| Link
|
Time
|
Editor
|
Edit location
|
Details
|
| [1]
|
09:31, July 16, 2010
|
211.28.194.74
|
Article
|
211.28.194.74 adds new paragraph with no explanation in edit summary.
|
| [2]
|
09:32, July 16, 2010
|
211.28.194.74
|
Article
|
211.28.194.74 fixes ref error.
|
| [3]
|
09:34, July 16, 2010
|
211.28.194.74
|
Article
|
211.28.194.74 adds reference to paragraph.
|
| [4]
|
09:47, July 16, 2010
|
William M. Connolley
|
Article
|
William M. Connolley reverts with no explanation in edit summary. William M. Connolley marks this edit as minor.
|
| [5]
|
09:58, July 16, 2010
|
Off2riorob
|
William M. Connolley Talk
|
Off2riorob Starts discussion at William M. Connolley's talk page: "Hi, you reverted this edit with no edit summary, why did you do that, there are citations, what is wrong with the content?"
|
| [6]
|
13:06, July 16, 2010
|
GregJackP
|
Article
|
GregJackP restores paragraph with edit summary ""restore well-sourced material, replaced 1 questionable source, material is clearly not vandalism""
|
| [7]
|
13:09, July 16, 2010
|
GregJackP
|
Talk
|
GregJackP starts discussion at article talk page. ""I restored well-sourced material regarding a Climategate debate that was removed without comment, moved into correct section and replaced one questionable source with a better source.
|
| [8]
|
13:22, July 16, 2010
|
Verbal
|
Article
|
Verbal reverts with edit summary ""Material is not well sourced and is UNDUE / unbalanced. Take to talk please..""
|
| [9]
|
13:52, July 16, 2010
|
William M. Connolley
|
Talk
|
William M. Connolley replies on article talk page. ""You restored junk. Are you really taking responsibility for that edit? And this has little or nothing to do with the CRU stuff""
|
| [10]
|
13:53, July 16, 2010
|
Off2riorob
|
CC/RfE
|
Off2riorob Begins filing RfE against William M. Connolley
|
| [11]
|
14:03, July 16, 2010
|
Verbal
|
Article
|
Verbal replies on article talk page: ""I removed it for fairly obvious reasons before realising there had been a post here. If anyone seriously contests the removal then I'll justify it further.""
|
| [12]
|
14:18, July 16, 2010
|
GregJackP
|
Talk
|
GregJackP responds on article talk page: ""First, two of the references are to scientifically reliable sources. Are you really claiming that NASA doesn't know that Mars' limited atmosphere is 95% CO2? Or that a professor of chemistry at Oxford, writing is a college textbook is not scientifically reliable? Or is it the opinion of Watson that is objectionable? The material is his bio, and the "Climategate" tag is the title in the source, not what I think about it. The material covered his opinion, as publicly reported and was not negative. In addition, WP:UNDUE is specious argument, as it showed his opinion and then provided balancing information from NASA and an Oxford scientist. The material was balanced, as required by the standard. And the only "obvious" reason that I can see for reverting the material was a desire to keep the term "Climategate" out of the public view. BTW, it would appear to me that WMC has a WP:COI in any article mentioning that term, as some of the e-mails involved in Climategate were to or from him. Regards"
|
| [13]
|
14:35, July 16, 2010
|
Atmoz
|
Talk
|
Atmoz responds on article talk page: ""Watson's view is entirely in line with the two other sources you provide. The fact that some don't understand this speaks volumes.""
|
| [14]
|
14:42, July 16, 2010
|
William M. Connolley
|
Talk
|
William M. Connolley responds to article talk page: ""Per Atmoz and Verbal: there are any number of problems with the text, which is fairly standard ""skeptic"" nonsense. It is a shame you're trying to defned it. Anyway: Watson has claimed on many occasions that the proof of the greenhouse effect can be observed by looking at Mars, Venus and Earth doesn't look correct, and certainly isn't supported by the refs provided, which is only one mention on a video. But the real problem is This view is in conflict with our basic understanding of Mars. which is clear SYN (and wrong, too). The refs don't support that statement. There is more, but since you've veered of into paranoia about cenorship and COI I can't be bothered" WMC refactors.[15]
|
| [16]
|
15:01, July 16, 2010
|
Hipocrite
|
GregJackP Talk
|
Hipocrite begins discussion at GregJackP's talk page: "This edit inserts false, defamatory information about living persons into mainspace articles. This must not continue - do not insert false, defamatory information about living people into articles ever again."
|
| [17]
|
15:03, July 16, 2010
|
Marknutley
|
Article
|
Marknutley reverts with edit summary ""since when was NASA not a reliable source?""
|
| [18]
|
15:10, July 16, 2010
|
Hipocrite
|
Article
|
Hipocrite reverts with edit summary ""BLP violation. RFE filed""
|
| [19]
|
15:11, July 16, 2010
|
Hipocrite
|
CC/RfE
|
Hipocrite begins filing RfE against Marknutley
|
| [20]
|
15:24, July 16, 2010
|
WVBluefield
|
Article
|
WVBluefield reverts with edit summary ""i'm just not seeing it""
|
| [21]
|
15:24, July 16, 2010
|
Hipocrite
|
Article
|
Hipocrite reverts with edit summary ""BLP exemption""
|
| [22]
|
15:25, July 16, 2010
|
WVBluefield
|
Article
|
WVBluefield reverts with edit summary ""I dont think the BLP exemption covers WP:IDONTLIKEIT""
|
| [23]
|
15:25, July 16, 2010
|
Hipocrite
|
Talk
|
Hipocrite starts new discussion on article talk page: ""Next editor to insert the defmatory text is going right to AIV - not ANI, AIV. It's vandalism - if you don't understand why, don't reinsert it.""
|
| [24]
|
15:26, July 16, 2010
|
Hipocrite
|
Article
|
Hipocrite reverts with edit summary ""BLP exemption""
|
| [25]
|
15:29, July 16, 2010
|
Hipocrite
|
ANI
|
Hipocrite starts discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: "A series of loosely organized "skeptics" are attempting to put false, defamatory content in Robert Watson (scientist). Dr. Watson said that Mars' thin atmosphere causes it not to have a greenhouse effect (while Venus' thick atmosphere causes it to have a huge greenhouse effect). This is in line with standard scientific thinking. An IP vandal attempted to insert the false inormation that this is not in line with standard scientific thinking into the article - this was reverted, but that reversion was questioned as a vandalism or not-vandalism revert. However, users are now reinserting the false, defamatory information into the article, in violation of BLP. Please assist."
|
| [26]
|
15:40, July 16, 2010
|
Hipocrite
|
Arbcom Evidence
|
Hipocrite begins adding evidence at ArbCom case: "During the case [27], [28], [29], [30] - Marknutley, GregJackP, and WVBluefield reinsert sneaky BLP vandalism into articles just because the people reverting them are on the other "side.""
|
| [31]
|
15:52, July 16, 2010
|
Hipocrite
|
Risker Talk
|
Hipocrite starts discussion at Risker's talk page: "I realize that it is very much past the evidence deadline, but I think it's important that AC closely evaluate the recent flare up at Robert Watson (scientist), where an IP editor added sneaky obviously defamatory BLP vandalism (that Mars has a greenhouse effect and the subject of the biography had repeatedly gotten that fact wrong), is reverted by WMC, and then, because it's WMC doing the reverting, the BLP vandalism is edit warred back in by Marknutley, GregJackP and WVBluefield, WMC is brought before the enforcement board for not explaining his vandalism revert."
|
| [32]
|
15:52, July 16, 2010
|
Hipocrite
|
Rlevse Talk
|
Hipocrite starts discussion at Rlevse's talk page: "I realize that it is very much past the evidence deadline, but I think it's important that AC closely evaluate the recent flare up at Robert Watson (scientist), where an IP editor added sneaky obviously defamatory BLP vandalism (that Mars has a greenhouse effect and the subject of the biography had repeatedly gotten that fact wrong), is reverted by WMC, and then, because it's WMC doing the reverting, the BLP vandalism is edit warred back in by Marknutley, GregJackP and WVBluefield, WMC is brought before the enforcement board for not explaining his vandalism revert."
|
| [33]
|
15:52, July 16, 2010
|
Hipocrite
|
Newyorkbrad Talk
|
Hipocrite starts discussion at Newyorkbrad's talk page: "I realize that it is very much past the evidence deadline, but I think it's important that AC closely evaluate the recent flare up at Robert Watson (scientist), where an IP editor added sneaky obviously defamatory BLP vandalism (that Mars has a greenhouse effect and the subject of the biography had repeatedly gotten that fact wrong), is reverted by WMC, and then, because it's WMC doing the reverting, the BLP vandalism is edit warred back in by Marknutley, GregJackP and WVBluefield, WMC is brought before the enforcement board for not explaining his vandalism revert"
|
| [34]
|
15:59, July 16, 2010
|
GregJackP
|
Hipocrite Talk
|
GregJackP starts discussion at Hipocrite's talk page: "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Robert Watson (scientist). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Claims BLP exemption when there is not a BLP issue. "
|
| [35]
|
16:04, July 16, 2010
|
ATren
|
Talk
|
ATren responds to first discussion on article talk page: ""Regardless of factual accuracy, it's clearly WP:SYN to attempt to debunk statements from one source with ""facts"" from another source. And since it doesn't appear that anyone here wants to explain why it's factually dubious, I believe the issue is that Mars' atmosphere is so sparse, that even if it's mostly CO2, it's still a very small amount in absolute terms."
|
| [36]
|
16:04, July 16, 2010
|
GregJackP
|
RPP
|
GregJackP requests full protection of Robert Watson (scientist) artice: "Temporary full protection' dispute, Hipocrite, in conjunction with 2 other editors, have reverted sourced material 5 times within 24 hours, claiming a BLP exemption where none exists. Request that page be restored to this diff and protected for 7 days to stop the edit warring."
|
| [37]
|
16:07, July 16, 2010
|
ATren
|
Article
|
ATren responds to second discussion on article talk page: ""It's not vandalism (and you should stop saying that), but it's a BLP vio and I will revert if it goes back in. This is clearly WP:SYN.""
|
| [38]
|
16:08, July 16, 2010
|
Hipocrite
|
Talk
|
Hipocrite responds in second discussion on article talk page: ""ATren is close on the atmospheric physics. It's more that there is no atmosphere to retain heat.""
|
| [39]
|
16:08, July 16, 2010
|
Rlevse
|
Article
|
Rlevse protects article with edit summary ""edit warring over a GW BLP during the arb case is not good""
|
| [40]
|
16:10, July 16, 2010
|
Rlevse
|
Talk
|
Rlevse starts new discussion on article talk page: ""I have full protected this for one week due to the edit war of today. Edit warring when the topic, esp a BLP, and parties involved are part of an ongoing arbcase is not a good idea.""
|
|
