Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions | Climate change probation Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:08, 27 April 2010 editTasty monster (talk \| contribs)1,023 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 07:29, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk \| contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,279 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2]
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 3		\|counter = 5
	\|minthreadsleft = 5		\|minthreadsleft = 5
	\|algo = old(7d)		\|algo = old(7d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}

	{{talkheader\|search=yes\|wp=yes\|WT:GS/CC/RE}}		{{talkheader\|search=yes\|wp=yes\|WT:GS/CC/RE}}
	{{auto archiving notice\|bot=MiszaBot}}

	== Lar ==

	{{discussion top}}
	I see from his userpage that Larry (Lar) is a car-lovin' (8 of 'em!), plane-lovin' fossil-fuel-burnin' ICE (internal combustion engine) enthusiast with a degree in computing. I also note that he takes sides in these debates, as far as I can see, and it's always with the sceptics. Now wikipedia has a huge following, and I can't help wondering why we are subject to the tastes and biases of an admin like this in the policing of articles concerning this complex, topical and critically important area of science. Is wikipedia somehow deficient in volunteers with climate science qualifications? Having someone like Larry taking an active role in policing and enforcement of a scientific area he is no more qualified to understand than most people in the population seems like a dereliction of duty by other admins who must be much more knowledgeable in the area. This is not meant to poke you with a stick, Larry, but I am truly concerned that you unwittingly represent the uneducated rump of society in your decisions and comments on these pages, and I don't think it's good for the 'pedia. ] 05:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Given that most editors on Misplaced Pages write anonymously, requiring "climate science qualifications" for editing or admining isn't workable. You have not given yours, for example. Would you disqualify yourself? As to the rest of your comment, try to avoid ]/]. I'll note only that Lar's , made prior to your comment, sides with a 'pro-AGW editor' (though again, the anonymity issue should be clear).--] (]) 05:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	::This is not an ad hom, it's a serious questioning of the quality of sysop oversight of a contentious issue. ] 05:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: I think Ratel hasn't fully thought through his suggestion of banning anyone who has used fossil fuels from editing climate change articles. As the saying goes -- be careful what you wish for, you might get it. ]<sup>(])</sup> 05:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::FG, thanks for the facile and tangential strawman comment. I'll ignore it. ] 05:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::: ''"I'll ignore it."'' -- Too late; you already replied! ]<sup>(])</sup> 05:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::To be honest, I don't think Ratel's observation is worth discussing here and this is the reason...Ratel, the dispute resolution process for an admin usually works like this: 1) express your concern with the admin on his talk page, 2) if not resolved, do an RfC with another editor, 3) if that doesn't resolve the concern, ask for an admin review from ArbCom. Because the AGW articles are already under probation, if you believe an administrator is acting inappropriately, you can go straight to ArbCom, as I did a few weeks ago. Otherwise, note that posting your feelings about it here don't fall under these procedures. On a personal note, I think Lar's participation on the enforcement board has been fair and neutral. ] (]) 05:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	::{{outdent}}Thanks for the comment, but you've misinterpreted me. I don't think Larry is behaving inappropriately. I think he is just being who he is. And my contention is we need more. It's not enough. We need area experts policing the many articles linked to the topic. Is that really too much to ask? ] 06:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::First you accuse him of taking sides, then you say he's not behaving inappropriately? And if this is all just a call for "more area experts", why do you open a RfE section with his name on it? ]<sup>(])</sup> 06:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Quite frankly Ratel, this is significantly over the line. What the heck does it matter ''who'' Lar is? And what he does? This section should really just be removed as inappropriate, and Ratel be given a hard wallop with a wet trout. --] (]) 06:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	::It's not over the line, and nor should it be removed (where do you get those ideas? Any guidelines/rules to support you?) It matters a ''lot'' who the policemen (and women) are who control the editing bahaviour and to a certain extent content of this topic. If you cannot see that, move along. To FG, I said that it appears to me that he takes sides. That's my impression. The fact that you and other sceptical editors (not Kim) are leaping to his defence says it all. ] 06:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Admins are not expected to be credentialed where they act, or to show ideological purity in the form of expressing only negative views toward internal combustion engines or whatever it is you have in mind. The intense politicization of your approach is a significant part of the problem in this area, not part of any solution. ] (]) 20:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

	::::It should go without saying that one shouldn't be able to tell another's POV by their edits. Editors with completely opposing POVs should come up with an article with essentially the same bias. Of course, no one really pays much attention to what I say so just ignore this post and continue on:
	::::<blockquote>"''It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.''"</blockquote>
	::::] (]) 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::I read it, and it was well-said. Ratel, while in an ideal world we would have climatologists and other well-informed scientists editing and administrating these pages, in the practical world, that is impossible. Wikipedian administration is set up so that any ] sysop can act in any topic area they so choose. If you disagree with that, it is a matter for ] or a ]. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Since it seems that this section is significantly lacking in Umidus Salmo Trutta's - i'm going to expand:
	:::It doesn't matter ''who'' Lar is, it also doesn't matter one bit what Lar is doing outside of Misplaced Pages - what ''does'' matter, is how Lar is conducting himself ''on Misplaced Pages''. By starting out with a (quite frankly) laughable rant at people who are fond of trains - you basically invalidated whatever argument that you may have had. The next error you make is by arguing that people who aren't experts should be dismissed - sorry but that is completely out of sync with what Misplaced Pages stands for. A person can be a grave-digger or shit-shoveller and it wouldn't matter - as long as that person is capable of adhering to Wikipedias standards.
	:::If you have an argument then i suggest that you reboot completely and start from scratch - you botched this one. --] (]) 22:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

	::::I don't think so. I think everyone who reads this knows ''exactly'' what I mean, and most are in silent agreement, but won't speak up. Let the record show that I said it. One day, someone studying the way this topic was handled historically on wikipedia will note that we are not all rule-bound eunuchs afraid to speak truth to power. It's clear as the nose on my face that Lar is antagonistic to one side of the argument and should not really be involved in this area. Anyone who declares proudly on his userpage that he "likes trains, planes and cars" and whose family used to own 8 cars at one time should not ''ever'' be allowed to police this topic. Over and out. ] 23:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::The problem is that even if there's evidence that "Lar is antagonistic to one side of the argument and should not really be involved in this area," by focusing on irrelevancies and expressing yourself in shrill terms you are alienating people instead of convincing them. The person whose behavior is of concern can point to your comments and say "Look what I'm up against!" So don't do that. Expressing yourself appropriately gives you more than a warm, fuzzy feeling; it helps convince others that your views have merit. ] (]) 23:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

	As I'm also "a car-lovin', plane-lovin' fossil-fuel-burnin' ICE (internal combustion engine) enthusiast" (alas, more in my younger days than now) should I also cease editing climate-related articles? <small>oh, how I miss the days when cars had carburetors instead of computers...</small> ] (]) 23:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

	:Yes, if it's coloring your edits. ] 23:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
	{{discussion bottom}}

	Sorry I missed this. Forgive me this one reply after the discussion was capped. Let me just say that Ratel is very confused if he/she thinks my "antagonism" is directed at the content. My concern in the area is with how things are ''done'', '''not''' with the content. I can agree with WMC (and others) about the science, while despairing at the methods used by them in the article editing process... because I am strongly NOT in the camp of the deniers in real life. That Ratel hasn't actually figured that out is testimony to his lack of qualification to pass judgment on others. ++]: ]/] 10:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

	:Lar, this is part of the problem: if you're not lock-step in alignment with some of these editors, you will be labelled as one of "them" (car-lovin, "septic", Scibaby) even if you're actually quite sympathetic to their views. Note I said ''some'' editors -- it's not all of them, as evidenced by the sharp criticism Ratel received from some of his ideological allies above, but a few editors with this attitude is sufficient to spoil the editing environment for everyone. Admins need to step up and sanction this battleground behavior ''universally'', and they must be willing to lose such editors entirely if they don't reform. But this doesn't happen -- admins are reluctant to sanction editors who are deemed too valuable -- and here we are, racking up thousands of edits on enforcement pages without an end in sight. ] (]) 11:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: You can really say "ideological allies" and "battleground behaviour" together without any sense or irony? Well done! ] (]) 11:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	::I didn't see anyone jumping to support Ratel's statements. Using this thread as a call to arms, as in admins should get tougher is poor and more than a little battleground in its tone. ] (]) 12:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Re-read please, I think you misinterpreted what I said. ] (]) 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::: No, I think I interpreted you correctly. You meant "my side is great; I think I'll snipe at what I'll call "your side"; but you're not allowed to talk about "sides" even though I can" ] (]) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::(1) I was responding to Polargeo. (2) To deny there are sides is to deny reality: ''of course'' there are editors with different viewpoints of this contentious issue. The problem is not "sides" per se, but those who take on battleground behavior from their "side". It's quite possible to engage in debate (even heated debate) with out resorting to battleground tactics like the ad-hominem attack against Lar above. My issue is (and has always been) the reluctance to deal with all battleground editors regardless of POV or status. ] (]) 13:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::::In your comments you generalized Ratel's behavior to a group. Could you please help us by pointing to the others who agree with Ratel, because I'm not seeing them. Also I would like to make it very, very clear that I am not an "ideological ally" of Ratel. ] (]) 13:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::Seconded. --] (]) 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	(undent) Would you then argue that you can demonstrate using diffs a "reluctance to deal with battleground editors," who are on the side opposing WMC? ] (]) 13:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	:No, not specifically in this case, because I haven't seen that. ] (]) 13:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	:: Sorry, you are saying that there are no "battleground editors," who oppose WMC that you have seen? ] (]) 13:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' This is going nowhere. Shall we leave it? ] (]) 13:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	:I agree, I'm not going to further clutter this page. If someone has a particular issue with my comments, bring it to my talk. (Hipocrite, Boris, I'll answer your questions there if you like) ] (]) 14:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

	http://www.firstpersonobserver.com/?p=6 ] (]) 15:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

	Lar's statement that he's concerned about the methods being used to maintain the articles doesn't seem to match well with the fact that most of the concern of uninvolved admins, including himself, in this probation has focussed on the problematic behavior of those who, by-and-large, try to insert their point of view into the articles.

	Perhaps they just haven't got around to dealing with those unacceptable methods Lar is concerned about. But in any case, to complain about alleged (and presumably largely unchecked) misbehavior while the evidence of actual, sanctioned misbehavior is gathering, seems a little odd.

	And it's not as if this was a surprise to anyone. The mainstream editors tended to support the sanctions during the initial discussion and the counter-culture editors tended to oppose them. We knew what we'd get and we weren't surprised when we got it. If the editing atmosphere has changed for the better (and I find every reason to believe that it has) it is largely because a lot of the trouble-makers have been told to stop it or made to do so, not least by Lar himself. The sanctions are working because they enable and empower pretty much the same group of editors about whom Lar expresses reservations above. There are exceptions, to be sure, but they do not amount to the level of sanctions rightly heaped upon those who have persistently sought to compromise the science.

	I have no serious quarrel with Lar's conduct as an administrator; his stated perspective, however, seems to be at odds with what he and other admins have actually done. --] 15:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

	==== ZP5* Comment ====

	Lar's closing summary, based on who an editor is did not seem appropriate. This project is about enforcements , while some editors seem to have immunity based on who they are seems puzzling. ] (]) 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	: You seem to be linking to a close by LessHeard vanU. <s>The upshot seems to be that Mark Nutley has a bee in his bonnet about Dr Connolley.</s> --] 16:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	::And were did you infer that from? I never brought that RFE ] (]) 16:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	::: I'm sorry, I wrongly attributed authorship to you. I apologise for the confusion caused. --] 16:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Mark, ignore this. Let others handle it. ] (]) 16:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	::e.c. Maybe that's because WMC has openly mocked him on several occasions? Not that he should respond in kind (he shouldn't), but let's not pretend that this "bee" came out of the blue. Not to mention it was not Mark's request. ] (]) 16:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

	But to get back to the reequest linked by Zulu Papa 5, the upshot does seem to be that the admins thought it was conceived (by ATren, it turns out) solely because of who Dr Connolley is. That doesn't imply that if it's rejected those rejecting it do so solely because of who Dr Connolley is. I think that's a simple logic error.

	To illustrate, suppose person A had ten sweets, identical except for their color, and person B advised him not to eat the blue one. If person B ignored this advice and did not give exceptional treatment to the blue one (making his own mind up if and when to eat the blue sweet) then it would not be correct to accuse person B of having a prejudice in favor of blue sweets, though it would not be unreasonable to suppose that person A's advice was motivated by a personal preoccupation with blue sweets.

	LessHeard vanU said "Simply, if it had been any other editor than WMC there would not have been a Request." This doesn't mean he's giving special treatment to Connolley but, rather, that he thinks the request itself is a form of special treatment being accorded to Connolley on account of his identity. --] 17:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

	Sorry about the mix-up, Lar. Thanks for the correction TS. The close seemed like WMC has immunity. ] (]) 18:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
	*I am willing to explain, if asked, about the rationale. ] (]) 19:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

	== The NPA thing ==

			== Comment about latest RfE against William M. Connolley ==
	I have asked ] to remove this PA I am unsure whom it was directed at but i think ] was the target. He replied on my talk page I believe i am meant to bring this here so an admin can ask him to remove the comment or it would be tagged as inappropriate comment ] (]) 12:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	:You should make a Request on the project page, detailing the pa, your request and the response, and an uninvolved admin will action it. I suggest, in this matter, you might wish to report FellGleaming's first sentence of the comment to which Lars T ''might'' be responding too - after, of course, notifying FG and giving them the opportunity to redact the comment. ] (]) 13:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	::Standard PA. No need for probation enforcement. I have removed the offending part of the post and warned the editor. Are we now using probation enforcement for every standard wikipedia incivility? ] (]) 13:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Welcome to probation enforcement. Do you feel like you need to get involved in an argument with at least 20 other editors? Then you have come to the right place :) ] (]) 13:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	{{ec}}
	:::Nope, but a decision that if a PA was made and the offender refused to remove it then it should be posted here for an admin to warn the editor and remove the PA, this was decided to help cut down on arguing on talk pages i think ] (]) 13:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	::::I am an admin. I have removed the PA and I have warned the user. Not under sanctions but under standard wikipedia procedures. I have had no previous involvement with that article or the editor warned. I will keep an eye on things and if the warning is ignored I will take it further. ] (]) 13:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::::Well i could have asked an admin, but the last time i did that it created a massive drama, so as it is best to avoid drama i figured it would be best posted here :) Thanks ] (]) 13:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

			Honestly guys, ]. <!-- How the f*** do we not have an article about this song!? --> Someone should draft a proposal to ArbCom to issue an temporary injuction against WMC until the case is closed. Yesterday's fiasco need not be repeated. ] (]) 14:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
	== Fell Gleaming 2 and common sense ==

			: The "ban my content opponent" game has to stop. I recommend decisive actions be taken to prevent further battleground behavior by any party. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
	I haven't changed my headline opinion on Fell Gleaming 2, that we shouldn't stray from the content area. However John and EpeeFleche do make a good point about common sense interpretation.

			::It's not a question of banning an opponent, it's a question of ending the disruption. ] (]) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
	My initial feelings on this were that while we don't want to consider grievances from other content areas, if a topic-appropriate case were to be raised it would make sense to consider whether a proposed remedy (such as a topic ban) would be in the overall interest of Misplaced Pages; if it just gives the problem editor more time to concentrate on other areas where there is ''prima facie'' evidence of controversial editing by the problem editor, conduct sanctions of broader scope might be more appropriate.

			It seems to me that this most recent request, and AQFK's reception of it, only proves his own biases. Quite why an unjustified request that isn't going to be actioned should translate into temporary injunctions isn't clear - unless the injunction should be against AQFK for kibitzing ] (]) 08:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
	LessHeard vanU hinted that a traditional RFC might work best. I think that may work best in this case.

			== Two edit wars at ] <s>today</s> that began yesterday, one of which continues into today ==
	However, I think more clarity in framing warnings might have helped in this case and perhaps in other cases, or alternatively a general resolution mandating common sense interpretation of existing warnings. ] (=] ) 22:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
	: I personally have no problem with John's request being heard within this venue. His alleged misrepresentation is utterly without merit, and the quicker we establish that, the quicker we can move on to more productive ventures. ]<sup>(])</sup> 22:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

			*Edit war #1
	Continued from above because of browser limitations.
			*Edit war #2
			Can an admin please lock down the article? ] (]) 13:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

			: Not today any more. I oppose the request to lock down, on several grounds. Firstly, AQFK has mixed up Scibaby edits and reverts of Scibaby edits in those diffs. AQFK is fully aware of Scibaby, so that is bad faith on AQFK's part. Secondly, another of those reverts is a drive-by revert by ] with no attempt to participate in discussion. Peterlewis is already in the sanctions log as warned for revert-without-discussion ] so perhaps it is time for a stricter sanction on him. The rest are down to ] who is new. But discussion of this is proceeding on his talk page, and the article talk page, so I don't see why there is any need to rush to protect ] (]) 15:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
	So before warnings about conduct are issued, it might be appropriate to consider whether the conduct problem in question is largely limited to the climate change topic (which I'm sure is the case for most requests) or whether instead the discussion has uncovered evidence that there is a more general conduct problem. I still don't think we should then consider requests coming from outside the conduct area, even if covered by a prior warming issued by this board. RFC, admin noticeboard, or individual admin action would be more appropriate. But a more general warming would send a much clearer message to the problem editor and put him on notice that his general conduct must improve.
			::Just noting -- WMC had 5 reverts in 24 hours. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 15:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
			:::The only reverts I see of non-sockpuppets are and . Am I misreading something? ] ''(])'' 15:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
			:::: I have 3 reverts in the last 24h, even counting socks. Contiguous edits count as one. I think M4th failed to realise that ] (]) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
			:::::I will look at it again and see if I have missed something here. That's possible. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 17:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
			*You're right, it was 4 and the last one may have been a sock. So I just want to clarify that as long as we only push it up to the 3RR threshhold, there can be no sanctions and everyone is fine with that? And we can get to the 3RR limit on several articles in the topic area on the same day, and that is still not sanctionable or problematic? Please do clarify this because this may be where my misunderstanding lies. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 17:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
			:* Err no, it wasn't 4, it was 3, and one was a sock. Have another go. And as for ''I just want to clarify'' - can you give this disruptive nonsense up and find yourself something productive to do? ] (]) 17:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
			::For those who are curious or require more proof of my analness, I've examined every edit-war at the Phil Jones article since November 30, 2009. It took me half of the day and I'm sure that there are mistakes (corrections are encouraged!), but by my count, there have been at least 13 edit-wars involving approximately 60 different editors. Details are available at: ]. ] (]) 03:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
			::: I looked at AQFK's sub-page, and some interesting stuff emerges. For example, some of the "edit wars" are completely faked, and only exist due to Scibaby socks. See ] (which is collapsed, you have to uncollapse it). I've annotated that section with the accounts which are socks, and the results are quite revealing. I don't think you can interpret that page properly without knowing which accounts are socks, but AQFK doesn't want you to know that . His reply is also rather revealing: its all a witch hunt, apparently ] (]) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

	~~The second alternative~~ I ~~raise,~~ ~~which~~ I ~~haven't~~ ~~thought~~ ~~through~~ in ~~any~~ ~~depth~~, ~~would~~ be to ~~favor~~ ~~John~~ ~~and~~ ~~EpeeFleche's~~ ~~interpretation.~~ ~~I'm~~ ~~not~~ ~~sure~~ we'd ~~want~~ to do ~~that,~~ ~~but~~ it ~~has~~ ~~its merits.~~ ] (=] ) 23:01, 22 ~~April~~ 2010 (UTC)		::::I wonder how many of these so-called socks were really socks, and I wonder what does it say about Misplaced Pages, when the so-called socks' edits are better than those with accounts? ] (]) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
	:Agreed. If you wish to consider off topic issues an RfC or similar is in order and project wide outcomes will be much stronger in this situation. There are plenty of on topic allegations that could be actioned that have been raised by KDP and SBHB if you wish to start a fresh enforcement issue this would be much stronger without the off topic initiation evident in this case. If editors start to consider off topic issues under CC general sanctions I will personally take this further. We should not even consider this as an option. ] (]) 10:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

			::::: Yes, your tendency to defend Scibaby is painfully obvious. And if you think the edits are good, that too may be rather revealing. If you think any of those accounts are wrongly blocked, then you should of course take that up with the blocking admin(s). But if you don't, you should quit whinging and insinuating ] (]) 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
	== Success story ==

			::::::Yes, it reveals that I try to focus on the content, not the contributor. ] (]) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
	I'm happy to report that ] has just been to Good Article. I really appreciate the cooperative efforts from KimDabelsteinPetersen, WMC, Dave Souza, ATren, JPRW, MastCell, Ratel, and Guettarda, marke nutley, and GoRight, among several others whose contributions have helped produce what the GA reviewer evidently found to be a fairly complete, balanced, and correctly formatted article. Although we had one content dispute over internet traffic rankings, we worked through it and moved on. I think it was an excellent example of cooperation, collaboration, and compromise and shows that it is possible for the AGW editors to work together to produce complete, NPOV articles. I've invited several of the same editors to do to ] the same thing that we just did with ] and look forward to seeing the results. Thanks again everyone. ] (]) 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
	:I have now read the above three times... who is it you want blocked, again? ] (]) 00:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Cla68 clearly thought we needed some good news here, but the broom people will not like it. ] :¬) Cla68 is one of the more reasonable sceptic editors, BTW. ] 00:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

			Note that AQFK still regards the Scibaby blocked socks as a "witch hunt" ] (]) 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
	== FellGleaming ==

			== What, now, is the purpose of these pages? Time to pull down the shutters. ==
	I have no faith in this process, so all I'll do is make a comment that {{User5\|FellGleaming}} seems to be flouting his terms of probation at ]. Make of it what you may. ] 08:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
	:If others also feel FG is in violation, and have some faith in the Probation enforcement process, then they can make a request. ] (]) 14:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
	::I had intended to file an enforcement request but the prospect of doing that makes me woozy. One might have thought that the idea of the probation was to create a relatively straightforward process, rather than to empower those causing problems through creation of an arduous, time-consuming process that imposes a barrier to enforcement of policy. One would, by the evidence so far, be mistaken.
	::On the immediate issue, FG has been acting slightly more reasonably of late. We'll see how long it lasts. ] (]) 15:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

			The original purpose of these pages was rendered obsolete upon the acceptance of the ArbCom case, IMnvHO, as the effectiveness and neutrality of the process was placed as a consideration for the Committee to review, and was confirmed when the Proposed Decision clearly indicated a desire to supercede these pages and move toward using AE. I see that a worthy exercise in utilising the likely process that would be adopted at AE was trailed here, but I would suggest that it was quickly deprecated in that concerns and commentary quickly appeared in the ArbCom case pages (and elsewhere such as ANI?) and the remit of administrators able to enforce any findings outside of standard sysop provisions potentially open to challenge (and might be found surplus or even in conflict to sanctions or restrictions placed at the end of the case). I spent some little time and energy on these pages for a few months earlier this year, and I am immoderately proud of what was achieved here despite it not being able to properly fulfill its function, and would wish it to end with some dignity rather than be the venue of squabbles and petty arguments. I would prefer if this place could be left as reminder of what was hoped for, rather than the result of its failings. ] (]) 15:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
	I had become concerned at Fell Gleaming's curt dismissal of a concern I brought to him last week, but things have moved on. Following John's filing, which was eventually closed as outside the topic area, Fell Gleaming took a rest of nearly two days, and since then although I haven't followed his edits I have taken a quick look at his talk page, and there seems to be far less evidence of either third party concern about his fidelity to sources or problematic reactions by him to such concern.
			: If that's your swan song for this probation enforcement, I'd like to say thanks for the enormous amount of energy you've invested in this process. It is much appreciated. --] 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
			:: I'll add my thanks as well. My observation that this hasn't worked perfectly in no way mitigates my observation that the task was enormous, and this was an impressive undertaking. Future challenges may look to this, if not a model to adopt exactly, at least as a starting point for a mechanism. However, the ArbCom decision is not rendered. I assume that AE is not the place to go until the decision, or at least that aspect of it is finalized. Given the unfortunate fact that there are edit wars in progress, do you propose that they be ignored, reported to ANI, or something else?--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
			::: The probation already authorizes all uninvolved administrators to take discretionary action to handle edit wars. --] 17:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
			::: Per Tony. ] (]) 20:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
			:It ain't over 'til the fat clerk sings. There is a FoF which notes "a consensus of 7 administrators" - that consensus was reached here, so clearly ArbCom see at least some merit in these proceedings. I've never really understood why there should be a major conflict between consensus action and unilateral action. I'll ask here, as I have elsewhere: are there cases where a consensus decision that had been reached here, closed and enacted, was disregarded by an admin acting alone? I'm open to examples, but my observation has been that consensus decisions have stuck pretty effectively. ] (]) 20:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

			I realise that Jehochman hasn't been attending this enforcement page much in recent times (not since he was warned about edit warring to close a case against one of his buddies I thought) but could someone explain to him that the uninvolved admin section is not for him to commandeer for the purpose of replying to everything anyone says in the other sections? It's a most unfortunate way to hold a 'conversation'. If you could just read the bit in itallics to him that might be enough. ] (]) 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
	I assume that either he is making a successful effort to respond, or else last week's problems were a brief lapse. Either way things are looking better. ] (=] ) 15:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
	:I think it is fairly clear that FG is an intelligent editor who saw the heat and got out of the kitchen. He was given time to do this by a poorly conceived enforement request against him. There should still be a time, despite a few days gone past, for further issues to be raised, becasue he has followed this editing pattern across several articles, showing that it is a ''modus operandi'' rather than a short term lapse. I happen to think FG is an editor who knows how to follow wikipedia rules but is also an editor who is willing to stretch these to the limit and beyond. Therefore too much leeway is not a good thing. ] (]) 11:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

			== Responding to NW's question ==
	It isn't at all a bad thing if a wayward editor recognises his faux pas and takes an opportunity to recover. If evidence of long term boundary-testing should emerge at some later point, this would mean that an editor wasn't being responsive enough and then we might want to do something to improve the situation. ] (=] ) 11:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
	:A tactical head down for two days is clever avoidance of facing the issue and not a recognition of his faux pas. ] (]) 13:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

			Responding to NW's
	== Over-reliance on blogs ==
			<blockquote>
			''And your thoughts on SBHB's comment?''
			</blockquote>

			which is a reference to:
	There are a small number of blogs that fall within the probation topic that ''may'' be regarded as reliable sources on the expertise of the blogs' authors. By and large, though, blogs are not reliable sources, and there are also severe problems of weighting especially with blogs that have a very slanted political tone.
			<blockquote>
			''The practice of using this enforcement board for point-scoring against opponents needs to stop. That will not happen until those who file frivolous actions know that they can be disciplined for doing so. (And yes, this applies to both "sides.")''
			</blockquote>

			I have a suggestion, that should apply going forward:
	I think it's time for a general motion ruling the use of blog sources in general, with the noted exceptions, as forbidden within the probation area. This would simply clarify our existing site-wide content policy, which seems to have been ignored for some time. ] (=] ) 03:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
			Anyone choosing to file an enforcement request against anyone, would be well-advised to ask at least one other editor, ideally from the "other side", whether the complaint has enough merit for a serious discussion. (This is not the same as agreeing with the complain, just agreeing it deserves a hearing.) To avoid game-playing, this is not an absolute requirement, but failing to get someone else to agree the case should proceed and a finding that the complaint was frivolous will results in penalties, including blocks, and/or multi-month bans from fling another request. There's too little time in life to deal with this nonsense, and there need to be repercussions for taking up the valuable time of editors and admins. (Open to fine-tuning, and even a finding that one should not post when totally pissed off, but enough is enough.)--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
			:Who is going to make the list of which side is which? ] (]) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
			::You don't need a list. All you need is some person to say, yes, I generally have a comparable POV to the person you wish to file against, and yes, I think the complaint has sufficient merit to go forward. If you can't find such a person, either the claim has no merit, or sides are so entrenched that editors aren't willing to challenge egregious errors of one of their own. If the latter, then we need a scorched earth approach to the subject.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 19:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
			::BTW, I'd be happy if someone claims to be uninvolved and seconds the complaint. I'm just looking for some mechanism to reduce the number of frivolous requests.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 19:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
			:::] exists. --] (]) 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

			== Request for admin ==
	: And no blog comments ever. That should not be countenanced at all on Misplaced Pages, and certainly not to attribute words to living persons. This must be stopped at once. Lax sourcing in the probation area must be stamped out with determination. ] (=] ) 05:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
	::Is an example of what you're talking about? ] (]) 05:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

			I'd like to post a request here regarding Stephan Schulz's comment on one of the ongoing requests, . This is plainly in violation of ], without any justification provided. Stephan has done this before, where he responded to another editor's personal attacks by stating that AGF is not a "suicide pact" (that editor was subsequently blocked for sockpuppeting). Editors should not be subjected to this, and should not feel the need to respond. The issue is clearly tangential to the request, however, so I am adding my request here that the issue be quickly resolved. ] (]) 23:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
	That is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Tim Lambert is a blogger with no professional expertise in this field. His comments often make sense but even when they do they should not be used to source statements of fact on the subject.

			== lights ==
	In the case of the article in question, the subject's lack of credibility on science has been demonstrated repeatedly by reliable sources and our article should reflect that, and any statement of fact by him on matters of science should be presented with according care.

			<looks around, and reaches for the switch>'''''CLICK!!''''' ] (]) 20:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
	It isn't necessary to couple every one of his statements on science with a refutation, especially if the experts do not take the statement seriously enough to refute it. Indeed, that would be reasonable grounds to cut the neglected statement altogether. ] (=] ) 06:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:29, 8 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:GS/CC/RE

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Comment about latest RfE against William M. Connolley

Honestly guys, it's time to stop the bleeding now. Someone should draft a proposal to ArbCom to issue an temporary injuction against WMC until the case is closed. Yesterday's fiasco need not be repeated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The "ban my content opponent" game has to stop. I recommend decisive actions be taken to prevent further battleground behavior by any party. Jehochman 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of banning an opponent, it's a question of ending the disruption. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that this most recent request, and AQFK's reception of it, only proves his own biases. Quite why an unjustified request that isn't going to be actioned should translate into temporary injunctions isn't clear - unless the injunction should be against AQFK for kibitzing William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Two edit wars at Phil Jones (climatologist) today that began yesterday, one of which continues into today

Edit war #1
Edit war #2

Can an admin please lock down the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Not today any more. I oppose the request to lock down, on several grounds. Firstly, AQFK has mixed up Scibaby edits and reverts of Scibaby edits in those diffs. AQFK is fully aware of Scibaby, so that is bad faith on AQFK's part. Secondly, another of those reverts is a drive-by revert by User:Peterlewis with no attempt to participate in discussion. Peterlewis is already in the sanctions log as warned for revert-without-discussion Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log so perhaps it is time for a stricter sanction on him. The rest are down to User:M.w.denotter who is new. But discussion of this is proceeding on his talk page, and the article talk page, so I don't see why there is any need to rush to protect William M. Connolley (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noting -- WMC had 5 reverts in 24 hours. Minor4th 15:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reverts I see of non-sockpuppets are and . Am I misreading something? NW (Talk) 15:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have 3 reverts in the last 24h, even counting socks. Contiguous edits count as one. I think M4th failed to realise that William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I will look at it again and see if I have missed something here. That's possible. Minor4th 17:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it was 4 and the last one may have been a sock. So I just want to clarify that as long as we only push it up to the 3RR threshhold, there can be no sanctions and everyone is fine with that? And we can get to the 3RR limit on several articles in the topic area on the same day, and that is still not sanctionable or problematic? Please do clarify this because this may be where my misunderstanding lies. Minor4th 17:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Err no, it wasn't 4, it was 3, and one was a sock. Have another go. And as for I just want to clarify - can you give this disruptive nonsense up and find yourself something productive to do? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

For those who are curious or require more proof of my analness, I've examined every edit-war at the Phil Jones article since November 30, 2009. It took me half of the day and I'm sure that there are mistakes (corrections are encouraged!), but by my count, there have been at least 13 edit-wars involving approximately 60 different editors. Details are available at: User:A Quest For Knowledge/Phil Jones Content Disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at AQFK's sub-page, and some interesting stuff emerges. For example, some of the "edit wars" are completely faked, and only exist due to Scibaby socks. See User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/Phil_Jones_Content_Disputes#Climategate_E-mails:_Were_they_.22leaked.22.2C_.22stolen.22_or_both.3F_If_stolen.2C_were_they_.22stolen.22_or_.22allegedly_stolen.22.3F (which is collapsed, you have to uncollapse it). I've annotated that section with the accounts which are socks, and the results are quite revealing. I don't think you can interpret that page properly without knowing which accounts are socks, but AQFK doesn't want you to know that . His reply is also rather revealing: its all a witch hunt, apparently William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how many of these so-called socks were really socks, and I wonder what does it say about Misplaced Pages, when the so-called socks' edits are better than those with accounts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your tendency to defend Scibaby is painfully obvious. And if you think the edits are good, that too may be rather revealing. If you think any of those accounts are wrongly blocked, then you should of course take that up with the blocking admin(s). But if you don't, you should quit whinging and insinuating William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it reveals that I try to focus on the content, not the contributor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that AQFK *still* regards the Scibaby blocked socks as a "witch hunt" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What, now, is the purpose of these pages? Time to pull down the shutters.

The original purpose of these pages was rendered obsolete upon the acceptance of the ArbCom case, IMnvHO, as the effectiveness and neutrality of the process was placed as a consideration for the Committee to review, and was confirmed when the Proposed Decision clearly indicated a desire to supercede these pages and move toward using AE. I see that a worthy exercise in utilising the likely process that would be adopted at AE was trailed here, but I would suggest that it was quickly deprecated in that concerns and commentary quickly appeared in the ArbCom case pages (and elsewhere such as ANI?) and the remit of administrators able to enforce any findings outside of standard sysop provisions potentially open to challenge (and might be found surplus or even in conflict to sanctions or restrictions placed at the end of the case). I spent some little time and energy on these pages for a few months earlier this year, and I am immoderately proud of what was achieved here despite it not being able to properly fulfill its function, and would wish it to end with some dignity rather than be the venue of squabbles and petty arguments. I would prefer if this place could be left as reminder of what was hoped for, rather than the result of its failings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's your swan song for this probation enforcement, I'd like to say thanks for the enormous amount of energy you've invested in this process. It is much appreciated. --TS 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll add my thanks as well. My observation that this hasn't worked perfectly in no way mitigates my observation that the task was enormous, and this was an impressive undertaking. Future challenges may look to this, if not a model to adopt exactly, at least as a starting point for a mechanism. However, the ArbCom decision is not rendered. I assume that AE is not the place to go until the decision, or at least that aspect of it is finalized. Given the unfortunate fact that there are edit wars in progress, do you propose that they be ignored, reported to ANI, or something else?--SPhilbrick T 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The probation already authorizes all uninvolved administrators to take discretionary action to handle edit wars. --TS 17:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Tony. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It ain't over 'til the fat clerk sings. There is a FoF which notes "a consensus of 7 administrators" - that consensus was reached here, so clearly ArbCom see at least some merit in these proceedings. I've never really understood why there should be a major conflict between consensus action and unilateral action. I'll ask here, as I have elsewhere: are there cases where a consensus decision that had been reached here, closed and enacted, was disregarded by an admin acting alone? I'm open to examples, but my observation has been that consensus decisions have stuck pretty effectively. Franamax (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I realise that Jehochman hasn't been attending this enforcement page much in recent times (not since he was warned about edit warring to close a case against one of his buddies I thought) but could someone explain to him that the uninvolved admin section is not for him to commandeer for the purpose of replying to everything anyone says in the other sections? It's a most unfortunate way to hold a 'conversation'. If you could just read the bit in itallics to him that might be enough. Weakopedia (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Responding to NW's question

And your thoughts on SBHB's comment?

which is a reference to:

The practice of using this enforcement board for point-scoring against opponents needs to stop. That will not happen until those who file frivolous actions know that they can be disciplined for doing so. (And yes, this applies to both "sides.")

I have a suggestion, that should apply going forward: Anyone choosing to file an enforcement request against anyone, would be well-advised to ask at least one other editor, ideally from the "other side", whether the complaint has enough merit for a serious discussion. (This is not the same as agreeing with the complain, just agreeing it deserves a hearing.) To avoid game-playing, this is not an absolute requirement, but failing to get someone else to agree the case should proceed and a finding that the complaint was frivolous will results in penalties, including blocks, and/or multi-month bans from fling another request. There's too little time in life to deal with this nonsense, and there need to be repercussions for taking up the valuable time of editors and admins. (Open to fine-tuning, and even a finding that one should not post when totally pissed off, but enough is enough.)--SPhilbrick T 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Who is going to make the list of which side is which? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a list. All you need is some person to say, yes, I generally have a comparable POV to the person you wish to file against, and yes, I think the complaint has sufficient merit to go forward. If you can't find such a person, either the claim has no merit, or sides are so entrenched that editors aren't willing to challenge egregious errors of one of their own. If the latter, then we need a scorched earth approach to the subject.--SPhilbrick T 19:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'd be happy if someone claims to be uninvolved and seconds the complaint. I'm just looking for some mechanism to reduce the number of frivolous requests.--SPhilbrick T 19:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:PETARD exists. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for admin

I'd like to post a request here regarding Stephan Schulz's comment on one of the ongoing requests, here. This is plainly in violation of WP:NPA, without any justification provided. Stephan has done this before, where he responded to another editor's personal attacks by stating that AGF is not a "suicide pact" (that editor was subsequently blocked for sockpuppeting). Editors should not be subjected to this, and should not feel the need to respond. The issue is clearly tangential to the request, however, so I am adding my request here that the issue be quickly resolved. Mackan79 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

lights

<looks around, and reaches for the switch>CLICK!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)