode 14:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could we please not rerun the pro- and con- arguments from the talk page? That's where they belong, and they've all been duplicated numerous times throughout that page's archives. This is a proposal to resolve the disruption caused by the endless reruns. --TS 14:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's entirely impossible to consider whether one side of a discussion should be stifled without attempting to dig into the roots of the problem. I've long thought that the title of this article was hackneyed and forced, when a reliably-sourced, non-hackneyed version ("Climategate" or "Climategate scandal") is readily available. I simply had not noticed the discussions at that talkpage, as -- like many -- I was chased away by Connolley and the others when I dipped my toe in the GW waters at Garth Paltridge. Shutting down discussion by fiat is never good. Never. UnitAnode 15:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Repeatedly "asking the other parent" in the hope of a different result is disruptive.". Part of the problem with the editing environment of this article (and others) is that one side sees themselves as "the parent".JPatterson (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good thing that at least one group of editors in the discussion is known for its longevity on Wikipedia and knowledge of how things are done here. My analogy here could have been better, though. I should more properly have referred to editors repeatedly hammering away at the same failed arguments in the hope that objections to a rename to "Climategate" will disappear one day. If it will happen, it will happen, but in the meantime hammering away on the subject isn't going to persuade. It only distracts attention and may even be counter-productive. --TS 19:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am mainly in agreement with your conclusions and said as much here. I do think the constant condescension exhibited by some editors gets in the way of productive work. It is especially inappropriate in an article that is not about the science but about how an historical event has played out in the real world. The article should reflect that reality, and each editor should be on equal footing as we attempt to reach that goal. JPatterson (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The condecension is possibly unavoidable. Scientifically literate editors tend to have little patience with the constant retreading of ancient myths that passes for discussion of global warming on the "skeptical" side, and these myths have turned up with a horrible predictability in discussion of the hacking incident and its aftermath. As we're supposed to be reporting the facts, maintaining focus on the known facts rather than speculation and myth is especially important. It's a very difficult job, full of repetition. This doesn't excuse the sometimes shocking incivility of discussion, but it does provide context on why the level of discussion is very low. Scientifically literate editors acquainted with the mainstream position grow weary of the constant dripping of misconceptions from those who would inflate, usually out of ignorance, the scientific strength of various minority positions. There are only so many times one can approach the news that "it's been a very cold winter in Illinois" story with a cheerful heart. The level of ignorance of basic science displayed by some Wikipedians involved in editing global warming articles is sometimes nothing short of shocking. --TS 20:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the issue. Two points: I reiterate that this article is not about science but rather what has been reported in RSs about the behavior of some scientists. Secondly, I would put it to you that condescension is generally counter-productive to your stated goal. Poking and prodding frustrated editors only fans the flames of passion and encourages more to charge the ramparts. I suppose it is useful from your viewpoint that a certain number of unsophisticated neophytes will take the bait and find themselves at the business end of the sanction chipper but personally I don't think this works overall to the good of the project. JPatterson (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JPatterson, this article is about an incident inextricably linked to the science, the minority or fringe opposition to mainstream science, and political use of the incident to promote denial of the current findings of science. We have to make clear the majority view of the science, and show how minority views have been received by the majority. We also have to show the majority views of the behaviour of the scientists whose supposedly private correspondence has been publicised, as you suggest. All part of npov. Passionate attempts by newcomers to promote political or fringe views are common, and we have to helpfully persuade them that they should follow policies. . . dave souza, talk 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with the above but I don't see how this article is about "the minority or fringe opposition to mainstream science". It is by no means a fringe view that the emails and computer codes cast a pall over the attitudes, policies and procedures at the CRU. This would be a true statement even if it were not supported by the statements of many scientists in the field (which it is) because according to polls it is the majority view in the US and a strong minority view in the UK and has been widely discussed in any number of RSs. That doesn't mean that view is correct. This may in fact be a denialist conspiracy, but if so, its been a successful one and we have an obligation to reflect reality. My objection is to editors on both sides who want to use WP as a propaganda instrument. It is not our job to either bash the scientists or protect them but rather to provide an accurate portrayal of the events, their context and their social, political and scientific impacts. JPatterson (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are restricted by WP:BLP from throwing blog-sourced mud at individuals working at CRU, until after the inquiries report and we have unimpeachable sources for doing so. My view is the science will have changed not one jot, but a few scientists may be told to be more careful what they write during work-time after this. The denialist furore will die down with no further fuel and those who helped hype it up will just look silly. That's why we need to be sensible, stick to policies, and let others in the commercial media go out onto unsupportable limbs if they want. --Nigelj (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To bring the discussion round full circle, its a pretty thin branch we find ourselves on what with "hack" in both the title and lead. JPatterson (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of funny to have these quite naked innuendoes pointed in my direction in a discussion about failed arguments and condescension. The statement "I suppose it is useful from your viewpoint" is a failed argument because it presupposes that I have a viewpoint in which this matters. The reference to "[p]oking and prodding frustrated editors" presupposes, contrary to my clear statements to the contrary just above, that I approve of uncivil behavior. This isn't funny, it's downright annoying, and I almost feel moved to condescension. We cannot communicate if all the time we're talking across one another. This might happen less if you would pay attention to what I'm saying. --TS 01:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to condemn some arrogance and condescension on your side, or is your condemnation reserved only for people you disagree with? Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment section above on Macai for an example of my condemnation of someone on the opposite side as you. I reject your implication however that I have a side in this. I have been inaccurately identified with the skeptic camp only because the article was so blatantly skewed toward the tempest in a teapot meme. In attempting to nudge it toward neutrality I have of course run into to more opposition from your side than from the other. JPatterson (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key to all of this is the investigation by Norfolk police. When the investigation is concluded, we should find out for certain whether or not a hack occurred. Other details may also be revealed, such as who stole the data and what the motive was. Retitling proposals prior to the conclusion of the investigation are unlikely to be successful. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in the interim I suggest we use the phrase the Norfolk police used and replace "hacking" with "data breach" in the title. I have proposed this on the talk page. Please comment there. 16:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we change #1 to "Discussions of changes to the article's name which incorporate the terms Climategate or scandal in the article title are limited to one renaming proposal per calendar month" since that seems to be the major problem. It violates WP:AVOID and has no reasonable chance of reaching consensus. Other suggestions, such as ScienceApologist's Climatic Research Unit e-mails, do not violate WP:AVOID and unlike Climategate have a reasonable chance of reaching consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll ask again: does it not matter what the reliable sources call the incident and following kerfuffle? A simple yes or no, with a short explanation would be nice. UnitAnode 16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. Ultimately the community decides what is acceptable. WP:Title requires that titles adhere to a stricter standard of neutrality than even the article itself. While I do not understand why Climategate invokes such a visceral reaction in some, I take the fact that it does in good faith and therefore as prima facia evidence that it is not NPOV. Until or unless that changes I see nothing to be gained from rehashing it over and over. BTW I feel exactly the same way about "hack" and "hacking" in the title and lead. It's not NPOV. JPatterson (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malcolm - I've new to this argument but from previous experience it's unlikely that the resistance to Climategate is policy-based. Or indeed reasonable in some other fashion. If there are good arguments (or a consensus reached by editors) then I'm sure someone can present these arguments in some easily understood form such as a table. Having said which, I'm not sure that even a title that is factually false like this one is important enough to battle over. Far more important is that the suite of Global Warming articles be made fit for purpose. Currently they fail to inform the readers on any of the issues most likely to bring people to read them. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both warring factions fight over the most minute of details - no matter how unimportant - if they think it gives their side an advantage. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to oppose this as it will set a dangerous precedent of blocking edits and moves based on some editors' opinion. A request to move a article is in no way harmful for this article or for Wikipedia. EngineerFromVega (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 could slow things down to a civil pace. Point 2 could be excepted with weighty source support. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the first ChrisO: Wikipedia is written by following WP:V and specifically Secondary sources as outlined at WP:SECONDARY. This supersedes WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal big time. Just read our pillars at Wikipedia:Five pillars stating "That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.". Secondary: Our current article name (Climatic Research Unit hacking incident) fails this big time. The current article name is even not the hole truth and make a point out of something that is not important at all in this regard (per WP:UNDUE) since it claims that it was a hacking incident, which many sources has told us otherwise (it may be a insider^{[Nsaa 1]}, leak ^{[Nsaa 2]}, it may be published by CRU at an open ftp server, it was even said that some of the CRU scientist published their email AND password in all their correspondence.^{[Nsaa 3]}. Third: Our current title "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" has NO support by ANY secondary source. A short Google News search on the current article name gives ZERO, NILL hit (except for Solomons "highly acclaimed" piece talking about our article)^{[Nsaa 4]}. Climategate gives instead 1644 per 2010-02-08 ^{[Nsaa 5]}. Claiming that a title like 'Climategate' is not WP:NPOV is, to say it mildy, strange. Every secondary source we have for this incident uses this. Even the most leftist green AGW newspaper like The Independent and The Guardian, just take a look here for some examples on how broad the Climategate usage is: Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Climategate usage.

ChrisO is known for just removing well sourced material in this regard ^{[Nsaa 6] [Nsaa 7]}. Making treat against me for just be part of an ongoing discussion asking awkward question to him ^{[Nsaa 8]}. Calling other editors and outside people by name ^{[Nsaa 8]}.

He and some of the other editors at this page looks like they're so desperate that they don't event allow a WP:RS^{[Nsaa 9]} source to be included in the talk page. See what I find as an absurd discussion here Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_20#Pressmulti_-_removal_of_a_piece_with_millions_of_readers.3F_-_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia (read it and you see how far out they are willing to go to keep out critics of the AGW-belief).

I think some serious actions needs to be done against this kind of collusion.

• ChrisO get a serious warning that this kind of incorporative behavior. It is not acceptable.
• Just trying to hijack the article by getting a ban on even trying to "Editors may not make proposals to incorporate the terms Climategate or scandal in the article title." is so anti Wikipedia that it in itself maybe is reason for a reaction.

Nsaa (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the usage of Climategate even by the Wikipedia:WTA#Controversy_and_scandal can soon be justified ("They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases") . It starts to be an historic event by the publishing of books in the area. See http://www .examiner. com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m2d9-Global-warming-When-in-doubt-slime-the-opposition Global warming: When in trouble, slime the opposition which talks about the book Climategate: The CRUtape Letters (ISBN 1450512437). Nsaa (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a non-notable self-published rant by a pair of non-notable anti-science activists. So no. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of comments will by time earn you a block or a topic ban. Nsaa (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on dredging up self-published junk (which is plainly not a reliable source) then you have no grounds to object when someone points out its uselessness. You would be better off trying to find mainstream reliably published sources rather than self-published anti-science rants. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please? Hopefully you don't say this when Cambridge University Press publish a book with this title? You know, a book like The Skeptical Environmentalist was published there (by many of your "friends" called by the same kind of language you now uses). Nsaa (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The acrimony surrounding the name indicates to me that as neutral a name as possible should be used so the contents of the article can be edited in a more NPOV fashion. It is allowable for names like 'Climategate' to be used in redirects to the article so there is no problem about people finding it. After the whole business has died down in a couple of years the matter should probably be revisited and perhaps then it can be called climategate if that still seems appropriate but for the moment I would like something that removed the hacking as well from the title since there has also been objections to that. As to that reliable blog in the Telegraph are we to take the statement 'James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything.' as being in a reliable source and written under full editorial control? I really would like to see a bit more cool in the discussions on the talk pages. Dmcq (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Delingpole and his blog at The Daily Telegraph can be discussed ad nauseam. My point was that his piece describing our article was not allowed in the top of our talk on serious dubious reasons (See ChrisOs way of argument ...). Just read this discussion Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident/Archive_20#Pressmulti_-_removal_of_a_piece_with_millions_of_readers.3F_-_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia. One of them was that it was not a WP:RS piece and therefore could not be used in such a prominent place ... (I claim only that this piece is good enough for being used in the {{pressmulti}}-template on the talk page). Nothing else. The Telegraph will never allow blog post under it's domain name that's not reliable and attracts millions of readers without editorial control (he as any other journalist can make wrong statements, and the editorial control can miss on it. I don't say anything else.). They don't kill themselves. Nsaa (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a read again and it seemed to have very little at all to do with the Climate Research Unit controversy. It was more an attack on the wikipedia handling of it and other related issues. If anything it should be in with the other global warming controversy stuff perhaps in a special wikipedia section. I'm not concerned about sticking in references which criticize wikipedia and I'm unsure if there is a BLP issue, I'd check on the BLP noticeboard first about that. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see for yourself. Now since I found one article mention our "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" article, I inserted it in our talk page here. If you have the nerve you can also insert the other references out-commented. It should obvious be there, but ... Thanks for checking it out! Nsaa (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in a blog hosted on the press site hardly sounds like being in the press to me. Dmcq (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five minutes and it out. Without discussion. Without anything. I'm sick of these non cooperative people. Nsaa (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, it's vandalism to remove your demands that we include an off-hand mention of a blog posting on a newspaper site from a talk page, and, of course, it's always people that disagree with you that are "non cooperative," because you've been the paragon of reasonable compromise. Hipocrite (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be polite. Why is {{press}} and {{pressmulti}} being used all over. A lot of other articles uses blog post from newspapers. See for example our own Talk:William_Connolley (that is closely watched by the same removalists) mentions the same blogger (for a long time Samw 2008-05-04T02:11:18 (add press reference), not added by me). Nsaa (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh. this is bad [98]. Can an admin look at it and give some of these people a break? Nsaa (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is bad. You're linking to an unreliable blog posting with inaccurate derogatory material about a BLP. I've undone your edit, please desist. . .dave souza, talk 12:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, there's more her. Look at THIS Talk:Geert_Wilders. They've used pajamasmedia.com/blog. No. Please reasch consensus before removing this stuff. At the {{Press}} or on other higher level places. Nsaa (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, other stuff exists. Argue it out on that talk page. . . dave souza, talk 12:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes other stuff exist. What is your point? We're discussion usage of {{press}}, not the specific article as I see it. Can we add (newspaper) blogs to press or not? I've just stated that people tries to remove unpleasant coverage (yes I didn't like it either. It's bad for Wikipedia, but this removal stuff just let them get a point about us. They now ccan claim that we "remove and twist the reality"?). And about WP:BLP. Read this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive77#Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident (it has been raised as you see) Nsaa (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Nsaa#3rr (I've always tried to behave at Wikipedia, but now I got my second 3rr warning. I know this is some of the tactic from the collision partners. Why I got it I don't know. I've not enganged in any edit war in any article, but have just protected the project from disruptive edits to make a point at some talk pages. Nsaa (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, the current name is a violation of WP:V and is an inaccurate description of the current article. Second, WP:WTA is a guideline and there are many articles with -gate or scandal in their names, such as Bandargate scandal, Coingate scandal, and many many more. Oren0 (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to 2over0's recent comment, my impression is that the problem is on the way to being resolved. A number of editors seem to be actively collaborating on user talk pages to iron out differences and focus on a single name that they all find acceptable. This is a bit unorthodox but, if it gains sufficient support, I think it may well achieve a resolution nearly everybody can live with. --TS 01:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this belongs on WP:WQA instead of here. Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one watches wikiquette alerts (my experience), and I would like action taken on this. A suggestion has been made to move it to the Climate Change Probation area. Awickert (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Considering some of these diffs involve violations at locations that are on article probation, perhaps this belongs at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement instead. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably true, I am about to lose internet access for about 45 minutes; could someone move it please? Thanks, Awickert (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Heyitspeter: I think most of these diffs are unactionable, but having said that, I fully agree (from experiences with Thegoodlocust on pages that perhaps aren't being watched by the OP) that he could benefit from a huge restructuring of his practices. A considerable percentage of his contributions involve semi-irrelevant polemic and divert discussion down unprofitable paths.--Heyitspeter(talk) 18:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah well there you go. It looks as though my response was anticipated by several minutes and 2/0, impressed by the solemn words he predicted I would employ, acted early. I'm down with closing this request now.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mark NutleyDo you not think TGL should at least be allowed to defend himself before passing judgement? Some of the diffs are a month old for gods sake, this is ridiculous. --mark nutley (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which diff? [Ah, WMC talk, and Chávez is >1 week; my apologies Awickert (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)] I thought I picked them from entirely within the past week, but I could have slipped up. In any case, yes, I am happy to let him defend himself. But I think that it is patently not ridiculous to bring up an editor who is argumentative but doesn't contribute content. You (of course) are free to form your own analysis of what's going on. Awickert (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Chavez (climate change?) diff is one of the newer ones - you posted 6 diffs that are over a month old (long before my restriction). Oh and I DO contribute content, the most recent example is the article I created, from scratch, known as INCCA. Also, you've misrepresented most of my posts and put in your own interpretation that was plainly not there. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote how they appeared to me. If your posts appear hostile to an uninvolved editor, there is likely a problem. Sorry for the >1 month ones, screwed up on that. But <10% content contribs is a small minority. Awickert (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I talk a lot but I don't think that's a crime. I usually try to present things on talk and let other people make the edits and often try to persuade people to do the right thing. I suppose I could find a few articles and then revert everyone to get my articlespace count up - would that be preferable? My articlespace edits are quality, not quantity, and I've improved lots of scientific articles (e.g. quasars). Also, how exactly do you qualify yourself as uninvolved? I'm curious what standard you are using.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rescind my "step back" for direct responses. We could go ad nauseum about the edits, but I have not seen many significant changes in articles coming from you. That's all.

You pose a fair question. "Uninvolved" in the above context means "3rd person": I wasn't part of that conversation. Awickert (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awickert, I think arguments which try to quantify an editor's value are fundamentally flawed. For example, the 10% number you cite: for editors who work on contentious articles, it's quite possible for a good faith editor to accumulate dozens of talk page edits in the process of debating a point, and not a single article edit is made in during those debates. In fact, in my experience with contentious topics, those who edit article space without talking might be considered less productive, if many of those edits are simple reverts without supporting discussion. ATren (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from ATren Once again, justice is swift and harsh against one side of the debate, while response to similar infractions from the "other side" is apologetic and weak. And once again it's 2/0 handing out this uneven punishment, seemingly without input from the other admins. Let me be clear: I do not necessarily think action against TGL is unwarranted, but in the context of the level of enforcement leveled against other editors, this is much too harsh. And therein lies the problem on the GW pages: years of uneven enforcement have created an environment of hostility and distrust. Until admins show similar willingness to enforce against all offending parties, this will continue to be a war zone. ATren (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me understand, as I haven't yet decided what I think of this one - you believe this is the right action to take about TGL, but you oppose it because other bad actors have also not been banned? Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't decided on this one either, and that's part of the problem -- not even a day has passed and we're already at enforcement. Similar complaints against others (some with more evidence) have festered for days without action, and then closed as "unparseable" after the threads exploded. My complaint is the inconsistent level of enforcement, which this quick action clearly demonstrates, IMO. ATren (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should review this complaint, then, as opposed to making a meta complaint. When you've decided if your issue is the poorness of the decision to ban TGL, or the poorness of the decision to not-ban WMC, we can figure out what section you'd like to comment in. Hipocrite (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can answer: "Already at enforcement" is actually the result of 2/0 and I doing the same thing, at the same time, independently, except that he did it with more oomph. It's unrelated to this. Awickert (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is unrelated. The diffs involve predominantly climate change articles, so it should have been brought here for discussion before enforcement. 2/0 certainly knows about this probation page, and yet he was more than willing to act on enforcement without a request here and without discussion here. This is yet another example of 2/0 taking quick, unilateral action against so-called "skeptics" -- previously he did it with JPat, GoRight, and was close to doing it with Gavin Collins -- while he defends editors on the other side (see his earlier extended defense of WMC's sanction-violating "yahoos and idiots" smears). It's clearly uneven enforcement from 2/0. The absolute worst thing that can happen in this probation is for admins to act rashly, unilaterally, and with apparent bias; yet that's what we've seen from 2/0 from the start. Now, in this particular case, he should revert his unilateral decision and let the discussion play out with the other admins who have been watching this debate. After that time, it may very well be that some sort of sanction would be applied to TGL. But this action was too quick, too strong, and too unilateral. ATren (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several misconceptions here. Firstly the probation explicitly provides for what you refer to as "unilateral" enforcement. A discussion is not required. Secondly, This user has been sanctioned several times in the past, and on January 5th was given a logged warning for pretty much the same kind of problem behavior he's been exhibiting for the past month now. If you think you discern a pattern of misbehaving editors being given escalating sanctions as they fail to address their problems, you're right, you're not imagining it. That is how the probation is supposed to work. 2over1 is explicitly supposed to have a bias in that regard. If the bias you discern is that the sanctioned editors tend to be (but are not always) acknowledged to be here explicitly to push a fringe scientific point of view, you're also probably right. Coming to this Wiki for that purpose probably shows a certain lack of clue, and such poor judgement typically manifests itself independently in other problematic behavior. --TS 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for 2/0's unilateral action when it comes to Scjessey calling all Christians dumb and the other political nonsense that he and other pro-AGW are constantly bringing up in the climate change articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything of the sort. I said "[T]he public are ignorant folks who believe in dumb stuff like 'clean coal' and Jesus." In otherwords, I said Jesus was dumb, not the people who believe in him. This is exactly the kind of antagonistic misrepresentation that shows how appropriate a topic ban is, although an indef block would be a more sensible approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, actually defending that statement eh? Well, regardless of what you think of it I'm still waiting for the unitlateral action against you for statements like that which are far worse than any diff that's been posted about me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever. Just keep diggin' that hole. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this or that is the place to be praising or slamming religious figures. If the goal is a professional environment. Just saying... Mackan79 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, does this mean it's no longer open season on Xenu? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might include Drew Brees if you're in New Orleans. But now I'm creating the distraction, ah well. Mackan79 (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C) I was only trying to say that 2/0 posted Thegoodlocust's topic ban 3 minutes before I posted this thread, so it can't be taken to be a decision based on what I wrote here. I did post this earlier at AN/I, but deleted it quickly and 2/0 used different diffs than I did, so I don't think that there is a relation between those two. No other comments from me at the moment, Awickert (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Arzel There is a lot to be said about this blatent attempt to stiffle any disenting discussion on AGW articles, but it would be both redundant and possible grounds for a future banning of me. Arzel (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Arzel has hit the nail dead on the head. I can't speak for every one of the diffs since I have not read them all. But the few I have read look like just someone simply making an arguement. Are we not allowed to argue?!? There's a difference between truely disruptive posts and basic arguing to make point. The admins here should try to figure out the difference, and then draw the line equally for both camps. Of course who am I to talk, I have a hipocrite trying to get me banned. Sirwells (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are aware of any editors on the other "side" who have a similar record - who managed to rack up 5 blocks and a six-month topic ban in less than 100 article-space edits, and who have taken a consistently argumentative stance here without any record of positive contribution to the project to even begin to balance the ledger, with extra BLP bonus points for this now-deleted contribution - then please open a request and I would happily support an editing restriction. This is basically the same behavior that led to the topic ban from Obama-related articles. Whether or not you think there's a double standard at work, this isn't part of it. MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the top of my head? Scjessey. Who I've already shown to have made edits that are far more disruptive and insulting than mine. Oh, and I can't see the edit you are referring to, but the link seems to refer to Miley Cyrus. According to my talk page, I had to refresh my memory, I'd mentioned on the talk page something about her controversial relationship with a 20 year old man while she was a minor. Big freaking deal. Also, your characterization that I haven't made any useful edits is a flat out slander that you people keep on repeating. Just because I haven't spent years reverting other people's content to get my edit count up doesn't mean my edits haven't been worthwhile. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and while some of those blocks may have been valid, I recall several that were completely without merit and without proof - kind of like this whole fiasco, but at least this time diffs were provided so I could debunk them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey (talk · contribs) has been blocked five times, three of which were overturned. That's over the course of about 4,200 article edits. He was also topic-banned from Obama articles for 6 months. His comment about Jesus was completely over the line and offensive. I'll go along with the parallel to a certain extent, with the caveat that Scjessey's positive contributions to the project are an order of magnitude greater than yours. Whether that balances the negative is an open question, I suppose. MastCell ^Talk 06:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well I don't fall for "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" since a lot the much touted edit counts of some of these users is a symptom of countless edit wars over a period of years - reverting content you don't like doesn't make a person a good editor. The simple fact of the matter is that the one edit you agree is "completely over the line" 'is a pattern with him and more importantly, even on this page he defended that statement and found nothing wrong with it. Additionally, as I've already stated, my content is of quality, not of quantity and I'm sure that article space edit to article space edit that mine have improved the encyclopedia far better than his. Of course, I guess I shouldn't give your opinion on the matter too much weight considering your rather close editing relationships with some of the more prolific pro-AGW editors. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That edit war claim is bogus. A huge proportion of my article space edits are unique articles, given that my average number of edits per article is a little more than 3. If your best defense for your poor behavior is to attack another editor, it is clear that sanctions are appropriate. If anyone has an issue with me, they can file an RFC/U against me. In the meantime, this is your party TGL. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh on the contrary Scjessey, I think it is highly relevant because you were one of the first people I encountered at wikipedia and my behavior, if at all objectionable, is due to the example set by your (and others) behavior. For example, when you said you wanted to use the bug spray "RAID" on me, without sanction (again a surprise), that gives new editors the impression that such behavior is acceptable. Of course, if I'd made the comment, considering the creative interpretations of my diffs, then it would've been seen as not only a threat of murder via poison gas, but also anti-semetic as well with appropriate accusations of white supremacy. By the standards you and the rest of the AGW crowd have shown my behavior has been exemplary - then again, I'm not trying to provoke people in order to get them banned.TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, TGL, there is very little place on wikipedia for editors with your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing. You're clearly not here to add encyclopedic content, but just to game the system. What you write makes no sense at all. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't promoted any battleground mentality. The problem is that the people who are obviously promoting that environment have never faced meaningful sanction and so they will continue using wikipedia as their personal latrine while complaining when someone applies a little bleach to the situation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a reasonable namespace editing record, your statements might be considered seriously. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't noticed, this page has shown that several long term editors have noticed the same problems (ask Unitanode what he thinks). However, this elitist concept that you are promoting, that only the right people can articulate valid criticisms, is the same notion that got these articles in the terrible state they are in - all rules are ignored for the "science" (even though the problems aren't scientific in nature) or "great justice" because the so-called good guys are telling us what to do. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the going rate for getting away with "over the line offensive" remarks about religious faith? 10000 edits? 40% article edits? What level do I have to achieve before can I attack others with impunity? ATren (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I thought this section was "Comments by others about the request concerning Thegoodlocust". Not about TGL badgering others, and not about content complaints. Anyways, since he's already topic banned, keeping this open seems to only serve the purpose of watching TGL make more of a fool of himself. He's had his Miranda rights, so unless it's for an ArbCom case, I think we should collapse and close the thread. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only foolish behavior here comes from those making the fundamental attribution error.TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]