| Revision as of 20:58, 17 January 2010 editNimbusWeb (talk | contribs)1,727 edits →Kyoto Protocol, Carbon tax, Biosequestration← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:19, 10 October 2023 edit undoDreamy Jazz (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators105,825 edits update as the sanctions that superseded the community-authorised one are now CTOP as they were placed by arbcom |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{mbox |
|
{{shortcut|WP:GS/CC/RE}} |
|
|
|
| type = notice |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Header}} |
|
|
|
| image = ] |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|imageright = {{#if:WP:GS/CC/RE | {{Ombox/Shortcut|WP:GS/CC/RE|||| }} }} |
|
|archiveheader = {{Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Archive navbox}} |
|
|
|
| text = This page, which was formerly used to request enforcement of community-mandated ], is currently inactive and is retained for ''historical'' reference. It has been ] by a ] and requests for enforcement may be requested at ]. |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|
}}{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|User|User talk=|#default={{#ifeq:{{{category}}}|no||] |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|
|
] |
|
|algo = old(7d) |
|
|
|
}}}} |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive%(counter)d |
|
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Archive navbox}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== JettaMann == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{cot|JettaMann is topic banned from ] and related articles, broadly construed, and interaction banned from ].}} |
|
|
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|
|
===Request concerning JettaMann=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 18:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|JettaMann}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# Blatent violation of ] - "a Misplaced Pages arbitration committee found him guilty of violating a number of Misplaced Pages rules" - not true. This went on at the beginning of an RFC on the talk page, which has hardly even begun. |
|
|
# . Over-the-top BLP violation - "I don't think this individual has any notoriety of any kind, other than for being caught for various Misplaced Pages editing infractions. That's pretty much all this page should say about him is that he was a Global Warming activist who got caught gaming Misplaced Pages." |
|
|
; Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : <p> |
|
|
# '''10-day''' block by {{admin|Future Perfect at Sunrise}} with note "I would strongly recommmend when you come back from the block, even if you haven't been banned by then, you should tread very carefully in that area or preferably choose to avoid the field altogether, because if you continue behaving like you did you will most likely incur more sanctions." |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Perminant topic ban, along with ban from all biographies of living persons. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : This is exactly the kind of "user" that makes dealing with these articles impossible. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ''The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a ] of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning JettaMann=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by JettaMann==== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning JettaMann ==== |
|
|
I disagree that second diff violates BLP. This seems like something better handled via a disruption route rather than being specifically related to the Climate change probation. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a slightly unusual case in that the target of JettaMann's comments is both a BLP subject and a Misplaced Pages contributor. As such, I think the ] and ] policies are clearly applicable here. The claim that WMC is a "Global Warming activist who got caught gaming Misplaced Pages" strikes me as both a personal attack and a highly incivil comment that displays a ] - none of which should be encouraged. I would suggest closing this with a firm warning that any further incivility will result in blocks. -- ] (]) 19:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
JettaMan was for 10 days by ] on December 10 for "disruptive tendentious editing and personal attacks on ]". After the block expired he made , a less than civil comment aimed at ], on December 22, before making the edits in question. ] (]) 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I am inclined to agree with ChrisO; these are incivil and battleground-like edits, though not so problematic by themselves that they require immediate sanctions. A final warning should suffice in this case. (Disclaimer: I have participated in that same content dispute during the past few days, after learning about that article through my OTRS work, though I have made no other contributions to climate-related topics that I can recall.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Jettamann seems to have a modest but blame-free record of editing on other matters, but severely problematic behavior on the subject of global warming. He was blocked for disruption last month and as soon as he comes back he's already engaging in some pretty serious attacks. I suggest a warning that he faces a topic ban if he acts disruptively again. We could use this otherwise productive editor on other parts of the encyclopedia where his feelings do not overrule his judgement. --] 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've sent the following note to Jettamann by Misplaced Pages email: |
|
|
|
|
|
: ''I'm contacting you by mail because you haven't edited English Misplaced Pages since 17:34 GMT on January 4th and since then a Misplaced Pages editor has filed an enforcement request concerning your recent edits on the article William M. Connolley and its talk page. A notification was placed on your user talk page at 18:34 GMT on January 4th.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
: ''A provisional remedy has been posted by an admin with a suggestion that you should be given up to 48 hours to respond before the case will be closed. Discussion is ongoing. You could be topic banned from articles related to William M. Connolley.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
: ''Please see the discussion:'' |
|
|
|
|
|
: ''http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#JettaMann'' |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 12:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I agree with Tony and with the proposal below but there is a small issue of a total non-interaction ban with William as they are more or less bound to cross paths at some point. Could we please clarify whether, if both users happen to turn up to an article, both are permitted to comment on the article content? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::They can edit the same articles, but JettaMann should not comment on WMC. Comment on the content, not the editor. If JettaMann is wise, they will put a fence around this restriction and not go anywhere near WMC for a while. Testing boundaries usually ends badly. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Adding: I will take a dim view of any baiting or goading of JettaMann by WMC. When an editor is restricted, others have a moral obligation not to encourage violations. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Since I've had absolutely no interaction with this user for longer than I can remember (indeed I can't recall any; anyone care to trawl back far enough to find any such interaction?) I find this "warning" gratuitously offensive ] (]) 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am not in any way involved in Climate Change articles. If Jehochman is going to comment here or in other science-related matters (eg WikiProject Mathematics, where he has posted a link to his Masters degree in Computer Science), it might be an idea in future if he made sure that he had some familiarity with the matter on which he is commenting. At the moment his comments give the rather worrying impression that they have been made at random without forethought. This is extremely unhelpful. If he cannot stop this and in addition appears to have his own personal issues with William M. Connolley, then it probably is not appropriate for him to involve himself on this page. More administrators are needed to make these new procedures work smoothly, but not those who cannot stop themselves making comments that are at the same time clueless and offensive. Please redact your comments, Jehochman. ] (]) 14:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
I agree (less angrily) with WMC. We don't ask BLP victims not to have contact with their abusers in other circumstances. If WMC were to start needling this (almost certain never to return) account, there would be no need to warn him at all - just block WMC till he stops. I don't see anything in '''my''' (not WMC, who has had zero involvement with this user to date) request asking for anything about WMC the editor, rather William Connolley the Living Person who was defamed by wikipedia in violation of ] on an article under general sanction. This is not about editor interaction, it's about editing an article disruptively. ] (]) 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Actually, Hipocrite, we (FSVO we) do exactly that. For well over a year now I have been a victim of an intermittent campaign of harassment which has included nuisance phone calls, posting of private data on the internet, visiting my house and posting observations on the internet and so on. This has lost the abuser two ISP accounts, but the police response is to avoid the venues where he arrives to abuse me; in practice this means I am being asked to accede to his demand to stop using several sites and forums because he dislikes my opinions. I was there first, he arrived solely to harass me, but the advice from law enforcement is to walk away and emphatically not to respond to him. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Clearly you live in a backwater country still ruled by a girl. You raise a good point. ] (]) 22:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see how either of the quotes provided above are bannable BLP violations. The first - "a Misplaced Pages arbitration committee found him guilty of violating a number of Misplaced Pages rules" seems true. ] found that he used admin tools while involved (Findings of Fact #14) and that he edit warred (Findings of fact #14-1 and #14-3 and Remedy #7). It is a violation of ] in that it isn't sourced, but it's hard to argue that adding a true statement to an article once merits a ban. The second is questioning the notability of the subject on a talk page. This is commonplace and, while it is a bit harsh and could be viewed as a personal attack, I don't see how it merits a ban either. Is there conduct other than these two diffs? I am also concerned that disallowing a user to interact with WMC is in effect a topic ban because WMC edits such a wide range of global warming pages. I think the appropriate thing is either a warning or a topic ban of limited duration. ] (]) 01:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I guess I'm a little late for my own case here. Wasn't even aware it was going on actually. I would add to OrenO's comments that the first supposed infraction of mine had several references to leading newspapers such as The National Post. This was referenced, and as OrenO notes, it was also true. The second supposed infraction was merely a talk page comment asking what makes this William Connolley person eligible for his own Misplaced Pages entry? As I said then, Idon't see anything notable that he has done. There does seem to be a small cabal of AGW activists who really go after people with a vengeance using Stalin-like methods, and that's all this looks like to me. ] (]) 17:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The non-interaction provision is clearly not going to be practical if they are allowed to edit GW pages. No one can edit GW pages without crossing paths with WMC and this provision allows one-sided sniping, regardless of whether there is a history of such sniping or not, which is obviously unfair. The sanctions should be symetric in this regards. --] (]) 04:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning JettaMann=== |
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|
|
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Provisional result: JettaMann is indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to ], broadly construed, and interaction banned from ]. I don't see evidence here sufficient to topic ban JettaMann from all ] pages. The previous 10 day block was immediately followed by personal attacks and violations of ], per the evidence cited above. Just because somebody edits Misplaced Pages their biography does not become a free fire zone. Please keep this thread open until JettaMann comments, or until a total of 48 hours have passed from the initial filing, and then log the sanction, notify the user, and close this thread. In this case ''indefinitely'' means until suitable explanations, retractions and assurances are provided to ensure that the objectionable conduct will not recur. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Support all provisions of this proposed result. ++]: ]/] 14:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Also support all of proposal. --] ] 22:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Thread closed, ban enacted. If JettaMann chooses to lodge an appeal, please take into consideration that they have not edited since shortly before this request was opened. . . - ] <small>(])</small> 05:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== GoRight == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|Closed as not requiring action}} |
|
|
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|
|
===Request concerning GoRight=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] 16:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|GoRight}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# Disingenuous wrangling over the meaning of a common acronym (trolling). |
|
|
# Participates in an edit war on ] |
|
|
# Accuses ChrisO of stalking and harrassment. |
|
|
|
|
|
In aggregate and over such a short timespan these are evidence that GoRight aims to flout the conditions under which he was recently unblocked, and to continue with his war-like approach to Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : <p> |
|
|
# Warning by {{user|ChrisO}} |
|
|
# Warning by {{admin|Jake Wartenberg}} (transcribed to user talk page by {{user|Tony Sidaway}}): "that further edits of a battleground-like nature will result in sanctions." |
|
|
# Warned by {{admin|Lar}} "warned not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests, or else they may be blocked without further warnings" |
|
|
# Warned by {{user|Tony Sidaway}}: "Please as a matter of urgency act to dampen down the hostility and alarm that has been caused by your behavior over the past hour or so. If you do not, I will have to submit a request for enforcement on the Climate change probation page." Response is . Edit summary: "Why? I've met the terms of my agreement and the expectations made of wikipedia editors." |
|
|
|
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Anytthing that might stop GoRight rampaging like this. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : at 16:16, 7 January 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning GoRight=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by GoRight==== |
|
|
Well, this appears to be the next logical step in ]ing me. I have responded to Tony's accusations on my talk page, so I see no need to repeat myself here. As far as I know none of my actions since being unblocked have violated the terms of (a) my promises for being unblocked, or (b) the terms of the conditions of the probationary sanctions. If they have in some way, it was purely inadvertent on my part. I suspect that there is little that I can say to affect the course of the discussion which will now ensue here so I shall take my leave. If further input from me is required please contact me on my talk page. --] (]) 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I hereby admit that I likely over-reacted with any suggestion of stalking on ChrisO's part, I retract all such suggestions in the spirit of fostering a more collaborative atmosphere, and I (virtually) extend my hand in an offer of apology and reconciliation. --] (]) 21:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning GoRight ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
This report is frivolous. To address each point: |
|
|
*"disingenuous wrangling" - ''what?'' WMC was haranguing an editor over nothing, as he often does, and GoRight is to be blamed for commenting in defense of that editor? Come on! |
|
|
*"Edit warring" on Rajendra K. Pachauri - he made ONE edit, in response to a WMC revert of Nutley's revert. WMC has twice reverted that edit in the last 24 hours, with little effort to build consensus. Why is GoRight being singled out for doing less? |
|
|
*accusing ChrisO of stalking - ChrisO was a visible presence on GoRight's talk during his recent block. It's not unreasonable to ask him to cease. |
|
|
|
|
|
If GoRight's previous requests on this page were considered frivolous, this ''certainly'' fits the bill, and I would hope that admins would treat this report no differently. ] (]) 16:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, Lar's and Viridae's conflict with GoRight has apparently been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, why is it being raised again here? ] (]) 16:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
My response to GoRight's unfounded accusation is . This has nothing whatsoever to do with GoRight. I had been looking at ]'s contributions in relation to his ongoing discussion at ], saw his edits to ], read that page (currently being discussed at ]), nominated it for speedy deletion as an attack page - for which it was deleted by {{user|Dank}} - and found GoRight going apeshit on my talk page. I'd not had any prior contact or discussion with GoRight about Marknutley's page and wasn't even aware that he was involved with it until I checked the history ''after'' I'd nominated it for speedy deletion. This is a gross overreaction by GoRight and I agree with Tony that, along with the other behaviour that he notes, it casts serious doubt on the sincerity of GoRight's promise to reform. -- ] (]) 16:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Re to Sandstein - where did I say "in this very request" that GoRight was "on a rampage"? Tony asked above for any enforcement remedy that would lead to "Anything that might stop GoRight rampaging like this." His words, not mine. As for an interaction ban, note that GoRight interacted spontaneously with me - I did not interact with him or even know that he was involved with the article that I nominated for speedy deletion. I also don't think a single reversion of an atrociously written piece of contentious content for which there was no consent for inclusion constitutes "participating in an edit war". As a matter of fact, I had previously added a large chunk of the content that I removed , but it had been so mutilated at some point that its continued inclusion was unjustifiable on basic quality grounds, as I said in my edit summary - plus there was no consensus to include that material in the first place. -- ] (]) 20:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Note also that GoRight has been shopping his accusations of "stalking" to other admins: ,. Again, I repeat that this is completely unjustified and unprovoked, since I had no interaction with him whatsoever over ]. I have no interest in conflicting with GoRight and didn't even know he was involved with that article until after I nominated it for deletion. -- ] (]) 20:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I accept GoRight's apology, and in the interests of getting back to something more productive than this, I suggest that this enforcement request be closed. -- ] (]) 22:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;Comment by Sandstein: <s>I am not quite persuaded by this request and how it is framed. The first edit is certainly silly, but the entire discussion at ] is seriously lame and IMHO most of the participants should just disengage. The second edit is a single revert, which I am not sure is sanctionable in and of itself; ChrisO himself also participated in the edit war () and another editor reverted the same content twice (, ). The stalking accusations are serious, and very likely inappropriate, but ChrisO's characterisations of GoRight as "going apeshit" and "on a rampage" in this very request are hardly exemplary conduct either. I'm half inclined to think a relatively brief, but broad topic and interaction ban for both ChrisO and GoRight might be appropriate to help cool down the high tempers of both editors somewhat. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)</s> Sorry, ChrisO, I confused you with the submitter of the request. I still think there is more than one editor behaving lamely here, but I'm not sure what the best course of action is. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I panicked during the first hour or two of GoRight's editing. He's still GoRight, but despite my fears he apparently hasn't continued to stir things up. I apologise to all, and especially to GoRight, for making a premature and ill-advised request. I've criticised others for this and I should have known better. --] 14:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning GoRight=== |
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|
|
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|
|
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
|
|
Proposed result: ''No action. All editors are reminded that collaborative is better than combative.'' If this looks like a fair assessment, would someone please close this? - ] <small>(])</small> 15:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
OK closed. --] ] 22:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ling.Nut == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{cot|All editors are reminded to adhere strictly to the topic of improving the associated article when posting to an article's talkpage. Ling.Nut is cautioned that concerns of bad faith and inappropriate collusion should be dealt with through ], not aired at talkpages.}} |
|
|
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|
|
===Request concerning Ling.Nut=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ], ] 12:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ling.Nut}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# Is unconstructive, and uses the article talk page for offtopic accusations of bad faith and a general, if brief, rant against Misplaced Pages and consensus. |
|
|
# Repeats the rant against consensus, claiming "it very strongly encourages the formation of tag-team gangs of bullies etc. (no accusations meant here)." |
|
|
; Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : <p> |
|
|
# Warning by {{user|2over0}}, as already logged |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : {{{Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)}}} |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Suggest further warning to stop stirring up argument, and in future comply fully with ].<br>Additional note: the General sanctions/Climate change probation Remedy section specifically mentions assumptions of bad faith, and advises "Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article; Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead" – added by ], ] 12:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning Ling.Nut=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Ling.Nut==== |
|
|
*Eh. I plan to seek support for the proposal I outlined . That will give me ample opportunity to rail against Misplaced Pages's fatal flaw. Meanwhile, I stand by my comment that I will avoid all personal attacks and all angry editing of article text... as my edits indeed have shown . I... am not at all familiar with the some of the folks who warn or template me, but I am very, very, very wary of admins sympathetic to the AGW position acting as blocking or even warning admins. Not sure how i can address this issue, but it is a separate one. • ] 12:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning Ling.Nut ==== |
|
|
'''From Cla68:''' Neither of the two diffs presented are directed at anyone in particular. Instead, both are complaints about Misplaced Pages's current structure, which I myself have complained about on numerous occasions. Is it against the Climate Change probation to complain about Misplaced Pages? I don't think so. This appears to be an unactionable request. ] (]) 12:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''From Tony Sidaway:''' I had been following the discussion on Ling.nut's page this morning, and have left him a note about ]. The talk page of ] can be very frustrating for all involved, and these instances of low-grade griping and personal attacks are part of the problem. Perhaps all parties in that case should be steered towards mediation. Concerns about the ] policy and the like are best tackled on the talk page of the relevant policy. --] 12:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''From Viriditas:''' ] ] (]) 12:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''From Pete Tillman''': I didn't participate in this discussion, but I've found Ling.nut's other contributions to be thoughtful & helpful -- in particular, he's spent considerable effort trying to improve ], a notoriously contentious and difficult article. |
|
|
|
|
|
I think Ling is fairly new on the Misplaced Pages climate-change scene. As Tony notes above, the subject page in particular is a frustrating one, and I've made some soapboxy comments myself on that talk page that, in retrospect, probably weren't constructive. Everyone involved should remember to "keep cool". Thanks, ] (]) 19:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, he's not new to it. ] (]) 19:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Ling.Nut=== |
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|
|
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|
|
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
|
|
|
|
|
I collapsed the relevant section at ], as it was in no way related to improving ]. Ling.Nut has made some assurances concerning both discussion and editing, and is discussing the wider issue of the Misplaced Pages model elsewhere. Proposed close: ''All editors are reminded to adhere strictly to the topic of improving the associated article when posting to an article's talkpage. Ling.Nut is cautioned that concerns of bad faith and inappropriate collusion should be dealt with through ], not aired at talkpages.'' - ] <small>(])</small> 02:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Heyitspeter == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{cot|Heyitspeter agrees not to add, remove, or move any material related to the term climategate or its description in the lead section for a month }} |
|
|
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|
|
===Request concerning Heyitspeter=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 18:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Heyitspeter}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# Removes the sourced fact that the controversy was named "Climategate" by sceptics. |
|
|
# Removes the sourced fact that the controversy was named "Climategate" by sceptics. |
|
|
# Removes the sourced fact that the controversy was named "Climategate" by sceptics. |
|
|
# Removes the sourced fact that the controversy was named "Climategate" by sceptics. |
|
|
; Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : <p> |
|
|
# Warning by {{user|Hipocrite}} |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Introduction ban on ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : The introduction has been difficult for many to deal with. Some want other nicknames (Swifthack, Warmergate) included in the title. Some want all the nicknames out. Others want Climategate included. I don't know why constant reversions by Heyitspeter, a bunch of drive-by IP addresses and the subject of the next section should win just because they are willing to revert over and over and over to their most-preferred version, and the other "side" is willing to accept the compromise of one nickname with explanation. The introduction is being discussed actively on talk, but Heyitspeter, the subject below and the drive-by IP addresses constantly start edit-wars trying to get the intro to their version. It needs to stop. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning Heyitspeter=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Heyitspeter==== |
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose I should start by asking that the 4th diff be removed as irrelevant. That was a copy/paste typo and I quickly self-reverted as shown . |
|
|
|
|
|
In regards to diffs 1-3. Note that all the edits were differently worded and responded to different stages of discussion in the talkpage. These edits were individual, honest attempts to improve the article spaced out over several days. The "by sceptics of anthropogenic climate change" clause has been repeatedly contested on the talkpage by many different users (e.g., a short scroll through the current talkpage and recent archive yields the following sections: , , , ), and is contradicted by sources discussed in the article in ]. It is my understanding that this means, respectively, that inclusion of the disputed clause violates ] and ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
In summary: my motivation for making edits 1-3 was to bring the article in line with these two policies by providing a factual, informative version of the sentence, supported by the body of the article, that both sides of the discussion can agree to (cf. my explanation for diff 2: ). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm concerned about this request. The "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" suggest that it was filed in tension with ] and ]. I recently warned Hipocrite about the latter on his talkpage , with this request following very soon after. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks.--] (]) 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:In a semi-related note, as administrators will be viewing this page I wanted to ask how one should go about requesting arbitration in regards to the disputed edit (hopefully something lesser than ArbCom, as I've heard that's a pain). I don't see going anywhere. Thanks again.--] (]) 20:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::There's no such thing as "arbitration lesser than ArbCom", and ArbCom doesn't do content disputes anyway. You might want to look at ] instead. -- ] (]) 22:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Cool, thanks for the info.--] (]) 02:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning Heyitspeter ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
'''WMC''' I think this request can be closed with an acknowledgement of HiP's volunteering to leave that sentence alone ] (]) 11:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Heyitspeter=== |
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Currently doing the same edit once every 24+ hours three times is a nuisance but looking through the page history there are other people who are being far more of a nuisance and we should deal with them first. I suggest we tell Peter we aren't going to accept many more edits from him on sentences containing the word "Climategate" and leave it at that. Any seconder? --] ] 22:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I am tempted to put a pseudo-lock on whatever Wrong Version is up there now until ] concludes, but discussions there seem to have a way of looping back on themselves. This all concerns whether and how the term ''climategate'' should be used in the lead, so how about asking him to refrain from adding, removing, or moving any material related to the term ''climategate'' or its description in the lead section? Obvious vandalism excepted, of course. Limiting this to a month is probably sufficient. Heyitspeter - would you be okay with limiting your participation on this matter to the talkpage? When there is a good ] at that section, everyone will defend it. - ] <small>(])</small> 06:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Yes, of course. Even prior to this request I had decided not to make more direct edits to that sentence. I wish Hip had contacted me before filing this request, as it would have spared everyone's time.--] (]) 10:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|
|
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
== Jpat34721 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{cot|Jpat34721 is ] from the pages ] and ] until 2010-02-13.}} |
|
|
===Request concerning Jpat34721=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 18:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Jpat34721}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# Removes the sourced fact that the controversy was named "Climategate" by sceptics. |
|
|
# Removes the sourced fact that the controversy was named "Climategate" by sceptics. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : <p> |
|
|
# Warning by {{user|Hipocrite}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Introduction ban on {{article|Climatic Research Unit hacking incident}} |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : The introduction has been difficult for many to deal with. Some want other nicknames (Swifthack, Warmergate) included in the title. Some want all the nicknames out. Others want Climategate included. I don't know why constant reversions by Jpat, a bunch of drive-by IP addresses and the subject of the prior section should win just because they are willing to revert over and over and over to their most-preferred version, and the other "side" is willing to accept the compromise of one nickname with explanation. The introduction is being discussed actively on talk, but Jpat, the subject above and the drive-by IP addresses constantly start edit-wars trying to get the intro to their version. It needs to stop. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning Jpat34721=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Jpat34721==== |
|
|
Hipocrite pointed out on my talk page that the edit in question might be considered a revert. Even though I didn't think it qualified (it was attempt at compromise by adding a link to the section where the disputed neologism is discussed in full), to be safe '''I self-reverted''' prior to hipocrit's accusation here. It appears that my self revert doesn't show up in the page history perhaps because someone had already reverted my edit, but I assume the history of my attempt exists in a log somewhere. ] (]) 19:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: It dosen't. ] (]) 19:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I would also point out that when I made the edit in question, I entered this on the talk page, "I have tried a compromise edit which combines "colloquially known" with a link from "Climategate" to the naming the incident section. Comments? JPatterson (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Clearly, I was not edit warring but attempting to find common ground. ] (]) 19:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As to his comment's re the lead, my position is that the current wording goes against WP policy. It is either OR or an factually wrong, depending on how one interprets the word "dubbed". My goal is not POV pushing but moving toward an article that chronicles the controversy instead of passing judgment on it. ] (]) 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Bizmo has a strange definition of contentious editing. In an article where the editors are as deeply divided along partisan lines as they are here, ''any'' edit is contended. I have proposed numerous "compromises" in an attempt to find middle ground (hence the many posts). I have tried ], I have requested 3rd party help on the NPOV message board with no takers. To single out one user in this mess is patently absurd, especially when that user has engaged constructively (and in many cases successfully) toward reaching consensus. |
|
|
|
|
|
WMC: The edit you point to () was in no way a revert (please find the edit I supposedly reverted, I've gone back 7 days and can't find it). We have reached consensus that contentious labels and characterizations are not to be used. In this case, the label applied was not even supported by the cite, as was made clear in my edit summary. Looking over the page history, the characterization I removed, was at least <s>five</s> seven days old and appears to be one we missed when we went through and removed the labels. In particular, we agreed that the label "climate change skeptic", as used here, was unsupportable,pejorative and not POV neutral. |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning Jpat34721==== |
|
|
'''TS''': As a matter of transparency I should say I disengaged from that article after accusations of ownership. Having said that I can only encourage uninvolved admins to look carefully at the fulness of the evolving situation on that rather sensitive article. Removal of some editors may be merited, but I stopped watching it a week or so ago. --] 18:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Statement by uninvolved Mark Nutley |
|
|
|
|
|
This to me seems incredibly stupid, "''dubbed "Climategate" by sceptics of ],''" Since watergate every scandel has ended up being called ''whatever-gate'' I am curious as to how this particular scandals name is being attributed to skeptics and not just the usual lazy journo`s not even trying to come up with a new name. Take the expenses scandel in the uk recently, expensesgate, not scamalot which has gotta be the best name but nope, expensesgate. I would also like to see the reliable sources which state that this name was coined by sceptics as well. And not a source which is pro AGW, a neutral source please. I have looked at the diffs and i see jpat trying to compromise with different wording and he did try a revert but had to do it manually "''17:15, 11 January 2010 Jpat34721 (talk | contribs) (91,549 bytes) (last rv failed. Doing it manually)''" Is this perhaps the self revert he means? --] (]) 20:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:The section on ] included in the article goes over this stuff a bit. The "sceptics" line is contradicted by some sources.--] (]) 20:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, there were five citations. But they were removed because they were being used as primary source data points to produce a novel synthesis not present in any of the sources. Five sources were being used to ''show'' that it was widely used. It was explained to you that this is not acceptable, per policy. Several times. ] (]) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Why did you write this? It's not accurate, kind of mean, and I don't see the relevance to the discussion. --] (]) 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Guettarda's comment is accurate, but I agree that it's not strictly germane here. -- ] (]) 21:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I don't want to bother arguing this out, but I do want the comment removed as it's distracting from the discussion at hand.--] (]) 21:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::@wmc, i have removed your strike as i have not actually edited that article, hence i am uninvolved, i have asked a few questions in talk and thats its. I was als ounder the impression that editing anothers posts was frowned uopn? Now if you actually feel that as j broke the 1r rule and should be topic banned then should the same not apply to you? ] --] (]) 23:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''WMC''': ] is misbehaving here and needs sanctionning to remind him (and indeed others) that the rules really do exist and have teeth. Article / topic ban for a while seems like a good idea, with possible remission after a while if credible efforts to be productive elsewhere become clear. Nb: I struck "uninvolved" from MN's self-description: that is laughable ] (]) 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Comment re MN's evidence: all that misses the point. This isn't a place to rehash all the old arguments. The question here is whether J's edits were a violation of the article parole ] (]) 22:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''WMC''' (again): I think this is fairly simple. J had broken the 1RR parole on this article very clearly by the time of this report. *After* this report he has continued reverting . If this doesn't trigger a block then these sanctions have become meaningless ] (]) 22:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''GoRight''': I think the sanction proposed by BozMo is clearly excessive given that there is much contentious edit warring from both sides. --] (]) 23:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Do feel free to report anyone else. I have looked at three reports here and decided two do not need action. One month article ban (not topic ban mind you) for a user who has spent too long on one thing seems pretty balanced. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Arzel''': Why is BozMo, who appears to be an involved administrator, giving his recomendations in the section specifically stated for uninvolved administrators? Perhaps he is not, but he does seem to be more involved than one would expect a completely neutral admin to be. Aside from that this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to quiet three editors (JPat, Tillman, and Heyitspeter) from editing global warming articles. ] (]) 01:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Jpat34721=== |
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. I haven't gone back more than a week into the history but even without probation in place if I saw someone doing as many contentious edits in 24 hours I would use some sort of sanction. There is an arguable 3RR (depending what you think about the self revert and attempt to compromise above) and five contenious edits in seven hours. There is also an unhealthy focus of edits on this page (couple of hundred edits to the article and talk in a week). All this on an article on probation. My proposal would be a one month ban from this topic and talk page. Any seconder? --] ] 22:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Done, logged, and notified. If behaviour continues across other articles this can be extended to a topic ban, but I think minimal intervention is best for now. - ] <small>(])</small> 02:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|
|
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tillman == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{cot|No action. All editors are reminded to be proactive in seeking consensus at the talkpage.}} |
|
|
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|
|
===Request concerning Tillman=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 20:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Tillman}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# This drive-by revert duplicates "individuals who oppose action on Anthropogenic global warming and some others call the incident "Climategate"." which is directly below it in the introduction. This is actively being discussed on the talk page - is this motonous revert warring over the lead going to win out over discussion? Without serious action to prevent the 1rr rule from becoming the "TAG TEAM FOR THE WIN" rule, it is. |
|
|
; Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : <p> |
|
|
# Warning by {{user|Tony Sidaway}} |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : 0rr on all global warming, broadly construed |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : I see no value in having a user who has made zero - zero talk page edits to the section under discussion using his 1rr as an entitlement. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning Tillman=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Tillman==== |
|
|
The question of referring to '''Climategate''' has been discussed many times at the article talk page, and I have participated in many such discussions, for example , and . |
|
|
|
|
|
I have been active in editing this page since its inception. Hipocrite calling this a "drive-by revert" is incorrect, and, in my opinion, borders on a ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally, Hipocrites quoted "warning", above , was a "routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits." |
|
|
|
|
|
I regard this charge as attempted intimidation by ], who has been very actively opposing any use of the term ] for this controversy. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, ] (]) 21:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning Tillman ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Comment by ] (]) ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with Tillman's viewpoint on this article and I disagree with his revert but I would be sorry to see this request actionned. Tillman *has* participated in talk and I think that characterising this as drive-by, or sanctionning him for it, would be regrettable, even if there is some slight evidence of carelessness in reverting this when it was already in there. I too have rather lost track of the revert status of this article. There are other people here who need sanctionning first. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===== Comment by ] (]) ===== |
|
|
|
|
|
A quick review of Hipocrite's contributions, , reveals that H himself is deeply involved in this conflict. I shall call out a number of his edits to substantiate that here in a bit. His choosing to bring enforcement requests against his opponents in a content dispute warrants a warning, IMHO, similar to that which was issued to myself regarding listing frivolous and vexatious requests here. This request in particular would easily fall into that category. --] (]) 23:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Specific diffs as promised: , , , , , , , , , , , . Note that some of his own reverts are essentially drive-bys as well, and that these are ALL just from TODAY. --] (]) 23:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: '''QUESTION:''' Given all the warnings being proposed against one side of this content dispute, would it be deemed inappropriate (i.e. frivolous or vexatious) of me to open an equal number of such cases against editors from the opposing side of this content dispute? --] (]) 23:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Tillman=== |
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think this is actionable. Not the greatest edit ever given the contention and repetition but not drive by (previous edit was 24 hours earlier to talk page) and certainly not actionable. If another uninvolved admin agrees could they please close this. --] ] 22:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Done. That article might need full protection soon if ] does not wrap up soon, though. - ] <small>(])</small> 03:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|
|
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== 1rr Violation ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{cot|Blocked.}} |
|
|
{{Resolved}} |
|
|
, . Blatent, and obvious. ] (]) 02:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Why is H not using the prescribed template given that this involves a single editor? Also, I note that it is possible that the editor in question may not be aware of the ] restriction since they are not listed in the notifications table, . Frivolous and vexatious use of this venue to engage in ]? You decide. This is the fourth such request. I was warned after 1. Some neutrality of enforcement, please? --] (]) 02:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Blocked 24 hours in the course of investigating above. There is an editnotice that displays every time anyone edits that page. If they make a credible appeal, I would not object to an early unblock - this is not a frequent flyer here. - ] <small>(])</small> 03:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Hipocrite Dcowboys3109 six minutes after the first revert, nearly four hours before the second. I was over that way anyway, so I have added this to the log. GoRight does raise a good point, though - the log of notifications is there to serve as a collective memory. Right now the probation is new enough that it is easy to see a notification in the talkpage history and the main participants in the topic area were also active at the community discussion, but this set of procedures should be futureproof inasmuch as possible. - ] <small>(])</small> 07:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: There is no need to use undue formality when the violation is sufficiently obvious ] (]) 08:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::User:Hipocrite seems a little fast on the trigger in requesting enforcement, and doesn't always do his homework. --] (]) 23:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Biosequestration dispute == |
|
|
''Moved to ] as a content dispute.'' |
|
|
:Immediately this move took place disruptive editing against Hansen's ideas occurred by the two anti-Hansen editors above (William M. Connolley and Arthur Rubin) at the 'carbon tax' "Kyoto Protocol" AND 'biosequestration' articles. I would like to appeal the transfer of this enforcement dispute to the biosequestration talk page. We are clearly dealing with an attack on Hansen's ideas in multiple aricles.] (]) 19:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC) William M Connolley has now attempted to remove the entire paragaph (with over six references) with Hansen's ideas about carbon sequestration at coal plants from the biosequestration article. This was after a recent edit by me attempted to clarify by highlighting use of algal biosequestration at coal plants in the Garnaut Report immediately above the Hansen ref.] (]) 19:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC) ARthur Rubin has now attempted to remove the same fully referenced paragraph from from the biosequestration article. How can this sort of disruptive editing be allowed to occur? These editors are providing no justification fro rmoving this material, but by simultanous attack they are making it hard for me to keep it in the article (although it is directly on point) without having to constantly revert them. Help, this is unfair.] (]) 20:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Calling WMC an anti-Hansen editor is absurd. In addition, it's '''not''' ''fully'' referenced and it wouldn't be relevant, even if referenced, as noted on the talk page. Please continue the discussion there, and don't edit against consensus. — ] ] 20:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusions are reached on the basis of evidence available. All that is necessary is to examine the edit history of you two in relation to Hansen comments. 'Absurd' is just an irrelevant appeal to a negative emotion. Why should you assume that your point of view represents consensus, especially when what you are trying to do is remove referenced material and make ideas hard to understand? The discussion board has been used extensively to try and prevent your disruptive edits. It appears to have failed. Higher level scrutiny is now required] (]) 20:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ], ], ] == |
|
|
* {{la|Kyoto Protocol}} |
|
|
* {{la|Carbon tax}} |
|
|
* {{la|Biosequestration}} |
|
|
Administrator attention to recent very acrimonious edit warring on these articles might be merited. --] 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Noted. I won't edit again unless consensus can be obtained somewhere unless any of the parties reports a clearly improper edit reason. — ] ] 20:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: If all involved will similarly down tools pending the achievement of consensus, no further action will be necessary. --] 20:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sorry, it appears I was forced to break my assertion. Tags indicating my concerns as to why NW's edits were inappropriate were removed. It seems to me that removing tags without a clear consensus to do so, or a previous discussion leading to the conclusion that the tags were inappropriate then, is disruptive. — ] ] 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree provided the disruptive edits on 'biosequestration' 'carbon tax' and "Kyoto Protocol' can be reverted to where they were before this blew up.] (]) 20:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Using that argument as a pretext to carry out ''further'' edit warring, as you have just done , is rather inflammatory. --] 20:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
But TS-look at what they did at 'carbon tax' they replaced the words 'carbon sequestration' at coal plants with 'sequestration' at coal plants-making the idea unintelligible. Sequestration of what? Carbon? Well why not say it-except that it creates an unpalatable precedent for teh coal industry. Why should that sort of disruptive editing be allowed to stand indefinitely. This is why formal dispute resolution should commence here. This is not a small issue for the coal industry ] (]) 20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Beware the curse of ]. --] 20:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Beware editors that have retainers from the coal industry to make sure ideas requiring them to sequester carbon as a condition of operating never see the light of day.] (]) 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
