User talk:Sphilbrick/Robert Watson incident timeline

More evidence from various pages arranged in chronological order

1. [1] 09:58, July 16, 2010 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?"
2. [2] 13:53, July 16, 2010 Off2riorob Begins filing RfE against William M. Connolley
3. [3] 15:01, July 16, 2010 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."
4. [4] 15:11, July 16, 2010 Hipocrite begins filing RfE against Marknutley
5. [5] 15:29, July 16, 2010 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."
6. [6] 15:40, July 16, 2010 Hipocrite begins adding evidence at ArbCom case: "During the case [7], [8], [9], [10] - Marknutley, GregJackP, and WVBluefield reinsert sneaky BLP vandalism into articles just because the people reverting them are on the other "side.""
7. [11] 15:52, July 16, 2010 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."
8. [12] 15:52, July 16, 2010 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."
9. [13] 15:52, July 16, 2010 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"
10. [14] 15:59, July 16, 2010 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. "
11. [15] 16:04, July 16, 2010 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."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)