Hi, Per WP:DISRUPT, failure to answer simple direct questions is indicative of disruptive editing, and that is something which is expressly prohibited by the arbitrators. In the arbs' WP:ARBCC ruling, they placed all climate articles "broadly construed" under discretionary sanctions. This edit of yours just repeats your earlier naked assertion that there is a dispute. Will you please, at the article talk page, tell us the substance of the dispute and the reliable sources on which you base your reasoning? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you make such an accusation of disruptive editing? An editor tried to suppress discussion on a talk page by collapsing the discussion on false premises. I rightly pointed this out! And if you want to continue this discussion, do so on the article talk page. cwmacdougall 1:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

NewsGuy deleted from his talk page the following, as is his right, so I will repost here:

Regarding your ridiculous unfounded complaint about me, on Christmas Morning you asked for sources. I provided them on Boxing day. I don't think your complaint has a leg to stand on, especially as we are discussing my "I agree" comment on the Talk page, not the article itself, and moreover a comment which was mainly complaining of your collapsing of the article on false grounds. Re my complaint about you, the note on your talk page is a warning, and I understand we are supposed to warn, and give an opportunity for reform, before filing formal complaints. cwmacdougall 14:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Global warming shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — TPX

Recently we had an EW at a climate page article, and in the Monday morning debrief some who probably know more than me about enforcement issues said the proper forum for an article under discretionary sanctions under an Arb ruling would be at WP:Arbitration enforcement. Beats me which is the preferred venue, but this user already knows about ARBCC so notice shouldn't be an issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TPX thinks I'm involved in an edit war? How do I prove POV and insert a POV tag, except as I've done it? The edit warriors are those like NewsAndEventsGuy refusing to engage on the talk page, even deleting and hiding contrary views... cwmacdougall 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a good idea to reboot the conversation, raising concerns individually, so editors can fully address them in a manner you find satisfactory. Begin by highlighting all references you say are substandard and can be improved, and proceed from there. Once the issue has been sorted, you can move to the next problem. — TPX 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I think I agree that rebooting, with a short summary of my position would make sense. I propose doing that when I have time to revisit the issue. cwmacdougall 13:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Climate change. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. 

Please note: this template is given in an advisory capacity and does not necessarily imply wrongdoing or continued wrongdoing. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The assertions of a criminal conspiracy that is being managed sounds much like the language currently working its way thru the courts with respect to one of the specific players in the CRU email flap, Michael Mann. For example, you can read excerpts of a recent District of Washington court decision for yourself. It is OK for us to cite a reliable source that says "so-and-so insists there was a criminal conspiracy" and we have articles for that such as Global warming conspiracy theory and Climatic Research Unit email controversy.

Your restoration of the RS-free text makes you the adopted parent of those claims there is a "criminal conspiracy" is being "managed". Read the court case. It's libel/defamation of the scientists involved. But of course [{WP:TALK]] also allows the deletion of harmful attack posts and SOAP like most new RS-free new threads such as that one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of a talk page discussion is simply outrageous, yet another example of your blatantly biased editing; are we not allowed to discuss Climategate on the Talk page? As for the "libel", it can't be libel if there is no named individual, and if it was it would be sufficient to delete the word criminal. And you are being libellous in suggesting I have libelled anyone. cwmacdougall 13:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The deletion was completely within policy (WP:TALK item #3,4 and 5). And Yes - We are not allowed to discuss "Climategate" on the talk-page unless specific text is proposed for the article. (see WP:FORUM) - nothing of the kind was done in that posting/thread, it was entirely polemic, which is against policy (see WP:SOAP). And at the abstraction level of the global warming article, a minor thing such as "climategate" is simply off-topic, specific article proposals or discussions on content should be on our article on the topic Climatic Research Unit email controversy. --Kim D. Petersen 13:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where in WP:TALK this kind of bulk deletion is permitted, on the contrary it appears prohibited: "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". I have never seen such blatantly biased editing, suppressing live discussions, in Wikipedia before. cwmacdougall 15:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:TPO item #3,4 and 5 - for the 3 pertinent reasons for removal. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion. You may want to read through WP:NOT in general, to figure out what is, and what isn't, allowed here. --Kim D. Petersen 16:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Item 3 is about "User talk pages", so not relevant. 4 and 5 even less so. Of course it's not for discussion in general, but the Article Talk pages are there to discuss what should be done on the article. If you bias those discussions by excluding views you don't like, and you bias the article. Conduct affects content. cwmacdougall 16:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please revert your latest edit[1] on Talk:Global warming as you have passed WP:3RR[2][3][4][5] - you are in clear breach here. --Kim D. Petersen 17:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have violated the 3RR rule, but in any case the edits I was reverting were in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. There is no excuse for hiding or deleting live Talk page discussions. cwmacdougall 23:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwmacdougall. Thank you.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Global warming. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)). However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Tiptoety ^talk 06:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cwmacdougall (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was reverting Obvious Vandalism on the article Talk page, as is permitted under exemption 4 of the [3R Rule]. A new editor's comment was first deleted, then hidden, meeting the definition of [Talk Page Vandalism]: "Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments". This was done even after I removed the only conceivably libellous word from his comment. cwmacdougall 08:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Obvious vandalism? Nonsense. Evidently you disagree with the editors whose edits you reverted, but to suggest that those edits were intended as vandalism is absurd. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cwmacdougall (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Why absurd? You think deleting comments from the Talk page is not vandalism, contrary to the definition on [Talk Page Vandalism]? As to intentions, the editors concerned have a history of deleting talk page comments they disagree with, which rather suggests biased intent. I don't necessarily disagree with the editors; I disagree with their suppressing talk page comments they don't like. cwmacdougall 13:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whatever you disagree with, you don't get to edit war about it. It's a real dumb reason to set yourself up for getting blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

Let me help you out a bit here. You clearly have read that there are exceptions to the 3RR rule for vandalism, and this is certainly true. HOWEVER, what you don't seem to understand is how this exception works in practice. Anyone can call someone else's edit vandalism. However, if you're invoking the 3rr exception, the vast majority of wiki editors need to agree with that what you're reverting is vandalism. And generally, anyone who has been around long enough to accumulate more than a few dozen edits isn't going to commit obvious vandalism. Another pro-tip, claiming you were right in repeated unblock attempts is the fastest way to getting talk page access revoked for the duration of the block. If you still don't believe that you made a mistake, then it's probably better to just sit out the block in silence.... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the complaint made against you at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, but I was not able to act on it before another administrator blocked you and closed the thread.

Based on the evidence offered in the complaint, I conclude that you engaged in disruptive conduct as described in the complaint. In brief, if you have neutrality concerns about an article, you should make specific and actionable suggestions about how to improve it, and seek consensus for these. Making broad allegations of bias, and edit-warring to add a "POV" tag to the article, or seeking to prolong unproductive, similarly broad discussions, is not a mode of conduct that can help improve the article.

Based on your response to the complaint, and your facetious claims, above, that you reverted vandalism, I further conclude that you still do not understand or are not willing to comply with Wikipedia's conduct rules as applied to the article Global warming. Consequently, in addition to the block, and to prevent further similar disruption:

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from editing the article "Global warming" and its talk page.

You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) provided above.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions and the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.  Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  14:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is uncharted water for me, since I've never seen anyone violate their page ban before. You might wish to consider self-reverting this edit. Not sure, but I imagine violations of page bans have the potential to expand the sanction to cover an entire subject area which would keep you from contributing to other climate related articles. Another option is to ping the the page-banning admin for advice & direction. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I am prevented by the system from editing the GW page, but apparently not the Talk page, which I took to mean it is in fact only a ban on the GW page. cwmacdougall 13:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Your discussion of content based on RSs at other climate pages will be welcome. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that very much, but at least the current set of articles are so obviously and laughably biased that many will be warned off treating them seriously. I'm not sure that piece-meal changes will actually help... cwmacdougall 17:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bring RSs and find out. Or not. Your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might on the main page, if I was permitted to! cwmacdougall 00:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I watch this page, list an RS here, and I will be happy to suggest a relevant sub article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not good enough. cwmacdougall 01:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you decided to expand your campaign to other climate pages by twice restoring a BLP violation that calls someone a "criminal" without citing an RS that reports a courtroom verdict. See Revert #1 and Revert #2. Except further AE enforcement proceedings seeking a six month climate-wide ban when I have a chance to post it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are still attacking the integrity of the Talk page I see. He gave well sourced evidence that someone had admitted doing naughty things. Not sure whether or how it would be put into the article itself, but it should be discussed on the Talk page. It's no wonder the GW articles are so laughably biased with you trying to censor discussion. That is not science. cwmacdougall 15:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Russia for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cwmacdougall. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cwmacdougall. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cwmacdougall. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cwmacdougall. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]