| Revision as of 11:35, 19 January 2010 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 editsm →Utterly bizarre: relatively *in*experienced← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:33, 19 January 2010 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,008 edits →Utterly bizarre: and so it provedNext edit → | ||
| Line 286: | Line 286: | ||
| : This isn't to excuse his attacks or edit warring. He has had an opportunity to learn some of our community norms, and has failed to do so. But his errors are those of a beginner. He commits the beginner's solecism of characterizing edits he disagrees with as "disruptive" (some newcomers misuse the word "vandalism" in a similar context). I had hopes that you would both be prepared to back off and give the fellow some breathing space, which would have made your words arguing against his edits all the more persuasive and permitted him a glimpse of how we do things (at least, on a good day) on Misplaced Pages. --] 11:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | : This isn't to excuse his attacks or edit warring. He has had an opportunity to learn some of our community norms, and has failed to do so. But his errors are those of a beginner. He commits the beginner's solecism of characterizing edits he disagrees with as "disruptive" (some newcomers misuse the word "vandalism" in a similar context). I had hopes that you would both be prepared to back off and give the fellow some breathing space, which would have made your words arguing against his edits all the more persuasive and permitted him a glimpse of how we do things (at least, on a good day) on Misplaced Pages. --] 11:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :: NW had all the hallmarks of a very overenthusiastic beginner who was not going to listen to any warnings. And indeed that is exactly what happened: he got plenty of warnings, and deleted them all (which in fact is *not* the hallmark of an inexperienced editor, so there is a little puzzle there, but never mind). However, all those warnings were from me, doing my humble duty in sharing the meaning of wiki. But perhaps he dismissed them as blustering from an involved party. Arguably, he *might* have listened to a strong warning from you or LHVU that breaking 3RR was not acceptable and he needed to self revert (let alone pay some attention to the article probabtion). Alas you, and more particularly LHVU, declined to do this, instead preferring "a plague on all your houses" type warnings, which NW mistook for license to ignore my valid warnings. I would hope that you, and more particularly LHVU, might take a lesson from this: being excessively soft on overenthusiastic noobs does not do them any favours in the long run ] (]) 12:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == William M. Connolley == | == William M. Connolley == | ||
Revision as of 12:33, 19 January 2010
ShortcutThis board is for users to request enforcement under the terms of the climate change article probation. Requests should take the following format:
{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request
| User against whom enforcement is requested
= <Username>
| Sanction or remedy that this user violated
= ]
| Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so
<!-- When providing several diffs, please use a numbered list as in this example. -->
=<p>
# <Explanation>
# <Explanation>
# <Explanation>
# ...
| Diffs of prior warnings
=<p>
# Warning by {{user|<Username>}}
# Warning by {{admin|<Username>}}
# ...
| Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
= <Your text>
| Additional comments
= <Your text>
}}
| Climate change probation archives | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||||||||||
| 11 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||
This will generate a structure for managing the request including a second level header. Please place requests underneath the following divider, with new requests at the bottom of the page. For instructions on generating diff links, see Help:Diff.
For Requests for refactoring of Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines violations only, comments by parties other than the requester, the other party involved, and the reviewing/actioning/archiving editor will be removed.
JettaMann
| JettaMann is topic banned from William Connolley and related articles, broadly construed, and interaction banned from User:William M. Connolley. |
|---|
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JettaMann
Discussion concerning JettaMannStatement by JettaMannComments by others about the request concerning JettaMannI 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:
--TS 12:54, 5 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)
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)
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
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)
|
Ling.Nut
| 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. |
|---|
|
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
Discussion concerning Ling.NutStatement by Ling.Nut
Comments by others about the request concerning Ling.NutFrom 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: 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)
Result concerning Ling.Nut
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) |
Heyitspeter
| Heyitspeter agrees not to add, remove, or move any material related to the term climategate or its description in the lead section for a month |
|---|
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Heyitspeter
Discussion concerning HeyitspeterStatement by HeyitspeterI 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: ).
Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning HeyitspeterWMC 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
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)
|
1rr Violation User:Dcowboys3109
| Blocked. |
|---|
 Resolved
, . Blatent, and obvious. Hipocrite (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Biosequestration dispute
Moved to Talk:Biosequestration#Biosequestration dispute on multiple articles as a content dispute.
- Immediately this move took place disruptive editing against Hansen's ideas occurred by the two anti-Hansen editors above (William M. Connolley and Arthur Rubin) at the 'carbon tax' "Kyoto Protocol" AND 'biosequestration' articles. I would like to appeal the transfer of this enforcement dispute to the biosequestration talk page. We are clearly dealing with an attack on Hansen's ideas in multiple aricles.NimbusWeb (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC) William M Connolley has now attempted to remove the entire paragaph (with over six references) with Hansen's ideas about carbon sequestration at coal plants from the biosequestration article. This was after a recent edit by me attempted to clarify by highlighting use of algal biosequestration at coal plants in the Garnaut Report immediately above the Hansen ref.NimbusWeb (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC) ARthur Rubin has now attempted to remove the same fully referenced paragraph from from the biosequestration article. How can this sort of disruptive editing be allowed to occur? These editors are providing no justification fro rmoving this material, but by simultanous attack they are making it hard for me to keep it in the article (although it is directly on point) without having to constantly revert them. Help, this is unfair.NimbusWeb (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Calling WMC an anti-Hansen editor is absurd. In addition, it's not fully referenced and it wouldn't be relevant, even if referenced, as noted on the talk page. Please continue the discussion there, and don't edit against consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Conclusions are reached on the basis of evidence available. All that is necessary is to examine the edit history of you two in relation to Hansen comments. 'Absurd' is just an irrelevant appeal to a negative emotion. Why should you assume that your point of view represents consensus, especially when what you are trying to do is remove referenced material and make ideas hard to understand? The discussion board has been used extensively to try and prevent your disruptive edits. It appears to have failed. Higher level scrutiny is now requiredNimbusWeb (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Absurd is quite correct. WMC has added other Hansen comments to other articles, where I consider them problematic in terms of relevance, although not as bad as this one. Furthermore, this (and other comments) constitute a severe WP:AGF violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Kyoto Protocol, Carbon tax, Biosequestration
- Kyoto Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Carbon tax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Biosequestration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Administrator attention to recent very acrimonious edit warring on these articles might be merited. --TS 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Noted. I won't edit again unless consensus can be obtained somewhere unless any of the parties reports a clearly improper edit reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- If all involved will similarly down tools pending the achievement of consensus, no further action will be necessary. --TS 20:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, it appears I was forced to break my assertion. Tags indicating my concerns as to why NW's edits were inappropriate were removed. It seems to me that removing tags without a clear consensus to do so, or a previous discussion leading to the conclusion that the tags were inappropriate then, is disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- If all involved will similarly down tools pending the achievement of consensus, no further action will be necessary. --TS 20:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree provided the disruptive edits on 'biosequestration' 'carbon tax' and "Kyoto Protocol' can be reverted to where they were before this blew up.NimbusWeb (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Using that argument as a pretext to carry out further edit warring, as you have just done , is rather inflammatory. --TS 20:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
But TS-look at what they did at 'carbon tax' they replaced the words 'carbon sequestration' at coal plants with 'sequestration' at coal plants-making the idea unintelligible. Sequestration of what? Carbon? Well why not say it-except that it creates an unpalatable precedent for teh coal industry. Why should that sort of disruptive editing be allowed to stand indefinitely. This is why formal dispute resolution should commence here. This is not a small issue for the coal industry NimbusWeb (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Beware the curse of Plaxico. --TS 20:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Beware editors that have retainers from the coal industry to make sure ideas requiring them to sequester carbon as a condition of operating never see the light of day.NimbusWeb (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm requesting enforcement. NW is now over 3RR, despite warnings about 3RR. I've reported this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:NimbusWeb_reported_by_User:William_M._Connolley_.28Result:_.29. However it would be desirable to deal with it here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- WMC? Retainers from the coal industry? I think the coal industry is libeled by that statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: NW has now removed the 3RR warning, and the notification of the AN3 report from his talk page with the edit comment "minor edit". I don't think this looks like good faith any more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of the warning but think it should be applied to WMC and AR. Please note I placed a similar warning on WMC's talk page which he also deleted. Such editing is allowed on your own talk page. So let's get this right. You two gang up and start deleting whole paragraphs of referenced material on Hansen's ideas (see biosequestration-policy implications section) and making them unintelligible (replacing 'carbon sequestration with 'sequestration). This is despite the sections being changed being fully justified on the discussion page. Particular references include Hansen writing in his open letter to Obama and his book that power plants need 'carbon sequestration'. You allege that can't refer to algal biosequestration despite Garnaut amongst others specifically making that connection. When I try to stand up to your disruptive editing you invoke 3RR and try to bully me into submission. You call me a 'noob' claim I am 'spamming'. I'm the editor who is trying to write sentences with full references. You two are the editors who are trying to delete them or make them unintelligible. It will be interesting to see who is censored and no doubt also somewhat revealing about the internal administration at wikipedia and how this climate change probation system works and who runs it.NimbusWeb (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- It will be interesting to see who is censored - I *think* you mean censured. In which case, we've now got an answer: you William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I have been asked to review recent editing and conduct issues relating to the above, by Tony Sidaway
It is my conclusion that Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), NimbusWeb (talk · contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) are all in violation of Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation, relating to edit warring (I am not concerned with the technicalities of 3RR or team tagging) and WP:NPA (again, I am not concerned who is the most egregious practitioner). If I were not of the opinion that any short sanction would simply pause the continuation of these violations I would have sanctioned all three named editors for 24 hours, so no "advantage" may accrue to either side of the dispute. Under the circumstances, I am now warning all the above editors that any infraction of the Climate Change Probation by any party will result in a 72 hour block for all three - possibly disrupting the other WP activities of all concerned. I would ask Tony Sidaway to notify me of any infraction, although I would comment that I shall take sole responsibility to the blocks imposed, after notifying the parties concerned and reviewing any response/appeal. While drastic, I feel my actions are permissible under the Probation and are designed to impress upon the editors the necessity of keeping within the restrictions. The above will apply as soon as Tony Sidaway agrees to referee the application of this warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Everybody be nice, please. --TS 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your (crossed with TS, so to be clear: LHVU's) non-neutrality in this is obvious; your ignoring a blatant 3RR violation is also obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- <facepalm> --TS 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with LHvU and TS. If AR and WMC disagree with what Hansen is saying or writing then non-disruptive editing should see them inserting referenced criticism of Hansen's ideas and not simply trying to delete them or render them unintelligible wherever reference to them appears. What's going to happen if they team up to launch another attack on Hansen's ideas later?NimbusWeb (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with WMC, except as to the obviousness of LHvU's non-neutrality. (Note, this is a rare occurance; don't take it as a trend.) Ignoring a 3RR violation after warning while censuring 1RR "violations" made without warning of 1RR is questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't make this more bloody than it need be. All three of you got into an out-of-control edit war across three articles. Less Heard van U is giving you the chance to knock it off and handle it the Misplaced Pages way. This doesn't make him biased. All of you have to stop engaging in personal attacks (you know who I'm referring to here) and all of you have to stop edit warring (and that applies to all). NimbusWeb has far less experience than the other two, so Please do not bite the newcomers applies. Now be nice, all of you. --TS 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would like the {{syn}} and related tags that I've added restored pending discussion of the material. It seems obvious that the tags are at least nominally appropriate, and there certainly isn't consensus against the tags. In fact, a previous version of Hansen's comments were previously removed from one of the article per consensus at one of the notice boards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't make this more bloody than it need be. All three of you got into an out-of-control edit war across three articles. Less Heard van U is giving you the chance to knock it off and handle it the Misplaced Pages way. This doesn't make him biased. All of you have to stop engaging in personal attacks (you know who I'm referring to here) and all of you have to stop edit warring (and that applies to all). NimbusWeb has far less experience than the other two, so Please do not bite the newcomers applies. Now be nice, all of you. --TS 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with WMC, except as to the obviousness of LHvU's non-neutrality. (Note, this is a rare occurance; don't take it as a trend.) Ignoring a 3RR violation after warning while censuring 1RR "violations" made without warning of 1RR is questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Those tags were clearly disruptive given the talk page of the article has extensive discussion in which multiple editors have attempted to answer AR's pedantic and disruptive views on Hansen's use of the word "biosequestration' instead of the synonym 'carbon sequestration'. Reinsertion would only reopen the dispute.NimbusWeb (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- There was no "discussion", only IPs' arguments that it's important, but without even assertions of relevance. Hansen never said "biosequestration" or "geosequestration", and doesn't appear to have said "proportional", so those words should not be in the articles as Hansen's opinion unless sourced to others referring to Hansen's comments. In fact, on one of the articles, the section was previously removed as not being sourced, per comments on one of the noticeboards. It's still (mostly) not sourced, even if it were relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- To TS, above. I don't think he's technically a newcomer, as the questioned paragraphs had been inserted by IPs for about a month previous to the creation of NW, and he takes credit for the "arguments" made by those IPs.
- And (to NW) "carbon sequestration" is not "biosequestration". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The IPs could the same user - all from AU hosts, two from Sydney, two from Canberra. Similar styles too. Ravensfire (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The sentences AR and WMC seek to either delete or qualify have direct quotes where Hansen expresses the idea that coal-fired power stations should no longer be approved or allowed to operate unless they have what he terms 'carbon captture' or 'carbon sequestration.' Both these quotes are referenced-to Hansen's Open Letter to Obama and to his book. So the question for AR is what does Hansen mean by 'carbon capture' or 'carbon sequestration' at power plants. It can only mean geosequestration or algal biosequestration. There are no other alternatives currently being debated in the scientific literature. Clearly this is what Hansen is referring to. What else could he be referring to when he uses the terms 'carbon capture' and 'carbon sequestration' in relation to on-site use at coal-fired power stations? Answer that. There is a reference to Garnaut discussing algal biosequestration at power plants in the sentence above. This is another attempt at disruptive editing. Claims that only one editor is opposing AR and WMC are also clearly ploys to attack process rather than deal with the substance of the dispute.NimbusWeb (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps if you weren't continually attacking those with whom you disagree, they'd be more motivated to address your points. You are new to Misplaced Pages but not so new as to be unaware of the No personal attacks policy. Please address the arguments and not the person. --TS 02:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
OK. I apologise. But isn't the claim above my most recent entry above a personal attack on me?NimbusWeb (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you remove the references to biosequestration, including the paragraph in that article, and replace it by carbon sequestration, then almost everything would be sourced. ("Proportional" still isn't sourced, possible, or likely to be relevant.) The relevance and undue weight would still be subject to discussion, but I'd probably stay out of it. Deal? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't intended as a personal attack; if you did edit under those IPs, and if those IPs were warned of inappropriate behaviour (which I don't remember doing), then you are considered to have been warned. But I'm willing to work with you in cleaning up the unsourced sections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- AR, I believe it is reasonable and still maintains the sense of what Hansen is arguing to replace the word 'biosequestration' the two times it appears in the Hansen paragraph in the biosequestration article with "carbon sequestration'. I'm relying on your good faith in agreeing to this. I order that the agreement not be violated I suggest that either TS or LHvU make the changes. It still seems unusually pedantic to meNimbusWeb (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just the biosequestration article; it's in all the places it's been added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Utterly bizarre
This is utterly bizarre. There is an absolutely clear 3RR violation by NW, correctly reported, and we have a pile of admins (yes I know you're watching) saying "la la la I can't see it". Regardless of the article probation, that should lead to a simple block on NW. TS is saying "This is a train wreck" - no, it isn't. This is a very simple situation which had it been handled in the normal way would have caused no problems at all William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears that there is sanity in the world after all: William M. Connolley (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- If I gave the appearance of being very indulgent towards NimbusWeb, it's because I was--and deliberately so. He gives all the appearance of being a sincere and relatively inexperienced editor. I would have liked to see the content dispute resolved without the need to block him or anybody. My efforts were directed towards restraining the edit warring tendency to which, as a newcomer of little experience, he easily succumbed.
- There was a suggestion that he might be the same editor as some of the IPs who adopted a similar stance and tone. I haven't investigated but I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. If so I think he should be commended and applauded for registering an account and thus giving all of his edits a single name. This fellow is obviously not here to cause harm but to fix what he perceives as an error in Misplaced Pages's coverage of biosequestration. He has made some accusations and attacks, but that is not perhaps surprising since he has probably read such attacks on related talk pages and may well have convinced himself that such conduct is acceptable.
- This isn't to excuse his attacks or edit warring. He has had an opportunity to learn some of our community norms, and has failed to do so. But his errors are those of a beginner. He commits the beginner's solecism of characterizing edits he disagrees with as "disruptive" (some newcomers misuse the word "vandalism" in a similar context). I had hopes that you would both be prepared to back off and give the fellow some breathing space, which would have made your words arguing against his edits all the more persuasive and permitted him a glimpse of how we do things (at least, on a good day) on Misplaced Pages. --TS 11:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- NW had all the hallmarks of a very overenthusiastic beginner who was not going to listen to any warnings. And indeed that is exactly what happened: he got plenty of warnings, and deleted them all (which in fact is *not* the hallmark of an inexperienced editor, so there is a little puzzle there, but never mind). However, all those warnings were from me, doing my humble duty in sharing the meaning of wiki. But perhaps he dismissed them as blustering from an involved party. Arguably, he *might* have listened to a strong warning from you or LHVU that breaking 3RR was not acceptable and he needed to self revert (let alone pay some attention to the article probabtion). Alas you, and more particularly LHVU, declined to do this, instead preferring "a plague on all your houses" type warnings, which NW mistook for license to ignore my valid warnings. I would hope that you, and more particularly LHVU, might take a lesson from this: being excessively soft on overenthusiastic noobs does not do them any favours in the long run William M. Connolley (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley
| No action. All editors are reminded to be proactive in seeking dispute resolution, starting with the talkpage. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning William M. Connolley
Discussion concerning William M. ConnolleyStatement by William M. ConnolleyI'm baffled. What does an edit that happened 11 days ago at Rajendra K. Pachauri made by MN not me have to do with me? (or indeed this ? Has MN fouled up his diffs, or am I missing the point?) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Also, I'm missing and an explanation how these edits violate it from MN's diffs. This looks just like pointless disruption on his part William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning William M. ConnolleyUnless this article was specifically under 1RR, this is inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed by the complaint and the response. This is classic battleground behavior. Over the course of a few hours, a content dispute has grown into trench warfare, with no chance of consensus or resolution. Please, everybody, look at LessHeard vanU's warning above, and take it to heart. Drop the attitude and step away, all of you. --TS 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC) What the hell is going on here? why is there a content dispute in the middle of this request? If it keeps up i would ask the whole lot be archived, what a mess. mark nutley (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we close this with a general note that multiple reverts aren't an entitlement and the terms of the probation entail an obligation to responsible engagement. The healing of the climate change articles is more important and should be given a higher priority than any one edit. --TS 12:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning William M. Connolley
|