Misplaced Pages

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

Request concerning JettaMann

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning JettaMann

Statement by JettaMann

Comments by others about the request concerning JettaMann

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see the discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess I'm a little late for my own case here. Wasn't even aware it was going on actually. I would add to OrenO's comments that the first supposed infraction of mine had several references to leading newspapers such as The National Post. This was referenced, and as OrenO notes, it was also true. The second supposed infraction was merely a talk page comment asking what makes this William Connolley person eligible for his own Misplaced Pages entry? As I said then, Idon't see anything notable that he has done. There does seem to be a small cabal of AGW activists who really go after people with a vengeance using Stalin-like methods, and that's all this looks like to me. JettaMann (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Result concerning JettaMann

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

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

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

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

Thread closed, ban enacted. If JettaMann chooses to lodge an appeal, please take into consideration that they have not edited since shortly before this request was opened. Notification. Log. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Request concerning GoRight

User requesting enforcement

TS 16:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anytthing that might stop GoRight rampaging like this.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here at 16:16, 7 January 2010

Discussion concerning GoRight

Statement by GoRight

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

I hereby admit that I likely over-reacted with any suggestion of stalking on ChrisO's part, I retract all such suggestions in the spirit of fostering a more collaborative atmosphere, and I (virtually) extend my hand in an offer of apology and reconciliation. --GoRight (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning GoRight

This report is frivolous. To address each point:

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

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

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

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

Re to Sandstein - where did I say "in this very request" that GoRight was "on a rampage"? Tony asked above for any enforcement remedy that would lead to "Anything that might stop GoRight rampaging like this." His words, not mine. As for an interaction ban, note that GoRight interacted spontaneously with me - I did not interact with him or even know that he was involved with the article that I nominated for speedy deletion. I also don't think a single reversion of an atrociously written piece of contentious content for which there was no consent for inclusion constitutes "participating in an edit war". As a matter of fact, I had previously added a large chunk of the content that I removed , but it had been so mutilated at some point that its continued inclusion was unjustifiable on basic quality grounds, as I said in my edit summary - plus there was no consensus to include that material in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Note also that GoRight has been shopping his accusations of "stalking" to other admins: ,. Again, I repeat that this is completely unjustified and unprovoked, since I had no interaction with him whatsoever over User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. I have no interest in conflicting with GoRight and didn't even know he was involved with that article until after I nominated it for deletion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I accept GoRight's apology, and in the interests of getting back to something more productive than this, I suggest that this enforcement request be closed. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein

I am not quite persuaded by this request and how it is framed. The first edit is certainly silly, but the entire discussion at User talk:Marknutley#Reverts is seriously lame and IMHO most of the participants should just disengage. The second edit is a single revert, which I am not sure is sanctionable in and of itself; ChrisO himself also participated in the edit war () and another editor reverted the same content twice (, ). The stalking accusations are serious, and very likely inappropriate, but ChrisO's characterisations of GoRight as "going apeshit" and "on a rampage" in this very request are hardly exemplary conduct either. I'm half inclined to think a relatively brief, but broad topic and interaction ban for both ChrisO and GoRight might be appropriate to help cool down the high tempers of both editors somewhat.  Sandstein  20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, ChrisO, I confused you with the submitter of the request. I still think there is more than one editor behaving lamely here, but I'm not sure what the best course of action is.  Sandstein  21:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I panicked during the first hour or two of GoRight's editing. He's still GoRight, but despite my fears he apparently hasn't continued to stir things up. I apologise to all, and especially to GoRight, for making a premature and ill-advised request. I've criticised others for this and I should have known better. --TS 14:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning GoRight

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

Proposed result: No action. All editors are reminded that collaborative is better than combative. If this looks like a fair assessment, would someone please close this? - 2/0 (cont.) 15:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC) OK closed. --BozMo talk 22:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Ling.Nut

User requesting enforcement

dave souza, talk 12:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ling.Nut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. Is unconstructive, and uses the article talk page for offtopic accusations of bad faith and a general, if brief, rant against Misplaced Pages and consensus.
2. Repeats the rant against consensus, claiming "it very strongly encourages the formation of tag-team gangs of bullies etc. (no accusations meant here)."

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

1. Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs), as already logged

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Suggest further warning to stop stirring up argument, and in future comply fully with talk page guidelines.
Additional note: the General sanctions/Climate change probation Remedy section specifically mentions assumptions of bad faith, and advises "Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article; Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead" – added by dave souza, talk 12:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Ling.Nut

Statement by Ling.Nut

• Eh. I plan to seek support for the proposal I outlined here. That will give me ample opportunity to rail against Misplaced Pages's fatal flaw. Meanwhile, I stand by my comment here that I will avoid all personal attacks and all angry editing of article text... as my edits indeed have shown . I... am not at all familiar with the some of the folks who warn or template me, but I am very, very, very wary of admins sympathetic to the AGW position acting as blocking or even warning admins. Not sure how i can address this issue, but it is a separate one. • Ling.Nut 12:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Ling.Nut

From Cla68: Neither of the two diffs presented are directed at anyone in particular. Instead, both are complaints about Misplaced Pages's current structure, which I myself have complained about on numerous occasions. Is it against the Climate Change probation to complain about Misplaced Pages? I don't think so. This appears to be an unactionable request. Cla68 (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

From Tony Sidaway: I had been following the discussion on Ling.nut's page this morning, and have left him a note about dispute resolution. The talk page of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident can be very frustrating for all involved, and these instances of low-grade griping and personal attacks are part of the problem. Perhaps all parties in that case should be steered towards mediation. Concerns about the consensus policy and the like are best tackled on the talk page of the relevant policy. --TS 12:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

From Viriditas: Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

From Pete Tillman: I didn't participate in this discussion, but I've found Ling.nut's other contributions to be thoughtful & helpful -- in particular, he's spent considerable effort trying to improve Climate change denial, a notoriously contentious and difficult article.

I think Ling is fairly new on the Misplaced Pages climate-change scene. As Tony notes above, the subject page in particular is a frustrating one, and I've made some soapboxy comments myself on that talk page that, in retrospect, probably weren't constructive. Everyone involved should remember to "keep cool". Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not new to it. Guettarda (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Ling.Nut

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

I collapsed the relevant section at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Rename redux, as it was in no way related to improving Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Ling.Nut has made some assurances concerning both discussion and editing, and is discussing the wider issue of the Misplaced Pages model elsewhere. Proposed close: All editors are reminded to adhere strictly to the topic of improving the associated article when posting to an article's talkpage. Ling.Nut is cautioned that concerns of bad faith and inappropriate collusion should be dealt with through WP:Dispute resolution, not aired at talkpages. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Heyitspeter

User requesting enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. Removes the sourced fact that the controversy was named "Climategate" by sceptics.
2. Removes the sourced fact that the controversy was named "Climategate" by sceptics.
3. Removes the sourced fact that the controversy was named "Climategate" by sceptics.
4. Removes the sourced fact that the controversy was named "Climategate" by sceptics.

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

1. Warning by Hipocrite (talk · contribs)

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

Introduction ban on Climatic Research Unit hacking incident.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The introduction has been difficult for many to deal with. Some want other nicknames (Swifthack, Warmergate) included in the title. Some want all the nicknames out. Others want Climategate included. I don't know why constant reversions by Heyitspeter, a bunch of drive-by IP addresses and the subject of the next section should win just because they are willing to revert over and over and over to their most-preferred version, and the other "side" is willing to accept the compromise of one nickname with explanation. The introduction is being discussed actively on talk, but Heyitspeter, the subject below and the drive-by IP addresses constantly start edit-wars trying to get the intro to their version. It needs to stop.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Heyitspeter

Statement by Heyitspeter

I suppose I should start by asking that the 4th diff be removed as irrelevant. That was a copy/paste typo and I quickly self-reverted as shown here.

In regards to diffs 1-3. Note that all the edits were differently worded and responded to different stages of discussion in the talkpage. These edits were individual, honest attempts to improve the article spaced out over several days. The "by sceptics of anthropogenic climate change" clause has been repeatedly contested on the talkpage by many different users (e.g., a short scroll through the current talkpage and recent archive yields the following sections: , , , ), and is contradicted by sources discussed in the article in this section. It is my understanding that this means, respectively, that inclusion of the disputed clause violates WP:CONSENSUS and WP:LEAD.

In summary: my motivation for making edits 1-3 was to bring the article in line with these two policies by providing a factual, informative version of the sentence, supported by the body of the article, that both sides of the discussion can agree to (cf. my explanation for diff 2: ).

I'm concerned about this request. The "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" suggest that it was filed in tension with WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF. I recently warned Hipocrite about the latter on his talkpage , with this request following very soon after.

Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In a semi-related note, as administrators will be viewing this page I wanted to ask how one should go about requesting arbitration in regards to the disputed edit (hopefully something lesser than ArbCom, as I've heard that's a pain). I don't see the discussion going anywhere. Thanks again.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "arbitration lesser than ArbCom", and ArbCom doesn't do content disputes anyway. You might want to look at mediation instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the info.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Heyitspeter

WMC I think this request can be closed with an acknowledgement of HiP's volunteering to leave that sentence alone William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Heyitspeter

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

Currently doing the same edit once every 24+ hours three times is a nuisance but looking through the page history there are other people who are being far more of a nuisance and we should deal with them first. I suggest we tell Peter we aren't going to accept many more edits from him on sentences containing the word "Climategate" and leave it at that. Any seconder? --BozMo talk 22:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am tempted to put a pseudo-lock on whatever Wrong Version is up there now until Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Compromise on "Climategate" in lead concludes, but discussions there seem to have a way of looping back on themselves. This all concerns whether and how the term climategate should be used in the lead, so how about asking him to refrain from adding, removing, or moving any material related to the term climategate or its description in the lead section? Obvious vandalism excepted, of course. Limiting this to a month is probably sufficient. Heyitspeter - would you be okay with limiting your participation on this matter to the talkpage? When there is a good consensus at that section, everyone will defend it. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Even prior to this request I had decided not to make more direct edits to that sentence. I wish Hip had contacted me before filing this request, as it would have spared everyone's time.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Jpat34721

User requesting enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jpat34721 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. Removes the sourced fact that the controversy was named "Climategate" by sceptics.
2. Removes the sourced fact that the controversy was named "Climategate" by sceptics.

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

1. Warning by Hipocrite (talk · contribs)

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

Introduction ban on Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The introduction has been difficult for many to deal with. Some want other nicknames (Swifthack, Warmergate) included in the title. Some want all the nicknames out. Others want Climategate included. I don't know why constant reversions by Jpat, a bunch of drive-by IP addresses and the subject of the prior section should win just because they are willing to revert over and over and over to their most-preferred version, and the other "side" is willing to accept the compromise of one nickname with explanation. The introduction is being discussed actively on talk, but Jpat, the subject above and the drive-by IP addresses constantly start edit-wars trying to get the intro to their version. It needs to stop.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Jpat34721

Statement by Jpat34721

Hipocrite pointed out on my talk page that the edit in question might be considered a revert. Even though I didn't think it qualified (it was attempt at compromise by adding a link to the section where the disputed neologism is discussed in full), to be safe I self-reverted prior to hipocrit's accusation here. It appears that my self revert doesn't show up in the page history perhaps because someone had already reverted my edit, but I assume the history of my attempt exists in a log somewhere. JPatterson (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It dosen't. Hipocrite (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out that when I made the edit in question, I entered this on the talk page, "I have tried a compromise edit which combines "colloquially known" with a link from "Climategate" to the naming the incident section. Comments? JPatterson (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Clearly, I was not edit warring but attempting to find common ground. JPatterson (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As to his comment's re the lead, my position is that the current wording goes against WP policy. It is either OR or an factually wrong, depending on how one interprets the word "dubbed". My goal is not POV pushing but moving toward an article that chronicles the controversy instead of passing judgment on it. JPatterson (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bizmo has a strange definition of contentious editing. In an article where the editors are as deeply divided along partisan lines as they are here, any edit is contended. I have proposed numerous "compromises" in an attempt to find middle ground (hence the many posts). I have tried WP:Bold, revert, discuss, I have requested 3rd party help on the NPOV message board with no takers. To single out one user in this mess is patently absurd, especially when that user has engaged constructively (and in many cases successfully) toward reaching consensus.

WMC: The edit you point to () was in no way a revert (please find the edit I supposedly reverted, I've gone back 7 days and can't find it). We have reached consensus that contentious labels and characterizations are not to be used. In this case, the label applied was not even supported by the cite, as was made clear in my edit summary. Looking over the page history, the characterization I removed, was at least five seven days old and appears to be one we missed when we went through and removed the labels. In particular, we agreed that the label "climate change skeptic", as used here, was unsupportable,pejorative and not POV neutral.

Comments by others about the request concerning Jpat34721

TS: As a matter of transparency I should say I disengaged from that article after accusations of ownership. Having said that I can only encourage uninvolved admins to look carefully at the fulness of the evolving situation on that rather sensitive article. Removal of some editors may be merited, but I stopped watching it a week or so ago. --TS 18:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Mark Nutley

This to me seems incredibly stupid, "dubbed "Climategate" by sceptics of anthropogenic climate change," Since watergate every scandel has ended up being called whatever-gate I am curious as to how this particular scandals name is being attributed to skeptics and not just the usual lazy journo`s not even trying to come up with a new name. Take the expenses scandel in the uk recently, expensesgate, not scamalot which has gotta be the best name but nope, expensesgate. I would also like to see the reliable sources which state that this name was coined by sceptics as well. And not a source which is pro AGW, a neutral source please. I have looked at the diffs and i see jpat trying to compromise with different wording and he did try a revert but had to do it manually "17:15, 11 January 2010 Jpat34721 (talk | contribs) (91,549 bytes) (last rv failed. Doing it manually)" Is this perhaps the self revert he means? --mark nutley (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The section on naming included in the article goes over this stuff a bit. The "sceptics" line is contradicted by some sources.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there were five citations. But they were removed because they were being used as primary source data points to produce a novel synthesis not present in any of the sources. Five sources were being used to show that it was widely used. It was explained to you that this is not acceptable, per policy. Several times. Guettarda (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you write this? It's not accurate, kind of mean, and I don't see the relevance to the discussion. --Heyitspeter (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda's comment is accurate, but I agree that it's not strictly germane here. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to bother arguing this out, but I do want the comment removed as it's distracting from the discussion at hand.--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

@wmc, i have removed your strike as i have not actually edited that article, hence i am uninvolved, i have asked a few questions in talk and thats its. I was als ounder the impression that editing anothers posts was frowned uopn? Now if you actually feel that as j broke the 1r rule and should be topic banned then should the same not apply to you? ] --mark nutley (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC: User:Jpat34721 is misbehaving here and needs sanctionning to remind him (and indeed others) that the rules really do exist and have teeth. Article / topic ban for a while seems like a good idea, with possible remission after a while if credible efforts to be productive elsewhere become clear. Nb: I struck "uninvolved" from MN's self-description: that is laughable William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Comment re MN's evidence: all that misses the point. This isn't a place to rehash all the old arguments. The question here is whether J's edits were a violation of the article parole William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC (again): I think this is fairly simple. J had broken the 1RR parole on this article very clearly by the time of this report. *After* this report he has continued reverting . If this doesn't trigger a block then these sanctions have become meaningless William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight: I think the sanction proposed by BozMo is clearly excessive given that there is much contentious edit warring from both sides. --GoRight (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Do feel free to report anyone else. I have looked at three reports here and decided two do not need action. One month article ban (not topic ban mind you) for a user who has spent too long on one thing seems pretty balanced.

Arzel: Why is BozMo, who appears to be an involved administrator, giving his recomendations in the section specifically stated for uninvolved administrators? Perhaps he is not, but he does seem to be more involved than one would expect a completely neutral admin to be. Aside from that this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to quiet three editors (JPat, Tillman, and Heyitspeter) from editing global warming articles. Arzel (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Jpat34721

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

Wow. I haven't gone back more than a week into the history but even without probation in place if I saw someone doing as many contentious edits in 24 hours I would use some sort of sanction. There is an arguable 3RR (depending what you think about the self revert and attempt to compromise above) and five contenious edits in seven hours. There is also an unhealthy focus of edits on this page (couple of hundred edits to the article and talk in a week). All this on an article on probation. My proposal would be a one month ban from this topic and talk page. Any seconder? --BozMo talk 22:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, logged, and notified. If behaviour continues across other articles this can be extended to a topic ban, but I think minimal intervention is best for now. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Tillman

User requesting enforcement

Hipocrite (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. This drive-by revert duplicates "individuals who oppose action on Anthropogenic global warming and some others call the incident "Climategate"." which is directly below it in the introduction. This is actively being discussed on the talk page - is this motonous revert warring over the lead going to win out over discussion? Without serious action to prevent the 1rr rule from becoming the "TAG TEAM FOR THE WIN" rule, it is.

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

1. Warning by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

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

0rr on all global warming, broadly construed

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I see no value in having a user who has made zero - zero talk page edits to the section under discussion using his 1rr as an entitlement.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Tillman

Statement by Tillman

The question of referring to Climategate has been discussed many times at the article talk page, and I have participated in many such discussions, for example here, here and here.

I have been active in editing this page since its inception. Hipocrite calling this a "drive-by revert" is incorrect, and, in my opinion, borders on a WP:Personal attack.

Additionally, Hipocrites quoted "warning", above , was a "routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits."

I regard this charge as attempted intimidation by User:Hipocrite, who has been very actively opposing any use of the term Climategate for this controversy.

Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Tillman

Comment by William M. Connolley (talk)

I disagree with Tillman's viewpoint on this article and I disagree with his revert but I would be sorry to see this request actionned. Tillman *has* participated in talk and I think that characterising this as drive-by, or sanctionning him for it, would be regrettable, even if there is some slight evidence of carelessness in reverting this when it was already in there. I too have rather lost track of the revert status of this article. There are other people here who need sanctionning first.

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by GoRight (talk)

A quick review of Hipocrite's contributions, , reveals that H himself is deeply involved in this conflict. I shall call out a number of his edits to substantiate that here in a bit. His choosing to bring enforcement requests against his opponents in a content dispute warrants a warning, IMHO, similar to that which was issued to myself regarding listing frivolous and vexatious requests here. This request in particular would easily fall into that category. --GoRight (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Specific diffs as promised: , , , , , , , , , , , . Note that some of his own reverts are essentially drive-bys as well, and that these are ALL just from TODAY. --GoRight (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

QUESTION: Given all the warnings being proposed against one side of this content dispute, would it be deemed inappropriate (i.e. frivolous or vexatious) of me to open an equal number of such cases against editors from the opposing side of this content dispute? --GoRight (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Tillman

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

I don't think this is actionable. Not the greatest edit ever given the contention and repetition but not drive by (previous edit was 24 hours earlier to talk page) and certainly not actionable. If another uninvolved admin agrees could they please close this. --BozMo talk 22:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. That article might need full protection soon if Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Compromise on "Climategate" in lead does not wrap up soon, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

, . Blatent, and obvious. Hipocrite (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is H not using the prescribed template given that this involves a single editor? Also, I note that it is possible that the editor in question may not be aware of the WP:1RR restriction since they are not listed in the notifications table, . Frivolous and vexatious use of this venue to engage in WP:BATTLE? You decide. This is the fourth such request. I was warned after 1. Some neutrality of enforcement, please? --GoRight (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours in the course of investigating above. There is an editnotice that displays every time anyone edits that page. If they make a credible appeal, I would not object to an early unblock - this is not a frequent flyer here. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite notified Dcowboys3109 six minutes after the first revert, nearly four hours before the second. I was over that way anyway, so I have added this to the log. GoRight does raise a good point, though - the log of notifications is there to serve as a collective memory. Right now the probation is new enough that it is easy to see a notification in the talkpage history and the main participants in the topic area were also active at the community discussion, but this set of procedures should be futureproof inasmuch as possible. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to use undue formality when the violation is sufficiently obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite seems a little fast on the trigger in requesting enforcement, and doesn't always do his homework. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin and WMC have been edit warring and disruptively editing in tandem against Hansen's ideas at Biosequestration Carbon tax and Kyoto Protocol. The discussion pages of these articles have extensive comments in relation to the disruptive editing of both editors. They have removed an entire paragraph of referenced material from biosequestration on the basis that Hansen doesn't use the word 'biosequestration". Instead, as is fully referenced, Hansen's idea is for what he calls 'carbon sequestration' at coal plants. This can only refer to on-site "algal biosequestration" (a policy option for coal plants that Garnaut mentions (referenced and fully discussed in the same section of the biosequestration article) or geosequetration. Despite this being made clear on the discussion page, they continue to delete the whole paragraph. In carbon tax they replaced the phrase 'carbon sequestration' with the unintelligible 'sequestration' at power plants.NimbusWeb (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the specific nature of your accusations, preferably without going into content issues? For example WMC has made precisely one (1) edit to Kyoto Protocol in the past two months, and two (2) edits to Carbon tax in the past year. That's not much of an edit war. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC has the following disruptive edits at Biosequestration all done today in which he is trying to delete an entire paragraph of referenced material:
1# (cur) (prev) 20:42, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (32,194 bytes) (→The importance of plants in storing atmospheric carbon dioxide: rm apparently unjustofied assertion) (undo)
2# (cur) (prev) 20:15, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (32,571 bytes) (rv: clearly no consensus for re-adding this material, which looks off topic. Please discuss on talk first) (undo)
3# (cur) (prev) 19:29, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (32,571 bytes) (→Biosequestration and climate change policy: agreeing with AR - this strays too far off topic - rm) (undo)
4# (cur) (prev) 19:08, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (34,821 bytes) (rv: please don't do this) (undo)203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

An "entire paragraph" of synthesis, actually. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Claim it is 'synthesis' is a blatant misrepresentation. Direct quotes are referenced and on the discussion page the entire cited paragraph is reproduced for comparison.203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am missing the "synthesis" too, (perhaps Scjessey could be specific with an excerpt somewhere else); however this request is about a pattern of WMC disruptive reverting in General Sanction articles. A truly productive editor could guide the proposed text (sourced and cited in the diffs) to a meaningful outcome without reverting. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC also has these two edits today at carbon tax:
1# (cur) (prev) 19:06, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (48,714 bytes) (rv per Talk:Biosequestration#Biosequestration_dispute_on_multiple_articles) (undo)
2# (cur) (prev) 10:54, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (48,714 bytes) (remove incorrect ref to bioseq) (undo).203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC also has this edit today at Kyoto Protocol:
(cur) (prev) 19:05, 17 January 2010 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) m (116,146 bytes) (Reverted edits by NimbusWeb (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (undo).203.129.61.83 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)