Misplaced Pages

Request concerning Hipocrite

User requesting enforcement

Nsaa (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

1. Warning by nsaa (talk · contribs)

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

whatever the community decide

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It may also be wise to take a look at this User_talk:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris#What_do_you_claim.3F.

@2010-04-25T20:54:01 LessHeard vanU: As far as I see the article is under probation per this edit first edit on the talk page at 2010-04-03T10:28:17 so the 1RR restriction applies. Nsaa (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2010-04-25T19:45:24 Nsaa (→Requests_for_enforcement: new section)

Discussion concerning Hipocrite

Statement by Hipocrite

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by others about the request concerning Hipocrite

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

Complaining about the wife beater comment is odd. He was quoting Bertie Russell's example of the fact that questions which contain implicit assumptions are not always answerable rather than accusing another editor. --BozMo talk 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't odd. He should have used quotes, if that was his intention. If someone comes up to you in a bar and asks if you abused your family today most peoples first reaction is not to think 'ah yes, good old Bertie'. Like it or not this is an international site and if people will use such phrasing whilst maintaining a battleground mentality then the odd thing to do would be to let them carry on. The phrase 'wifebeater' is inappropriate without context, and even then it is a stretch of the imagination to see how it could be appropriate to encyclopedia building. Weakopedia (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Comment by Cla68: A few hours ago Hipocrite unilaterally deleted about half the content from the Ian Plimer article, even though discussion on the talk page was making good progress. He also did basically the same thing at the Edward Wegman article, including removing most of the reliable sources from the section such as the House hearing transcript and Wegman's report. Hipocrite has ignored or responded rudely to requests to self-revert . I believe Hipocrite is being disruptive. Check out this remark about NSAA, for whom English is apparently a second language "Editors who speak broken English should not be editing controversial articles". If Hipocrite doesn't climb down from the Reichstag soon, I'm going to file a separate request for enforcement below this one. The AGW editors recently had shown good progress at working together in a productive manner. It would be a shame if Hipocrite was allowed to destroy this progress. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Hipocrite's edit does a lot to assuage my long term concerns about the way that article has been going, but I appreciate that it may not be to everybody's taste. If you think it's wrong, why don't you just revert it yourself and discuss it? I don't know where the fashion for demanding that editors revert their own perfectly good edits came from. We all know how to edit Misplaced Pages and we don't need permission to edit. --TS 23:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It was other editors who added most of the material, not me. If you read the talk page discussion, you'll see that Hipocrite didn't like it after the sources used in the "Volcano" section were attributed, which had been done to resolve (successfully) a budding content dispute. Hipocrite responded by blanking the entire thing. Not good. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a content matter which doesn't belong in an enforcement action. But while we're here, your view that the dispute had been successfully resolved is incorrect. I don't agree with Hipocrite's edit, but your implication that everything was fine until Hipocrite barged in is false. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The talk page discussion was progressing productively. When someone disrupts that because they apparently don't like the way the discussion is going, then that is a matter for this board. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Cla68, what's disruptive is your insistence that biographies of living persons be used as coat racks to discuss global warming. Hipocrite (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, don't go there please. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong that's an issue for another venue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Result concerning Hipocrite

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

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

If I were less involved, I'd block for this PA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What PA is that then? Am i not allowed to comment on an editors snideness now? mark nutley (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Per the above action with respect to my comments on an editors dickishness, no, you are not. Hipocrite (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• To spell it out, "he must have been dragged up not brought up" is unacceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The internal irony of the sentence "I tell you, the guy is incapable of being civil, he must have been dragged up not brought up" puts the whole sanctions regime in a nutshell; i.e., the expectation of exactingly correct behavior from others while exempting oneself from the same standard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the usual suspects demanding my head and that i am in the wrong from expressing my opinion on another editors continued barrage of snide remarks. I have yet to see any of the above editors bring WMC to book here for his attacks on me, yet they are all to willing to jump all over a perceived insult. Were i come from that phrase is in common usage, it is an indicator of poor manners, which is shown in the diffs stephan did not bother to post, i`m done with this now mark nutley (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That argument ("where I come from...") is depreciated. I noted before that where I come from, calling people "fucking retarded" is fine, but to question someone's honesty or motive without strong proof is by far the most substantial slight around. Apparently, here at Misplaced Pages, calling people dicks is the most substantial slight around, but accusing others of dishonesty and improper motive is AOK. You'll have to abide by that strucutre if you want to edit CC articles. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Deprecated", perhaps? We wouldn't want our arguments to lose value, after all. Fell Gleaming 13:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark has redacted the most viscous part now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm sure the conversation will flow better now. ;-) ATren (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Another personal attack, while he has an open enforcement request. The attack is, as these things go, relatively mild. But to do that while he had an open enforcement request is troubling. His response (edit summary hah) also suggest contempt for community norms. Guettarda (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning WMC

User requesting enforcement

Cla68 Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

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

1. Violation of 1RR at a BLP article under this probation- 1st revert: Revision as of 22:08, 25 April 2010; 2nd revert: Revision as of 08:34, 26 April 2010
2. Personal attacks on discussion page for same article:

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

1. 1RR restriction
2. Previous block for 1RR violation by LessHeard vanU
3. Warning not to use demeaning or derogatory phrases or words with regard to other contributors

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

Continue with escalating series of blocks until the behavior is corrected

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Diffs speak for themselves. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: Judging from some of the comments below, I guess those diffs don't speak for themselves with everyone. Not only did WMC remove reliably sourced information and violate his 1RR restriction when doing so, plus making two personal attacks during the ensuing discussion on the article talk page, but this episode illustrates the long-running double-standard employed by WMC when it comes to AGW-related BLPs, in which he adds negative or disparaging information to skeptic's BLPs and removes such information from others. He has been doing this for years, as shown by these edits to the BLP of a skeptic: .

Then, last month he made this edit to another skeptic's BLP. Not only did he add negative information sourced to a blog, but he did so to an author who had, only a few months before, written unflatteringly about WMC in a published book. WMC shouldn't have even been touching that article. Cla68 (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning WMC

Statement by WMC

There are several issues here, but the major one we're talking about seems to be the 1RR, so I'll address that. I explicitly claimed a BLP exemption for my revert, so the issue is was the edit acceptable under BLP exemption. As I've said on the talk page, in my opinion the "impeccable sourcing" bit is irrelevant. The question is balance, and selective quotation. If I say "immigration is both a blessing and a curse" and you quote me as saying "immigration is... a curse" then your sources are impeccable but you have misrepresented what I said and if you did that on wiki it would be a BLP violation. This is the same issue, though less clear. The section I removed was entitled "Views on Climate Change" but that section by no means represents Curry's views on climate change, instead it merely presents some recent quotes of Curry disagreeing with the IPCC. That is not her view. Curry essentially believes the GW storyline as presented by IPCC. She has a number of quibbles and concerns about the process, but those are at the margins. Her overall viewpoint (which isn't very exciting, because it is the default, and so goes under-reported) is a "warmist" if you need a term William M. Connolley (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Cla is making an elementary logical and wiki error by asserting that because he didn't like my BLP-related edits elsewhere, I am not permitted to make BLP related edits in this area. This assertion by Cla is clearly ridiculous. More directly: even if I had made grossly BLP violating edits elsewhere (which I dispute) that doesn't affect in the slightest the existence of the BLP policy, or my (all of our) duty to remove BLP violating material; and my right to claim BLP exemption for such edits as required William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be reduced to just a slightly iffy "No, not obviously, and not yet. You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that" (NW, 23:55, 27 April 2010). I think it is obvious that that diff doesn't merit reporting on its own; indeed I don't think it merits reporting at all. Please examine the context of that comment: Tillman is trying to justify adding a pile of tittle-tattle to a scientific biography, and completely ignoring Curry's actual real work, which is why she has her current position. This is a genuine ongoing problem with this and indeed many other GW type bios.

Also, I put on record my strong objection to Lar pretending to be uninvolved: he is obviously far too biased and involved even to see his involvement. The truely uninvolved admins ought to see this and ask Lar to step back to prevent his bias biasing the results William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning WMC

• Clear BLP violation; 3RR-like restrictions don't apply. Guettarda (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Discussion entirely within the "norm" that's tolerated here. Guettarda (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Guettarda regarding the BLP issue. Cherry-picking comments from blog postings to paint a picture on an issue conforming with an editor's ideological predispositions just isn't on. I'm surprised at this, because Cla68 has often expressed concern over BLP matters. If anything, Marknutley's repeated introduction of such material should be the issue here. It's too bad there's no provision for sanctioning such edits. Oh, wait... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cherry-picking from blogs? I see references from the Times and the New York Times in there. A whittling down of the section in lieu of outright deletion would have been less disruptive.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that all of the sources were blogs. Should have been clearer, sorry. The "cherry picking" point remains: one can easily construct a BLP-violating article using only the best of sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Heyitspeter, that's exactly it. If WMC had just removed the information sourced to the blogs and left the info that was better sourced, then taken it to the talk page, as we're supposed to do, then there wouldn't be a problem. As the talk page discussion shows, including WMC's opposition to (and personal attack on) Tillman's proposed variation of the text in question, WMC was simply revert warring material that he didn't want in the article in any shape or form. That's a violation of the restriction and disruptive. Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:BLP, The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material. And remember, a zero-tolerance policy toward any language that could be considered less polite than a Victorian tea society can go both ways. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you find a different quote? The material removed was exhaustively cited. I'll remove this comment to avoid cluttering the page if you find a relevant excerpt.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Whoever added material to a biography of a living person from the comments section of http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com , from http://wattsupwiththat.com , and from http://www.qando.net should promptly be informed that they are no about to be no-longer welcome to edit. As such, I suggest that Marknutley, who has gotten his last final last final doublesecret final warning be final warninged again and that Marknutley , who has gotten his last final last final doublesecret final warning be final final warninged again and that Tillman be given his first final warning. Hipocrite (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  Lar states "The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced." Lar, in addition to NW's question, please discuss how (using this pre-revert version of the article) the statement "She has ... for example, "The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue,"" This is sourced to . Please, do explain how this is impecable. It leads me to question if you are actually evaluating the requests, or merely taking sides based on your preconception of what must be true. If it turns out that you agree with me that this is, in fact, the opposite of impecable sourcing, what should be done to correct your conduct? Hipocrite (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  I see Lar has now moderated his comment. While he initially said "The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced," he didn't actually mean all the statements. The ones that were not actually by Dr. Curry were apparently not impeccably sourced. Apparently, the appropriate response to someone who puts certainly defamatory content about living persons into articles is not to revert them, but rather to piece through their edits to determine what of those edits are impeccably sourced and what parts of them are defamatory poorly sourced content about living persons. I hope Lar will update WP:BLP to reflect this new understanding. Hipocrite (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  Not particularly surprised by that comment. But disappointed just the same. You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  "The real issue here is the spin control," Lar. Why are you spin-controlling your "The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced," claptrap? Just own up to it, already. Hipocrite (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? If the NYT isn't good enough for you, what is? This isn't the first time that WMC et al. have removed NYT sourced "inconvenient truths". Regrettably it probably won't be the last. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  Interesting spin there. But we aren't talking about the New York Times. We're talking about an unverified blog comment. Which you apparently believe to be "impeccably sourced". I'd hate to imagine what you consider "so-so" sourcing. Guettarda (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? I'm not talking about blogs. I am talking about sources such as the NYT, which were also removed willy nilly. You repeating this after I've clarified it, more than once, is starting to verge on bad faith assumption. ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  "The real issue here is the spin control". Funny, I thought the real issue here was attributing controversial statements to living people based on unverified blog comments. Guettarda (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  Not particularly surprised by that comment. But disappointed just the same. The enforcement request was raised to address the spin control by WMC et al, in my view. You're using BLP as a smoke screen. ++Lar: t/c 03:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  I must say I am particularly surprised by your comments. As for spin - yes, this is spin. Spin so single-minded that people are willing to resort to using unverified blog comments to advance their narrative. Still, given that you'd delete dozens of bios simply because they lacked sources, I'm shocked that you would place advancing your chosen narrative over our most basic rules of sourcing. "Don't put contentious words you can't verify in the mouths of living people" is far more basic than our BLP policy. Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please look through the edits under discussion. You're implying that all WMC did was remove sentences sourced to blogs , but he also removed statements sourced by The New York Times and The Times.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not. The entire section has BLP problems. The most egregious problem was the fact that part of it was sourced to a blog comment. It's entirely in keeping with accepted practice to remove the entire section. Specifically here though I'm talking about Lar's assertion that the entire section "impeccably sourced". Which is, of course, obviously false. Guettarda (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (2) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You think BLP advocates the deletion of the entirety of sections that have sentences that are poorly sourced?--Heyitspeter (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Read MastCell's comment in the section below. I'm simply describing norms that are considered acceptable. As long as one is operating within the norms of the community, there's nothing to discuss. On the other hand, claiming that the comment was an appropriate source, as Lar and Cla68 have done ("impeccably sourced" in Lar's words), is outside of the norms of acceptable behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (3) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• random comment I was actively editing this article while much of this was going on. MN added some stuff (good stuff, but maybe too much). WMC took it off (with some justification. There was simply too much.). MN added a tag (with some justification. His good stuff had gone.) There was discussion, a sentence was added back and MN removed the tag. So everybody was happy. Well, less unhappy. Now we can move on to fight the same foolish war on yet another page (sigh). Neither MN nor WMC assume good faith of the other, but there you go. Thepm (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

@Lar: "The BLP policy is being used as a smoke screen by WMC's many defenders, who have predictably formed ranks" - please stop it with the conspiracy theories and lay off the accusations of bad faith. You are the one who's attacking an editor for removing content sourced to blog comments from a BLP. The conspiracy you see - it's called Misplaced Pages policy. Guettarda (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (4) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Note - you said The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced. An unverified comment on a blog is "impeccably sourced"? I realise nothing Misplaced Pages should be taken too seriously, but you're turning this into a real joke. Guettarda (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If WMC's intention was to protect a BLP, then why did he make edits like these: in the past to the BLP of a climate change skeptic? Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to play that game, first explain why you consider an unverified blog comment to be a "reliable source" for a BLP. Then you can talk about other people's actions. Guettarda (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (5) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And then you can explain how edits from two years ago are relevant in the discussion. Guettarda (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's one from last month, re-inserting material sourced to a blog into a skeptic's bio. Same pattern. What makes this worse is that Booker discusses WMC in an unflattering light in two pages in his recent book, so WMC shouldn't have been touching Booker's BLP, let alone adding negative information sourced to a blog. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, before you try to play this game, first you need to account for your own actions. In the very article we're talking about here, you assert that an unverified blog comment is a "reliable source". As far as I can tell, that's a flat-out falsehood. You need to explain that first. Otherwise how is anyone can take you seriously? Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Note that it's normal for enforcement requests to look at the behaviour of not only the subject of the complaint, but also the person bringing the complaint. And in this case, the real problem here is your assertion that unverified blog comments count as "reliable source". Guettarda (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (6)... See the pattern yet? ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Lar, the pattern is that you're going to try to spin that comment you made about unverified blog comments on a no-login unmoderated comments section being impeccably reliable till you're dizzy. Hipocrite (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I was questioned about what I meant, the very first time, I clarified that I was referring to the NYT. NOT blogs. (I support Tony's thinking that we ought to completely eliminate reliance on blogs...) I clarified that the first time it was brought up. And yet, here you are, still misconstruing what I said, over and over and over. If you repeat a Big Lie enough times (or even a small one) maybe it will stick? Is that the approach? You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? Stop saying I am talking about blogs. Please. It's tiresome. Or admit that you're the one spinning here, part of the cadre. ++Lar: t/c 11:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, I'm willing to bygones your regrettable statement that unverified comments in blog comment sections are "impeccably reliable," if you'll admit that WMCs reversions of edits that insert actually defamatory facts sourced to unverified comments in blog comment sections are acceptable under WP:BLP. You can then have whatever argument you want about spinning, and others using blog sources, and whatever, but right now apparently you're saying the appropriate response to an edit that has what appears to possibly be reliably sourced information from the NYT and also obviously defamatory information sourced to unverified comments in blog comment sections is not to revert on sight as many times as it takes, but rather do do something else. Now, I know you don't think that, but sadly, when you admit the above assertion, it'll weaken your case and damage your spin here. I'm sorry that you went out on a limb about the sourcing, but you're going to have to crawl in. Hipocrite (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? Stop saying I am talking about blogs. Please. It's tiresome. Just flat out stop. No more spin, just stop. ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You just can't admit when you make a mistake can you? Stop spinning and admit that your first comment was wrong. Please. It's tiresome. Just flat out stop. No more spin, just stop. Hipocrite (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered. "I'm referring to the stuff sourced to the NYT." As explained to you over and over. Perhaps you need to be sanctioned to discontinue repeating the same tiresome assertion over and over after it has already been answered. But that might interfere with your spin... ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it midly ironic that someone who actually numbered the times they said the same thing is suggesting I be "sanctioned to discontinue repeating the same tiresome assertion over and over after it has already been answered." However, I should note that with respect to this question, since it's you who alledge that it's bee answered, and you who I am challenging, that you are certainly not, even under your tortured definition, "uninvolved," with respect to my "repeating the same tiresome assertion over and over after it has already been answered." Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What I was numbering was the number of times Guettarda raised the point AFTER it was already asked and answered. Not how many times I pointed it out (which, to be sure, is the same index value). Hope that clears up your latest confusion and that you now discontinue this fruitless line of badgering. Every time we interact I find your chosen moniker more apt. Why is that? ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably because when people are willing to stand up to you you get defensive and try to attack the motives and character of the individuals who disagree with you. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We can discuss the content dispute on the article's talk page if you like. The question here is the disruption caused by WMC to the article by revert warring, contrary to his 1RR probation, and the two personal attacks he made in the content discussion on the talk page. What is your opinion of those two personal attacks on the article talk page? If WMC's actions were meant to help facilitate a content discussion, do you think those two comments were helpful, or disruptive? Cla68 (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• (I'm "Lar-uninvolved", since I've never edited either the article not the talk page. Move my comments up if you move his up). As per the several comments above, there is nothing actionable here - indeed, WMC should be lauded for dealing with a BLP issue. If you, Cla, feel that there is a double standard, complain about the cases where BLP is violated, not about those where it is upheld. "Sorry, we executed an innocent man by accident. For fairness, we now need to eliminate all others, too" is not a good argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) (Note: I moved this up from the admin section. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC))
  • Sorry, you're (by far) not as uninvolved as me. You may not have edited this article but you edit in this space far more than I do (i.e. essentially not at all) ++Lar: t/c 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Translation: I contribute content and have demonstrated some understanding of the issues. All you do is pushing misguided and one-sided sanctions following your preconceived opinion, without either knowing the editors, the domain, nor even the particular case very well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding what was so dreadful about WMC's actions here. I've not been involved in any way with this article, but having reviewed it I think it's clear that the controversial section was "dirty" - a mixture of cherry-picked quotes from reliable and unreliable sources. As I understand it, WMC's concern, apart from the sourcing, is that the content seriously misrepresented Curry's views. The fact that some of the content was reliably sourced doesn't detract from this concern. Given that WMC has worked in the field and is familar with the work of others in that field, I don't think we can dismiss those concerns. It's not about "spin control", nor is BLP just about sourcing; it's essential that a subject's views should be reflected accurately. As others have pointed out below, BLP's toughened approach mandates a conservative approach to content. If questionable material has been added it needs to be removed.

Unfortunately think that Lar's strong reaction is affected by his evident dislike of WMC. Put it this way - if it was any editor other than WMC, does anyone think that such a severe penalty (or indeed any penalty) would have been proposed? I suggest that Lar should consider recusing himself from future WMC-related enforcement requests, given his apparent strength of feeling. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Assumes facts (in this case, feelings) not in evidence. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I have no personal animus for WMC. I just dislike the tactics he employs. You should too. ++Lar: t/c 10:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I second the request for Lar to recuse. I also ask that someone who boasts that his family owned 8 cars at one time should be removed from oversight of an area that intimately involves the topic of fuel combustion. I'm not joking. ► RATEL ◄ 09:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This request is ludicrous on the face of it, as if it's allowed to stand then we should also eliminate anyone who brags of having less than 8 cars, or who brags about riding a bike or who brags about their use of wood to heat their house instead of natural gas, or any of a number of things. The request needs to be formally rebutted and disallowed, with an admonishment not to repeat it. ++Lar: t/c 10:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Larry, I'm sorry, but the fact that you openly proclaim your love of engines and ownership of numerous vehicles destroys trust in your judgement on the issue of fossil fuel emissions for me, and I'm sure for others too. I think Bozmo's suggestion that admins be rostered off this area on some sort of schedule would be a minimalistic, but perhaps effective, remedy for these concerns. ► RATEL ◄ 11:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Even with 50 cars Lar could only drive one at once, a total climate change contribution equal to that of an editor with but one vehicle. Further since Ratel is using a variety of electricities and plastics to convey his displeasure I believe as a representative of the energy industry he should recuse himself from this debate. Weakopedia (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The probation terms state that "uninvolved" should be interpreted broadly. In my view both DrS and Lar qualify as the rules are written in this case. Involvement is not the same as neutrality. But perhaps we should all do a month-on month-off rota so that we don't get sucked into the personal stuff. Off article talk page involvement with the individuals concerned is probably not ideal. --BozMo talk 10:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that Cla68's diffs about blp and blogs are from 2008, and some of them, such as are totally uncontroversial housekeeping. While Cla's last diff, using deltoid on the Booker page is troubling, how much grudge-holding should be permitted by someone who has lost perspective? Just yesterday, Cla68 was defending comments on a blog as reliable sources. I think perhaps everyone in this discussion who has inserted blog sources or defended blog sources as reliable needs a break - that would be WMC, Marknutley, Cla68 and Lar. Perhaps ban them all from the topic area for a short time to allow them to regain their balance? Say, a month, and perhaps a longer ban on all of them under BLPSE, perhaps 3 months on all BLPs? Hipocrite (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop saying I am talking about blogs. Please. It's tiresome. ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then acknowledge that WMC's second revert was not only acceptable, it was actually proscribed. Hipocrite (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, your claim that this was "impeccably sourced" still stands in your comment. You have not retracted that claim. Thus, you are still claiming that the blog comment is an "impeccably source". Strike the whole section (because, of course, your conclusions follow from your outlandish claim) and we can move on. But as things stand, you're telling people to stop talking about a claim you, by all appearances, stand by. Guettarda (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I was questioned, I (two comments below the orginal) pointed out I was talking about the NYT, not blogs. If you think a strike and rephrase will help, sure. But I don't see the need if the clarification is right there next to it. And yet you go on and on about it over and over. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by ATren - Round and round we go. We're in the neighborhood of a dozen requests against WMC now, most of them credible reports, and nothing but token sanctions. Lar is the lone admin who has any interest in leveling this playing field, and like clockwork the WMC apologists are coming out of the woodwork to attack Lar, someone who not only has no involvement in this topic, but has also professed sympathy with WMC's own views on the matter.

  And WMC's defense? BLP! Laughable for anyone who knows his history. WMC has openly scorned BLP when LP is a skeptic -- just a few months ago he was warring to keep "see also: climate change denial" in a bunch of skeptic BLPs even though the denial article was primarily about fraud. But when BLP policy suits him, he's more than willing to use it.

  But really, the issue here is yet another attack on Marknutley, someone who is actually working to add content in this topic area (how many articles created now? At least 3 by my recollection) and who has been subjected to constant mocking and abuse by WMC. That first PA diff is inexcusable given their history, and it has to stop. But as long as the apologists refuse any significant sanction against an untouchable, this will continue to be a poisonous editing environment. ATren (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley. Let me say it just as it is. I have some time for Mark but that does not mean when he constructs such a poor biased BLP that every editor should congratulate him on his efforts to improve wikipedia. Why is this at enforcement? Why are we getting into this trench warfare? It was a crap attempt at a neutral BLP, now for some reason we are all here arguing about it, that is an absolute joke. Polargeo (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Why are we getting into this trench warfare?" Because admins refuse to remove the battleground editor. ATren (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Taking out MN, and you, would help. Or did you have someone else in mind? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I’m not happy with the direction this discussion is taking. If a BLP exemption can be taken for a citation to the New York Times, then the 1R restriction has no teeth. I’m sympathetic to the view that if someone posted that person X was a denier, which no sourcing, then an editor under an editing restriction can properly claim an exemption to remove the transgression. However, when the exemption, lists “biased, .. or poorly sourced” which is broad enough to drive a truck through. If the editor merely needs to claim that, in the sole opinion of the editor, the edit introduced some bias, then virtually no edit is covered. I think Cla68 is right that WMC violated the spirit of the restriction, but WMC can claim the exception. The result is that we should modify the exemption. We need to be vigilant about rooting out BLP violations, but some of the discussion ought to be carried out in the talk pages – we should narrow the scope of the exemption so that it covers only blatant examples, one’s where there’s no reasonable debate about the issue.SPhilbrickT 14:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is claiming the BLP exemption applies to the NYT. It does, however, apply to the unmoderated no-login comments section of a blog, wihch was used to shove words into Dr. Curry's mouth. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please help me understand your point. I do understand that there were multiple statements removed, one of which may have come from a blog, but one of which came from the NYT. When I see User:Guettarda state “Clear BLP violation” I don’t see any clarification that this applies only to a subset of the removed material. Are you telling me that Guettarda’s comment is limited to the blog entry?SPhilbrickT 16:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's already been clarified that even Lar agrees that "if someone inserts obviously defamatory information cited to a blog comment on a no-login unmoderated highly partisan blog, but also inserts content in the exact same edit that is purportedly attributable to the New York Times" then the best practice is to "revert first and track down sources later." Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The result is that we should modify the exemption - you can't. BLP policy is outside the scope of this probation William M. Connolley (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn’t suggesting that it should be modified within the scope of the probation, merely that it should be modified. I don’t have time to tackle that now, we’ll see if I still feel motivated to consider it this weekend.SPhilbrickT 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar's approach to this seems to be based on two assumptions - that the removal of this content was an improper act of"spin control" and that there's a "cadre" of WMC defenders. Both are faulty. There's no dispute that some of the sourcing (blogs) was bad. WMC is concerned that the section as a whole, including the NY Times-sourced material, gave a misleading impression of Curry's views. He knows Curry's work. I don't, and I'm betting Lar doesn't either. Surely it can't be wise just to dismiss WMC's concerns out of hand, given his professional knowledge?We do want experts to contribute to Misplaced Pages, right? Misrepresenting someone's views is a serious issue - potentially defamatory - so it's absolutely right to exercise caution.

Second, I strongly object to the implication that everyone who disagrees with Lar is a WMC "defender". I'm certainly not, and I've criticised his conduct in the past. Assessing whether or not WMC acted properly should not depend on your prior opinion of him. It's absurd to label an assessment that no improprietry occurred as a "defence" of WMC. People are capable of being objective; it's verging on an assumption of bad faith to assume that any assessment that differs from Lar's is motivated by partisanship.

Surely, as a matter of basic fairness, we can't treat WMC differently from everyone else - whether more favourably or punitively. I seriously doubt whether Lar would have reacted this way if it had been anyone else. His issue appears to be not so much with the action as with the actor. I don't think that's a healthy approach. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Imputing motivations seems like the essence of failure to WP:agf,do you disagree?SPhilbrickT 16:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about Lar, aren't you? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: I let this sit a while, but on reflection I think it needs to be addressed point by point. Let's start with your assumptions about my approach:

• "Removal of this content was an improper act of spin control" - I started by looking carefully at the article beforehand, and walking the diffs and checking the refs. After that, yes, that was my evaluation... there is a long history of spin control (a kind of POV pushing) in this area, and it's been done by both "sides". I and others have in the past asserted that to be the case. Nothing I have seen recently has changed my view that in general there is still a desire by both "sides" to do this. I've also asserted that while both sides try to get their innings in, the playing field is not level, that one side seems to have an easier time of it. So, then... this content. My evaluation of the matter, and I acknowledge others may not agree, is that WMC came in and removed content that was inconvenient to the narrative that he apparently wants (I say apparently, because it's based on observation of outcomes, not of knowledge of his motives) to put forth, that there is no meaningful dissent and no problems whatever with anything related to the process or output of the research around AGW. Some of that removed content was poorly sourced yes, but some was impeccably sourced. Since WMC tends to do this only in one direction, but not the other, then yes, it was a reasonable conclusion on my part that it was spin control rather than a genuine desire to uphold the principles of BLP. Others may not agree, but WMC doesn't have a long history of generic BLP work that crosses topic boundaries. His BLP work seems to be concentrated in removing things that undercut that narrative and inserting things that bolster it.
• "there's a "cadre" of WMC defenders" - I think for more background it's useful to review the recent discussion TS and I had (on my talk) about why a "cadre" is not a "conspiracy". There are a number of editors in this area, who, whenever WMC (or one of the others among them) gets into trouble, speak out in his (or the other person's) defense. That's not a bad thing in and of itself. See Meatball:DefendEachOther. No outside communication, or collusion, or coordination, is necessary or implied by me. Occasionally pointing out something that WMC does wrong isn't proof that one isn't among these folk, and pointing out that WMC is right about something isn't proof that one IS among these folk. Rather, it's a pattern of behavior. To deny that there is a group of folk who hang together (call them what you will) is to deny reality... you can see it here. It may not be changable, but it's not a good thing to have people reflexivly defending each other, especially when their tactics include attacking whoever points it out.
• "the implication that everyone who disagrees with Lar is a WMC "defender"." See above. I make no such claim, and if you read that implication, it's not correct. People disagree all the time. But there nevertheless are defenders here.
• Finally, you are implying that this issue is somehow related to me, rather than to WMC. That's attacking the messenger and completely invalid. You say you "seriously doubt" I would have "reacted this way" if it were anyone else. That is false... if it were some other person with the problematic history of WMC and with the approach to interacting with others that WMC routinely employs my reaction would be the same. It's not personal at all.

I hope this perhaps clears up some misconceptions. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar - it's very hard to believe that you "I started by looking carefully at the article beforehand, and walking the diffs and checking the refs," but didn't notice that one of the refs was to a deleted blog comment (and other links were to random blogs) and quotes attributed to a living person were not uttered by that living person, and that at least one sentence was a quote, but was not attributed. Did you miss those, or ignore them? Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I neither missed nor ignored the sources, but the source I spent the most time with was this one. But you're focusing on a side issue from the general thrust of my remarks, which are a thematic rebuttal of ChrisO, not (yet another tiresome) digression about who said what when about blogs. If that's what you want to talk about... Dunno what to tell you, then, because I consider it asked and answered. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it was the source you spent most time with, you'll have noticed that it's a blog source: it seems to be commonly described as a NYT source, but that's a little misleading. Your comment above that "clarified that I was referring to the NYT. NOT blogs" looks technically incorrect. Having said that, I've looked at the author's bio and find it credible as a WP:SPS. In my view it's worth being specific about that justification for blog sources published by such organisations as the NYT. . . dave souza, talk 22:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Mark Nutley People seem to be having an issue with the blog link, with one editor above saying the blog was putting words into DR Currys mouth. This is not the case, "What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them" This is from her open letter. New York Times For any editor to suggest that i used a blog source to put words into Dr Currys mouth is wrong, and i ask you redact your statements. mark nutley (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment by WMC, moved from below: Lar, this is twaddle, unless you regard blocks and a 1RR restriction as "at best a slap". You seem to have lost touch with what has actually occurred William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pomposity and laconicism

I hadn't read the alleged personal attacks in the msst recent Cla68 enforcement request, but Nuclear Warfare says he's iffy about one, which goes:

"You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that."

There's a certain laconic tone to that, but it's well chosen given that he's replying to a person who has stated, without shame or hesitation, that he thinks a sequence of blog postings, a write-up in The New York Times and an interview is "something of a watershed moment in career" of a quite eminent and decorated scientist.

If only that were so, my old mate PZ Myers, once a mere associate professor, now a world-famous blogger, would be able to move to Harvard and trade in his blog for the Louis Agassiz chair once held by one of his heroes, Stephen Jay Gould.

As you can see, I lack William's talent for laconic humor. His comment was no personal attack, though it cut through the nonsense more surely than I could. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC frequently personalizes disputes and baits other editors on article talk pages (yes, I can back that up). When Tillman made it clear that he, understandably, didn't appreciate WMC's remark, WMC refused to back off of his statement. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

@Admins? It's not clear to me how it has been concluded that WMC acted in the right. I see how his removal of blog-sourced sentences might be covered under WP:BLP, but he removed sentences sourced by the Times and The New York Times as well. (I suppose this applies to MN's treatment too.) I posed this question to SBHB above and did not receive a response. I'd love to have this cleared up.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As I told you earlier, read MastCell's response. Short answer - it's within accepted practice to undo the entire edit that adds a serious BLP violation. Longer answer - there are issues with the remainder of the content. Just because something is referenced to a particular source doesn't mean it fairly represents the source (I don't think this does; for example, the final sentence of the first paragraph attaches the "we're experts, trust us" idea to transparency with research, when in fact the article presents is as a response to the loss of trust by the public in response to the CRU emails). And just because something is sourced doesn't mean it creates problems by distorting the person's record. And this was not the first time Mark Nutley was told that unverified blog comments cannot be used. An editor who uses an unverifed blog comment to support extraordinary accusations of "corruption" raises a huge red flag over all their contributions. Guettarda (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Dave souza, from below So adding blogs to BLPs are OK sometimes, and sanctionable other times? ATren (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Restoring balancing text and accepting that a better citation is needed differs from introducing a blog as a new source in the first place. The editor concerned at least appreciated that the source was inappropriate, and your edit which followed within minutes was appropriate in removing a now unbalanced and inappropriate paragraph. That removal has stood, without any dissent that I've found. As for blogs in general, it's been argued below that a NYT blog is an impeccable source for a BLP – the blog concerned fully meets WP:SPS, so its use seems reasonable. . . dave souza, talk 07:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Response on proposed restrictions The prohibition against WMC even commenting on the appropriateness of sourcing is frankly abhorrent. I realize that Lar and LHvU have declared open season on WMC, but this goes too far. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Lar mentions the baiting of WMC which is funny because I have shown diffs on the talkpage where he has done just that. Here we have a case where certain editors created a BLP on a notable scientist who passed the Prof test and all they seem to want to do is highlight some recent criticism she made of the way fellow scientists have handled sceptics. But even this they have done in an extremely biased way using poor sourcing and misrepresenting any good sources to twist her meaning. WMC makes a perfectly legitimate and actually quite polite comment on the talkpage, which completely reflects the situation. Yes it is about the editor but last time I looked wikipedians weren't banned from making negative comments about editors actions when justified. Okay I will make a comment about certain admins down below. What sort of a totalitarian regime are we running here when Lar fails to push though heavy sanctions for a legitimate revert then he takes the ridiculous opportunity provided by LHvU's misguided civility crackdown to ban WMC from commenting on other editors. Nightmare, that is like tying his hands behind his back and in this instance for what? Lar please stop acting as an uninvolved admin before you turn this process into any more of a joke. LHvU, you are misguided here. Polargeo (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I really suggest that the two of you re-read my proposed restrictions; there is nothing about restraining Doctor Connolley commenting upon content issues, and everything about constraining comment directed toward another editor, opinions on why they edit as they do, or speculations upon their intellectual vigour or moral fortitude (or similar musings) - it is "Comment on content, not on the contributor" writ large, prompted by what I regard as exampls of Misplaced Pages:Civility#Identifying incivility (particularly point 1.d). If you have issues upon that, and the propriety in applying them, then you need to change the consensus regarding major Misplaced Pages policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That may be what you meant, but it's not what you wrote. Your recommendation was to restrict WMC with regards to "comment about another editor, their editing, the value of the sources quoted..." etc (emphasis added). To restrict comments on someone's editing is bad enough, though it's just about defensible if carefully phrased. But to restrict discussion on the usefulness of sources is indefensible and may even violate some of Misplaced Pages's core policies. I fully endorse "comment on content, not on the contributor" but the proposal goes far beyond that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What WMC said in that situation was a fair comment. Please stop acting as some sort of extremist civility police. To extend any sort of restrictions based on it is a gross overreaction. If WMC had said "You are a total dick who doesn't even deserve to be spat on by scientist X, let alone be allowed to write their bio", or words to that effect, then I would be calling for sanctions against him. Polargeo (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This whole Comment on content, not on the contributor is massively overused often mistakenly to signify that something is a WP:personal attack. This is a misrepresentation of not only the rule but also the spirit of the rule and is hence WP:wikilawyering. After outlining the clear cases of what a personal attack is the actual text finishes with the statement When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. If you are trying to class WMC's statement as a personal attack based on the fact that he has actually mentioned the contributor you are misinterpreting the rule in a quite extreme but unfortunately all too common way. Polargeo (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

SBHB, what I said in respect of WMC - in full - was, "Any comment about another editor, their editing, the value of the sources quoted, should be regarded as a statement and thus need to be sourced or evidenced." (added underlining). I had earlier noted my desire to prevent from Doctor Connelley from "opinionating" upon editors and their comments, so the sentence you partly quoted was to say that any comment by Doctor Connelley about an editor or their edits needed to be able to be referenced to a source, or to WP policy or guideline. Doctor Connelley can describe another editors contribution as poor or misguided or wrong, provided he can indicate a source where the content concerned has been noted as poor, misguided or wrong, or the relevant policy that equates the edit as poor, misguided or wrong (I would be happy to include the term "able" into the sentence, there should be no need for every instance to be ref'ed, just that it can be upon request.) I am suggesting that Doctor Connelley is disabled from sharing his personal opinion and judgement upon other editors and their contributions - per the nutshell quoted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Subhead for convenience – newspaper blogs

In discussion here, Mark has introduced what seem to me novel and unpersuasive arguments for accepting blogs on newspaper websites with copyright notices etc. so advice by others would be welcome . . dave souza, talk 22:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning WMC

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

WMC

• So I think we have a general agreement (though not without dissent) that WMC acted appropriately in removing the content and referring the issue to the talk page. Cla68 has brought up a comment of WMC's that he believes merits action. I would appreciate advice from other admins, as I'm a bit iffy on this one: "No, not obviously, and not yet. You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that". NW (Talk) 23:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I concur that your summary appears to be the consensus among those admins who cared to comment. As for the diff you bring up... there are plenty more where that came from. WMC's baiting continues unabated. ++Lar: t/c 00:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • At present I am still struggling with the two way track in "nasty" comments. MN versus WMC is tricky because of the parliamentary rules issue. But this particular comment accusing someone of having no interest in (missing word added later) ^^her^^ science would be less provocative and attacking in my book than Lar "That's not dishonest. Your tactics are, though". It may sound a bit extreme but I am wondering asking for no personal interactions either way between WMC and Lar as a way of improving the atmosphere, since I do not see much productive coming from them? --BozMo talk 06:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not the source of the problem here. I've never had such a restriction imposed, ever. Stop WMC's dishonest tactics and many other problems go away. ++Lar: t/c 12:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I am sorry I regard "dishonest tactics" as a serious and as yet unsubstantiated attack. I would complain if it came from from WMC and I complain equally aimed at WMC. Unsubstantiated non-specific attacks are part of the problem. A large part. --BozMo talk 22:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Everything has a first time. And I notice how your unfounded violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF continue - and that in the probation area, where we are particularly required to assume good faith... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Looks to me like LHvU gets it. Take a look at his comment ("gaming sanctions" == "dishonest tactics", in my view) and see if you change your mind. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • So: can anyone see any problem with Lar commenting as "uninvolved" on possible sanctions against himself? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • • I see rationales provided by WMC, so I think the that aspect of the request fails because we AGF that the reasoning was just that. I also think that in isolation the comments by WMC are within the terms of his civility restriction, but I am concerned that those restrictions are being gamed by WMC in that his tone and inferences create an uncomfortable environment within discussion involving him and those editors who may be considered as editing to a AGW skeptic viewpoint. I think the easiest solution would be a restriction on WMC opinionating on any such editor, or their edits, within the probation area. Any comment about another editor, their editing, the value of the sources quoted, should be regarded as a statement and thus need to be sourced or evidenced. If such comments are not, then WMC is violating his civility restriction and may be sanctioned (except possibly upon these pages). If WMC feels that this constrains his ability to comment within the probation area, then it is by his actions that this has come about. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Exactly so. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • And can we have a symmetric list of editors who are prohibited from opinionating about WMC? It seems to me that this is the elephant in the room which we are not addressing. --BozMo talk 22:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm not seeing the need for that. Handle it on a case by case basis and come down on people who bait WMC without prior provocation (which will be far less once he's prohibited from commenting on other editors) and all will be taken care of in due course. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
              • Generally I don't support that because I cannot see enough evidence that he is the one baiting in general rather than responding. If you look at bullied kids in schools they often have behavioural issues but you need to see it all. Clearly there are many cases with different editors but the general situation in my view does not warrant a one sided action. And I repeat I would prefer a voluntary agreement for a particular list of editors and WMC not to comment on each other's editing, behaviour or knowledge base. Including him on you and you on him cos its getting me down both ways. --BozMo talk 06:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
                • • Are we officially stalled, here? Mn has a agreed form of wording relating to sources - it would be best if we could wrap this up. I would prefer to have something in the order of "WMC is reminded that commentary should be directed toward the content and not the contributor", but in any case believe that we need to close this request down so will accept another "no action" in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
                    • I'd rather see another slap on the wrist that will be ignored than no action at all. Suggest you close as outlined. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley

• Invoking WP:BLPSE and WP:GS/CC, I am proposing a restriction on Marknutley for something along the lines of the following: "Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. Examples of high-quality sources that meet this exception include articles in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media." Obviously, the wording could be improved, but your thoughts? NW (Talk) 02:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a sound principle. Apply it to every article covered by the sanction and every editor, though. Why single out just one editor? ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Because so far I have only seen MN violate this principle. Point me to a number of other such cases of misuse, and I would be happy to expand this. NW (Talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, here's one. (credit to Cla68 for finding it first, it's mentioned above...) ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Point of order: that wasn't a new source, it had been in the article for over a year though it had lately been disputed. The edit summary "rv: please don't remove valid material, you can add a cn if you like" clearly invites questioning of the source. Not the same in principle. . . dave souza, talk 22:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... Would not a 0RR on sourcing, without talkpage consensus, be easier? MN would not be constrained in introducing a source, but could not revert its removal without consensus - or is this simply allowing any source from MN to be removed and then discussion stymied. I am thinking that the long term contributor in good standing would be one that is already regarded by some as being on "MN's side", which leaves us with the unpleasant potential of the ltc's coming under scrutiny.
  • I would also suggest that MN be placed under a "no comments on other editors" restriction as I am suggesting for WMC, as a further method of reducing some of the friction that occurs around his editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • That seems fine with me, although I think there is merit in what I proposed. I have not seen evidence that Mark realizes his misunderstanding of the RS or BLP policies, and until such time that he understands this, I see ample reason to be preventative rather than reactive. NW (Talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I think your wording could be tweaked so to not include passing the proposed sourcing via another editor if the wording as what conforms to a "reliable source" is simply made very clear - even if it appears to be echoing WP:RS. Of course, if someone volunteers to mentor MN and his use of sources then it would be beneficial but I would prefer not to have that requirement. If we place a requirement for strict application of WP:RS - as it is commonly understood, not MN's take - then violation would be a sanctionable matter. It puts the onus on the editor to comply. I do take your point regarding being proactive rather than reactive in trying to resolve this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • The level that I proposed was deliberately higher than the standard required by WP:RS. There are some cases where sources weaker than what I proposed are acceptable, but I am unsure if MN knows when to apply those. For that reason, I would like to have a mentor to advise him if at all possible (Cla68 seems like an excellent choice to help him if he would be willing). If we cannot find a mentor for Mark, then I suppose your proposal of 0RR for sourcing concerns would also work for me. NW (Talk) 23:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • I've proposed mentoring earlier, and I still think its a good idea. One problem with Mark is his strong confirmation bias. He forms his opinion based on unreliable sources, apparently seeing WP:RS as a quaint limitation to work around, not as a way to avoid, well, unreliable information. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
          • I agree to the proposal to see if there would be a volunteer to mentor Marknutley - are we going to suggest it is only in the area of sourcing, because I am not sure the potential pool will be very large if it is to cover every aspect of MN's editing within the probation area? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Per the comments I have made in regard to a subsequent Request relating to MN's use of blogs as sources, I would note that this issue continues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
            • I have asked Cla68 if he would be willing to mentor MN along the lines you suggested, but for now, I am going to propose a closure below. NW (Talk) 22:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Update: Cla has agreed to mentor Mark NW (Talk) 01:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. He is also prohibited from reverting the removal of sources that he added to an article without first gathering talk page consensus. Marknutley is encouraged to find a mentor who can assist in checking the reliability of sources and with more properly educating him on the reliable sources policy."

• Support wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support wording and delighted by mentoring. Lots of brownie points for Cla88. --BozMo talk 20:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support, per LHvU and BozMo. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

+ + + + + + + + + + + + I note that no-one troubled to inform me of this result on my talk page. I take that to mean that no binding result concerning me was invovked - obviously, had any such result been determined, I would have been notified rather than any discovery being left to casual chance William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct. You are a long term contributor to the project and are fully aware of the content/contributor commentary nutshell, so I thought it would be impudent to place that notification upon your talkpage per WP:DTTR (and considered that you would likely be coming to this page and therefore come across it). Where a result would have impacted upon your ability to edit, you would have been promptly notified. Marknutley has also not been officially notified, since he has already started editing within the wording making such notification superflous. However, you have reminded me that I have not logged Mn's notification - so I thank you for that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no restriction on WMC introducing sources? He also added a blog source to an article, as was presented in the RFE. ATren (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No consensus was found for doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Atmoz

User requesting enforcement

mark nutley (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Atmoz (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. Personal Attack
2. Profanity and another PA.
3. Another PA.
4. ...

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

1. He already knows of the probation

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

Up to you guys

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The personal attacks are pretty nasty, attacking an editor just because his English is not perfect is just plain mean.

Discussion concerning Atmoz

Statement by Atmoz

• I'm sorry, but I don't see any personal attacks in the first or third diffs. Telling someone that they may not be as fluent in English as they thought is not a personal attack. The "profanity" (fuck) is not in the second diff. The second diff wasn't very nice, but Nsaa accused me of deleting content by redirecting the article to another article. This is flatly false, as I showed with diffs. I completely merged the Climate Audit page into the Stephen McIntyre page. All of it. The fact that there was no prior discussion does not mean there was no consensus to do so. The fact that the merge stood for over a year shows there was consensus for the merge. That consensus might have changed, I don't care. But please don't accuse me of something I didn't do. I consider that a personal attack. -Atmoz (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Atmoz

• Completely spurious request. We might consider to expand Mark's ban from initiating enforcement requests in general - he seems to have trouble to distinguish between serious and trivial issues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is this "completely spurious"? Take me through the logic that led you to that conclusion, if you would. ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • See your own comment below - and that's generous to Mark. Even WQA is overkill. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
      • • Doesn't follow. Can you try again explaining why you concluded it is "completely spurious". If I thought it was completely spurious I woulud have said words to that effect instead of what I said, which was that WQA might be the better place. NOT that there was no merit in raising the issue. ++Lar: t/c 02:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
      • What`s WQA? mark nutley (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Hang on a minute Stephan, you say Now be a good lad and do bugger off on my talk page is a clear personal attack. Yet atmoz attacking another editor because his english is not perfect is a non issue? Strange logic indeed mark nutley (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Are you sure you are talking about me? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes Stephan I am sure, in the RFE above you said, This is a clear personal attack when i wrote "Now be a good lad and do bugger off", so how is that a personal attack, yet attacking an editors less than perfect grasp of english in a pretty nasty way is not an attack? mark nutley (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Misplaced Pages:WQA#Atmoz "your_English_sucks" -Atmoz (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• The terms of the climate change probation explicitly cover personal attacks and incivility. The diffs provided clearly demonstrate incivility at the very least. The probation covers "pages related to climate change (broadly construed)." The page in question is an AfD page for a climate change article. I would suggest that it is within the scope of the climate change probation "broadly construed". Of course it would not have been tagged as such, and Atmoz may legitimately not have realized that his behavior there might be reviewed under the probation. Nevertheless it is very obviously against the explicit terms of the climate change probation for one climate-change editor to behave so uncivilly to another climate-change editor in a climate-change-related area. Having said all that, it's a fairly trivial case with no real harm done to anyone. I believe a warning would be sufficient and appropriate. Thparkth (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Don't give a flying fuck" is well within range of language the community finds acceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Don't-give-a-fuckism, for example, and all the pages thank link to {{User DGAF}}. The rest of it is less than polite, but context is everything - the fact that Nsaa's English, while good, isn't up to the level of someone like Kim or Stephan (recall the "have you stopped beating you wife" complaint recently) does make the comment rather more hurtful if Atmoz intentionally threw that in his face. On the other hand, encountering someone who appears to be fluent but just doesn't quite get "plain English" is likely to provoke that (unfortunate) response. Guettarda (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur that "don't give a flying fuck" is a non-event and shouldn't be considered here. Thparkth (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Concur as well. Non-event, non-issue. (Was anyone else tempted to say "Don't give a flying fuck that Atmoz doesn't give a flying fuck", or was it just me?) KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• I made an Wikiquette alert on this already, and a finding and warning for personal attacks was made. If you admins would like to put some teeth into that finding so that Atmoz understands that there are consequences for his behavior and should correct it, I think that would be very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but a single opinion by one editor does not a finding make, and the comment is not "a warning". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That was an independent opinion by an uninvolved editor with experience looking at these types of edits at the Wikiquette board. Again, if you admins are serious about improving the level of discourse and civility in this topic area, you need to take a stand on editors belittling each other like this. Like I've said before, I think AGW is the worst area in Misplaced Pages for the way in which the editors treat each other, and it has been going on for years. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Nsaa

This is so bad. I have no word for it. Why the heck should my language be subject to Atmoz comments at all? Why not just keep the discussion about what was discussed? I find it totally counterproductive and it harms Misplaced Pages. So yes give him a long block or a long topic ban for this so other people can start working. What do Atmoz try to achieve? Getting people angry so they make "mistakes" and can get them blocked/topic banned? Nsaa (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Atmoz

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

• While the diffs show Atmoz was not being very polite, at all, this may not be the right forum. Suggest this be taken to WQA. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oh dear lord, no. Its a non-issue, why drag it off to the WQA to complain there about what we all agree is a non-issue? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure "we all agree" that it's a non issue. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• There is a result from WQA, as evidenced by Cla68. I suggest that Atmoz be advised to read Misplaced Pages:Civility#Identifying incivility (especially point 1. d again]] and to apply it in future interactions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure on that basis. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Marknutley

User requesting enforcement

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Marknutley (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 (1RR parole)

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

On Bishop Hill (blog):

1. (2010-04-28T18:46:34) Removes merge tags. Not explicitly marked as a revert, but clearly is: it reverts
2. (2010-04-27T21:04:09) Marked as a revert

On The Hockey Stick Illusion

2. (note that this revert is *after* the report here about the BH blog 1RR violation. Note further that this edit warring is to restore a blog/twitter reference)

More:

Failure to understand RS:

• Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#Kottke_Review

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

1. He is on 1RR parole

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

Std type of 1RR block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User denies that any violation occurs; see his talk

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

(note: MN has reverted the notification )

• Statement made in improper location (again, this time @LHVU), moved here from Admin section

If you're having problems understanding revert policy it would be better for you to have avoided issuing 1RR blocks William M. Connolley (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Marknutley

Statement by Marknutley

On The Hockey Stick Illusion Tags were removed per talk page consensus for no merge. The review which i reinserted had been removed under the claim the guy was not an expert book reviewer, However i found a source showing he has reviewed books in the past so i put the review back.

On the Bishop Hill (Blog) I removed the tags per talk page consensus for no merge. I reverted the removal of reliably sourced material. Mainly the BBC and The Guardian which had been removed by a person who wants to delete the article.

I had not realized the removal of tags per consensus counted as a revert. mark nutley (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley

I see no attempts to talk to MN before filing this request. It may have been an honest mistake. The disputed edit is also extremely recent. So I suggest WMC (or the enforcement 'committee') simply asks MN to self-revert to restore the merge tag, and if he agrees, collapse this thread. It'd save everybody a lot of time.--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not possible, wmc has already reverted me on the tags, against the talk page consensus i might add. Same with the other diff, as soon as someone adds content to the Bishop Hill (blog) article it gets reverted straight back out by the same guys who are trying to get the page deleted. After all being mentioned by the BBC and The Guardian are obviously not good enough for an article. mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean Guettarda (diff).

Perhaps we can assume with GF that you were aiming to self-revert, and treat Guettarda's edit as your own w.r.t. his 3RR restrictions? Just a thought. I'm going to leave this to the discretion of the CC admins now. Happy editing.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Nsaa

I've just learn something new about the English word blogs. Mark nutley has shown great willingness here to self revert if he had got the chance. Nsaa (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I think that Storm in a teacup should redirect here. Not this section, this whole page. Happily, I don't think I'm part of anyone's team, so there won't be a request for enforcement for this otherwise disruptive comment. Thepm (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hipocrite

MN is discussing it as opposed to edit-warring over it. As such, even though I think there's probably a 1rr violation in there, the rules are designed to improve the encyclopedia and the environment. Blocking MN at this point would not help. Thus, I suggest this be closed without action because probation is not a way to block people for no good reason. Hipocrite (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As Marknutlety has yet again engaged in stale revert warring without discussion (), I retract my request for lienency in light of positive progress. Perhaps a break will do him some good. Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How is that revert warring? I`ve not removed that before. And there is no ref for that claim. Why not just say i can`t edit the articles at all for christs sake mark nutley (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, either you assumed that edit would be uncontrovercial, or you discussed it on the talk page, right? Which was it? Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I figured removing unsourced POV stuff would be uncontroversial yes, it`s what we are meant to do. Your removal of the fact that the book is non fiction, saying in your edit summary that it is fiction is however controversial would`nt you say? mark nutley (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's as controversial as your removal of "polemic." Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No because the book is non fiction. mark nutley (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes because the book is a polemic. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Response by William M. Connolley to LessHeard vanU

MN has two reverts. I've provided those two reverts. They occur within 24h. That they are not the same revert is irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment – LHvU is using the standard 3RR definition of reverts being to the same material in whole or in part, but if I recall correctly, it was established in earlier discussions that in relation to these sanctions 1RR means no more than one revert, regardless of whether or not it's the same revert. If the rules are to be changed again, clarification is needed. . . dave souza, talk 09:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC) add iirc . . dave souza, talk 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

But you'll notice that *isn't* the defn he used when blocking me for 1RR William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your 1RR block was for reverting Marknutley twice relating to the same paragraph, indeed to the same opening sentence of the same paragraph, so I fail to see how I am supposed to have taken two dissimilar changes to the same text as being two completely different edits? Unless you are arguing that a revert is only a change to the reverters perferred version, and not a change from the revertees version. That is not a hair I had previously seen split. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't the same revert. You seem to be making the rules up as you go along in a desperate attempt to avoid finding fault with the skeptics William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I provide the revets and the previous version reverted to for the two reverts as a point of information. As a further point of information, since WMC pretty much defined how 3rr is adjudicated, I'd consider him more authoratative than any policy document.

18:46, 28 April 2010 reverts . 21:04, 27 April 2010 reverts . If you are defining 1rr as "reverts the same thing more than once" then it's not a 1rr violation. However, those are both "reverts" and so someone who is not permitted to "revert more than once in a 24 hour span" is not permitted to do that, with the caveat that I place practical over rote rule following. Hipocrite (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The 1rr restriction is located at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive5#Marknutley. It states "Marknutley is restricted to one revert per 24 hour period to any article in the probation area until 2010-10-01." Thus, while the reverts were totally unrelated, they were to the same article. Hipocrite (talk)

Result concerning Marknutley

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

• I am only seeing 1 edit to Bishop Hill (blog) in the 24 hours preceding the first diff provided, and it did not relate to the tags - therefore I suggest that there was only one revert. Similarly, the one edit in the 24 hours before the one exampled at The Hockey Stick Illusion does not relate to the merge tags. Marknutley's 1RR restriction notes that it applies on an article basis, and thus MN is acting within the wording of that restriction. Marknutley's continuing failure to properly apply WP:RS and WP:BLOG to sourcing content is currently being discussed elsewhere, and in this case I suggest is only noted to that discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• (resp to WMC)Ummm... okay, I will wait for other admins (and others) to comment upon that interpretation of revert as regards 1RR. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Technically I think WMC is right per how the rules are written and used in practice. But MN may not have understood how RRs are worked out (it isn't obvious). So if this is the first time he is claiming "didn't know that" I am inclined to be lenient (I know, I hate sanctioning anybody)... --BozMo talk 20:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Following the comments by WMC and Hipocrite, I see how the wording could be construed (although I had not quite grasped that aspect when sanctioning WMC for what I deemed to be the meaning per 3RR) as no second revert to any part within 24 hours. As regards sanctioning, I did block WMC for the technical violation - and despite WMC's (continuing) disagreement with my call, and other editors suggestion it only just fell within the time scale - so I am unsure that we can allow MN this grace. I will enact the block, if that is the decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is a kind of "two wrongs don't make a right" argument to consider here. I don't see we should feel obliged to make equalhandedness more important than doing the right thing in each case. I also think with both this case and WMC we really need to stick to only blocking for prevention not as a punishment. However, I do hear your argument. --BozMo talk 07:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Do you think not blocking MN for violating the same technical violation as WMC was sanctioned would prevent further disruption, with the potential of claims of bias toward one editor over another? As admins we are of course always going to be wrong, but we have to consider the ramifications of one type of wrong over another going forward - certainly in a situation like this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, am finding it hard to care much. Do what you think is best, with my blessing. Personally I am start to get the strong impression that to do the enforcement properly we should spend less time on this page and instead watch a subset of CC pages themselves more diligently. At present I only have four on my watch list and find trying to decide stuff from the diffs presented here when it is as subjective as Lar implies is just non viable. I wonder if we should assign ten pages each or something and stand there rapping knuckles before stuff comes here. --BozMo talk 10:45, 1 May 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 Polargeo

User requesting enforcement

Polargeo (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Polargeo (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. I inappropriately acted against Lar’s comment in the uninvolved admin section. I am involved and I believed that Lar was also involved. Both our comments were moved as inappropriate but I should know better this was the wrong way to protest.
2. My comment was “Please move my comment it appears to be in the wrong section. This is the section where "uninvolved" admins become more imortant than other editors based on, well nothing really.” This was pure disruption per WP:POINT. I firmly stand by this as I believe this is a terrible situation to put on this section of Misplaced Pages but as I seem to be the only person who agrees with myself this is not good. This comment was also moved per my request.
3. need I say more?

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

There are no prior warnings. I understand the situation.

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

I should be banned from ever adding a comment to the section for uninvolved admins on Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. If admins wish to take this further and ban me from ever editing the page Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement then that would be acceptable to me and I would not complain, in fact I think it would help.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is not a joke or a disruption. It is a genuine attempt by myself to resolve this situation. ATren was confused about my involvement from the comments I made and assumed I was genuinely trying to comment as an involved admin.

I disagree passionately with this probation. I believe it was initially not advertised wide enough to be a proper consensus. I think it is a joke where every small issue that would otherwise go unnoticed now invites every nutcase (including myself) to come and have some sort of partisan say on it. The very idea that three or four self appointed high sheriffs could ever police this area is a joke and goes against my core feelings about what Misplaced Pages should be. My comments in the admin sections are largely to do with a protest against Lar’s involvement but that is not the motivation for this request. The motivation is to bring about a sanction on myself which clears up my involvement status and in extreme prevents me from commenting in the enforcements area altogether which is an area I fundamentally disagree with.

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 Polargeo

Statement by Polargeo

I think Polargeo is right and I should be banned. The level of the ban is obviously up to uninvolved admins to decide on. This would violate WP:POINT if Polargeo had not genuinely requested a ban per sanctions. He has requested this and as such I am prepared to accept any decision based on his request and feel it would do me good. Polargeo (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have several times commented as an uninvolved admin when I clearly was involved and therefore should be banned from doing this again, ever. Sorry if this sounds a little strange. I am really genuine about this. Polargeo (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If raising this enforcement request is perceived as disruption then that is only a further reason to bar me from acting as an admin in the enforcement area and possibly even ban me from enforcement altogether. Polargeo (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish to avoid any confusion and I will comply 100% with any sanctions. Polargeo (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Here is the point. I am an admin but I don't wish to act as an admin in this area. I want people to see that I am not an admin as far as the area of sanctions enforcement goes. I was motivated to request a ban by ATren lumping me together with enforcement admins and complaining of my possible bias. I think a ban will serve to show my non-admin status in enforcement to everyone and keep me away if I ever start to wobble in my resolve. However, it does seem nobody is keen to grant my request and so if any uninvolved admin wishes to reclose this as a pointless mistake then feel free to. Polargeo (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Polargeo

This request for enforcement was filed in violation of WP:POINT. I suggest the applicant withdraw.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

comment I think the applicant should have tried discussing the matter with Polargeo before filing the complaint. It's a clear breach of AGF to just bring the complaint here without trying a bit of discussion first. I think applicant should be flogged with a warm lettuce until he calls "uncle". Polargeo on the other hand should be given some warm cocoa and buttered toast. Thepm (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just to (perhaps foolishly) take this seriously for a second, there is no actual breach of the climate change probation alleged or demonstrated here, except arguably in raising this enforcement request itself. I suggest that having made his WP:POINT, Polargeo should simply blank this entire request and leave it to live on in legend as the strangest thing in the already-strange history of this page. Thparkth (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• I believe this diff posted be Polargeo above sums up the matter. This request is nor a joke or a point it's a problem with the self accused.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree Polargeo (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for some advice Polargeo, I would suggest not climbing the Reichstag to try to avoid losing an argument. Cla68 (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Polargeo

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

• Please move my comment because I am involved with Polargeo Polargeo (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• 28 days to late... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Are you trying to make some kind of POINT? because I don't see it. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 01:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)