Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:54, 9 February 2010

• WP:GS/CC/RE

This board is for users to request enforcement under the terms of the climate change article probation. Requests should take the following format:

{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request
| User against whom enforcement is requested          
  = <Username>
| Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
  = ]
| Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so 
  <!-- When providing several diffs, please use a numbered list as in this example. -->
=<p>
#  <Explanation>
#  <Explanation>
#  <Explanation>
# ...
| Diffs of prior warnings
=<p>
#  Warning by {{user|<Username>}}
#  Warning by {{admin|<Username>}}
# ...
| Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) 
  = <Your text>
| Additional comments 
  = <Your text>
}}

This will generate a structure for managing the request including a second level header. Please place requests underneath the following divider, with new requests at the bottom of the page. For instructions on generating diff links, see Help:Diff.

For Requests for refactoring of Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines violations only, comments by parties other than the requester, the other party involved, and the reviewing/actioning/archiving editor will be removed.

TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC

84.72.61.221

142.68.95.166, 142.68.92.131

William M. Connolley

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

Request concerning William M. Connolley

User requesting enforcement

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 5 February 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. Removes 'Code and documentation' section without consensus
2. Removes 'Code and documentation' section without consensus
3. Removes 'Code and documentation' section without consensus

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning William M. Connolley

Statement by William M. Connolley

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley

Ah, looking at those diffs, it appears that two are from on or about 28 January, and one is from seven days later (4 February). I'm not sure that jives with AQFK's implication that WMC has been making one revert per day to edit war, particularly given that WMC's lone revert this month was accompanied by discussion on the talk page. Moreover, the 'diffs of prior warnings' provided above seem to be entirely unrelated to the present situation; those are requests from Prodego to be more polite.

AQFK has made the exact mirror revert in the past (indeed, undoing WMC's edit here). One cannot help but be concerned that this request has only appeared because an admin has protected the wrong version of the article. Can we close this request as just another spurious throw-everything-at-WMC-and-see-what-sticks thread? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, AQFK, filing report after report in hopes of getting your "enemy" banned is not how things ought to be done here. Please take this as a warning to only file reports with actual merit in the future. Statement withdrawn and apologized for NW (Talk) 05:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe that this is the first time I've filed a report about anyone to this page. Further, I only filed this report to this page because several other editors said that I had reported it in the wrong place (which also was my first report). If I have filed other reports about the same thing in the same project, can you please refer me to them? To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time I've started a request about this particular editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how AQFK can be faulted for thinking this would be appropriate. There's a history, e.g., Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive1#Heyitspeter.--209.253.65.90 (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• While I appreciate AQFK's views on this, rather than edit warring to keep a clearly defective section it would be good to review this section on the article talk page in the light of the newly introduced link to the blog of John Graham-Cumming, Newsnight's expert, where he is quite open about his lack of knowledge of climate software, and expresses support for the scientific consensus. The article naturally suffers from inclusion of early ill informed news reports and opinions about the emerging story, and as more facts emerge these should be replaced. . . dave souza, talk 10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Filing reports like this to try to get the upper hand in a content dispute is inappropriate. The only violation I can see here is mild gaming by AQFK. Recommend no action. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sick of some of these people (Another editor using these kind of words) naming others work as "trash" like the last edit above (rm section agains, which remains trash. No RS for inclusion). Plaing with the truth in the edit summary is neither a proper way of writing these summaries (claiming that <ref name="WashTimes1127" /><ref name="computerworld" /> isn't WP:RS is ridiculous. It's just something that is thrown out trying to get rid of something unpleasant as I see it.). Should we get an ok environment here at Misplaced Pages we cannot allow to much of this kind of arguing. Nsaa (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm really hoping that the enforcement admins will actually look into the underlying issue. WMC made a basically bald revert, with a deceptive edit summary. That's just not on. Sanctionable? Not sure. But it needs to stop. UnitAnode 13:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"WMC made a basically bald revert, with a deceptive edit summary" Yes, but it's more than that. WMC has made the same revert repeatedly. That makes it edit warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but it should be noted that Heyitspeter did also, and Oren0. Why are we putting up with this from any of them? Article-space breaks for all. Hipocrite (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support long breaks from editing the article for everyone involved in inserting a section without offering to revert themselves or removing a section that they've removed over and over again without engaging in discussion on the talk page to reach consensus with people that disagree with them, or at the very least reaching across the isle to try to work with someone who they think disagrees with them. Perhaps a month for Heyitspeter and WMC, with a week for Oren0? Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:) It's cute that you provide three diffs for Oren0 and two for me, and then ask for 4 times the sentence in my case. Also, note that the second of my diffs was in response to a direct request by Scjessey for Oren0 to fix broken refs before reinserting the section. It was just his edit with fixed refs.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I just checked the talkpage, and Heyitspeter engaged at talk with regards to the addition. I didn't see the same attempt from WMC. He may have, but I didn't see it. UnitAnode 14:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  WMC explained his revert here, and Heyitspeter responded in that section with "WMC this is the third time you've removed this section without consensus and with the same rationale (in the face of WP:V). That's extremely disruptive." but I contend that's neither are "engaging ... to reach consensus with people that disagree with them." Engaging at talk is far different than "engaging ... to reach consensus with people that disagree with them." If Heyitspeter is reaching consensus with people he's disagreeing with, he shouldn't see his inability to edit the main article as a substantial hurdle - of course, if he were like Nightmote or myself in proposing bold edits to the article as opposed to stale reinclusions of old text, that would be different - but it's not. Look - at some point reasonable editors are going to have to come together to improve this article. Are you seriously alleging that Heyitspeter's current conduct dosen't need to be corrected at all to be one of those reasonable editors? Leave the bunker, please. Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote you give wasn't related to the two diffs you provide. I don't mind you bringing accusations, but when you do please look into their terms carefully. Past that it's a waste of time. Also, in regards to the Nightmote edit, I do want to thank you for making this individual attempt to contribute to the article constructively, but allowing that edit to characterize the entirety of your additions/subtractions and using such a contrived characterization to compare yourself to other editors is problematic.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Leave the bunker, please"? How is that kind of language helpful at all? I looked at the talkpage, and saw what seemed like genuine discussion from Heyitspeter. I couldn't find the same thing from WMC. That's all I was saying. Why pick a fight? UnitAnode 14:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm trying to get people to stop using all of these pages to continue their us-vs-them warfare. Do you really think Heyitspeter's recent conduct is reflective of a reasonable editors working with other reasonable editors to improve the article? To compare, do you think mine is? How about Nightmote? Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with Hipocrite, it would be good if we didn't get so much partisan sniping. (for example dave souza and Scjessey turned up here... while they did have some substantive, more or less, contributions, each did also get in a dig or two, very subtly). Both sides need to stop the bunker mentality. Hipocrite is trying, and deserves credit in my view. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  That's a bit of a low dig, Lar. Please accept that I'm trying to get constructive discussion moving forward rather than seeing this page being used as part of an edit war over a dubious part of the article. There's good reason for this probation page being on my watchlist, if you want to check back. . dave souza, talk 17:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  How did my initial post here demonstrate the bunker mentality? That was my problem with what Hipocrite wrote: he addressed me with a "Leave the bunker, please" statement that I felt was a bit inappropriate given the content of the post I made right before it. UnitAnode 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'm asking you to leave the bunker because you are prasing the damnable done by one side. Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  And I'm asking you how my qualified assessment in my initial post here causes you to believe that I'm "prasing the damnable done by one side." It was simply what I found when I looked at the talkpage. I didn't word it antagonistically, and even qualified it with that I may well have missed something. And you respond with "Leave the bunker, please." That is the kind of thing that needs to stop. UnitAnode 16:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  Can you continue this sub-discussion somewhere else? The issue here is WMC's repeated edit-warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just a note as a reminder that WMC's name is mentioned in at least one of the emails that was made public in the Climategate incident. The possible COI concerning WMC's involvement with that article did not achieve consensus for any action on the COI noticeboard . That being said, I would think that WMC's participation with that article, because of the fact that he is somewhat involved with that topic in real life, should be completely above board and uncontroversial. If not, then corrective action may be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be reasonable as soon as all other involved editors declare their identity and all possible COIs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't cast aspersions without evidence. You know better than that. If there is a discussion somewhere about other possible COIs in addition to WMC's, then link to it when you say things like this. Cla68 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point. We should not penalize editors for being upfront about who they are. As you said, the COI notice board rejected the COI case. So I suggest you drop it, Tim Ball! ;-) ruins it but is probably necessary--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize discussions. There were several editors involved in that discussion (including me) who felt there was something to the charge. Now, if you're not going to back up your allegations of COI with any evidence or links, are you going to drop yours? Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Since everyone in this discussion including all three admins agree that there was slow edit warring by William I think a sanction is appropriate. Connelly's disruptive behavior continues to hijack efforts to collaborate collegially. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• If CoM is referring to poor behaviour on wikipedia, he might cast his eye once more over the summary of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight. He should also learn how to spell "Connolley" properly if he's going to use it so often, Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Question for 2/0

You are going to have a content revert restriction? So wmc being disruptive in removing that text which was agreed upon in talk can`t be put back in? This is a joke, he has no reason t oremove that section other than wp:Idontlikeit and gets off scot free, and now we can`t put the text back it? It has reliable sources, the code was a major part of the files released (like 95%) and now we can`t have that in an the article about it, i call bull --mark nutley (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, the issue is still covered in the article in reasonable detail, including the main points in the disputed section. Look a little higher, to #Content of the documents. 2/0 has already discussed this point. . dave souza, talk 20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning William M. Connolley

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

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

Incivility increasing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sirwells

Macai

Request for restrictions on article renaming discussions

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident has repeatedly been the focus of frequent and often acrimonious discussions about the title of the article. This has produced unnecessary controversy and disruption, and has consumed far too much editorial time that could have been used more profitably on other issues. To address this, I request that the following administrative restrictions be imposed on Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident under the auspices of the climate change article probation:

1. Discussions of changes to the article's name are limited to one renaming proposal per calendar month.

2. Editors may not make proposals to incorporate the terms Climategate or scandal in the article title. Any such proposals shall be closed or removed.

The first restriction should be self-explanatory. It really should not be necessary to have an endless series of discussions prompted by a fresh proposal every other week. This restriction would encourage editors to focus more on improving the article and not waste so much time and effort arguing over its name.

The second restriction would stop the repeated tendentious proposals to include the POV terms "Climategate" or "scandal" (or both) in the article title. This has come up many times (e.g. , , , ). On every occasion the proponents have been told that WP:NPOV and WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal specifically preclude the use of such terminology, and every attempt to introduce such terms has been rejected.

However, there is a hard core of editors who do not accept this and either disrupt or contribute to disruption by repeatedly demanding or supporting the use of POV terminology. This is classic tendentious editing - repeating the same argument over and over again in an effort to wear people down. The resulting controversies are completely unnecessary and wasteful. Without prejudicing good-faith proposals to change the article's name, proposals to introduce the deprecated terms Climategate or scandal into the name should be closed down as quickly as possible to avoid yet more fruitless bickering. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(In response to Lar). We do not use -gate constructions in article titles. Compare Rathergate, Attorneygate, Whitewatergate etc. WP:NPOV#Article naming sets out the standard that is to be met (read the 2nd para): "ncyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." That is foundational policy, not a guideline. The use of "-gate" terms is specifically deprecated in WP:NC#Descriptive titles - again, that is a policy, not a guideline. This does not affect the use of POV terminology in redirects (which are not subject to NPOV restrictions) but it does rule out the use of "Climategate" as a term for the article. NPOV cannot be set aside by a consensus of editors, so there is no point in discussing terminology which NPOV and NC explicitly deprecate. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, It's not clear to me that -gate (or "scandal") is unequivocably prohibited. It's just not as cut and dried as you claim. The canonical example, is of course, Watergate which currently redirects to Watergate scandal (as opposed to Watergate incident or whatever). I think a restriction to once a month is certainly workable, and I support it, but I think you don't get to restrict what is proposed. Shoot it down once a month on "asked and answered grounds" if nothing new is introduced to make the case, but a blanket restriction on a proposal? No. Too controlling. (As I said, I don't prefer either of those terms myself, but that's just my personal view. As an enforcing admin I cannot see this sort of restriction, sorry.) 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are mistaken about Watergate scandal. The name "Watergate" was taken from the place where it happened - the Watergate complex - whereas every subsequent "-gate" name is a snow clone coined to evoke Watergate. See -gate#Etymology, usage and history of -gate for background. The deprecation in policy of "-gate" names refers to the use of snow clones, not the original Watergate. As for "scandal", please note what WP:WTA#Controversy and scandal says: "They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources." This is not an historical case, nor is it widely used by reputable historical sources (no such sources exist, since it's an ongoing current event). So there is no point discussing either a "-gate" name, as policy explicitly rejects that, nor is there any point discussing "scandal", since that is POV and explicitly deprecated by WTA. Since there is no point discussing either there is no point in allowing disruptive discussions of either. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. The reason Watergate is the canonical example of the name is precisely because Watergate is the name of a place, an apartment and office complex near Foggy Bottom, and that's why scandals after it got the -gate tagging (no scandal before it did), as the sources you point to so ably elaborate. But that has nothing to do with my point, which is that it's not a blanket prohibition, all policies have exceptions. One of the things the side arguing against name change has been saying is prohibited is the use of the word "scandal" And yet the main article on the Watergate affair has "scandal" in its name. That refutes your statement that it's an unequivocal prohibition (although we must always keep in mind that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument that refutes policy). If you would be less stubborn you might find that discussions would flow better. ++Lar: t/c 23:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lar, you're overlooking what I said about WTA permitting "scandal" in "historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources". Watergate is an historical case and it's covered by reputable historical sources. The CRU controversy is neither - it's an ongoing current controversy. I never said it was an unequivocal prohibition - my comments above make that abundantly clear. This is not a matter of me being stubborn; it's a question of whether people can be bothered to make the effort to read what is plainly written. The answer to that is apparently that they can't. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Mark Foley Scandal was called so almost immediately after the page was created, while the event was unfolding. So clearly, there is no historical context for not allowing of the word scandal in the title. Arzel (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO: "it's a question of whether people can be bothered to make the effort to read what is plainly written. The answer to that is apparently that they can't" ... OR, that it doesn't say what you think it says. You may not want to be so dismissive of the views of others, especially when it's relatively small beer, or when the others are actually agreeing with the desired outcome if not with your tactics. ++Lar: t/c 04:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment by TheGoodLocust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call for an end to this kind of disruptive obstruction

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

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

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

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

Comment by Mark Nutley

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

Let's be quite clear, then

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

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

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

Comment by Tony Sidaway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, I should have been more precise. By "viewpoint" I meant the view you expressed above - "Scientifically literate editors acquainted with the mainstream position grow weary of the constant dripping of misconceptions from those who would inflate, usually out of ignorance, the scientific strength of various minority positions." I supposed, based on that stated view, that the burden you spoke of would be lessened to the extent that the newbies could be induced to scale the castle wall. As to the rest, I am not familiar with your editing style so I have no idea if you fall into that category or not. You certainly weren't one of the editors I had in mind. I'm glad you are shocked by the lack of civility, we share that view. The environment is not going to improve as long as arrogance and condescension are justified and not roundly condemned. JPatterson (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Comment by Scjessey

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

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

Comment by A Quest For Knowledge

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by EngineerFromVega:

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

Comment by ZP5*:

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

Comments by Nsaa

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

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

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

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

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

Nsaas references

1. McMillan, Robert (2009-11-20). "Global warming research exposed after hack". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2009-11-26. Retrieved 2009-11-26. Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, "80 percent of the time it's an insider," he said.
2. Police question global warming 'sceptic' scientist over 'Climategate' email leak
3. Data-leak lessons learned from the 'Climategate' hack
4. "Climatic Research Unit hacking incident" in Google News
5. http://news.google.com/news/search?q=Climategate 1644 per 2010-02-08 ()
6. removing Climategate from the text
7. Removing Climategate from the text again
8. ^ (→Prepare to a RfC: - fair warning) Since you appear to be determined to be tendentious, I'll put you on notice: if you pursue this further I will ask for probation enforcement against you and a general injunction against proposals to include "Climategate" in the article title. Cite error: The named reference "wpdiff_342285425" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
9. Per both WP:V and WP:RS blogs that is published in a newspaper under full editorial control can be used as a reliable source. Let's quote "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.". The highly contested(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/) piece by James Delingpole (on the talk page!) falls under this definition

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

Comment by Dmcq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result

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

• Point #1 makes sense to me but I'm not at this time on board with #2. WTA is a style guideline, not policy. I tend to think a redirect from -gate is sufficient, but I don't think that we want to prevent editors from making the case if it's makeable. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• I am contrary to Lar, I'm afraid. Point #1 would not be an issue if there were an agreement to adopt #2, because those are the alternatives advocated in nearly every instance. To be quite clear, I agree with ChrisO's interpretation and would suggest that regardless of the guideline those titles will never be acceptable to the point of consensus - it is futile to permit discussion unless there is a sea change in the viewpoints of a group of editors. I am now going to abuse my sysop flags by trying to find that discussion and proposing my alternative. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust

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

Request concerning Thegoodlocust

User requesting enforcement

Awickert (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Thegoodlocust (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

(originally made for AN/I, so slightly-different-format than just a list and a couple non-climate diffs here)

I am writing here concerning User:Thegoodlocust. Although I am no longer a very active participant in pages related to climate change and the surrounding controversy, I have been watching them. I strongly feel that Thegoodlocust has had a large negative impact on the tone of these pages, productivity there, and in fact the cause of those who are skeptical of global warming. This is because of the consistently combative nature of his posts. From my observations, he generally adds arguments to talk pages without adequate background or sourcing and proceeds to argue ad nauseum without any real progress being made in article space. He also behaves rudely to those who disagree with him and makes incorrect claims. I approached him about this, but received no response and (more importantly) saw no change in his editing behavior. My concerns are, with examples taken from (mostly Awickert (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)) this past week:

He treats those with whom he disagrees with disrespect:

1. "bloodletting"
2. "Also, if you've studied statistics..." (on User:Coffee's talk after Coffee closed Thegoodlocust's RfA for basic procedural reasons (I still think it was rude, but concede that I may have misinterpreted. Awickert (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
3. "You are destroying the readibility of this section - you did the exact same thing in the Carbon sink article..."
4. Dougweller
5. talks down to Dave souza

He starts talk page threads combatively:

1. badgering header at WIlliam Connolley's talk
2. My own feelings on Mr. Chávez aside, this is an unproductive way to start a post
3. Africagate! (He also complains that IPCC mistakes are always alarmist, which is incorrect: they underestimate sea level rise.) Further, he made an error in his initial stament, and replies to this by lambasting the IPCC.
4. Glacier melt overestimated by 50%! (Here he also makes incorrect assumptions about glacial melting and sea-level rise, which can be problematic to a discussion)

He makes generally unproductive comments:

1. negative comments on Raul and WMC
2. sarcasm
3. Looks so close to being an useful WP:RS-related comment, then degrades to calling global warming "nonsense" and insulting Misplaced Pages's reputation.

He makes strong (incorrect) scientific claims on talk pages without reliable sourcing:

1. Doesn't understand radiocarbon or global carbon cycling, yet argues like he does (this is the unproductive part, I do agree that blogs are not WP:RS), he also confuses this with carbon stable isotopes. Not malicious, but misguided and counterproductive
2. "nonsensical gobbledygook"
3. mistaken statements about glacier dynamics and lack of understanding of sea level rise since the last glacial maximum (I considered responding, but decided not to due to the standard uncooperative tone - and incorrect information - in the start of the thread)
4. And in spite of being wrong so often he is sure that he is right. Not that this or the other examples are punishable offenses, but a lot of time is required to explain to someone why they are wrong, especially if they have different preconceptions, and it is something that I don't want to do when they seem willing to insult the people that disagree with them; I'd rather contribute in article space than deal with it.

Also note comments on his RfA.

Less than 10% of his contributions have been in article space, as of the time of posting. He comments prolifically in areas where real-content contributors take time to respond to him (as opposed to using their time for adding content).

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

Topic ban, block, self-imposed restrictions, or anything that will bring some peace and productivity back to these talk pages

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In sum, Thegoodlocust edits with a strong POV, does almost no work in article space, makes repeated incorrect statements about science (his being wrong always being in support of his POV), treats others disrespectfully, and uses a combative tone on talk pages. The result is that content-contributing editors get stuck in large, rude debates. The number of conflicts in which he has been involved reflects this. This behavior detracts from the encyclopedia in general, and from the climate change articles in particular: it gives those who are skeptical of global warming a bad name, and makes others (including myself) hesitant to work with them in that content area. Ideally, I would like to see him either change his ways and become a productive content-contributor, or leave the project to those who care about writing an encyclopedia.

Comment from AN/I

Wow i have never seen this in all my time here..cant believe hes still got account and he wants to be an admin..that better not happen!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion from AN/I

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:Thegoodlocust#AN/I

Discussion concerning Thegoodlocust

Statement by Thegoodlocust

This is ridiculous. I go to sleep this gets posted and then closed by 2/0 without any comment by myself or others. I went through those diffs and most were perfectly fine and/or highly misrepresented. Also, I find it telling that he went back over a month for diffs and that was the best that he could dig up, but I guess there is no point going through those edits and defending myself since this is already closed. However, I recommend people actually look at the diffs and if you have questions about them (like the context) then I'll provide it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not closed, 2/0's actions and mine are being conflated. What is over a month old? And what is misrepresented? I'm happy to strike if you explain. But if you stand by these edits as appropriate behavior, then we have vastly divergent views of what Misplaced Pages should be. Awickert (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's go through them one at a time, and I do admit some of them may not be the best, but let's start at the top and go down. The first diff, which you describe as "how I treat other editors" and you focus on "bloodletting" says nothing about any editor. It was my opinion on how effective the proposed actions would be and I said they'd be as effective a cure as bloodletting - in other words I thought those actions wouldn't be effective at all and would likely make things worse. If you want to read up on it then here is the article on bloodletting. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I should also note that the edit was over a month old. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many much better ways to say that, and I do think that that what you said there, not just about bloodletting, but about other editors, the toilet, etc., is inappropriate. But I think that I will try to step back from this for the moment and let others comment, since by now my opinion should be obvious. Awickert (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The toilet analogy is apt and that entire post is being proven correct by 2/0's own actions in this area. Regardless, I can see we won't see eye to eye on this and so I'll start on the next diff (below). TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 2? Umm....what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with this other than my ignorance of wiki-policy. My statements regarding statistics are correct and there was no disrespect in that statement at all - you are really reading too much into it and/or reaching. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is probably more minor, and I could have misinterpreted it. But what I interpreted was that you were assuming Coffee was screwing up, which is a little arrogant IMO. Certainly not horrible. But the statistics were, 1/2^10 = 1/1024 = tiny (though if you invoke a lead-and-follow-mentality, statistics may be better for you). I'm happy scratching this one off as my misinterpretation. But I'm taking off for a little while and I'm more interested in broad-brush behavior than discussion each point individually, so you're going to have to continue this debate with others, Awickert (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I'm glad you agree you may have misinterpreted and since I know what I meant then I can tell you that you did indeed misinterpret it. Please strike it out now. Also, kind of off-topic, but self-selection bias is also a problem with those kinds of things and those stats really aren't astronomical. Am I to understand that you now wish to resume the diff analysis? Earlier you made it sound like you no longer wished to defend those statements. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I commented instead of struck, but that should do +/- the same thing. I'm unlikely to defend point-by point with the present vigor (if I defend my statements at all), but you are free to attack. The combination of your response here and my feelings (summarized above) should give both of our opinions, which should be enough by itself. Awickert (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you did say you would strike, but whatever. Next edit.TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 3, I was actually referring to the carbon sink, not the carbon cycle and specifically I was referring to Connolley's edit where he kept cutting a sentence in half, not even adding punctuation at the end, which screwed up the explanation of the paper as explained in the source. I don't see anything particularly egregious about pointing out when an editor is insisting on editing in a way that harms the article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 4, not even in climate change, but I was refering to this edit of Doug's. It is obvious that my edit greatly improved the section and added sources to it (it had none before), but he is plainly opposed to introducing real criticism into the section and so the section remains, due to his actions, crap. I also find it curious that he is editing in the supposedly "uninvolved admin" section of this RfE. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 5, again, no real disrespect shown other than a statement of fact - it doesn't matter what Dave Souza thinks of the owners of various media outlets. He is the one, of several, who keep on going off on random political tangents with references to "torygraph" and other abusive language. The diff as a whole was quite relevant since I explained the importance of the story. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 6, umm..."badgering header?" That's what you call "Last Chance to go on record?" You are really reaching on this one too. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 7, there are sources that talk about Chavez's mental illness and the man said that the US used an earthquake weapon on Haiti. This isn't exactly controversial to anyone other than the pro-Chavistas. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 8, Africagate is the amusing name that's being used in the blogosphere - what would you have me call it? The "IPCC Rainfall Impact Overestimation Incident?" Additionally, you claim I was "lambasting" the IPCC when I was pointing out that Stephan Schulz was lambasting me for my minor error. Honestly, it looks like you didn't even read these diffs and that you just scanned them and threw a bunch out there and hoped they would stick. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 9, and what exactly is the problem with this? I provided a source showing that glacier melting has been vastly overestimated. Also, I didn't say anything in that diff about melting, other than that they have retreated since the end of the last ice age 10k years ago,and nothing in that diff about the sea level. Additionally, as I may show later if I get to it, your opinion on whether or not I'm wrong is simply that - an opinion. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 10, I was asked which admins had lost privileges and I answered the question. Raul was found to have abused his admin tools in this area and Connolley also used his admin tools when edit warring on climate change articles - this is simply a fact and it was in response to a question I was asked on my own talk page over a month ago.TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 11, Sarcasm! I plead guilty!

Diff 12, I didn't call AGW nonsense, I called apocolyptic AGW nonsense, due to certain editors talking about how billions of people will die from global warming - that is ridiculous and has no basis in reality. And how did I "insult wikipedia's reputation" by pointing out that it can't be improved in this area until the culture at large makes a paradigm shift? You are also aware that problems can't be fixed until they are recognized as problems right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 13, this was my previous attempt to improve the FAQ by removing unsourced statements and those sourced to activist liberal blogs of dubious origin. My knowledge of carbon isotopes may not be the greatest but is not the worst either. All the literature I've read says that C-14 levels cannot be accurately measured (the difference I mean) these days due to the huge amount that was created during nuclear tests in the 50's and 60's. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 14, you have a problem with the word "gobbledygook?" I suggest you look it up, it is a perfectly fine word and a great way to describe a FAQ "answer" that is almost completely unsourced. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 15, simple question, do you deny that surface area/volume ratios will affect the rate of ice melting? If you do then let's take two cubes of ice, crush one into pieces and then see whether the crushed ice melts faster than the whole cube. Of course, I'm not sure what is wrong with this and I don't see why you think I'm mistaken about the simple physics of heat transfer. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff 16, the post was basically a joke, but Dave Souza accused me of using logical fallacies and I told him what logical fallacies are most common among the AGW crowd. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to Admins

Please remove Dougweller's statement to the appropriate section since he is very clearly an involved admin and was directly named in the complaint against me. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Thegoodlocust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Thegoodlocust

Pseudo edit conflict - I was in the process of writing up a banning statement at User talk:Thegoodlocust#Topic ban from all articles and discussions related to climate change until 2010-08-08 while Awickert was preparing this. We can either close this as redundant or use it for review. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say close as redundant, and thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say let's evaluate this a bit more closely first before we close it. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The info and discussions above seem to me to be strong enough to support a topic ban. I'll wait to hear if Lar wants the admins to look more closely at any specific items. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the above I'm glad it wasn't closed yesterday, and I agree about waiting to see if Lar has any more comments. So far as I know, my involvement with TGL was reverting something from World Government that was not properly sourced and an AfD on an article he created on a non-notable Wiki (which, although I didn't know it, turned out to have climate change relevance). Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)