Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive5

ChrisO

Closed, no action, filing user is notified not to use this page for retaliation

User requesting enforcement JohnWBarber (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, specifically "Interact civilly with other editors;" Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so [1] This was the first edit (at 20:35, 3 March) in which ChrisO assumed bad faith, stating that the nomination of this AfD was (a) "Bad faith, tendentious nomination" and (b) "The nominator's disruptive WP:POINT-scoring is a significant violation of the article probation regime in this topic area, but that's best dealt with elsewhere" To be a WP:POINT nomination, I would have had to have no adequate reason for the AfD. But I stated a perfectly adequate, policy-compliant reason at the very top of the AfD page, [2] which Chris saw (and later referred to in his complaint above). [3]] ChrisO assumed bad faith, a violation of WP:CIV#Assume good faith ("Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.") There was no strong evidence whatever, therefore, he also violated WP:CIV#Identifying incivility, 1(c) by making "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" A single, or even a few violations of WP:CIVIL wouldn't be worth bringing up here, I don't think. But as I show, this happened repeatedly. [4]At 21:27 3 March, ChrisO filed his claim against me here. By this point, he not only had my initial statement at the AfD to show him that there was sufficient reason not to believe the AfD had been filed as a WP:POINT, he also had additional comments I had made by that point, showing detailed reasons for thinking that the article violates WP:POVFORK policy ([5] [6]). Normal AfDs where the nominator states reasoning and doesn't otherwise violate any policies or commit acts that in themselves cause disruption, cannot be WP:POINT violations unless there is some overwhelming reason outside the AfD that definitely proves it. For this, ChrisO cites a comment I made at another AfD (my earliest comment in this) [7] Since there is no evidence whatever that it was the sole or even principal reason for my filing the second AfD, ChrisO is completely without proof. He must assume bad faith for the nomination in order to make the accusation here. Filing this complaint was the second time he's violated WP:AGF and therefore violated WP:CIV (which has a section on AGF). It is also a violation of WP:CIVIL to be "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them." (this section [8]; see 2(d)). It is also a violation of WP:CIVIL to be making "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" (see 1(c), same section). Since ChrisO was without evidence, this was a frivolous, nuisance complaint, therefore a violation of WP:DISRUPTION. [9] In filing this, ChrisO stated: He has offered only a minimal justification for deletion and no new arguments ChrisO's statement is factually false, as he had every reason to know. He can't possibly have missed the long comments I had made by that point in the AfD (the two additional comments I mentioned in the previous paragraph: [10] [11]) Each of these diffs prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that ChrisO's statement that I had "only minimal justification" is untruthful: It is impossible for ChrisO not to have known about those diffs and impossible for him to call them "minimal justification". Yet well after I made each of them (19:47 3 March and 20:15, same day) ChrisO filed the complaint here (21:27 -- he had edited the AfD page twice after my later long comment -- at 20:35 [12] and 21:05 [13]). It is another violation of WP:CIVIL 2(d) to be "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them." [14] When multiple editors told him he was wrong, ChrisO continued to repeat the same evidence-ignoring allegation, insisting "His lack of serious intent is clearly visible in his very brief deletion rationale," as if a brief deletion rationale (something common in AfDs) was the same as the lack of a deletion rationale. He then stated, "Yes, he advanced further arguments later in the discussion, but only after people had pointed out the WP:POINTyness of his actions", as if that somehow proved that filing the AfD was a POINT violation to begin with. I had the policy reason for the AfD from the start, as proven by the first line. I had the arguments on the page shortly thereafter. There is no way that anyone could believe that this proves that my motives were in bad faith and that the AfD was meant to prove a point and cause disruption. The reasons for the AfD are evident on the page. ChrisO saw it, recognized it and mentioned it here. And it didn't matter to him. This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. [15] Despite having it pointed out to him by numerous editors on this page and despite being presented with the facts in my response to his complaint, ChrisO repeated the same, exact WP:POINTy accusation over at WP:ANI at 15:04 5 March, as if nothing had been said here. His statement at ANI included the sentence: He then posted the deletion nomination for Climate change denial - the article's fourth AfD nomination - with the following rationale, in its entirety: The implication here was that this was the only argument I had made at the AfD ("the following rationale, in its entirety", saying nothing else). He wrote this despite it having been pointed out to him that I had made other comments which reinforced the proof that I had made the nomination in good faith (he was responding to that point here [16] earlier, at 08:49 4 March). It is a violation of WP:CIVIL to be "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them." (this section [17]; see 2(d)), and of course, more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. Diffs of prior warnings [18] notice of climate change probation by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Prohibition from filing any further frivilous nuisance complaints, participating in deletion discussions of articles in the climate change topic area, topic ban on all climate change-related articles. Additional comments ChrisO never had a reason to make the accusation that I'd violated WP:POINT from the moment he saw my policy-related reason at the top of the AfD page. If he had any doubts, he could have asked me. Personally, I thought the article's violation of WP:POVFORK was so obvious that everyone would see my reason right away. I immediately gave more detailed reasoning in the AfD. The existence of another comment, elsewhere, about a possible AfD does not prove that that other comment is the sole or even main reason for later starting the AfD when proper reasons are evident, and they were evident. And yet, repeatedly, ChrisO pretended that the single earliest comment was the sole motivating factor for an AfD that was filed normally. He did this: (a) First at the AfD, when he already had seen I had referred to WP:POVFORK policy at the top of that page; (b) Second, here, when he had already seen substantial arguments at the AfD (and acted as if they weren't there); (c) Third, here in his response to his complaint, after other editors told him there was no WP:POINT violation; (d) Fourth, at WP:ANI where he forum shopped the same, tired allegation, inserting it into a discussion that had nothing to do with the topic of whether or not the AfD should have been given a WP:SNOW close. In addition to the other WP:CIV and other violations I've detailed above, ChrisO also violated WP:CIV#Identifying incivility 2(a) "Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility" because his repeatedly bringing up an accusation, first at the AfD, then here, then at ANI -- always while not having any reason for it -- is an act of taunting. Discussion concerning ChrisO Statement by ChrisO This is really blatant retaliation - JohnWBarber should be ashamed of himself. As I said in my earlier comments, I thought that JWB's AfD of an article that's already been AfD'd three times, in pursuit of an apparent WP:POINT, was irresponsible point-scoring, Many others have said so too on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination), often in much stronger terms than anything I've said: User:PhGustaf: "Nothing has changed since last three Keeps; nomination is apparent retaliation for an apparent drama fork from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration" User:KimDabelsteinPetersen: "nothing has changed from the last AfD's, and this nomination seems to have a WP:IDONTLIKEIT character, as well as a (poorly thought out) WP:POINT to stall the AfD at CCE." User:StuartH: "Article has survived three previous WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations, and the nomination appears to be a WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nomination from the Climate change exaggeration deletion nomination, as suggested by the nominator's above request and comments on the other nomination page." User:Stephan Schulz: "pointy and pointless nomination" User:ScienceApologist: "Bad faith nomination due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration" User:DroEsperanto: "First, frivolous nomination. Nominating an article for AFD so you can gather evidence to accuse people of hypocrisy is WP:POINT to the max. (And no, I'm violating WP:AGF, since (1) this was the nominator's stated intention (see diff), and (2) he/she already asked people how their votes here compare to their votes there.) Second, this is an article that has already been here (three times) and this AFD presents absolutely no new evidence to support its deletion." User:Verbal: "Nomination gives no reasoning, and is clearly disruptive" User:Oren0: "Keep as a bad faith nomination, per this" User:Beyond My Ken: "WP:POINTy nom" User:Plumbago: "A pointy nomination of a well-sourced topic seemingly in response to the parallel nomination of a badly-sourced, POV-fork neologism" User:Nigelj: "WP:POINTy nom, discussed mostly by our current crop of people who do things like this." User:William M. Connolley: "bad faith nom" User:Unit 5: "Move to delete seems to be self-serving and has nothing to do with the good of the encyclopedia." User:Dave souza: "this looks like a tendentious nomination of an article" User:Tanthelas39: "Funny that JWB accuses people multiple times of 'wikilawyering', when that's all I see him doing." I have done no more than express the concerns of many people, including multiple admins and numerous uninvolved users. Instead of addressing those concerns, JWB seems to be doubling down. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC) @Cla68: Fifteen other editors, at least half of them uninvolved, including several admins, have expressed the same concerns. WP:GS/CC provides that "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits." Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is clearly a form of disruptive editing. I brought those concerns to this enforcement page for review in good faith. Where is the fault in this? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning ChrisO Despite my attempts to bear with John, this is a stretch too far. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Please stay on topic and make substantive comments. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC) This looks very much like retaliation for the enforcement request that ChrisO filed against JohnWBarber immediately preceding. How about if everybody involved dials it back a notch and we use the enforcement board for clear and obvious violations, not as a continuation of the feud? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC) If it's only retaliation, then it's a friviolous, nuisance complaint. If there's something to it, it's not. This general sanctions regime was created for a purpose and to fill a need. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I would have a hard time endorsing a sanction against someone who is right. I think it's clear that your deletion nomination of climate change denial was tit-for-tat for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration. You practically said so yourself. It's true that there are valid problems with the climate change denial article but it doesn't appear that you had those primarily in mind when making the nomination. I don't see anything wrong with pointing that out. Generally, I have found ChrisO to be quite reasonable and your repeated actions of jumping on people who disagree with you to be unproductive. Oren0 (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Minor detail: I think you're missing a tat. [19] Kinda knocks a hole clear through what you're pointing out. Oh, and look what I found. I'd forgotten all about it. I was objecting to ChrisO's behavior well before any of this. [20] Odd. I was criticizing him for something completely different from disagreeing with me. Here's another break in the pattern: TonySidaway and William Connolley try to shut down the discussion and I didn't exactly jump on either of them, did I? [21] [22] [23] (I did say the actions were disruptive,[24] and I did object to Tony's attempt to close the AN/I thread,[25] but I think you'd be hard pressed to call it "jumping on"). So perhaps I might not be making out-of-control accusations here, although that's really best judged by looking what I said above. What I'm saying might actually be worth looking at with an open mind. Oh, and another thing about that "tit-for-tat" business: That comment that I made just before the AfD I filed -- it wasn't directed at only one side. [26] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC) It's true that there are valid problems with the climate change denial article but it doesn't appear that you had those primarily in mind when making the nomination. Answered in my complaint, above -- in granular detail -- and in my response to ChrisO's complaint. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC) @SBHB: there's no feud - the concerns I expressed about about JWB's conduct were shared - and previously expressed - by many other people, including multiple admins. Bringing here concerns about conduct perceived as many as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is the right thing to do. On the other hand, using this process as retaliation is categorically wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I thought ChrisO's request was just as tendentious as this one. Why not topic ban both of them? That should take care of it. Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Feel free to explain how this report is "tendentious." -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by ChyranandChloe This is retaliatory. I think JohnWBarber feels insecure as he willfully ignores that this section is "Comments by others" in order to frame, disparage in some cases, what others have to say about the request. If replies were wanted, they'd be written as a question. The finding of fact and the ultimate sanction isn't decided by us, although we do shape its outcome, it's decided by the administrators. Therefore I propose a rule that: (1) we present our view and our evidence addressed to the administrator, they have a critical reading capacity, let's not treat them as incapable; (2) other can, of course, write their replies in their own sections (similar to arbcom cases), or in the sections belonging to others if requested. Otherwise this back and forth seems to be a competition for the last word that increase rather than decrease drama and contentions. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Re. Franamax: As far as I can see, John does not edit Climate Change articles apart from the AfD and surrounding noise. So a topic ban would not be much of a sanction. On the other hand, it might help to keep an otherwise good editor out of an area where he may have problems to keep his cool. So, on the "not punitive but preventative" principle, I'd support a topic ban, possibly somewhat longer (not much of a hardship because the editor barely edits the topic anyways). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC) JohnWBarber (formerly Noroton) has a long, long history of this sort of disruptive behavior, most of which has been built around promoting a certain agenda. I understand that changing his username was an attempt to put that sordid past behind him, but the "new improved" version has simply returned to the same old behavior. This retaliation is part of the typical Noroton modus operandi, and it was preceded by what was obviously a bad faith AfD nomination (see previous level 2 section). A topic ban of not less than a month is appropriate, but a review of this editor's block log indicates a block should also be considered. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Scjessey and I have an extended history in which I occasionally point out Scjessey's behavior violations and Sjessey attacks me. Here's a good summary [27] from the last time we interacted. I had previously done some editing at the CRU incident article. I withdrew in large part because Scjessey's comments like this one [28] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I only wish WP:PLAXICO were still a valid redirect. Thanks awfully for drawing attention to previous bad conduct on your part so that I don't have to. Much obliged. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I am glad it is not still a valid redirect, the very existence of it was a bit of a BLP violation. I think maybe we should stop mentioning it and let it die away over time. ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Looks tendentious and bad faith. I think this should lead to sanctions no JWB William M. Connolley (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Questions for JHochman JeHochman made the following statment, none of it backed up with evidence: The filed a very pointy AfD, There is nothing pointy about an AfD in which it is credibly alleged that its existence violates WP policy. If you're going to make that statement, prove it. followed it up with an abuse of process, What are you talking about? a tit-for-tat frivolous sanctions request, You've given no reason to show that this was frivolous. ChrisO obviously violated the general sanctions multiple times. and continued to battle when challenged on this very thread. This very thread is a discussion of an editor's actions. When criticized, I defended myself. Show "battle"-like behavior. The editor has received sufficient feedback from uninvolved editors already, To do what? Withdraw the AfD? Not doing so is some kind of behavioral violation? What change of my behavior was supposed to be the result of this "feedback"? Maybe I don't understand what you're saying here. yet they continue to engage in the inappropriate behavior. Provide diffs. Moreover, the editor has not been improving the articles. They are merely engaging in talk and project space disputes. I've been trying to find time to look more closely at the Climate change denial article to show in some detail what it's faults are regarding POV treatment of the topics within it and bad sourcing. I've mentioned this at the AfD, and mentioned making edits to improve the article. [29] The problem with WP:DISRUPTION is that it causes Wikipedians, like me, to get moved away from addressing improvements to the encyclopedia and instead deal with distractions and misbehavior (by, say, ChrisO). Several editors on both the Keep and Delete sides of the AfD have agreed that there are problems with the article. The encyclopedia is benefited if either the article is deleted or if its problems are improved. Either way, my criticisms of it are what encyclopedia building is all about. Continuing to ignore the now acknowledged POV and other problems of the article -- which was done through much of its history, isn't a benefit to the encyclopedia. That there are editors here who want discussion shut down is a great cost to the encyclopedia. I hate to do this, but you brought up a lack of content work (even though nearly all of my comments at the AfD are about article content). I've actually been looking very actively at possible changes to the article, and to prove that, look at this one content issue that I've been examining, both to show the POVFORK nature of the article and, if it survives AfD, to improve it: [30] The second paragraph here is mostly about Dr. Frederick Seitz, and it goes on and on about his work doing research related to the tobacco industry. The idea that a whole section devoted to industry denialists associations with the tobacco industry is a WP:UNDUE issue related to POV. That a whole paragraph would relate to one man's research financed by an industry, none of which has to do with climate change, is a second UNDUE problem. The kicker is that the source is an opinionated magazine piece, raising WP:RS issues. But it gets worse: The original opinion piece at least had the decency to quote Seitz defending himself: ("We had absolutely free rein to decide how the money was spent.") [31] It was a BLP issue to use an opinion-piece source to attack a living person on Wikipedia, particularly while omiting that BLP's defense of his own actions. The only reason why it hasn't remained a BLP violation is because Seitz died -- but up until that moment, the BLP violation remainded. This is important both for improving the article and/or for illustrating the WP:POVFORK nature of it: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Now, this is one passage among many. I expect, before the AfD is done, to post a summary list there of the sourcing and POV problems. One problem I have with contributing to the article right now is that the title "Climate change denial" seems to conflict with the current focus of the lead: "Other writers reserve the term for those they allege attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial or other sectional interests. This article uses this second more restrictive sense of the term." I note that no other editor on Wikipedia has addressed the problem with the particular passage I've cited. The AfD gives several examples of other areas of concern, some of which have led to article changes by other editors. To say that I haven't already had an effect on the content is false. To say that I never will is premature. If you want me to focus on the article, deal with editors like ChrisO who have focused on personalities and so that I won't be so distracted and can focus on content. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Questions for JeHochman and Franamax One further point: I saw none of these kinds of comments from JeHochman or Franamax when ChrisO's frivolous, nuisance complaint was made, and yet I've shown with evidence that ChrisO was violating behavioral policy. If my civil, on-topic discussion in the AfD, none of which is disruptive, is sanctionable, then what is the point of having a discussion on a divisive issue? If even OrenO, just above, is admitting that the article has serious problems (and I've identified many of them at the AfD, as you would expect in an AfD for WP:POVFORK reasons on a long article), that tends to indicate that a WP:POVFORK discussion is justified. If it's justified, it can't be WP:POINT (or we're simply engaged in censoring opinions here). Franamax, JeHochman -- please address these pionts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)added last comment to JeHochman -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC); added to comment about my editing the content -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC) To LessHeardVanU If there's a clear way you can show me that my complaint here is frivolous, I'm certainly willing to listen. It's hard to guess what is or isn't a complaint likely to succeed when I'm basing it on repeated behavior that the climate-change general sanctions page says is sanctionable. I wouldn't have filed this if there were only one or two examples, but ChrisO's violations just went on and on. I'm willing to abide by whatever rules everybody else is expected to abide by. I thought I was doing just that. No one has shown how ChrisO's actions don't violate WP:CIV, etc., or how that isn't a violation of the general sanctions. There's nothing vague at all in my accusations. You may say it's nit-picky even if they're all true, but it isn't a small matter to me, since I've had to spend time defending myself from behavior clearly against policy instead of address AfD/content issues. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC) More Statements I've always been on the side of not sparing the rod - I would suggest both JeHochman and LessHeardVanU's proposals to both be implemented. Ignignot (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC) ChrisO's list & JeHochman's comment In an AfD related to a hot political topic that gets a lot of participation, there will be these kinds of attacks on the nominator for nominating in bad faith. The response of the nominator should be to justify the AfD and show that it wasn't a bad-faith nomination in the only way possible to prove it: by showing actual policy problems with the article that are related to reasons for deletion. That was my response, and I've done exactly that. By doing that, I've shown the AfD was not disruptive. Unlike those other editors that ChrisO lists above, ChrisO kept on repeating his accusations, on page after page, well after it had been shown to him that the nomination was within policy and had good motivations. His actions, after a while, became disruptive. That was why this complaint was filed. As the top of the complaint makes clear. There is a reason why WP:DGFA#Rough consensus tells closing admins to discount some comments: They are often incredibly wrongheaded and against policy. If deletion policy itself recognizes the unreliable nature of AfD comments made briefly by editors whose depth of understanding of the subject is unknown, they shouldn't be relied on here, especially after I've proved otherwise. I guess this is the source of one of JeHochman's objections. If so, he's giving in to a mob mentality. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see anything retaliatory here. I saw the AfD on Climate change denial and certainly did not perceive it to be a WP:POINT. One would have to presume that JWB does not believe the article should be deleted, and I think that's extremely unlikely. Many editors have expressed doubts on the talk page of that article about whether it should exist. I also saw ChrisO's comment on the AfD accusing Barber of bad faith, and considered it an unsupported personal attack. But then a lot more editors did the same, so I guess that's how it goes. To close as no action is one thing (I would close as no action), but much of the rest of this strikes me as utterly failing to consider the possibility that an editor was acting in good faith, and was personally attacked, and thus does not believe that he should have been. I would say that is much more likely than some nefarious scheme to get ChrisO. Mackan79 (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, the reverse is more likely true. If you familiar with Barber's history, which Jehochman and I have both referred to, you would see that the "nefarious scheme" you describe is by far the more likely scenario. Barber has become quite adept at playing the game, and a retaliatory filing like this is simply standard operating procedure. If you look at this behavior in isolation, it doesn't seem like much of a big deal; however, when viewed in the context of past transgressions it is amazing how much this guy gets away with. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Barber did also vote to delete the "Climate change exaggeration" article, right? If he voted to delete that one and everyone agreed, and then nominated the denial article also, that would seem to me a strong position. The problem, usually, is when editors take and try to apply a decision they didn't like. Mackan79 (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Mackan, I appreciate your comments and thanks for taking the time, but you're wasting it: Jehochman simply isn't listening and isn't interested in listening. I've made all these points. But it goes further: He not only has no reason to consider the AfD nomination WP:POINTy, he already knows, for a fact, that POV problems have long been one of my animating concerns. Franamax, who also appears to be ignoring my comments, probably doesn't know this, but I discussed POV editing less than six months ago with Jehochman both on his talk page [32] and mine. [33] and at ANI [34] and at ArbCom [35], so the idea that I would have any other motivation than wanting to delete a WP:POVFORK-violating article is ridiculous. LHVU can confirm that I get very animated on the subject based on discussions I've had with him in the past. Jehochman knows this about me and ignores it. It's also obvious that ChrisO violated WP:CIVIL in various ways that I've laid out in detail. It's also obvious that WP:CIVIL is on the general sanctions page. There's no doubt about any of that. It's also obvious from this complaint and my response to his complaint that I was hurt by what ChrisO said in his repeated incivility. And it's obvious as hell that that's why I filed the complaint. An accusation that I was being "retaliatory" or "tit for tat" doesn't account for the obvious reason I filed the complaint -- I felt and feel I was wronged. All of this (except the links above about my longstanding concern about POV editing) is already staring everybody in the face. It's also obvious that Jehochman has no interest in anything less than a long block. It's also obvious that Jehochman and Franamax, neither of them, have detailed why they think I was being pointy or retaliatory. It's also obvious that a collaborative atmosphere is not encouraged this way -- the ostensible purpose of the sanctions, after all. I'm sick of this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning ChrisO This stronglt appears like a retaliatory filing. Gaming of this board must be discouraged. This request is therefore rejected, and I will leave it to the next admin to sanction or warn the filer as appropriate. Jehochman Brrr 07:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC) That was my feeling too on first look a while ago, though I'm still mulling. Is a CC topic ban of 2-4 weeks duration a reasonable sanction? Franamax (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC) The subsequent comments on this thread seal the deal. I was thinking one to three months. How about one month? Jehochman Brrr 12:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see where there is dispensation to topic ban someone from CC related editing for filing enforcement requests, even if an allegation of bad faith is upheld. There is, as I noted in the request brought by ChrisO against JohnWBarber, no determination that the AfD was made in an abuse of process - there are allegations, but no decision. Also, there is no pattern of similar disruption to the present request, and some of the most recent requests are pretty much of the same type - generalised complaints of one or more editors conducting themselves in a way that does not meet with the approval of other editors, and all split down a line that defines GW advocates and sceptic/denialists. If we are to sanction on the first instance of an alleged frivolous complaint here, then a few of the requests above (and archived) need reviewing. If it is felt that action needs to be taken to reduce the number of "unlikely to succeed" requests, then I suggest a strong warning to JWB specifically and all other editors generally that further instances of irresponsible requests may result in the filer being sanctioned. When adopting a new stance it is an imperative that notice is provided before topic bans or blocks are enacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC) The relevant policy is WP:POINT. This editor's name is on the log as having been notified that disruptive behavior in this area will not be tolerated. How is it that they haven't been notified? The filed a very pointy AfD, followed it up with an abuse of process, a tit-for-tat frivolous sanctions request, and continued to battle when challenged on this very thread. The frivolous request alone is not enough to sanction, but as a continuation of the pattern of abuse, it is. The editor has received sufficient feedback from uninvolved editors already, yet they continue to engage in the inappropriate behavior. Moreover, the editor has not been improving the articles. They are merely engaging in talk and project space disputes. The cost to Wikipedia of banning them is virtually zero, and the benefit is substantial. Prior account of the filing party: Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note the block log includes entries for disruptive and tendentious editing. In light of this accounts past history of bad behavior, culminating in a three week block for disruption, and a one week block for sock puppetry, I think we could justify a one month block for disruptive editing here, not a mere topic ban. I'd rather place a topic ban because the account seems to make a substantial number of non-controversial and productive edits in other fields. Jehochman Brrr 14:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC) I checked the CC probation log for JWB, and found only reference to this. I am familiar with JWB/Noroton's history, being a participant is some of it, but in these matters I do not tend to hold an editors past "difficulties" in other area's against them. I would comment that JWB's sanction record falls within specific area's of the encyclopedia and in others he is regarded as a useful contributor. In the area of CC editing he has only received the general notice of probation and has not been previously warned regarding his conduct - at least no logged warnings, and I saw only a passing note by WMC re 3RR on JWB's talkpage - and (AFAIK) the request regarding the AfD is the first time he has been brought to this page. Under the circumstances, and per practice as I have understood it, previous history either elsewhere or time expired such as blocks or desysoppings should not over influence our considerations upon requests on this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I thought filing tendentious enforcement requests (if demonstrated) gets you a ban on filing enforcement requests for a while, not an outright topic ban. I think a topic ban may be a bit much. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Please address my comment in full. You appear to have failed to read my analysis. Specifically, address the issue that the filing party created a pointy AFD immediately prior (a retaliatory one), and had an extensive block log including disruption and sock puppetry. I think those circumstances are aggravating factors that justify a sanction. There is clearly disruption going on here. This is not one frivolous request out of the blue, which would be excusable. No, it is not that situation. Jehochman Brrr 04:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I did read your analysis, I thought fairly thoroughly. I just didn't agree with your assessment of the level of disruption, although we are none of us perfect. On reflection I am going to recuse from further consideration of this matter (and the other one related to JWB), as JWB previously initiated an ArbCom case against me, so I think there is a possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I would make two points. Firstly, you may have been persuaded by the allegations that the AfD was pointy but that is not (yet) the consensus. You are then proceeding to a decision based on your own view of the pointyness of the preceding request. Perhaps you may wish to include the viewpoints of those who differ in their findings? Secondly, and this is a meme I find disturbing, it seems to have become accepted that the only way to "usefully contribute" to CC related articles is to edit to the status quo - that to attempt to incorporate viewpoints, sources, etc. that does not meet with the existing order (or editors) is perceived as disruptive. I disagree. It is the manner in which the articles are edited, regardless of viewpoint, that determines whether it is disruptive. That is how Wikipedia works - or should do, even if probations are required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Editing to different points of view is fine and should be encouraged. Engaging in endless talk page, noticeboard, and AFD disputes without ever adding anything to an article is problematic. Please show me a few diffs where this editor has attempted to make constructive edits to articles in this area. I have not seen any yet. All I see is battle. What do you think about the block log? Do you consider that the editor might be returning to former patterns of negative behavior? Jehochman Brrr 14:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I am closing this as we aren't going to get any more done here than the following: the filing user is on notice not to use this page for retaliation. Jehochman Talk 20:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)