Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive4
Mark Nutley (2)
[edit]Marknutley (talk · contribs) by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs)
Both editors blocked 24 hours; both editors subsequently unblocked by reviewing admin per Hipocrites appeal and various undertakings given.
|
---|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Marknutley[edit]
The specific sanction that Mark is violating is this: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2#Result_concerning_TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC, he was informed about the sanctions here [5] I warned Mark here [6] as well as here [7].
Note: I will be off-line for most of the evening. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Marknutley[edit]Statement by Marknutley[edit]Sorry it`s taken so long to get to this, work has been mental. I was not edit warring, every edit i made was backed up with ever more ref`s each and every time. WMC says i am POV pushing, no i am not, the majority of the refs show the MWP was global, from europe to china to new zealand. Stephen also accuses me of synthesizing, this is untrue as two of the refs used actually state the MWP was a global event. This is not me making connections, it is written in the papers i used as ref`s. mark nutley (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Statement by WMC[edit][This is wrong, 'cos I misread the parole. Rather than striking it all I'll just put this here - William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)]
Why isn't this an open-and-shut case? Three violations of the parole and an explicit rejection of warnings:
Doesn't look like MN is prepared to listen to "friendly warnings". William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
A note on the substance: MN has been been engaging is tendentious discussion on the talk page, asserting that http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm is a RS. It blantantly is unreliable. Comments like Not according to the ref`s i just used to rewrite the lead, it was global the proof is there, it is pointless to deny it are unhelpful; MN is blantantly POV pushing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I agree: apologies. Only TGL and I are. So, given that this *is* clear participation on an edit war, the obvious santiocn is to put him onto 1RR, as per the parole, yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC) @LHVU: fine by me (not often you hear that, worth it for the novelty alone :-) though of course I'm not in charge here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley[edit]If this is to result in any sanction, Steven Schulz will have to suffer the same fate since he is just as guilty of edit waring. 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd Revert Arzel (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
'Comment regarding Lar's "expand 1RR whenever someone clashes" proposal. Interesting..... So that means that instead of playing nice, and not edit-warring - i should keep my peace until at some point i can use edit-warring as a WMD, by engaging someone whom i do not like, and ensure that they will also be restricted. Hmmmm, seems to me to be a rather strange proposal. Please do check the facts: Mark was editwarring despite warnings, despite previous talk-page discussions, he still doesn't accept that he was edit-warring, since apparently he holds the WP:TRUTH. Mark is/was on 3RR - Stephan despite claims above is at 2RR (one revert per day btw.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I could support 1RR for articles on probation (usual exceptions) but I would want to include an exception for someone new to the page. If they haven't edited since the page went on probation, it is unreasonable to assume they know different rules apply. As soon as they are warned, the rule can apply.--SPhilbrickT 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Comments Re. Lar's suggestion[edit]I find no more polite way to to say it, but "I think it's come to that, but failing that I think whenever we have a situation of someone ON 1RR engaged with someone who isn't and it's brought here, we ought to consider extending the 1RR to whoever it is that isn't (in the interests of leveling the field)" has to be the stupidest thing somebody has said in this discussion for a long time. I can hardly imagine a better way of reducing Wikipedia's quality than to "level the playing field" between uninformed and already sanction POV pushers and scientifically literate editors in good standing. If you hand out sanctions indiscriminately, the best possible outcome is that you loose all the more experienced editors and get left with socks and single-purpose accounts. "The Romans make a dessert and call it peace" - let's not forget the ultimate purpose here: To create a good encyclopedia that reflects the best published sources. Everything else is secondary. Civility is only important because it furthers that goal. Making new editors feel welcome is only important in so far as it furthers that goal. ---Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Lar is wrong, obviously. Stephan is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Stephan, I propose that all editors are treated equally, unless the issue at hand is a violation of Wikipedia's rules, such as revert warring and POV-pushing. As Mackan points out above, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and I believe the assumption is that everyone should have equal opportunity to do so unless they're breaking the rules. You seem to be saying that your contributions are more valuable than other editors who have been sanctioned under the AGW article probation, and therefore you don't deserve sanction even though you have been caught engaging in the same behavior for which the others were sanctioned. Is that what you're saying? Cla68 (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Mark, you really don't seem to understand that synthesis requires you to reflect sources accurately, and not combine them to reach a novel conclusion. You were edit warring for the lead that "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of Worldwide warm climate,"[18] yet your references say nothing so definite. The first and third are the same 1993 paper by Grove and Switsur, which "hypothesised" that "The results suggest that it was a global event". Your second reference, p. 134 of a 1994 book by Hughes and Diaz, describes the Grove and Switsur argument, but concludes on pages 136–7 that the evidence "does not constitute compelling evidence for a global 'Medieval Warm Period'" and the concept "is no longer supported by the available evidence." Classic synthesis, advancing a position not supported by the sources. I'm sure your edit was a mistake rather than intentional pov pushing
Question about content[edit]Perhaps others see it differently, but it seems to me that if someone presented a clear analysis of how one or another editor was adding material that clearly misrepresented the source, or clearly went beyond the source, and kept inserting it despite this being explained clearly by other editors in a fully reasonable manner, that it would be grounds for sanctioning the offending editor without having to focus only on who reverted how many times. Basically, if it is quite easy to show that one editor's position is completely unreasonable based on the given sources, but they keep reverting, I think others here would respond to that. I believe it's under the presumption that there are reasonable views on both sides that we would generally say editors should not be reverting. Personally I don't respond to the idea that one person is an expert and the other isn't, for several reasons, but I would respond to clear evidence that someone is not doing an adequate job with the sources. Perhaps some feel that issues of content shouldn't be raised here, but I'd like to suggest that if done very clearly and succinctly, focusing on evidence that discussion was not working, it could be persuasive and useful. Mackan79 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Response to Lar's 1RR confusion[edit]The sanction that both Mark and I are under is this: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2#Result_concerning_TheGoodLocust.2C_MarkNutley.2C_WMC, it should be clearly marked in my filing for enforcement - which i assume is being read in full? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Comment to LHvU
Response(s) by LHvU (not part of "Result" consideration)[edit]To KDP; This seems part of the dichotomy of having two apparently sometimes conflicting policies - WP:BRD and WP:3RR. The latter should not need exist were the former strictly adhered to, but there seems to be this dispensation allowed for "editors in good standing" to edit war in good faith for a bit before trying to see if there can be a consensus. Reverting (either within BRD or 3RR) to the previous version because it "had consensus" is not always sufficient, references to policy or related discussion is preferable. It is the use of ones ability to revert under 3RR, when the other disputant is under restriction, without further explanation or rationale that gives the appearance of "gaming" the situation. In your case, thoughtful/nuanced edit summaries indicating why you are reverting someone again, regardless whether they are under a restriction or not, may preclude you from being restricted under the existing warning. As long as you can show you are not "warring", then you are permitted some reverts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
New problem: serious incivility[edit]The problems with this editor just jumped up an order of magnitude. Please note these edit summaries:
I recommend an immediate block. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
NOTICE: This notice provided as a service for those who may have missed my previous attempts to close this section. Please note that this section is off topic with respect to this enforcement request, as such it violates this request, and that Scjessey is willing to edit war over it. Please take this into account and take whatever actions you deem appropriate under these circumstances. --GoRight (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Marknutley[edit]
Hmm. There are a lot of mitigating circumstances (1) it was over a few days (2) he added more references each time and sought to address the arguments raised (3) he was on talk (4) one of the reinsertions appeared to follow agreement by the person on talk who had reverted him, since the reason given was only ambiguity. --BozMo talk 19:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Would it be sufficient to place him on the same 1RR limitation, as previously warned, as other editors are already under? WMC appears to think this would be appropriate, and I consider it fairer to keep those who are in dispute with editors already under restriction to the same prohibitions - without necessarily determining who is the more wronged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Marknultey and Hipocrite blog post dispute at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident[edit]Both editors blocked 24 hours. Hipocrite for part removing/replacing another editors talkpage comments, in violation of WP:TPOC, without permission, notice to the other editor, or discussion/consensus. Fuller rationale provided with block notice at editors talkpage. Marknutley for edit warring on the same issue, while aware they are imminently to be placed under 1RR restriction for the same issue. I consider my actions appropriate under the provisions of the Probation, but will not contest any other admin amending or reversing them - I only request that both parties be dealt with equally in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
|
William M. Connolley
[edit]William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) #12 by Cla68 (talk · contribs)
Consensus appears to be that this particular comment is not actionable, debate has refocused on a potential course of more general action which is now raised separately. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Reopening .. for additional diffs of "particular comments" related to this issue to be submitted. Will close after 24 hrs, if no additional diffs on WMC behavior are submitted. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning William M. Connolley[edit]
WMC has been asked to strike the comment in question, but has refused. I listed all of the diffs in the "prior warnings" section above to show that William M. Connolley (WMC) has a problem with following the civility policy. Those warnings and requests above are only for the last two months. I expect that if I was to go further back in his talk page history, I would find a similar pattern repeating itself. Besides the recent PA by WMC that made me decide to bring this to admin attention, WMC has personalized other talk page discussions recently [33] and [34]. To state the obvious, personalizing talk page discussions and denigrating other editors is against our civility policy. The reason we have that policy is to facilitate collaboration, cooperation, and compromise, which is how a wiki is supposed to work. WMC's inability or unwillingness to follow this policy is unfortunate, as it causes uneccessary hostility in article talk page discussions and inhibits collaboration. I didn't react to his baiting on the Lawrence Solomon page, but I found that comment, and other similar personal comments that he makes about me and others, extremely counterproductive. Cla68 (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning William M. Connolley[edit]Statement by William M. Connolley[edit]This action is ill-conceived. The problem is ZP5; I think you should learn to make coherent valuable content edits is valuable advice, which he (and indeed other people watching here) should ponder. A glance at ZP5's contributions shows a *total* (and I really do mean total) absence of useful article-space Cl Ch contributions from ZP5, but an awful lot of barely coherent talk page chatter. In fact, even anyone can find even *one* unambiguously valuable climate-change related article space contribution by ZP5 (even something as trivial as reverting vandalism) I'll be happy to strike my comment. William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Addendum: I've just noticed some more weirdness in Cla's statement: I didn't react is a link to... Cla reacting. Shurely Shome Mishtake? But that comment by Cla is instructive: it shows how a perfectly good-faith edit can be mistakenly inperreted as baiting. Look at the context: LS complains about his bean business being mentioned. AH says it is embarassing (why? don't know; never mind) and Cla says the only source for is is LS. I agree; the only source *is* LS. So what? Is LS not a RS about his own activities? Perhaps not. But for Cla to interpret my comment as "personalising" the issue is very odd indeed. Note also taht Cla is double-counting in an effort to get the "bad comment" count up; he has linked to that twice. Similar comments reply to his other "personalising" diff [35] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC) @ZP5: was there something about User:William M. Connolley/For me/RFC-ZP5 that you found offensive? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC) @World: if you're interested in gobbledegook, try User:ZuluPapa5/WMC-RFC Statement by ZP5*[edit]WMC has chosen to add further injury to insult. Normally, I would gladly accept a simple apology in suffice to avoid this specific PA enforcement request. (Even after many others have confirmed prior PA toward me
Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley[edit]
Not that there isn't a problem with Dr. Connolley's civility, which is exemplified by the attack on Zulu Papa 5 on talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the debate that provides the context was a very frustrating one. Some editors were convinced that the verifiability and neutral point of view criteria could be satisfied by any book published by a reputable publisher, and steadfastly rejected cogent arguments on undue weight and the documented unreliability of the author as a scholar of science (including a reprimand from the Press Complaints Commission on his reporting on exactly the issue of climate change), labelling this as "obstructionism." So I want this to be taken into account:
None of us come out of this looking good. I suggest that we look at the thread and try to work out how it came to be such a sick mess. --TS 10:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Breaks parole again in reverting what is not vandalism by any measure w/ no talkpage discussion. Also, "accused of possibly being a sock puppet" =/= "sock puppet." I'm sick of this.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, he's an advanced user, but when you are in the thick of making edits quickly or under stress the fact that English is not your native tongue comes into play. I for example consider myself fluent in one foreign language but that 'fluency' suffers if I am tired, angry or have had too much to drink. It's that principle. And added to the fact that AGW discussions contain numerous complex concepts and terminology, communication can become a problem. Jprw (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This highlights a problem, as I suggested above, that is bigger than William M. Connolley. Discussions on some talk pages have become sick, and perhaps we need to impose stricter rules of discussion. The circular nature of that discussion, and the way it focussed on differences over matters of policy on which there should be, I would have thought, universal agreement, are very worrying, the introduction of the notion of the BLP as applied to well sourced problems with Booker's scholarship, also a little worrying. Perhaps this could be viewed as a case of genuine differences over unsettled policy, but I doubt it. The verification policy has long required sources to be reliable and emphasized fact-checking. A (writer) source that has been repeatedly reproved for major inaccuracies by authoritative bodies (Health and Safety Exec and Press Complaints Commission in this case), and further has admitted to being "misled by the internet" on a simple matter of quote attribution on page 1 of his most recent work, should not be cited as a reliable source on science. A (book) source that presents a novel minority synthesis--a fringe view--should not normally be considered for inclusion on an article about a scientific subject because this is not consistent with the neutral point of view. It seems to me that those going out of their way to construct new interpretations of policy to permit such an inclusion have a duty to defend them, but, further, a duty not to inflame a problem area by repeatedly insisting on the new interpretations against substantial opposition. --TS 14:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC) TS, you're right about the misuse of WP:BLP above, and it can be quickly cleared up here. My complaints should have centred around WP:NPV and WP:CIVIL. I'll make a change over there as well. I think the real point is that making progress in an argument becomes problematic if there are widespread vioaltions of WP:CIVIL Jprw (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I am now beginning to see why Jehochman says that arbitration is required. This page has broken down and the administrators are edit warring. That can only make things worse. Meanwhile Lar's innovative suggestion of having an uninvolved admin strike out the offending words has been implemented and seems to have resolved the immediate problem. I'd still like to address the problem of tendentious editing at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and elsewhere, but that should perhaps be left for the future. --TS 18:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I am going to be blunt here. Any admin on this page who feels that incivility is not enough for sanctions, needs to leave and never edit the remedies again. Everyone can see the pretty link at the top to the probation terms, I will leave it to each of you to count the number of times incivility shows up. I get it, and kinda sorta agree that in general incivility is no biggie, but this probation was setup for a reason, and agreed upon by many when it was implemented. This is not the time to try to rewrite what is ok and what is not ok. Arkon (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Result concerning William M. Connolley[edit]
|
Guettarda warned in regard to repeating allegations when refuted, outside of dispute resolution process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
I'd asked Geni about whether this was actionable, who suggested I bring it to this page rather than ask him/her: User_talk:Geni#Is_this_actionable.3F. Over the past 1-2 days (and counting) Guettarda has made repeated allegations of a WP:Canvass violation (w.r.t. a vote in an RFC), and has continued to post more or less unmodified versions of this complaint on various pages despite explications of the policy and requests for diffs. This is disruptive, clutters talkpages, and generally instigates further comments designed to address the concerns raised only to be ignored (i.e., WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), distracting discussion. Allegations [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] Answers [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] If I'm the one misinterpreting policy here I'd like to be informed. If not, I'd like a request that Guettarda desist in raising this contention outside his/her own talkpage with respect to this particular alleged violation. It's disrupting discussion across these various pages. Thank you. (Guettarda was notified of this request here)--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Discussion related to Guettarda[edit]
That is a lot of diffs. Shouldn't be tolerated. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC) I'm at a loss here. I strongly support the attempts to get agreement for a new name for the article, in the spirit of Ignore all rules, and I'm very impressed that GoRight, who I had initially imagined had been banished from the topic for several months, had reinvented himself as a peacemaker. At the same time. I don't think it's normally a good idea to try this kind of thing. It definitely needs to be justified, and rejustified. I could find myself swayed by Guettarda's arguments, despite my long and heartfelt support for "Ignore all rules." I think Guettarda's opinion that the user talk canvassing was intentionally aimed at swaying talk page discussion is tenable. There was certainly a strong bias to the canvassing, and the usual route of an RFC was avoided (though possibly for defensible reasons). So complaining about a prima facie abuse, even in the face of insistence by the participants that they did not conduct that abuse, is defensible, and we'd have to have strong evidence that Guettarda was trying to cause harm or was reckless in his use of his editing privileges. I don't see that here. I see a dispute about a laudable, but failed, attempt to handle the endless bickering about the article's name. Guettarda's complaints have merit in policy, even if they do not carry the day. In short, dispute resolution is not optional. Selecting a group of supporters, either on or off wiki, and then marshalling them to overwhelm opposition, isn't a very good way to behave. Guettarda is right to highlight the concerns he has here and he does deserve a proper response. --TS 23:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The basic principle that underlies WP:CANVASS is that you shouldn't canvass votes for discussion. The norm is to let interested editors find there way there on their own. WP:CANVASS outlines some exceptions to this idea. One acceptable use, according to WP:CANVASS is to notify "editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion". Who among the "interested" editors weren't notified? Well, lots of people. A list that just so happens to include:
The "article related to the discussion" is the CRU hacking article, not the RFC. People make mistakes, of course. Oren0 may have meant well. But that's beside the point. By selectively leaving out a large number of interested editors, Oren0 created a poll that appeared tainted. And it goes matter of who you notify. Canvasses are also read by other editors. Although the RFC was not listed anywhere, within a couple hours it attracted input from several editors who have never edited either the CRU hacking page or its talk page. Like-minded people read each others talk pages. Favouring one "side" and neglecting the other reverberates beyond the actual pages you edit. Canvassing is never a zero-sum game, even when it's done properly. That's why it's never a good idea. It's not about Oren0's intent. Selective notification taints discussions, especially when (like this one) most of the canvassed editors simply vote and leave. Guettarda (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
One more thought in passing. It's telling that Heyitspeter bring, among the diffs of my "misbehaviour", my responses to Oren0 and Cla68 on my talk page. It's also telling that it's only when I stopped responding that they chose to escalate. So isn't that a classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation? Guettarda (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't doubt that the editors in question made efforts to contact editors who had an opinion. But it really isn't at all wrong for Guettarda to point out, repeatedly and possibly annoyingly to you, that whoever did it didn't do a very good job of it. As for involvement in the RFC, the thing was so ridiculously vaguely worded that, after a quick glance to confirm that there was no consensus for any one name, my first edit was to close it, and my second was to move it--all 50k of pointless arguing--onto a separate page. How many other people with an opinion simply passed over the mess without comment? We will never know. I do think you all did a great job and I think you acted on good faith, but there are enough problems for me to be doubtful that are only multiplied by this misconceived attempt to sanction somebody who objects to the way you did it. --TS 03:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Scjessey[edit]I also have repeatedly complained about the canvassing problem, and I referred to the matter as "procedural shenanigans" from the very start. Canvassing should never be used to solicit votes, and RfCs are supposed to seek comments to promote discussion, not votes. I support Guettarda's statements completely about how the "vote" was tainted, so if Guettarda is to receive some sort of sanction for stating the obvious you had better clap me in irons as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Comment by slightly involved Wikidemon[edit]I don't think we can separate the behavioral / procedural issues from the underlying fact that there is no clear consensus after many attempts to find conensus on what to call the article. My colleague Scjessey probably thinks I'm nuts for saying so, but I think we should just rename the article "Climategate" and be done with it. Nevertheless, we do have to respect that there is good faith disagreement, and underlying that, a lot of reasonable uncertainty, on what the article is about and how to name it. Going about it again and again, in different forums and with different methods, yields different results. I doubt that anyone is intentionally process gaming, that's just a fact of how consensus works. At some point, all the repeated proposals and attempts to discuss the matter become a huge distracting time sink, whether done in IAR fashion or completely according to the rules. Perhaps a brilliant mediator will come along and propose a solution involving sister articles, redirects, and wording in the lede that makes everyone happy. Failing that, I think we just need to accept that we have a provisional article name for now, put a lid on it, and revisit it later rather than in continuous serial fashion. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Comment by LessHeard vanU[edit]This has expanded quite a bit since I last looked. I made a proposal at Guettarda's talkpage, upon which I am waiting a response. If the response is agreement, I would be looking to conclude the matter on that basis. I think that this is not about whether WP:CANVASS violations took place, and upon which I have no opinion, but whether it is proper to make those allegations without seeming intent to address the issue. Other editors with similar concerns, and those refuting those concerns, might also consider whether they are prepared to instigate some process to determine the matter, or to let it drop and move forward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Result[edit]Guettarda warned in regard to repeating allegations when refuted, outside of dispute resolution process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
Comment refactoring
[edit]Based on the discussion above I propose the following extension to the general probationary arrangements for climate change articles:
- Comments made in discussion which appear, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator or other uninvolved user in good standing, to violate the talk page guidelines, should be brought to the attention of the user making the comment with a polite note to the effect that refactoring or removal would be appreciated.
- If the user refuses, or does not respond within a reasonable time, an uninvolved administrator or other uninvolved user may tag the comments using {{Inappropriate comment}} or some other generally acceptable means.
- Deliberate reinsertion of refactored comments, by any party, will be regarded as disruption and may be sanctioned appropriately.
- Brief requests to review potentially inappropriate comments may be posted here. Debate regarding the degree of inappropriateness, results of review by uninvolved individuals or responses to those individuals on their talk pages, is strongly discouraged.
- This is not designed to deal with repeated or egregious violations.
Discussion
[edit]ProposedDistilled from commentary above. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)- Absolutely LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, technically I proposed it first, :) so yes, absolutely. See the talk for a sketch of a process to implement this, it's in a reply to Dave souza I think. ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Honour satisfied now? ;-) Guy (Help!) 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Quite. Except you spell funny :) ++Lar: t/c 23:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, humour. So different from humor... :o) Guy (Help!) 09:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea but needs to be worded more specifically. For example, does it apply to all pages, article talk only, article and user talk, process-oriented pages, (etc)? Does it apply to all editors, or only those who have been notified of the sanctions applying to this topic area? Does it apply to (gulp) admins as well as ordinary editors? Granted all this is a bit nit-picky but we've seen that some are willing to exploit any real or imagined ambiguity. My preference is that it would apply to everyone, everywhere, always, but you guys are in charge. The only bits I find really troublesome are the mentions of "other uninvolved user" -- that's too open to deliberate or accidental misinterpretation. Best leave it to the admins. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good clarifications. Since you asked for views here are mine... I'd favor this applying to everyone who participates in any of the articles covered by this general sanctions area, admin or no, and the coverage area where it applies is any talk page of any of the articles (are there any projects that should be included? I don't think so...) User talk?? hmmm. My own talk page is a pretty lax area, if you're snarky you just get snark back rather than asked to redact. At first I would say no. I could see expanding it to include the user talks of anyone who is under a warning or more (any post by anyone there, to cut down on the "let's bait this guy into doing something stupid") or posts to any user talk at all by any one already on warning or more. But I'm leery of user talk. I'd rather try to see if we could keep it narrow. As for the process steps I think anyone in good standing can ask (step 1) but only uninvolved admins should "redact by force" (step 2), so I think a tweak is needed there. Which is why I favor using a quick and dirty template or boilerplate for this as I outlined to Dave souza somewhere or another. ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- @Lar, As you proposed, I've (at last!) moved the info to a new section at WT:GS/CC/RE#Proposed procedure for dealing with uncivil comments. . . dave souza, talk 06:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- @Lar, As you proposed, I've (at last!) moved the info to a new section at WT:GS/CC/RE#Proposed procedure for dealing with uncivil comments. . . dave souza, talk 06:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Boris, I'm mainly concerned that we don't build a false perception of hierarchy and bureaucracy. Admins are just folks, any user in good standing who is not involved in the dispute can surely help out here - no tools are required to do the work and I would rather we were inclusive rather than exclusive. Let's separate issues requiring tools (which enforcement usually will at some point) from issues requiring sound knowledge of Wikipedia and a willingness to help with a difficult situation. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Can't support in this form. Sanctions already exist. If there have been strikeable comments the editor making that is like 'strike 1', a violation of the article sanctions. Maybe not yet enough to get them banned or anything, but that is what the reminder is for. Once they have been alerted to the sanctions and their behaviour they have an opportunity to come back into line and refactor those comments. If they refuse to do so it is now 'strike 2' - refusing to abide by article sanctions having been alerted to those sanctions and their transgression. These are articles under probation - two strikes should be enough for someone to enact those sanctions. Refactoring other peoples comments shows that the comments were out of line and the commentor refused to abide by sanctions even when given the chance and this is too much leeway on articles already in a bad enough shape to need probation. Weakopedia (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Weakopedia has already commented once [68] in a section labeled "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators". AFAICT Weakopedia is not an admin. I assume good faith and note that the thread was rather long and the notice a long way up from that comment and have left it as the section is collapsed. This discussion however was taken from that section; could we have rapid agreement on whether this is for uninvolved admins or anyone with an opinion? I don't care but we should try to be clear. --BozMo talk 09:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Phew, thought you meant me for a minute! My impression was that this section is for uninvolved administrators, and my edits were carefully confined to providing a link to information being discussed. Weakopedia's comment being here is rather confusing, and it would be useful to explicitly state who can edit this section. These other comments could be moved to the talk page or into a new discussion section here. . . dave souza, talk 10:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- As my comment to Boris above, uninvolved is more important than admin. Weakopedia definitely fails the test of uninvolvement. It is reasonable to use a similar rule in such cases: an uninvolved admin or other uninvolved user in good standing should first request and, if declined, perform a move of comments from "uninvolved outsider" sections to other parts of the debate. The idea of this process is, to my mind, to facilitate independent review of conduct around these articles, yes? Guy (Help!) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you number sections (and you should) Section 4.3 was labeled for uninvolved admins. This is not part of that subsection, or even section, it is an entirely new section 5. If it is to be limited to uninvolved admins, it needs to be explicitly noted. (As an aside, I mistyped "univolved" and my spelling checker suggested "unevolved". What was it trying to tell me? :) )--SPhilbrickT 12:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. The "admin only" section is currently hidden in the collapsed box above. This is a separate section, started outside of usual procedure, which probably needs to have its rules put in writing if it was intended to have any. Cla68 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Fine. So can we delete (or if you prefer, move to talk) everything here from Weako's comment downwards, including this? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- If we are going to be picky about admin/non-admin status you shouldn't forget to take note of [69], and now me of course. Also, WMC, please refer to other editors by their full chosen names or their approved abbreviation unless you are willing to grant others the same privilege of taking liberties with yours. I think that might help to incrementally improve the way we all interact. Thanks for understanding. --GoRight (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't waste space here with chatter - take it to the talk page. As for abbrv - no; if people object, they'll let you know I'm suire. I do, as you know, but Certain Editors ignore that. Looks to me as though Weako chose his name deliberately William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was responding to your call to delete non-admin material and noted one that you missed. As to the other point, your lack of willingness to play nice with others even when requested to do so is duly noted. Thanks for your consideration. --GoRight (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- If W wants to complain, I'm sure he will. I don't think you complaining for him is very constructive William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's ok Willy, I don't mind abbreviated names if you don't. Weakopedia (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- If W wants to complain, I'm sure he will. I don't think you complaining for him is very constructive William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was responding to your call to delete non-admin material and noted one that you missed. As to the other point, your lack of willingness to play nice with others even when requested to do so is duly noted. Thanks for your consideration. --GoRight (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't waste space here with chatter - take it to the talk page. As for abbrv - no; if people object, they'll let you know I'm suire. I do, as you know, but Certain Editors ignore that. Looks to me as though Weako chose his name deliberately William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- If we are going to be picky about admin/non-admin status you shouldn't forget to take note of [69], and now me of course. Also, WMC, please refer to other editors by their full chosen names or their approved abbreviation unless you are willing to grant others the same privilege of taking liberties with yours. I think that might help to incrementally improve the way we all interact. Thanks for understanding. --GoRight (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Fine. So can we delete (or if you prefer, move to talk) everything here from Weako's comment downwards, including this? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. The "admin only" section is currently hidden in the collapsed box above. This is a separate section, started outside of usual procedure, which probably needs to have its rules put in writing if it was intended to have any. Cla68 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you number sections (and you should) Section 4.3 was labeled for uninvolved admins. This is not part of that subsection, or even section, it is an entirely new section 5. If it is to be limited to uninvolved admins, it needs to be explicitly noted. (As an aside, I mistyped "univolved" and my spelling checker suggested "unevolved". What was it trying to tell me? :) )--SPhilbrickT 12:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Weakopedia has already commented once [68] in a section labeled "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators". AFAICT Weakopedia is not an admin. I assume good faith and note that the thread was rather long and the notice a long way up from that comment and have left it as the section is collapsed. This discussion however was taken from that section; could we have rapid agreement on whether this is for uninvolved admins or anyone with an opinion? I don't care but we should try to be clear. --BozMo talk 09:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- My response to this begins with "F" and ends with "uck process". Anyone who is not obviously one of the warring parties should feel free to separate out the two threads of debate and move one to talk or to another section, whichever seems more appropriate. I don't think that's contentious, there is no intent here to do anything other than fix the identified issue with problematic comments. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a proposal for a new process, to be (if my variant is accepted) done by admins. I don't care where we talk about it, here or in the section Dave just carved out. We can all talk about it here. We can move the whole thing to the talk page too. Whatever works. To be clear, this is a new section, separated from the WMC enforcement request, now closed, just preceding it and I don't see it as restricted to admins only.I think all stakeholders should be able to comment on this process and help shape it, admins or no, involved or not. But it's up to the uninvolved admins to carry it out once it's agreed on (I was about to type it's up to just the uninvolved admins to decide what the final form of it is, as that's my view... but it may be a bit of an overreach, so I didn't). ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I support the wording as proposed, but suggest adding a final bullet saying, "Editors who repeatedly make comments which require 'inappropriate' tagging by administrators may be subject to sanction, namely, topic bans of increasing duration." Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is not designed to deal with repeated or egregious violations. would appear to be the answer to that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
First test of the glorious new policy
[edit]William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) #13 by Marknutley (talk · contribs)
Bickering cannot conceivably resolve disputes
|
---|
Comment [70]. Request for removal [71]. Refusal [72] William M. Connolley. Notification of this report [73] (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
|
IP disruption
[edit]142.177.158.217 (talk · contribs) by Scjessey (talk · contribs)
142.177.0.0/16 and 142.68.0.0/16 rangeblocked one week, please come back if they persist. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Something needs to be done about the disruption being created by the anonymous IP editor "142.x" who was previously discussed in this archive. The individual is currently using the following IP:
I'd like serious consideration to be given to a range block, since blocking this individual's IP addresses has been ineffective thus far. I have become a favored target, with vandalism of my user talk page and disgraceful personal attacks being the current problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
|
Nigelj
[edit]Nigelj block for 24 hours on 1RR. Unitanode "warned to use any of the formal, common and agreed forms of address when interacting with other editors, when requested." - 2/0 (cont.) 18:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Nigelj[edit]
Discussion concerning Nigelj[edit]Statement by Nigelj[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Nigelj[edit]I suggest that the content involved here is much too new to be discussed in an encyclopedia. There are various attempts at reading crystal balls, but all that can and should be said, with respect to the BLP, is that several investigations are ongoing. We're not a gossip factory, and we should explicitly recognize that this article in question has become little more than a funnel for press gossip. There is no deadline and we will look a lot less silly if we wait for the independent investigations to deliver their conclusions. --TS 00:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not so much that the 1RR wasn't noted, I assume we're all aware of it. It's the whole "let's go after the Dalai Lama" thing that makes this so weird. It isn't as if NigelJ had any history of naughtiness. --TS 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Moved from section below reserved for uninvolved admins.
Result concerning Nigelj[edit]
|
Scjessey
[edit]
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Scjessey[edit]
Discussion concerning Scjessey[edit]Statement by Scjessey[edit]Hardly worth the effort. AQFK continues to misrepresent my comments, and now tops off the disgraceful behavior with wikilawyering after baiting me at every conceivable opportunity. Recommend AQFK receives a 24-hour block per WP:PLAXICO for filing yet another frivolous RfE. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Statement by WMC[edit]These edits, supposedly showing Bad Faith, don't. #1 is in response to a very unhelpful comment by Oiler99 (which begins Nonsense. You must be joking... By AQFK's standards this should represent an attack, but AQFK doesn't bother report it; this is evidence of partisanship). Oiler99 is arguing GW science, very badly, in a inappropriate page; Scj's response, whilst a little heated, correctly recognises the (null) value of Oiler99's post. #2 is in response to an attack by AQFK. #3 is again in response to trolling by Oiler99; #4 asks AQFK to do something useufl instead of baiting; that seems quite fair. The Bad Faith is on AQFK's side. I ask the admins here to look at Oiler99, with a view to a block from these pages - he appears to be nothing but a troll William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Additional Statement by A Quest For Knowledge[edit]It should be noted that the conditions of this article's probation state "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. " Even according to LessHeard vanU and BozMo's assessment (which I don't agree with), Scjessey violated assumptions of bad faith and uncivil commentary. It seems to me that we have a disconnect between the article's probation and its enforcement. If the article's enforcement is correct, then Scjessey should be sanctioned. If these violations are acceptable, then I request that the article's probation be amended to state that disruptive edits, including including incivility and assumptions of bad faith are now allowed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Scjessey[edit]This is the second request by AQFK in 24 hours. Some of the diffs he provides do not look like personal attacks, as the term is normally applied on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Are these on topic comments? Scjessey comments would seem to be more appropriate for a user talk page than the article talk page. I fail to see how they are productive with regards to article content value. It would seem they may inflame an already off topic discussion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Scjessey[edit]
I do not see personal attacks by Scjessey in the diffs; I do see assumptions of bad faith, with regard to both the motives of the other parties and their contribution toward the subject - it is not "wrong" to hold a contrary opinion, and nor to wish to edit an article to reflect that opinion, because it is the distillation of differing pov's referenced to good sources that create NPOV. It is my view that personal attacks might be subject to sanction, but that bad faith does not unless it is particularly egregious - and they are not to that level. I would invite comment from other admins whether there should be a request made to not repeat ones opinion of another parties' stance and concentrate solely upon the issues raised. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
|
ZP5, AQFK, ATren
[edit]ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs), A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs), ATren (talk · contribs) by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren
[edit]- User requesting enforcement
- William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), ATren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [101] ZP5 contrib history: no contributions of any value to articlespace on climate change
- [102] ATren contribution history: ditto
- [103] A_Quest_For_Knowledge contribution history: ditto
- Another one: [104] Spoonkymonkey contrib history: ditto
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
See complaint above etc etc.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Ban from climate change articles under probabtion until they are prepared to actually improve wikipedia.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Climate change is fraught enough without kibitzers circling like flies around a corpse.
@ATren: I have no defense, because, frankly, I have no idea what I'm defending - err yes: that is indeed the point: you have no contributions of any value to defend.
@Cla68, Arzel: the silence of your inability to demonstrate valuable contributions from these editors is deafening.
- 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 diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
Discussion concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren
[edit]Statement by ZP5, AQFK, ATren
[edit]I have no defense, because, frankly, I have no idea what I'm defending. ATren (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Me too, defenseless where there is no offense. If you would like to contribute to something more valuable, I invite you here: User:ZuluPapa5/CAUC in exile as I ... while we patiently wait for peaceful times in these articles to avoid disruptive warriors. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Statement by A Quest For Knowledge
[edit]The claimed violation is not listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Therefore, it should be immediately dismissed. Further, this request appears to be in retaliation for the above requests. I recommend that WMC be sanctioned for disruptively filing frivolous complaints and abusing the system. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Second Statement by A Quest for Knowledge
[edit]As the admins consider what warning/sanction is appropriate for filing this request, please consider the following question: Has WMC demonstrated anything to show that he's willing to reform his behavior? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren
[edit]- This motion appears to be of a retaliatory nature. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly a retaliation. Arzel (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- It seems simple to disprove the request: just find some edits to climate change articles that you have made that are indisputably constructive. Ignignot (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well here`s some for ZP5 [105] [106] [107] some for AQFK [108] [109] I`ll look up some others if the guys are not online by tommorow but i`m tired and away to bed mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Let me amend my statement to include that the edits should be more than a typo fix, unless there are a whole lot of typo fixes. I don't think this is unreasonable - I think 2 of ZP5's qualify. Ignignot (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- ATren helped fix Fred Singer's BLP, to which WMC, among others, had tried to make negative. ATren deserves a thank you for doing that, especially since, perhaps as a result, he has been subjected to retaliation by one of the editors who opposed him on that article. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- We are volunteers. We volunteer what we wish, when we can. Should I begin to find an area of Wikipedia that I think you don't contribute enough to, then ask you to be banned from it? This is a dangerous road. Arkon (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that you (or anyone on this list) are or are not a "good editor". I'm just saying that it would be easy to disprove with a few diffs, which would lay this to rest quickly and quietly, although it looks like this might not be within probation scope, pending admin consensus. In any case - I don't think you can dispute that we all spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about climate change articles, and that not all of it is necessary. I have long been of the opinion that stopping the endless arguments is impossible, but keeping it to a dull roar is within reach. However, every day I believe that it might require some extreme measures to make that a reality. But as you said, I'm just a volunteer - some guy on the internet - and the only weight that my opinion carries is how much people assign to it themselves. I like to think that I am reasonable. Ignignot (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- 2 other things came to mind. First: I think that one possible (although perhaps not correct or fair) solution is to ban some problem editors to reduce arguments, and then hopefully experience an increase in time spent actually editing articles instead of talk pages. Second: That I end too many comments with the word reasonable. Ignignot (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that you (or anyone on this list) are or are not a "good editor". I'm just saying that it would be easy to disprove with a few diffs, which would lay this to rest quickly and quietly, although it looks like this might not be within probation scope, pending admin consensus. In any case - I don't think you can dispute that we all spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about climate change articles, and that not all of it is necessary. I have long been of the opinion that stopping the endless arguments is impossible, but keeping it to a dull roar is within reach. However, every day I believe that it might require some extreme measures to make that a reality. But as you said, I'm just a volunteer - some guy on the internet - and the only weight that my opinion carries is how much people assign to it themselves. I like to think that I am reasonable. Ignignot (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Let me amend my statement to include that the edits should be more than a typo fix, unless there are a whole lot of typo fixes. I don't think this is unreasonable - I think 2 of ZP5's qualify. Ignignot (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- My contributions can be found here:
- Editors have been blocked for disruptive enforcement requests such as this. Arkon (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Like many other RfE's, this is bollocks. WMC should be whacked with the proverbial wet fish and the request should be dismissed. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- What violation of the probation is being alleged here? I can't discern any from the request. Lacking any discernible claim of a violation of the probation there seems little need to waste valuable time looking through the contribution histories WMC has pointed us to. Perhaps a simple warning concerning the filing of frivolous requests and wasting the community's time is in order. I leave it to the administrators to determine if this is the case. --GoRight (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- @ Lar and LHvU: Regarding the number of frivolous requests required to receive a warning. At the risk of dredging up old problems, I direct your attention to the following, [114]. This was my second request (the first was closed as being brought to the wrong venue) so this was the first request that was judged to be frivolous on my part and it garnered a warning on the first such request. It is somewhat instructive to review that particular request because in hind sight it was particularly on topic with respect to the probation and also quite even handed if I must say so myself. Anyway, if you are looking for a precedent to follow this would have been the first such warning issued under the probation. I leave it to you to decide if the standards should be "relaxed" from what they were then. :) --GoRight (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
These sanctions appear to be serving the purpose of 'levelling the playing field', as was discussed at some point when they were being proposed. So, now those who by their own admission know very little about the subject have equal control over the articles as those who are life-long, world-class and career experts in it. And they have far more control over this RfE page, where they appear to thrive. --Nigelj (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment As WMC just got blocked for 48 hours i think any further sanctions a step to far, Im with what LHVU says below, just tell the guy not to file silly requests again mark nutley (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
(Following thread was moved from result section, which is to be edited only by uninvolved admins. Feel free to discuss (on my talk) if you think I erred... this is in response to Lar saying "we did sanction with less than 3 last time IIRC but I could be confused" ... ++Lar: t/c 05:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC))
- How would you know, given that more than 90% of the so-called "sceptic" editors are socks? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- How would Lar (who has only recently put aside his CU tools) know? I think the clue is in the reference to CU - unless of course you are asking how he knows he is confused (although the later comment about socks then confuses me); good question, if you are confused how are you supposed to know? Deeeeeeeeep, man! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- As any good self-help book will tell you, it's not the size of your tool that matters, but what you do with it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't write self-help books. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in that case trust me. It's not the size of your tool that matters, but what you do with it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you seriously need to consider whether you're adding any value here with these oblique comments of yours. If you have something specific to say, please say it, plainly and specifically. If on the other hand you just want to snipe, I suggest you not do that. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think this time I follow your example and avoid clear answers, remaining an international man of mystery. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not an acceptable answer, on a number of different levels. Stop sniping at people. You can't go around accusing admins of being clueless and the like indefinitely without either putting up or shutting up, as the saying goes. ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong thread? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- No. You're doing the sniping thing in more than one thread actually. Needs to stop. In all threads. ++Lar: t/c 02:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong thread? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not an acceptable answer, on a number of different levels. Stop sniping at people. You can't go around accusing admins of being clueless and the like indefinitely without either putting up or shutting up, as the saying goes. ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think this time I follow your example and avoid clear answers, remaining an international man of mystery. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you seriously need to consider whether you're adding any value here with these oblique comments of yours. If you have something specific to say, please say it, plainly and specifically. If on the other hand you just want to snipe, I suggest you not do that. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning ZP5, AQFK, ATren
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- I do not believe this to be a legitimate request, within the scope of the probation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't either. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- This board is not capable of reviewing an editor's entire contribution history. If you want to make a case that they are politely disruptive by engaging in circular discussion, please point out specific threads using permanent links. Please also consider whether it would be useful to start an RFC on each editor. Before you do that, find a second party to review each editor's contribution history, and if necessary approach each editor and try to coax them towards productive contributions. Jehochman Brrr 02:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Suggest that WMC be warned not to file frivolous requests or requests that give the appearance of revenge, and that WMC be further warned that the next such may result in sanctions, such as, for example, disallowance of further filings, as we have done to other editors when adjudged to have been filing requests unreasonably. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I should think there needs to be a recent history of filing poor faith requests before we warn editors, let alone sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps... How many poor faith requests before the first warning, in your thinking? ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Three? Seems sufficient for anyone to understand what constitutes a poor faith request. Fourth time draws a sanction. As I inferred in an above section, I feel that once there is a warning then any clear violation draws a sanction. The only proviso would be that if there were intervening good faith requests; then the clock is set back a bit - we are attempting to stop serial poor faith requests only. LessHeard vanU (talk)
- We did sanction with less than 3 last time IIRC but I could be confused. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Meanwhile discounting this list of accounts (which is not a good one) whilst I don't propose with any blanket actions against editors who have not contributed, perhaps the way that we treat argumentative behaviour could be different for accounts with a significant track record of helpfulness or contribution. There are some other accounts not listed here which look more trollish (I am not going to start listing and PAing them) and plenty turn up and are a nuisance before eventually being identified as one of several socks. Be nice to have some sort of established editor distinction. Meanwhile I think AQFK has withdrawn from Climate change articles. --BozMo talk 22:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Validity of sources
[edit]by Spoonkymonkey (talk · contribs)
There's been an arbitrary shut-down of a discussion regarding the British Institute of Physics and the Information Commission discussion of the CRU's science. It may well be that the discussion for on another page, but Tony Sidaway's decision to archive an ongoing discussion without any attempt at consensus seems true to pattern and high-handed. I believe Global Warming is as good a place as any for this discussion, and, if there is a better place, the people engaged in the discussion should be notified and the discussion moved to a more appropriate page. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussion re editor role[edit]
Point re sources[edit](outdent) It is my understanding that Talk pages are the place to resolve POV differences. Tendacious editing is a different animal entirely though. When people never resolve the POV differences we have a problem. Obviously if everyone agreed on NPOV there would be little if any uncivil behavior, but in the absence of convergence at least there won't be lots of internet rage. Ignignot (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Policy and civility[edit] Ok, so you didn't like my quick paraphrase of "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Note I didn't say "should only reflect majority expert view", minority views should be shown fairly and proportionately, while articles giving more attention to minority views "should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." Was trying to keep it short, sorry if there were any misunderstandings. My understanding is that when describing the science, the clear majority scientific consensus has most weight. When describing "controversy" about the science, that still applies. When describing political and social aspects, other majority reliable sources can be appropriate, preferably academic analysis rather than reflecting directly campaigning material from any "side". Of course, if you hold other views I'll be interested to hear them. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Ignignot, I've only been involved in this topic space for a few months. As far as I can gather, this POV dispute has been going on for years. Clearly, the community has failed to resolve this problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have veered far from the topic. I don't think there's any actionable problem here. I tried to redirect discussion to a more appropriate venue and the originating editor rejected the move. There's certainly room for differences of opinion here, as long as the editor is willing to attempt to make a case in good faith for inclusion in the global warming article (he is.) I note also that the talk page was recently semi-protected and so there is a lot less of the usual clutter originating from banned editors, so this discussion, while not ideally placed in this editor's opinion, is not likely to cause problems. --TS 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
[outdent] Oh, Ok. So you're the victim of incvility. fine got it. Here is what you said:
here's how I "interpret" what you said. "Oh, not all of them are idiots." --some of them are idiots. "And only the better ones are honestly clueless." you are accusing a group of people who disagree with you of malice, based mainly on the fact that they happen to disagree with you. and: "...if you think civility is more important than a decent encyclopedia, we have different views of the project." you're implying that my views of the importance of civility somehow pose a threat to the encyclopedia. AND, you think civility declines in importance when placed against the backdrop of writing an encyclopedia--in other words, everything else that we do here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Question[edit]Where is the request - per the template at the top of the page? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
|
Heyitspeter
[edit]Heyitspeter (talk · contribs) by Scjessey (talk · contribs)
No action. Technical violation made in good faith, discussed calmly. However, potentially controversial or probation-violating article edits should be at least noted on the talk page
|
---|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Heyitspeter[edit]
Discussion concerning Heyitspeter[edit]Statement by Heyitspeter[edit]Scjessey and I discussed this here: User_talk:Heyitspeter#February_2010. I think we may have been talking past each other but you get the gist. I asked that he file this request or get input from an administrator so that I could hear more definitive feedback (e.g.). My edit seemed perfectly alright to me, but I'm not an expert on wikipedia policy. I'd be happy to defer to the input given here (i.e., self-revert or stick with it as needed). Finally, I probably won't be able to edit here until late tomorrow as I'm off visiting friends. If before that time an administrator decides my edit was in the wrong he or she has my best wishes to revert it before I have a chance to do so myself, and can count on my explicit endorsement (see previous paragraph).--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Heyitspeter[edit]
I assume this was a reversion related to the previous request. In the circumstances, page protection might be merited. Further edit warring like this obviously doesn't help and Heyitspeter should be told off
I would be rather freaked out by any suggestion that protection would be a bad idea, If there is edit warring even in the presence of a probation and a 1RR, then the only way to go is an edit restriction--full protection--until there is consensus. --TS 03:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
If Heyitspeter is guilty of "Perpetuat[ing] an existing edit war" as Scjessey claims, then so are the following editors: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Heyitspeter[edit]
My 2¢: without commenting on Nigelj (I am willing to trust LHvU that the material was inserted recently enough and the rewrite was not substantial enough that the first diff up there counts as a revert for 1RR purposes), I think that Heyitspeter acted appropriately here. His revert noted that he was restoring the pre mini-edit war version, and was performed after the block. I would agree with Scjessey in most other circumstances - perpetuating an edit war is a Bad Thing, and could be sanctionable under the probation. I would even venture that this should not count as a revert at all for the 1RR for that page, though following SBHB above, any time we get into counting reverts something has probably gone wrong already. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a plausible justification for the revert in question such that "continuation of an edit war" is not the only explanation. Heyitspeter has bveen open to discussion throughout. There is no suggestion of a sanction from uninvolved admins, thus I'll close this as no action. However for any readers, if you know darn well that you may technically be violating something-or-other in articlespace, put a note in talkspace at the same time. Franamax (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) |