| Revision as of 23:19, 2 May 2010 editLessHeard vanU (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,604 edits →Comments by others about the request concerning Thegoodlocust: response← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:19, 10 October 2023 edit undoDreamy Jazz (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators105,825 edits update as the sanctions that superseded the community-authorised one are now CTOP as they were placed by arbcom |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{mbox |
|
{{shortcut|WP:GS/CC/RE}} |
|
|
|
| type = notice |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Header}} |
|
|
|
| image = ] |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|imageright = {{#if:WP:GS/CC/RE | {{Ombox/Shortcut|WP:GS/CC/RE|||| }} }} |
|
|archiveheader = {{Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Archive navbox}} |
|
|
|
| text = This page, which was formerly used to request enforcement of community-mandated ], is currently inactive and is retained for ''historical'' reference. It has been ] by a ] and requests for enforcement may be requested at ]. |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|
}}{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|User|User talk=|#default={{#ifeq:{{{category}}}|no||] |
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|
|
] |
|
|algo = old(7d) |
|
|
|
}}}} |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive%(counter)d |
|
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Archive navbox}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets == |
|
|
|
|
|
Following discussion at ]<!-- Please update when that section archives. -->, this section is established to list ''active'' suspected Scibaby sockpuppets. This list is merely a courtesy to other editors active in this topic area, and does not replace ]. Please remove accounts that have been blocked or were listed in error. Accounts listed here are ''probably'' ] of a banned user, and may be reverted on sight. Any editor in good standing may "adopt" an edit that in his or her considered opinion improves an article, subject to common editing norms. The utmost care should be exercised to avoid listing accounts in error, and any mistakes should be promptly recognized and rectified. |
|
|
<!-- |
|
|
Format: |
|
|
* {{User|ExampleUser}} ~~~~ |
|
|
* {{ip|ex.am.pl.e}} ~~~~ |
|
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hipocrite == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|No action. Non optimal conduct and comment, ''perhaps'', but nothing sanctionable, and no further admin comments since mine. ] (]) 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)}} |
|
|
===Request concerning Hipocrite=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 19:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Hipocrite}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# . This is an disputed area (I even give a strong hint on participate in the discussion in the previous edit ), discussed at . It may be the case that this is not something we should write about, but just reverting others contributions like this is not Cooperative. And with a second revert in 24h the user is not following the probation rules |
|
|
# First removal of the same paragraph (just to verify 24h break of rule. |
|
|
# Personal attack ... calls another user Wife beater |
|
|
# . Personal attack again. |
|
|
# <s> Extremely bad language.</s> |
|
|
# Battleground mentality |
|
|
# removes most of the background section from here, no actual reason given |
|
|
# Personal attack – Calls another user Di*k |
|
|
|
|
|
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): <p> |
|
|
# Warning by {{user|nsaa}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : whatever the community decide |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|
|
It may also be wise to take a look at this ]. |
|
|
:@: As far as I see the article is under probation per this edit so the 1RR restriction applies. ] (]) 22:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning Hipocrite=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Hipocrite==== |
|
|
|
|
|
: I eagerly await my vindication. Some guys blog is not a reliable source. ] (]) 19:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Also, perhaps the fact that Nsaa is not fluent in English has led to his regretful lack of understanding about what "when you assume you make an ass (out of you and me!)" and "have you stopped beating your wife?" mean. ] (]) 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Further, what does have to do with climate change? |
|
|
|
|
|
:Further, how is telling '''everyone''' they are fundamentally poor editors - and I explicitly included my "side" in that a battleground action ? |
|
|
|
|
|
: And finally, if telling someone they are being a dick when they are being a dick is a violation of these stupid rules, I'm guilty, lock me up. ] (]) 20:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning Hipocrite ==== |
|
|
*'''Comment by Mark Nutley''' The "some guys blog" hipocrite refers to is in fact the blog of ], a Professor of Psychology at ] in ] I think this guy is capable of reviewing a book :) ] (]) 20:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Complaining about the wife beater comment is odd. He was quoting Bertie Russell's example of the fact that questions which contain implicit assumptions are not always answerable rather than accusing another editor. --] ] 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::It isn't odd. He should have used quotes, if that was his intention. If someone comes up to you in a bar and asks if you abused your family today most peoples first reaction is not to think 'ah yes, good old Bertie'. Like it or not this ''is'' an international site and if people will use such phrasing whilst maintaining a battleground mentality then the odd thing to do would be to let them carry on. The phrase 'wifebeater' is inappropriate without context, and even then it is a stretch of the imagination to see how it could be appropriate to encyclopedia building. ] (]) 21:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment @ LHVU''' The ] you cite is quite clear. It says 'The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as "a dick".'. It also says 'Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is usually a dick-move'. That essay isn't meant for people to quote at others, it's for them to read and try to understand themselves. There is no need to make a grey area out of something which has a disclaimer saying it is not to be considered a grey area. ] (]) 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''comment by WMC''': if ] is considered offensive, then MN, who is under civility parole, should most certainly be santioned for calling another editors opinions "bollocks". I don't think this report is in good faith - it looks to me as though this report itself is part of a battleground mentality - it is a mere trawling for diffs. ''actually, rv to me - added text has nothing to do with this book)] removes most of the background section from here, no actual reason given'' is the most obvious example: here is a diff which very clearly *does* give a reason being reported as not. This is absurd; the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice ] (]) 22:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I'm pretty sure we could trawl almost anybody's edits and come up with material like this. I think a warning is reasonable as long as it is recognised that we all have to pull our socks up in this respect. Nothing Hipocrite has said, according to this filing, is extraordinarily bad, nor is his general demeanor a detriment to Misplaced Pages or to the articles in the probation area. --] 22:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment by Thepm''' regarding point 6. Hipocrite's comment seemed to be expressing his frustration with the battleground mentality of the other editors (that was my interpretation anyway). I was one of the editors involved here. It had become a rather silly argument about the use of 'hacked' vs 'discovered' vs 'released'. Hipocrite made a brilliant edit that used none of those terms but still retained meaning. I meant to congratulate him at the time, but never got around to it. ] (]) 23:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment by Cla68''': A few hours ago Hipocrite unilaterally about half the content from the ] article, even though discussion on the talk page good progress. He also did the same thing at the ] article, including removing most of the reliable sources from the section such as the House hearing transcript and Wegman's report. Hipocrite has ignored or responded rudely to requests to self-revert . I believe Hipocrite is being disruptive. Check out this remark about NSAA, for whom English is apparently a second language "". If Hipocrite doesn't ] soon, I'm going to file a separate request for enforcement below this one. The AGW editors recently had shown good progress at working together in a productive manner. It would be a shame if Hipocrite was allowed to destroy this progress. ] (]) 23:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: I think Hipocrite's edit does a lot to assuage my long term concerns about the way that article has been going, but I appreciate that it may not be to everybody's taste. If you think it's wrong, why don't you just revert it yourself and discuss it? I don't know where the fashion for demanding that editors revert their own perfectly good edits came from. We all know how to edit Misplaced Pages and we don't need permission to edit. --] 23:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::It was other editors who added most of the material, not me. If you read the talk page discussion, you'll see that Hipocrite didn't like it after the sources used in the "Volcano" section were attributed, which had been done to resolve (successfully) a budding content dispute. Hipocrite responded by blanking the entire thing. Not good. ] (]) 23:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This is a content matter which doesn't belong in an enforcement action. But while we're here, your view that the dispute had been successfully resolved is incorrect. I don't agree with Hipocrite's edit, but your implication that everything was fine until Hipocrite barged in is false. ] (]) 23:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The talk page discussion was progressing productively. When someone disrupts that because they apparently don't like the way the discussion is going, then that is a matter for this board. ] (]) 00:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: No, Cla68, what's disruptive is your insistence that biographies of living persons be used as coat racks to discuss global warming. ] (]) 23:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hipocrite, don't go there please. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong that's an issue for another venue. ] (]) 23:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment by Wsiegmund''' regarding point 1. My edit and edit summary provides some context for that of Hipocrite. I think there are ] issues here and Hipocrite is following the WP guidance on this matter. ] ] 14:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Hipocrite=== |
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|
|
*From a brief review of the article ] and the points/diffs provided, I would make the following initial observations; |
|
|
*# The article is not under a 1RR restriction that I am aware of, so points 1 and 2 in that respect fail - no opinion as to what appears to be an edit war. As for not discussing... the reverts do refer to policy, although no opinion on the validity of same, and follow the reasoning provided by another party in the discussion. |
|
|
*# re point 3; not an accusation, but a figure of speech. Not really seeing its relevance in the discussion, but that is not the point. |
|
|
*# Point 4, another saying - although it is pointed and teetering on incivility. Not optimal, but neither sanctionable. |
|
|
*# <s>Point 5. Yup, extremely bad language and likely bad faith - but nothing to do with a CC Probation article. May be something for a ] submission, but outside the remit here (even as an example of bad language, it shows H has been holding their tongue better in this area.)</s> |
|
|
*# Point 6. Agreed, there is some indication of battleground mentality and commenting on editors rather than contributions. |
|
|
*# Point 7. I see a rationale within the edit summary - no opinion on accuracy. |
|
|
*# Final point. A grey area, since there is ] and referring to people being dicks in regard to their actions may be considered permissible - but noting a person as a dick (without referring to the essay) is not and in any case is unlikely to improve the editing environment within the probation area.<br>I am not seeing anything really substantive under which Hipocrite may be sanctioned. I think they could be warned about their manner of interaction and requested to interact more fully, and noted that persistent behavioural issues of a similar nature might lead to topic or interaction bans or short blocks, but would wish for other comments before committing even to that. ] (]) 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Marknutley (again) == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|Closed, apparently resolved (?) within discussion. ] (]) 20:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)}} |
|
|
If I were less involved, I'd block for . --] (]) 13:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:What PA is that then? Am i not allowed to comment on an editors snideness now? ] (]) 13:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::* Per the above action with respect to my comments on an editors dickishness, no, you are not. ] (]) 13:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::* To spell it out, "he must have been dragged up not brought up" is unacceptable. --] (]) 13:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The internal irony of the sentence "I tell you, the guy is incapable of being civil, he must have been dragged up not brought up" puts the whole sanctions regime in a nutshell; i.e., the expectation of exactingly correct behavior from others while exempting oneself from the same standard. ] (]) 13:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I see the usual suspects demanding my head and that i am in the wrong from expressing my opinion on another editors continued barrage of snide remarks. I have yet to see any of the above editors bring WMC to book here for his attacks on me, yet they are all to willing to jump all over a perceived insult. Were i come from that phrase is in common usage, it is an indicator of poor manners, which is shown in the diffs stephan did not bother to post, i`m done with this now ] (]) 13:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: That argument ("where I come from...") is depreciated. I noted before that where '''I''' come from, calling people "fucking retarded" is fine, but to question someone's honesty or motive without strong proof is by far the most substantial slight around. Apparently, here at Misplaced Pages, calling people dicks is the most substantial slight around, but accusing others of dishonesty and improper motive is AOK. You'll have to abide by that strucutre if you want to edit CC articles. Thanks! ] (]) 13:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: "Deprecated", perhaps? We wouldn't want our arguments to lose value, after all. ]<sup>(])</sup> 13:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Mark has the most viscous part now. --] (]) 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well I'm sure the conversation will flow better now. ;-) ] (]) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Another personal attack, <s>while he has an open enforcement request</s>. <s>The attack is, as these things go, relatively mild. But to do that ''while'' he had an open enforcement request is troubling.</s> His response (edit summary ''hah'') also suggest contempt for community norms. ] (]) 16:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)<small> ] (]) 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:''Hah'' indeed, and here was me thinking we were having a good old chat on my talk page, as i explained there that is not a personal attack, it is a question. I`m guessing english is not your mother tongue? ] (]) 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::English? Only language I speak. And, not to boast, but I speak it and write it better than most people, though I sometimes ] inappropriately (whenever someone comes up to me on the street and asks me for money, I switch automatically to Trinidadian ]). ] (]) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And yet you actually think asking someone if they are capable of answering a question which they are trying to avoid is a personal attack? Sheesh ] (]) 17:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ah, but it wasn't a question. It was a rhetorical question. And it has only two possible meanings - either you're calling Hipocrite cognitively or mentally impaired, or you're calling him dishonest. Either way, it's a personal attack. ] (]) 17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} copy over from my talk page, i doubt any admin will look there |
|
|
No, lets make this simple, here is what i wrote ''Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above?'' Now lets see if i can answer it. |
|
|
*"Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above?" Of course i am, here it is |
|
|
*"Are you incapable of giving an answer to my question above?" No, i am not. |
|
|
Yes, i can see how that is a rhetorical question which can`t be answered all right <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:42, 26 April 2010</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
:: English *is* my mother tongue and the diff looks deliberately offensive (as well as an amusing self-reference failure), as does the comment above ] (]) 16:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes WMC, but you would of course say that. What is the self reference failure you refer to btw? O, and have you redacted your PA`s against me? ] (]) 16:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The fact that MN cannot see what's wrong the comment (e.g. , ) strongly suggests that Administrator action is needed here. ] <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-1.040ex;">]</sub> 17:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} Apart from Mark's questions being aggressive and rather uncivil, they suggest that he hadn't realised that Hipocrite had already answered the earlier question. A more cooperative approach would have resolved this misunderstanding without the drama. . . ], ] 19:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== William M. Connolley (and Marknutley) == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|William M. Connolley is reminded that commentary should be directed toward the content and not the contributor. Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. He is also prohibited from reverting the removal of sources that he added to an article without first gathering talk page consensus. Marknutley is encouraged to find a mentor who can assist in checking the reliability of sources and with more properly educating him on the reliable sources policy. ] (]) 15:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)}} |
|
|
===Request concerning WMC=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] ] (]) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|William M. Connolley}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# Violation of 1RR at a BLP article under this probation- 1st revert: ; 2nd revert: |
|
|
# Personal attacks on discussion page for same article: |
|
|
|
|
|
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): <p> |
|
|
# |
|
|
# Previous block for 1RR violation by ] |
|
|
# |
|
|
|
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Continue with escalating series of blocks until the behavior is corrected |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|
|
Diffs speak for themselves. ] (]) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Update''': Judging from some of the comments below, I guess those diffs don't speak for themselves with everyone. Not only did WMC remove reliably sourced information and violate his 1RR restriction when doing so, plus making two personal attacks during the ensuing discussion on the article talk page, but this episode illustrates the long-running double-standard employed by WMC when it comes to AGW-related BLPs, in which he adds negative or disparaging information to skeptic's BLPs and removes such information from others. He has been doing this for years, as shown by these edits to the BLP of a skeptic: . |
|
|
|
|
|
:Then, last month he made edit to another skeptic's BLP. Not only did he add negative information sourced to a blog, but he did so to an author who had, only a few months before, written unflatteringly about WMC in a published book. WMC shouldn't have even been touching that article. ] (]) 06:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|
|
] (]) 00:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning WMC=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by WMC==== |
|
|
|
|
|
There are several issues here, but the major one we're talking about seems to be the 1RR, so I'll address that. I explicitly claimed a BLP exemption for my revert, so the issue is was the edit acceptable under BLP exemption. As I've said on the talk page, in my opinion the "impeccable sourcing" bit is irrelevant. The question is balance, and selective quotation. If I say "immigration is both a blessing and a curse" and you quote me as saying "immigration is... a curse" then your sources are impeccable but you have misrepresented what I said and if you did that on wiki it would be a BLP violation. This is the same issue, though less clear. The section I removed was entitled "Views on Climate Change" but that section by no means represents Curry's views on climate change, instead it merely presents some recent quotes of Curry disagreeing with the IPCC. That is not her view. Curry essentially believes the GW storyline as presented by IPCC. She has a number of quibbles and concerns about the process, but those are at the margins. Her overall viewpoint (which isn't very exciting, because it is the default, and so goes under-reported) is a "warmist" if you need a term ] (]) 08:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Cla is making an elementary logical and wiki error by asserting that because he didn't like my BLP-related edits elsewhere, I am not permitted to make BLP related edits in this area. This assertion by Cla is clearly ridiculous. More directly: even if I had made grossly BLP violating edits elsewhere (which I dispute) that doesn't affect in the slightest the existence of the BLP policy, or my (all of our) duty to remove BLP violating material; and my right to claim BLP exemption for such edits as required ] (]) 18:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
We seem to be reduced to just a slightly iffy "No, not obviously, and not yet. You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that" (NW, 23:55, 27 April 2010). I think it is obvious that that diff doesn't merit reporting on its own; indeed I don't think it merits reporting at all. Please examine the context of that comment: Tillman is trying to justify adding a pile of tittle-tattle to a scientific biography, and completely ignoring Curry's actual real work, which is why she has her current position. This is a genuine ongoing problem with this and indeed many other GW type bios. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I put on record my strong objection to Lar pretending to be uninvolved: he is obviously far too biased and involved even to see his involvement. The truely uninvolved admins ought to see this and ask Lar to step back to prevent his bias biasing the results ] (]) 09:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning WMC ==== |
|
|
* Clear BLP violation; 3RR-like restrictions don't apply. ] (]) 00:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Discussion entirely within the "norm" that's tolerated here. ] (]) 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Agree with Guettarda regarding the BLP issue. Cherry-picking comments from blog postings to paint a picture on an issue conforming with an editor's ideological predispositions just isn't on. I'm surprised at this, because Cla68 has often expressed concern over BLP matters. If anything, Marknutley's repeated introduction of such material should be the issue here. It's too bad there's no provision for sanctioning such edits. ] ] (]) 00:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Cherry-picking from blogs? I see references from the ''Times'' and the ''New York Times'' in there. A whittling down of the section in lieu of outright deletion would have been less ].--] (]) 00:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I didn't mean to imply that ''all'' of the sources were blogs. Should have been clearer, sorry. The "cherry picking" point remains: one can easily construct a BLP-violating article using only the best of sources. ] (]) 00:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Heyitspeter, that's exactly it. If WMC had just removed the information sourced to the blogs and left the info that was better sourced, then taken it to the talk page, as we're supposed to do, then there wouldn't be a problem. As the talk page discussion shows, including WMC's opposition to (and personal attack on) Tillman's proposed variation of the text in question, WMC was simply revert warring material that he didn't want in the article in any shape or form. That's a violation of the restriction and disruptive. ] (]) 00:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Quoting from ], ''The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material.'' And remember, a zero-tolerance policy toward any language that could be considered less polite than a Victorian tea society can go both ways. ] (]) 00:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Can you find a different quote? The material removed was exhaustively cited. I'll remove this comment to avoid cluttering the page if you find a relevant excerpt.--] (]) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Whoever added material to a biography of a living person from the comments section of http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com , from http://wattsupwiththat.com , and from http://www.qando.net should promptly be informed that they are no about to be no-longer welcome to edit. As such, I suggest that , who has gotten his last final last final doublesecret final warning be final warninged again and that , who has gotten his last final last final doublesecret final warning be final final warninged again and that be given his first final warning. ] (]) 01:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*: Lar states "The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced." Lar, in addition to NW's question, please discuss how (using pre-revert version of the article) the statement "She has ... for example, "The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue,"" This is sourced to . Please, do explain how this is impecable. It leads me to question if you are actually evaluating the requests, or merely taking sides based on your preconception of what must be true. If it turns out that you agree with me that this is, in fact, the opposite of impecable sourcing, what should be done to correct your conduct? ] (]) 03:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: I see Lar has now moderated his comment. While he initially said "The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced," he didn't actually mean '''all''' the statements. The ones that were not actually by Dr. Curry were apparently not impeccably sourced. Apparently, the appropriate response to someone who puts certainly defamatory content about living persons into articles is not to revert them, but rather to piece through their edits to determine what of those edits are impeccably sourced and what parts of them are defamatory poorly sourced content about living persons. I hope Lar will update ] to reflect this new understanding. ] (]) 03:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::Not particularly surprised by that comment. But disappointed just the same. You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? ++]: ]/] 03:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::: "The real issue here is the spin control," Lar. Why are you spin-controlling your "The statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced," claptrap? Just own up to it, already. ] (]) 03:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::: You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? If the NYT isn't good enough for you, what is? This isn't the first time that WMC et al. have removed NYT sourced "inconvenient truths". Regrettably it probably won't be the last. ++]: ]/] 04:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::Interesting spin there. But we aren't talking about the New York Times. We're talking about an unverified blog comment. Which you apparently believe to be "impeccably sourced". I'd hate to imagine what you consider "so-so" sourcing. ] (]) 04:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::: How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? I'm not talking about blogs. I am talking about sources such as the NYT, which were also removed willy nilly. You repeating this after I've clarified it, more than once, is starting to verge on bad faith assumption. ++]: ]/] 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::"The real issue here is the spin control". Funny, I thought the real issue here was attributing controversial statements to living people based on unverified blog comments. ] (]) 03:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::Not particularly surprised by that comment. But disappointed just the same. The enforcement request was raised to address the spin control by WMC et al, in my view. You're using BLP as a smoke screen. ++]: ]/] 03:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::I must say I ''am'' particularly surprised by your comments. As for spin - yes, this is spin. Spin so single-minded that people are willing to resort to using unverified blog comments to advance their narrative. Still, given that you'd delete dozens of bios simply because they lacked sources, I'm shocked that you would place advancing your chosen narrative over our most basic rules of sourcing. "Don't put contentious words you can't verify in the mouths of living people" is far more basic than ]. ] (]) 03:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Please look through the edits under discussion. You're implying that all WMC did was remove sentences sourced to blogs , but he also removed statements sourced by '']'' and '']''.--] (]) 04:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Nope, I'm not. The entire section has BLP problems. The most egregious problem was the fact that part of it was sourced to a blog comment. It's entirely in keeping with accepted practice to remove the entire section. Specifically here though I'm talking about Lar's assertion that the entire section "impeccably sourced". Which is, of course, obviously false. ] (]) 04:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (2) ++]: ]/] 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::You think BLP advocates the deletion of the entirety of sections that have sentences that are poorly sourced]--] (]) 06:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Read MastCell's comment in the section below. I'm simply describing norms that are considered acceptable. As long as one is operating within the norms of the community, there's nothing to discuss. On the other hand, claiming that the comment was an appropriate source, as Lar and Cla68 have done ("impeccably sourced" in Lar's words), is ''outside'' of the norms of acceptable behaviour. ] (]) 06:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (3) ++]: ]/] 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''random comment''' I was actively editing this article while much of this was going on. MN added some stuff (good stuff, but maybe too much). WMC took it off (with some justification. There was simply too much.). MN added a tag (with some justification. His good stuff had gone.) There was discussion, a sentence was added back and MN removed the tag. So everybody was happy. Well, less unhappy. Now we can move on to fight the same foolish war on yet another page (sigh). Neither MN nor WMC assume good faith of the other, but there you go. ] (]) 01:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
@Lar: "The BLP policy is being used as a smoke screen by WMC's many defenders, who have predictably formed ranks" - please stop it with the conspiracy theories and lay off the accusations of bad faith. You are the one who's attacking an editor for removing content ''sourced to blog comments'' from a BLP. The conspiracy you see - it's called Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 04:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (4) ++]: ]/] 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Note - you said ''''. An unverified comment on a blog is "impeccably sourced"? I realise nothing Misplaced Pages should be taken too seriously, but you're turning this into a real joke. ] (]) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::If WMC's intention was to protect a BLP, then why did he make edits like these: in the past to the BLP of a climate change skeptic? ] (]) 04:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If you want to play that game, ''first'' explain why you consider an unverified blog comment to be a "reliable source" for a BLP. Then you can talk about other people's actions. ] (]) 04:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (5) ++]: ]/] 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::And then you can explain how edits from two years ago are relevant in the discussion. ] (]) 04:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ok, from last month, re-inserting material ''sourced to a blog'' into a skeptic's bio. Same pattern. What makes this worse is that Booker discusses WMC in an unflattering light in two pages in his recent book, so WMC shouldn't have been touching Booker's BLP, let alone adding negative information sourced to a blog. ] (]) 05:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::As I said, before you try to play this game, ''first'' you need to account for your own actions. In the very article we're talking about here, you assert that an unverified blog comment is a "reliable source". As far as I can tell, that's a flat-out falsehood. You need to explain that first. Otherwise how is anyone can take you seriously? ] (]) 06:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC) <small>Note that it's normal for enforcement requests to look at the behaviour of not only the subject of the complaint, but also the person bringing the complaint. And in this case, the real problem here is your assertion that unverified blog comments count as "reliable source". ] (]) 06:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::::::::How many times are you going to toss this one at the wall before you realize it doesn't stick? (6)... See the pattern yet? ++]: ]/] 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Yes, Lar, the pattern is that you're going to try to spin that comment you made about unverified blog comments on a no-login unmoderated comments section being impeccably reliable till you're dizzy. ] (]) 11:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::As ''soon'' as I was questioned about what I meant, the ''very first time'', I clarified that I was referring to the NYT. NOT blogs. (I support Tony's thinking that we ought to completely eliminate reliance on blogs...) I clarified that the ''first time it was brought up''. And yet, here you are, ''still'' misconstruing what I said, over and over and over. If you repeat a Big Lie enough times (or even a small one) maybe it will stick? Is that the approach? You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? Stop saying I am talking about blogs. Please. It's tiresome. Or admit that you're the one spinning here, part of the cadre. ++]: ]/] 11:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: Lar, I'm willing to bygones your regrettable statement that unverified comments in blog comment sections are "impeccably reliable," if you'll admit that WMCs reversions of edits that insert '''actually defamatory''' facts sourced to unverified comments in blog comment sections are acceptable under ]. You can then have whatever argument you want about spinning, and others using blog sources, and whatever, but right now apparently you're saying the appropriate response to an edit that has what appears to possibly be reliably sourced information from the NYT and also obviously defamatory information sourced to unverified comments in blog comment sections is not to revert on sight as many times as it takes, but rather do do something else. Now, I know you don't think that, but sadly, when you admit the above assertion, it'll weaken your case and damage your spin here. I'm sorry that you went out on a limb about the sourcing, but you're going to have to crawl in. ] (]) 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::You just can't avoid being snarky and sarcastic, can you? Stop saying I am talking about blogs. Please. It's tiresome. Just flat out stop. No more spin, just stop. ++]: ]/] 11:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::: You just can't admit when you make a mistake can you? Stop spinning and admit that your first comment was wrong. Please. It's tiresome. Just flat out stop. No more spin, just stop. ] (]) 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::Asked and answered. "I'm referring to the stuff sourced to the NYT." As explained to you over and over. Perhaps you need to be sanctioned to discontinue repeating the same tiresome assertion over and over after it has already been answered. But that might interfere with your spin... ++]: ]/] 13:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::: I find it midly ironic that someone who actually numbered the times they said the same thing is suggesting I be "sanctioned to discontinue repeating the same tiresome assertion over and over after it has already been answered." However, I should note that with respect to this question, since it's you who alledge that it's bee answered, and you who I am challenging, that you are '''certainly''' not, even under your tortured definition, "uninvolved," with respect to my "repeating the same tiresome assertion over and over after it has already been answered." ] (]) 13:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::: What I was ''numbering'' was the number of times Guettarda raised the point AFTER it was already asked and answered. Not how many times I pointed it out (which, to be sure, is the same index value). Hope that clears up your latest confusion and that you now discontinue this fruitless line of badgering. Every time we interact I find your chosen moniker more apt. Why is that? ++]: ]/] 13:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::Probably because when people are willing to stand up to you you get defensive and try to attack the motives and character of the individuals who disagree with you. ] (]) 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::We can discuss the content dispute on the article's talk page if you like. The question here is the disruption caused by WMC to the article by revert warring, contrary to his 1RR probation, and the two personal attacks he made in the content discussion on the talk page. What is your opinion of those two personal attacks on the article talk page? If WMC's actions were meant to help facilitate a content discussion, do you think those two comments were helpful, or disruptive? ] (]) 06:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* (I'm "Lar-uninvolved", since I've never edited either the article not the talk page. Move my comments up if you move his up). As per the several comments above, there is nothing actionable here - indeed, WMC should be lauded for dealing with a BLP issue. If you, Cla, feel that there is a double standard, complain about the cases where BLP is violated, not about those where it is upheld. "Sorry, we executed an innocent man by accident. For fairness, we now need to eliminate all others, too" is not a good argument. --] (]) 07:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) (Note: I moved this up from the admin section. ] (]) 07:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)) |
|
|
** Sorry, you're (by far) not as uninvolved as me. You may not have edited ''this article'' but you edit in this space far more than I do (i.e. essentially not at all) ++]: ]/] 10:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***Translation: I contribute content and have demonstrated some understanding of the issues. All you do is pushing misguided and one-sided sanctions following your preconceived opinion, without either knowing the editors, the domain, nor even the particular case very well. --] (]) 11:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm having a hard time understanding what was so dreadful about WMC's actions here. I've not been involved in any way with this article, but having reviewed it I think it's clear that the controversial section was "dirty" - a mixture of cherry-picked quotes from reliable and unreliable sources. As I understand it, WMC's concern, apart from the sourcing, is that the content seriously misrepresented Curry's views. The fact that some of the content was reliably sourced doesn't detract from this concern. Given that WMC has worked in the field and is familar with the work of others in that field, I don't think we can dismiss those concerns. It's not about "spin control", nor is BLP just about sourcing; it's essential that a subject's views should be reflected accurately. As others have pointed out below, BLP's toughened approach mandates a conservative approach to content. If questionable material has been added it needs to be removed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately think that Lar's strong reaction is affected by his evident dislike of WMC. Put it this way - if it was any editor other than WMC, does anyone think that such a severe penalty (or indeed any penalty) would have been proposed? I suggest that Lar should consider recusing himself from future WMC-related enforcement requests, given his apparent strength of feeling. -- ] (]) 09:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Assumes facts (in this case, feelings) not in evidence. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I have no personal animus for WMC. I just dislike the tactics he employs. You should too. ++]: ]/] 10:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I second the request for Lar to recuse. I also ask that someone who boasts that his family owned 8 cars at one time should be removed from oversight of an area that intimately involves the topic of fuel combustion. I'm not joking. ] 09:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: This request is ludicrous on the face of it, as if it's allowed to stand then we should also eliminate anyone who brags of having less than 8 cars, or who brags about riding a bike or who brags about their use of wood to heat their house instead of natural gas, or any of a number of things. The request needs to be formally rebutted and disallowed, with an admonishment not to repeat it. ++]: ]/] 10:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Larry, I'm sorry, but the fact that you openly proclaim your love of engines and ownership of numerous vehicles destroys trust in your judgement on the issue of fossil fuel emissions for me, and I'm sure for others too. I think Bozmo's suggestion that admins be rostered off this area on some sort of schedule would be a minimalistic, but perhaps effective, remedy for these concerns. ] 11:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Even with 50 cars Lar could only drive one at once, a total climate change contribution equal to that of an editor with but one vehicle. Further since Ratel is using a variety of electricities and plastics to convey his displeasure I believe as a representative of the energy industry he should recuse himself from this debate. ] (]) 10:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The probation terms state that "uninvolved" should be interpreted broadly. In my view both DrS and Lar qualify as the rules are written in this case. Involvement is not the same as neutrality. But perhaps we should all do a month-on month-off rota so that we don't get sucked into the personal stuff. Off article talk page involvement with the individuals concerned is probably not ideal. --] ] 10:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
Note that Cla68's diffs about blp and blogs are from 2008, and some of them, such as are totally uncontroversial housekeeping. While Cla's last diff, using deltoid on the Booker page is troubling, how much grudge-holding should be permitted by someone who has lost perspective? Just yesterday, Cla68 was defending comments on a blog as reliable sources. I think perhaps everyone in this discussion who has inserted blog sources or defended blog sources as reliable needs a break - that would be WMC, Marknutley, Cla68 and Lar. Perhaps ban them all from the topic area for a short time to allow them to regain their balance? Say, a month, and perhaps a longer ban on all of them under BLPSE, perhaps 3 months on all BLPs? ] (]) 11:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Stop saying I am talking about blogs. Please. It's tiresome. ++]: ]/] 11:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Then acknowledge that WMC's second revert was not only acceptable, it was actually proscribed. ] (]) 11:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Lar, your claim that this was "impeccably sourced" still stands in your comment. You have not retracted that claim. Thus, you are ''still'' claiming that the blog comment is an "impeccably source". Strike the whole section (because, of course, your conclusions follow from your outlandish claim) and we can move on. But as things stand, you're telling people to stop talking about a claim you, by all appearances, stand by. ] (]) 13:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As soon as I was questioned, I (two comments below the orginal) pointed out I was talking about the NYT, not blogs. If you think a strike and rephrase will help, sure. But I don't see the need if the clarification is right there next to it. And yet you go on and on about it over and over. ++]: ]/] 14:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment by ATren''' - Round and round we go. We're in the neighborhood of a dozen requests against WMC now, most of them credible reports, and nothing but token sanctions. Lar is the lone admin who has any interest in leveling this playing field, and like clockwork the WMC apologists are coming out of the woodwork to attack Lar, someone who not only has no involvement in this topic, but has also professed sympathy with WMC's own views on the matter.<p>And WMC's defense? BLP! Laughable for anyone who knows his history. WMC has openly scorned BLP when LP is a skeptic -- just a few months ago he was warring to keep "see also: climate change denial" in a bunch of skeptic BLPs even though the denial article was primarily about fraud. But when BLP policy suits him, he's more than willing to use it.<p>But really, the issue here is yet another attack on Marknutley, someone who is actually working to add content in this topic area (how many articles created now? At least 3 by my recollection) and who has been subjected to constant mocking and abuse by WMC. That first PA diff is inexcusable given their history, and it has to stop. But as long as the apologists refuse any significant sanction against an ], this will continue to be a poisonous editing environment. ] (]) 12:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Marknutley. Let me say it just as it is. I have some time for Mark but that does not mean when he constructs such a poor biased BLP that every editor should congratulate him on his efforts to improve wikipedia. Why is this at enforcement? Why are we getting into this trench warfare? It was a crap attempt at a neutral BLP, now for some reason we are all here arguing about it, that is an absolute joke. ] (]) 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::''"Why are we getting into this trench warfare?"'' Because admins refuse to remove the battleground editor. ] (]) 12:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I agree. Taking out MN, and you, would help. Or did you have someone else in mind? ] (]) 20:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I’m not happy with the direction this discussion is taking. If a BLP exemption can be taken for a citation to the New York Times, then the 1R restriction has no teeth. I’m sympathetic to the view that if someone posted that person X was a denier, which no sourcing, then an editor under an editing restriction can properly claim an exemption to remove the transgression. However, when the exemption, lists “biased, .. or poorly sourced” which is broad enough to drive a truck through. If the editor merely needs to claim that, in the sole opinion of the editor, the edit introduced some bias, then virtually no edit is covered. I think Cla68 is right that WMC violated the spirit of the restriction, but WMC can claim the exception. The result is that we should modify the exemption. We need to be vigilant about rooting out BLP violations, but some of the discussion ought to be carried out in the talk pages – we should narrow the scope of the exemption so that it covers only blatant examples, one’s where there’s no reasonable debate about the issue.<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 14:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: No one is claiming the BLP exemption applies to the NYT. It does, however, apply to the unmoderated no-login comments section of a blog, wihch was used to shove words into Dr. Curry's mouth. ] (]) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Please help me understand your point. I do understand that there were multiple statements removed, one of which may have come from a blog, but one of which came from the NYT. When I see ] state “Clear BLP violation” I don’t see any clarification that this applies only to a subset of the removed material. Are you telling me that Guettarda’s comment is limited to the blog entry?<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 16:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: It's already been clarified that even Lar agrees that "if someone inserts obviously defamatory information cited to a blog comment on a no-login unmoderated highly partisan blog, but also inserts content in the exact same edit that is purportedly attributable to the New York Times" then the best practice is to "revert first and track down sources later." ] (]) 17:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: ''The result is that we should modify the exemption'' - you can't. BLP policy is outside the scope of this probation ] (]) 15:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I wasn’t suggesting that it should be modified within the scope of the probation, merely that it should be modified. I don’t have time to tackle that now, we’ll see if I still feel motivated to consider it this weekend.<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Lar's approach to this seems to be based on two assumptions - that the removal of this content was an improper act of"spin control" and that there's a "cadre" of WMC defenders. Both are faulty. There's no dispute that some of the sourcing (blogs) was bad. WMC is concerned that the section as a whole, including the NY Times-sourced material, gave a misleading impression of Curry's views. He knows Curry's work. I don't, and I'm betting Lar doesn't either. Surely it can't be wise just to dismiss WMC's concerns out of hand, given his professional knowledge?We do want experts to contribute to Misplaced Pages, right? Misrepresenting someone's views is a serious issue - potentially defamatory - so it's absolutely right to exercise caution. |
|
|
|
|
|
Second, I strongly object to the implication that everyone who disagrees with Lar is a WMC "defender". I'm certainly not, and I've criticised his conduct in the past. Assessing whether or not WMC acted properly should not depend on your prior opinion of him. It's absurd to label an assessment that no improprietry occurred as a "defence" of WMC. People are capable of being objective; it's verging on an assumption of bad faith to assume that any assessment that differs from Lar's is motivated by partisanship. |
|
|
|
|
|
Surely, as a matter of basic fairness, we can't treat WMC differently from everyone else - whether more favourably or punitively. I seriously doubt whether Lar would have reacted this way if it had been anyone else. His issue appears to be not so much with the action as with the actor. I don't think that's a healthy approach. -- ] (]) 14:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Imputing motivations seems like the essence of failure to ],do you disagree?<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 16:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: You're talking about Lar, aren't you? ] (]) 18:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:ChrisO: I let this sit a while, but on reflection I think it needs to be addressed point by point. Let's start with your assumptions about my approach: |
|
|
:*"Removal of this content was an improper act of spin control" - I started by looking carefully at the article beforehand, and walking the diffs and checking the refs. After that, yes, that was my evaluation... there is a long history of spin control (a kind of POV pushing) in this area, and it's been done by both "sides". I and others have in the past asserted that to be the case. Nothing I have seen recently has changed my view that in general there is still a desire by both "sides" to do this. I've also asserted that while both sides try to get their innings in, the playing field is not level, that one side seems to have an easier time of it. So, then... this content. My evaluation of the matter, and I acknowledge others may not agree, is that WMC came in and removed content that was inconvenient to the narrative that he apparently wants (I say apparently, because it's based on observation of outcomes, not of knowledge of his motives) to put forth, that there is no meaningful dissent and no problems whatever with anything related to the process or output of the research around AGW. Some of that removed content was poorly sourced yes, but some was impeccably sourced. Since WMC tends to do this only in one direction, but not the other, then yes, it was a reasonable conclusion on my part that it was spin control rather than a genuine desire to uphold the principles of BLP. Others may not agree, but WMC doesn't have a long history of generic BLP work that crosses topic boundaries. His BLP work seems to be concentrated in removing things that undercut that narrative and inserting things that bolster it. |
|
|
:*"there's a "cadre" of WMC defenders" - I think for more background it's useful to review the recent discussion TS and I had (on my talk) about why a "cadre" is not a "conspiracy". There are a number of editors in this area, who, whenever WMC (or one of the others among them) gets into trouble, speak out in his (or the other person's) defense. That's not a bad thing in and of itself. See ]. No outside communication, or collusion, or coordination, is necessary or implied by me. Occasionally pointing out something that WMC does wrong isn't proof that one isn't among these folk, and pointing out that WMC is right about something isn't proof that one IS among these folk. Rather, it's a pattern of behavior. To deny that there is a group of folk who hang together (call them what you will) is to deny reality... you can see it here. It may not be changable, but it's not a good thing to have people reflexivly defending each other, especially when their tactics include attacking whoever points it out. |
|
|
:*"the implication that everyone who disagrees with Lar is a WMC "defender"." See above. I make no such claim, and if you read that implication, it's not correct. People disagree all the time. But there nevertheless are defenders here. |
|
|
:*Finally, you are implying that this issue is somehow related to me, rather than to WMC. That's attacking the messenger and completely invalid. You say you "seriously doubt" I would have "reacted this way" if it were anyone else. That is false... if it were some other person with the problematic history of WMC and with the approach to interacting with others that WMC routinely employs my reaction would be the same. It's not personal at all. |
|
|
:I hope this perhaps clears up some misconceptions. ++]: ]/] 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Lar - it's very hard to believe that you "I started by looking carefully at the article beforehand, and walking the diffs and checking the refs," but didn't notice that one of the refs was to a deleted blog '''comment''' (and other links were to random blogs) and quotes attributed to a living person were not uttered by that living person, and that at least one sentence was a quote, but was not attributed. Did you miss those, or ignore them? ] (]) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I neither missed nor ignored the sources, but the source I spent the most time with was . But you're focusing on a side issue from the general thrust of my remarks, which are a thematic rebuttal of ChrisO, not (yet another tiresome) digression about who said what when about blogs. If that's what you want to talk about... Dunno what to tell you, then, because I consider it asked and answered. ++]: ]/] 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Since it was the source you spent most time with, you'll have noticed that it's a blog source: it seems to be commonly described as a NYT source, but that's a little misleading. Your comment above that "clarified that I was referring to the NYT. NOT blogs" looks technically incorrect. Having said that, I've looked at the author's bio and find it credible as a ]. In my view it's worth being specific about that justification for blog sources published by such organisations as the NYT. . . ], ] 22:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment by Mark Nutley''' People seem to be having an issue with the blog link, with one editor above saying the blog was putting words into DR Currys mouth. This is not the case, "What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them" This is from her open letter. For any editor to suggest that i used a blog source to put words into Dr Currys mouth is wrong, and i ask you redact your statements. ] (]) 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment by WMC, moved from below''': Lar, this is twaddle, unless you regard blocks and a 1RR restriction as "at best a slap". You seem to have lost touch with what has actually occurred ] (]) 18:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Pomposity and laconicism''' |
|
|
|
|
|
I hadn't read the alleged personal attacks in the msst recent Cla68 enforcement request, but Nuclear Warfare says he's iffy about one, which goes: |
|
|
|
|
|
: ''"You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
There's a certain ] tone to that, but it's well chosen given that he's replying to a person who has stated, without shame or hesitation, that he thinks a sequence of blog postings, a write-up in The New York Times and an interview is "something of a watershed moment in career" of a quite eminent and decorated scientist. |
|
|
|
|
|
If only that were so, my old mate PZ Myers, once a mere associate professor, now a world-famous blogger, would be able to move to Harvard and trade in his blog for the Louis Agassiz chair once held by one of his heroes, Stephen Jay Gould. |
|
|
|
|
|
As you can see, I lack William's talent for laconic humor. His comment was no personal attack, though it cut through the nonsense more surely than I could. ] (=] ) 01:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:WMC frequently personalizes disputes and baits other editors on article talk pages (yes, I can back that up). When Tillman that he, understandably, didn't appreciate WMC's remark, WMC to back off of his statement. ] (]) 01:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
'''@Admins?''' |
|
|
It's not clear to me how it has been concluded that WMC acted in the right. I see how his removal of blog-sourced sentences might be covered under ], but he removed sentences sourced by ''the Times'' and ''The New York Times'' as well. (I suppose this applies to MN's treatment too.) I posed this question to SBHB above and did not receive a response. I'd love to have this cleared up.--] (]) 03:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:As I told you earlier, read MastCell's response. Short answer - it's within accepted practice to undo the entire edit that adds a serious BLP violation. Longer answer - there are issues with the remainder of the content. Just because something is ''referenced'' to a particular source doesn't mean it fairly represents the source (I don't think this does; for example, the final sentence of the first paragraph attaches the "we're experts, trust us" idea to transparency with research, when in fact the article presents is as a response to the loss of trust by the public in response to the CRU emails). And just because something is sourced doesn't mean it creates problems by distorting the person's record. And this was not the first time Mark Nutley was told that unverified blog comments cannot be used. An editor who uses an unverifed blog comment to support extraordinary accusations of "corruption" raises a huge red flag over all their contributions. ] (]) 04:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Response to Dave souza, from below''' So adding blogs to BLPs are OK sometimes, and sanctionable other times? ] (]) 00:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Restoring balancing text and accepting that a better citation is needed differs from introducing a blog as a new source in the first place. The editor concerned at least appreciated that the source was inappropriate, and which followed within minutes was appropriate in removing a now unbalanced and inappropriate paragraph. That removal has stood, without any dissent that I've found. As for blogs in general, it's been argued below that a NYT blog is an impeccable source for a BLP – the blog concerned fully meets ], so its use seems reasonable. . . ], ] 07:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Response on proposed restrictions''' The prohibition against WMC even commenting on the appropriateness of sourcing is frankly abhorrent. I realize that Lar and LHvU have declared open season on WMC, but this goes too far. ] (]) 03:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agree. Lar mentions the baiting of WMC which is funny because I have shown diffs on the talkpage where he has done just that. Here we have a case where certain editors created a BLP on a notable scientist who passed the Prof test and all they seem to want to do is highlight some recent criticism she made of the way fellow scientists have handled sceptics. But even this they have done in an extremely biased way using poor sourcing and misrepresenting any good sources to twist her meaning. WMC makes a perfectly legitimate and actually quite polite comment on the talkpage, which completely reflects the situation. Yes it is about the editor but last time I looked wikipedians weren't banned from making negative comments about editors actions when justified. Okay I will make a comment about certain admins down below. What sort of a totalitarian regime are we running here when Lar fails to push though heavy sanctions for a legitimate revert then he takes the ridiculous opportunity provided by LHvU's misguided civility crackdown to ban WMC from commenting on other editors. Nightmare, that is like tying his hands behind his back and in this instance for what? Lar please stop acting as an uninvolved admin before you turn this process into any more of a joke. LHvU, you are misguided here. ] (]) 05:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I really suggest that the two of you re-read my proposed restrictions; there is nothing about restraining Doctor Connolley commenting upon content issues, and everything about constraining comment directed toward another editor, opinions on why they edit as they do, or speculations upon their intellectual vigour or moral fortitude (or similar musings) - it is '''"]"''' writ large, prompted by what I regard as exampls of ] (particularly point 1.d). If you have issues upon that, and the propriety in applying them, then you need to change the consensus regarding major Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 20:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That may be what you meant, but it's not what you wrote. Your recommendation was to restrict WMC with regards to "comment about another editor, ''their editing, the value of the sources quoted''..." etc (emphasis added). To restrict comments on someone's editing is bad enough, though it's ''just'' about defensible if carefully phrased. But to restrict discussion on the usefulness of sources is indefensible and may even violate some of Misplaced Pages's ]. I fully endorse "comment on content, not on the contributor" but the proposal goes far beyond that. ] (]) 00:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::What WMC said in that situation was a fair comment. Please stop acting as some sort of extremist civility police. To extend any sort of restrictions based on it is a gross overreaction. If WMC had said "You are a total dick who doesn't even deserve to be spat on by scientist X, let alone be allowed to write their bio", or words to that effect, then I would be calling for sanctions against him. ] (]) 08:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
This whole '''Comment on content, not on the contributor''' is massively overused often mistakenly to signify that something is a ]. This is a misrepresentation of not only the rule but also the spirit of the rule and is hence ]. After outlining the clear cases of what a personal attack is the actual text finishes with the statement '''When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.''' If you are trying to class WMC's statement as a personal attack based on the fact that he has actually mentioned the contributor you are misinterpreting the rule in a quite extreme but unfortunately all too common way. ] (]) 09:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::SBHB, what I said in respect of WMC - in full - was, ''"Any comment about another editor, their editing, the value of the sources quoted, <u>should be regarded as a statement and thus need to be sourced or evidenced</u>."'' (added underlining). I had earlier noted my desire to prevent from Doctor Connelley from "opinionating" upon editors and their comments, so the sentence you partly quoted was to say that any comment by Doctor Connelley about an editor or their edits needed to be able to be referenced to a source, or to WP policy or guideline. Doctor Connelley can describe another editors contribution as poor or misguided or wrong, provided he can indicate a source where the content concerned has been noted as poor, misguided or wrong, or the relevant policy that equates the edit as poor, misguided or wrong (I would be happy to include the term "able" into the sentence, there should be no need for every instance to be ref'ed, just that it can be upon request.) I am suggesting that Doctor Connelley is disabled from sharing ''his'' personal opinion and judgement upon other editors and their contributions - per the nutshell quoted. ] (]) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=====Subhead for convenience – newspaper blogs===== |
|
|
In discussion , Mark has introduced what seem to me novel and unpersuasive arguments for accepting blogs on newspaper websites with copyright notices etc. so advice by others would be welcome . . ], ] 22:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning WMC=== |
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|
|
====WMC==== |
|
|
{{collapse top|1=Collapsing for readability. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)}} |
|
|
*I have to say that I very much agree with Guettarda's comments here in that WMC's actions were correct. Indeed, WMC followed up on the talk page, initiating a discussion with the comment "The section on views on climate change is grossly one-sided and amounts to a BLP violation. I don't have time to fix it now". The proper thing to do in a case like this is to do what WMC did, move discussion of the section to the talk page. In fact, seeing , I am tempted to invoke ] (which normally I would be loath to do) and ban Marknutley from editing BLPs. Using blogs to source a quote like that is utterly unacceptable. I will, however, wait for comment from other uninvolved administrators. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* I find this entire incident to be a canonical example of the spin control I have been talking about for some time. In the real world we have a scientist, one whose views are in accordance with the generally accepted scientific consensus on AGW, who has "dared" to point out that there are some issues with her fellow scientists approaches to AGW and presenting results... not for their science per se but for how they comport themselves and engage in spin control. <small>start added later</small> Some of <small>end added later ++]: ]/] 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)</small> the statements by Ms. Curry are impeccably sourced <small>added later</small>, including to the ]<small>end added later ++]: ]/] 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)</small>. So what do we have here in our little world, then? A microcosm of the controversy itself! ...as our own cadre, led by WMC, is busily engaged in suppressing, or downplaying, any mention of the fact that anyone, even a ''scientist'', even one ''who agrees with them on the substance'', might have ''any'' issues with how things are done. I think WMC needs to be sanctioned and I suggest that he is not the only one. Claiming this is a BLP matter is disingenious in the extreme and he was edit warring to preserve his view of how the article was written, and being snarky to anyone who got in his way. I suggest that WMC be topic banned from all AGW articles for a year. ++]: ]/] 02:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*:How does , which is used to source "She has also commented that the scientists motives were "indicative of “circle the wagons/point guns outward” mentality which uses “ad hominem/appeal to motive attacks; appeal to authority; isolate the enemy through lack of access to data; peer review process”"" count as 'impeccably sourced'? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*::I'm referring to the stuff sourced to the NYT. Side issue, though. The real issue here is the spin control. ++]: ]/] 03:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::I don't find it credible that Lar continues to comment in the 'uninvolved administrator' section of this probation page. While he is welcome to offer his comments above, it is inappropriate for him to represent himself as an unbiased individual. There's nothing wrong with individuals holding one point of view or another, as long as those individuals are prepared to recognize their own particular biases and recuse themselves from exercising authority in situations where they have a conflict. Lar is, regrettably, over that line. ](]) 03:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::Sorry if you don't like my take on things, but I'm uninvolved. I do not edit in this area. At all. If we are going to tot up all the folk who someone can claim is biased, there won't be any admins left at all. Consider the source of the bias charges when evaluating them. ++]: ]/] 04:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::It's not that I have strong feelings about your 'take on things', nor do I feel that whether you edit in this area – or not – is the sole arbiter of what might constitute bias. My concern with your claims to lack of involvement regard the bias in your attempts to enforce this probation. Comparison between your arguments regarding WMC here with your comments on Marknutley, just up the page, is instructive. |
|
|
*:::::Marknutley joined Misplaced Pages in December as someone with no professional or educational background in the area of climate science, and immediately began edit warring. After violating WP:3RR (and drawing cautions and blocks), he eventually began filing badly-flawed 3RR complaints against other editors (including WMC). Marknutley's subsequent, ongoing, and spurious complaints targetting WMC demonstrated sufficiently severe frequency and poor judgement that he was barred from filing further complaints about WMC for three months. (Are there currently any other editors whose misuse of these sanctions has risen to the level of disruption required to draw such a restriction?) Despite this sanction, he ''still'' went on to level complaints regarding WMC. This led the enforcement request above. In response, you (Lar) first suggested that a renewal of the ban might be appropriate, and then rapidly backtracked to a one-month extension of the ban, backdated to the date of Marknutley's violation. Not only that, before the enforcement request against Marknutley closed, you decided to make an irrelevant and offtopic comment taking a cheap shot at WMC ("''"Admonishment to WMC is pointless" (full stop)... That about says it all, I guess...''"). |
|
|
*:::::In contrast, in this complaint regarding WMC, there appears to have been significant concerns regarding other editors' misuse of unreliable sources to discuss living persons. You've declared that he's part of some sort of 'spin control' conspiracy, and that he and other editors need to be banned for a full year(!) from all of the articles in this area. So yes, I believe that you are biased in this area — for and against your particular view of the truth of the climate change controversy (which you're entitled to), and consequently for and against particular editors in the enforcement of these sanctions (which disqualifies you from claiming lack of involvement). Staking out a staunch editorial position ''here'' while claiming a lack of bias because you're not touching the ''articles'' themselves is gaming the system. Your comments belong in the comments section above. ](]) 05:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Sorry, no, I don't agree with your analysis. There is a pattern here. This is not the first time WMC has been brought here. Some of the complaints may not have been well founded and were properly rejected. Some even resulted in sanctions (properly so, in my view) against the complainer. But some were well founded but WMC got at best a slap, if that. There is a problem here, and it needs to stop. I am open to compromise on what to do, but I do not think that giving WMC a medal for his "BLP work" is at all appropriate as a reward. Sorry if you don't see the pattern, but I'm not involved in this area, and I do see it. ++]: ]/] 10:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* The question here is whether William violated 1RR on ]. The material he removed included quotes sourced to the comments section of a blog, as I think we all now understand. ] and ] both state unequivocally that "Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources." William's removal of that material was consistent with policy; 1RR does not apply. If some editors are unclear about the requirements of ], or believe the material in question to be appropriately sourced or acceptable, then we should educate them. William should have been more selective in his removal, as some of the material he removed was properly sourced. However, his actions were in line with a general trend toward an aggressive, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach to ], championed by some commentators in this thread and endorsed repeatedly by the Arbitration Committee, and as such a sanction - particularly a severe sanction like a 1-year topic ban - seems unsupportable. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
** The BLP policy is being used as a smoke screen by WMC's many defenders, who have predictably formed ranks. The real issue here is that this is a canonical example of spin control. If a year is too draconian, I'm open to compromise but WMC should not get away with it. The enforcement request was properly brought, and WMC's actions are sanctionable. If he gets off with nothing in this, it will validate those who say that the playing field is not level, and that WMC and others control this article space to prevent even well sourced signs of dissent. Remember who Ms. Curry is... someone who has worked hard on the science around AGW. Hardly a sceptic. But even reporting her unease is unacceptable to WMC, who removed everything. That's spin control and it should not stand. No other conclusion is possible. ++]: ]/] 04:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*** I'm familiar with who Dr. Curry is, but I don't see that it makes a huge difference to this request. ] applies to everyone. Blog comments are not acceptable sources, and their removal from a BLP is exempt from 1RR/3RR - so I don't see that WMC's actions are sanctionable. Nor am I willing to commend William, since he should have been more selective in his removal. But I see that the properly sourced material has been restored to the article and its weighting is the subject of talk-page discussion, which is the process working. I don't see a lot for us to do here, other than to encourage all involved to be more scrupulous about their sourcing in BLPs, and request that people think critically and review the actual sources before making blanket statements about them one way or the other. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* (I'm "Lar-uninvolved", since I've never edited either the article not the talk page. Move my comments up if you move his up). As per the several comments above, there is nothing actionable here - indeed, WMC should be lauded for dealing with a BLP issue. If you, Cla, feel that there is a double standard, complain about the cases where BLP is violated, not about those where it is upheld. "Sorry, we executed an innocent man by accident. For fairness, we now need to eliminate all others, too" is not a good argument. --] (]) 07:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Agree with NW above, at least as far as these diffs are concerned. There ''may'' be an associated soap opera going on per Lar but actually the diffs do not demonstrate it and are defensible in my view. If we have spin control as a serious issue then let Lar raise it will examples and we can have a look, but claiming a POV motivation behind edits is not related to the sanctionability. --] ] 07:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I concur with NW and MastCell - nothing actionable here. WMC acted appropriately in removing the content. I caution Lar regarding accusing those who do not support his view as being a clique of WMC "defenders" - this is a serious accusation, and a gross insult to those who have taken the time to review this. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 13:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
** I think your caution is misplaced. ++]: ]/] 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
*So I think we have a general agreement (though not without dissent) that WMC acted appropriately in removing the content and referring the issue to the talk page. Cla68 has brought up a comment of WMC's that he believes merits action. I would appreciate advice from other admins, as I'm a bit iffy on this one: "". '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
** I concur that your summary appears to be the consensus among those admins who cared to comment. As for the diff you bring up... there are plenty more where that came from. WMC's baiting continues unabated. ++]: ]/] 00:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*** At present I am still struggling with the two way track in "nasty" comments. MN versus WMC is tricky because of the parliamentary rules issue. But this particular comment accusing someone of having no interest in (missing word added later) ^^her^^ science would be less provocative and attacking in my book than Lar . It may sound a bit extreme but I am wondering asking for no personal interactions either way between WMC and Lar as a way of improving the atmosphere, since I do not see much productive coming from them? --] ] 06:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**** I'm not the source of the problem here. I've never had such a restriction imposed, ever. Stop WMC's dishonest tactics and many other problems go away. ++]: ]/] 12:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***** I am sorry I regard "dishonest tactics" as a serious and as yet unsubstantiated attack. I would complain if it came from from WMC and I complain equally aimed at WMC. Unsubstantiated non-specific attacks are part of the problem. A large part. --] ] 22:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***** Everything has a first time. And I notice how your unfounded violations of ] and ] continue - and that in the probation area, where we are particularly required to assume good faith... --] (]) 12:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
******Looks to me like LHvU gets it. Take a look at his comment ("gaming sanctions" == "dishonest tactics", in my view) and see if you change your mind. ++]: ]/] 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***** So: can anyone see any problem with Lar commenting as "uninvolved" on possible sanctions against himself? ] (]) 07:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
**** I see rationales provided by WMC, so I think the that aspect of the request fails because ''we'' AGF that the reasoning was just that. I also think that in isolation the comments by WMC are within the terms of his civility restriction, but I am concerned that those restrictions are being gamed by WMC in that his tone and inferences create an uncomfortable environment within discussion involving him and those editors who may be considered as editing to a AGW skeptic viewpoint. I think the easiest solution would be a restriction on WMC opinionating on any such editor, or their edits, within the probation area. Any comment about another editor, their editing, the value of the sources quoted, should be regarded as a statement and thus need to be sourced or evidenced. If such comments are not, then WMC is violating his civility restriction and may be sanctioned (except possibly upon these pages). If WMC feels that this constrains his ability to comment within the probation area, then it is by his actions that this has come about. ] (]) 12:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***** Exactly so. ++]: ]/] 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
****** And can we have a symmetric list of editors who are prohibited from opinionating about WMC? It seems to me that this is the elephant in the room which we are not addressing. --] ] 22:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
******* I'm not seeing the need for that. Handle it on a case by case basis and come down on people who bait WMC without prior provocation (which will be far less once he's prohibited from commenting on other editors) and all will be taken care of in due course. ++]: ]/] 02:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
******** Generally I don't support that because I cannot see enough evidence that he is the one baiting in general rather than responding. If you look at bullied kids in schools they often have behavioural issues but you need to see it all. Clearly there are many cases with different editors but the general situation in my view does not warrant a one sided action. And I repeat I would prefer a voluntary agreement for a particular list of editors and WMC not to comment on each other's editing, behaviour or knowledge base. Including him on you and you on him cos its getting me down both ways. --] ] 06:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
********** Are we officially stalled, here? Mn has a agreed form of wording relating to sources - it would be best if we could wrap this up. I would prefer to have something in the order of "WMC is reminded that commentary should be directed toward the content and not the contributor", but in any case believe that we need to close this request down so will accept another "no action" in this instance. ] (]) 12:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*********** I'd rather see another slap on the wrist that will be ignored than no action at all. Suggest you close as outlined. ++]: ]/] 14:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Marknutley==== |
|
|
*Invoking ] and ], I am proposing a restriction on Marknutley for something along the lines of the following: "Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. Examples of high-quality sources that meet this exception include articles in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media." Obviously, the wording could be improved, but your thoughts? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**It's a sound principle. Apply it to every article covered by the sanction and every editor, though. Why single out just one editor? ++]: ]/] 02:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***Because so far I have only seen MN violate this principle. Point me to a number of other such cases of misuse, and I would be happy to expand this. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**** OK, here's one. (credit to Cla68 for finding it first, it's mentioned above...) ++]: ]/] 21:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***** Point of order: that wasn't a new source, it had been in the article for over a year though it had lately been disputed. The edit summary ''"rv: please don't remove valid material, you can add a cn if you like"'' clearly invites questioning of the source. Not the same in principle. . . ], ] 22:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**Hmmm... Would not a 0RR on sourcing, without talkpage consensus, be easier? MN would not be constrained in introducing a source, but could not revert its removal without consensus - or is this simply allowing any source from MN to be removed and then discussion stymied. I am thinking that the long term contributor in good standing would be one that is already regarded by some as being on "MN's side", which leaves us with the unpleasant potential of the ltc's coming under scrutiny. |
|
|
**I would also suggest that MN be placed under a "no comments on other editors" restriction as I am suggesting for WMC, as a further method of reducing some of the friction that occurs around his editing. ] (]) 12:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***That seems fine with me, although I think there is merit in what I proposed. I have not seen evidence that Mark realizes his misunderstanding of the RS or BLP policies, and until such time that he understands this, I see ample reason to be preventative rather than reactive. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
****I think your wording could be tweaked so to not include passing the proposed sourcing via another editor if the wording as what conforms to a "reliable source" is simply made very clear - even if it appears to be echoing ]. Of course, if someone volunteers to mentor MN and his use of sources then it would be beneficial but I would prefer not to have that requirement. If we place a requirement for strict application of WP:RS - as it is commonly understood, not MN's take - then violation would be a sanctionable matter. It puts the onus on the editor to comply. I do take your point regarding being proactive rather than reactive in trying to resolve this. ] (]) 21:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*****The level that I proposed was deliberately higher than the standard required by ]. There are some cases where sources weaker than what I proposed are acceptable, but I am unsure if MN knows when to apply those. For that reason, I would like to have a mentor to advise him if at all possible (] seems like an excellent choice to help him if he would be willing). If we cannot find a mentor for Mark, then I suppose your proposal of 0RR for sourcing concerns would also work for me. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
******I've proposed mentoring earlier, and I still think its a good idea. One problem with Mark is his strong ]. He forms his opinion based on unreliable sources, apparently seeing ] as a quaint limitation to work around, not as a way to avoid, well, unreliable information. --] (]) 06:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
******I agree to the proposal to see if there would be a volunteer to mentor Marknutley - are we going to suggest it is only in the area of sourcing, because I am not sure the potential pool will be very large if it is to cover every aspect of MN's editing within the probation area? ] (]) 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Per the comments I have made in regard to a subsequent Request relating to MN's use of blogs as sources, I would note that this issue continues. ] (]) 21:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*******I have asked ] if he would be willing to mentor MN along the lines you suggested, but for now, I am going to propose a closure below. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC) ''Update: Cla has agreed to mentor Mark '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 01:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)'' |
|
|
|
|
|
"Marknutley is prohibited from introducing a new source, with some exceptions such as articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a well-regarded academic press, or newspaper articles published in the mainstream media, to any biography of a living person or any climate change article without first clearing the source with another long-term contributor in good standing. He is also prohibited from reverting the removal of sources that he added to an article without first gathering talk page consensus. Marknutley is encouraged to find a mentor who can assist in checking the reliability of sources and with more properly educating him on the reliable sources policy." |
|
|
|
|
|
*Support wording. ] (]) 20:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*Support wording and delighted by mentoring. Lots of brownie points for Cla88. --] ] 20:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Support, per LHvU and BozMo. ++]: ]/] 16:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
+ + + + + + + + + + + + |
|
|
I note that no-one troubled to inform me of this result on my talk page. I take that to mean that no binding result concerning me was invovked - ''obviously'', had any such result been determined, I would have been notified rather than any discovery being left to casual chance ] (]) 18:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Correct. You are a long term contributor to the project and are fully aware of the content/contributor commentary nutshell, so I thought it would be impudent to place that notification upon your talkpage per ] (and considered that you would likely be coming to this page and therefore come across it). Where a result would have impacted upon your ability to edit, you would have been promptly notified. Marknutley has also not been officially notified, since he has already started editing within the wording making such notification superflous. However, you have reminded me that I have not logged Mn's notification - so I thank you for that. ] (]) 20:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is there no restriction on WMC introducing sources? He also added a blog source to an article, as was presented in the RFE. ] (]) 20:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:No consensus was found for doing so. ] (]) 21:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Atmoz == |
|
|
{{hat|Atmoz is advised to review ] (especially point 1. d) and to apply it in interactions going forward. ] (]) 13:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)}} |
|
|
===Request concerning Atmoz=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 21:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Atmoz}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# Personal Attack |
|
|
# Profanity and another PA. |
|
|
# Another PA. |
|
|
# ... |
|
|
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): <p> |
|
|
# He already knows of the probation |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Up to you guys |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : The personal attacks are pretty nasty, attacking an editor just because his English is not perfect is just plain mean. |
|
|
|
|
|
; |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning Atmoz=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Atmoz==== |
|
|
*I'm sorry, but I don't see any personal attacks in the first or third diffs. Telling someone that they may not be as fluent in English as they thought is not a personal attack. The "profanity" (fuck) is not in the second diff. The second diff wasn't very nice, but Nsaa accused me of deleting content by redirecting the article to another article. This is flatly false, as I showed with diffs. I completely merged the Climate Audit page into the Stephen McIntyre page. All of it. The fact that there was no prior discussion does not mean there was no consensus to do so. The fact that the merge stood for over a year shows there was consensus for the merge. That consensus might have changed, I don't care. But please don't accuse me of something I didn't do. I consider that a personal attack. -] (]) 21:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning Atmoz ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
* Completely spurious request. We might consider to expand Mark's ban from initiating enforcement requests in general - he seems to have trouble to distinguish between serious and trivial issues. --] (]) 21:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
** Why is this "completely spurious"? Take me through the logic that led you to that conclusion, if you would. ++]: ]/] 21:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*** See your own comment below - and that's generous to Mark. Even WQA is overkill. --] (]) 21:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***** Doesn't follow. Can you try again explaining why you concluded it is "completely spurious". If I thought it was completely spurious I woulud have said words to that effect instead of what I said, which was that WQA might be the better place. NOT that there was no merit in raising the issue. ++]: ]/] 02:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
****What`s WQA? ] (]) 21:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*****Hang on a minute Stephan, you say ''Now be a good lad and do bugger off'' on my talk page is a clear personal attack. Yet atmoz attacking another editor because his english is not perfect is a non issue? Strange logic indeed ] (]) 22:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
******Are you sure you are talking about me? --] (]) 22:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*******Yes Stephan I am sure, in the RFE above you said, This is a clear personal attack when i wrote "Now be a good lad and do bugger off", so how is that a personal attack, yet attacking an editors less than perfect grasp of english in a pretty nasty way is not an attack? ] (]) 14:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*****] -] (]) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* The terms of the climate change probation explicitly cover personal attacks and incivility. The diffs provided clearly demonstrate incivility at the very least. The probation covers "pages related to climate change (broadly construed)." The page in question is an AfD page for a climate change article. I would suggest that it is within the scope of the climate change probation "broadly construed". Of course it would not have been tagged as such, and Atmoz may legitimately not have realized that his behavior there might be reviewed under the probation. Nevertheless it is very obviously against the explicit terms of the climate change probation for one climate-change editor to behave so uncivilly to another climate-change editor in a climate-change-related area. Having said all that, it's a fairly trivial case with no real harm done to anyone. I believe a warning would be sufficient and appropriate. ] (]) 21:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* "Don't give a flying fuck" is well within range of language the community finds acceptable. See ], for example, and all the pages ] {{tlx|User DGAF}}. The rest of it is less than polite, but context is everything - the fact that Nsaa's English, while good, isn't up to the level of someone like Kim or Stephan (recall the "have you stopped beating you wife" complaint recently) does make the comment rather more hurtful if Atmoz intentionally threw that in his face. On the other hand, encountering someone who appears to be fluent but just doesn't quite get "plain English" is likely to provoke that (unfortunate) response. ] (]) 22:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Concur that "don't give a flying fuck" is a non-event and shouldn't be considered here. ] (]) 22:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Concur as well. Non-event, non-issue. (Was anyone else tempted to say "Don't give a flying fuck that Atmoz doesn't give a flying fuck", or was it just me?) ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 22:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* I an Wikiquette alert on this already, and for personal attacks was made. If you admins would like to put some teeth into that finding so that Atmoz understands that there are consequences for his behavior and should correct it, I think that would be very helpful. ] (]) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sorry, but a single opinion by one editor does not a finding make, and the comment is not "a warning". --] (]) 22:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That was an independent opinion by an uninvolved editor with experience looking at these types of edits at the Wikiquette board. Again, if you admins are serious about improving the level of discourse and civility in this topic area, you need to take a stand on editors belittling each other like this. Like I've said before, I think AGW is the worst area in Misplaced Pages for the way in which the editors treat each other, and it has been going on for years. ] (]) 23:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;Comments by Nsaa |
|
|
This is so bad. I have no word for it. Why the heck should my language be subject to Atmoz comments at all? Why not just keep the discussion about what was discussed? I find it totally counterproductive and it harms Misplaced Pages. So yes give him a long block or a long topic ban for this so other people can start working. What do Atmoz try to achieve? Getting people angry so they make "mistakes" and can get them blocked/topic banned? ] (]) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Atmoz=== |
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
* While the diffs show Atmoz was not being very polite, at all, this may not be the right forum. Suggest this be taken to WQA. ++]: ]/] 21:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Oh dear lord, no. Its a non-issue, why drag it off to the WQA to complain there about what we all agree is a non-issue? ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 22:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
** I'm not sure "we all agree" that it's a non issue. ++]: ]/] 02:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* There is a result from WQA, as evidenced by Cla68. I suggest that Atmoz be advised to read ] (especially point 1. d again]] and to apply it in future interactions. ] (]) 20:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
** Endorse closure on that basis. ++]: ]/] 18:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Marknutley (yet again) == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|Marknutley blocked 24 hours for technical violation of 1RR "any article, any 24 hour period" - noting Mn has requested he be unblocked to be allowed to work on drafts in userspace (no objection from blocking admin). ] (]) 13:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC) }} |
|
|
===Request concerning Marknutley=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 22:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marknutley}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] (1RR parole) |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
|
|
|
On ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
# (2010-04-28T18:46:34) Removes merge tags. Not explicitly marked as a revert, but clearly is: it reverts |
|
|
# (2010-04-27T21:04:09) Marked as a revert |
|
|
|
|
|
On ] |
|
|
|
|
|
# |
|
|
# (note that this revert is *after* the report here about the BH blog 1RR violation. Note further that this edit warring is to restore a blog/twitter reference) |
|
|
|
|
|
More: |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
Failure to understand RS: |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): <p> |
|
|
# He is on 1RR parole |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Std type of 1RR block |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : User denies that any violation occurs; see his talk |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : (note: MN has reverted the notification ) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Statement made in improper location (again, this time @LHVU), moved here from Admin section''' |
|
|
:::: If you're having problems understanding revert policy it would be better for you to have avoided issuing 1RR blocks ] (]) 07:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning Marknutley=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Marknutley==== |
|
|
On ] Tags were removed per talk page consensus for no merge. The review which i reinserted had been removed under the claim the guy was not an expert book reviewer, However i found a source showing he has reviewed books in the past so i put the review back. |
|
|
|
|
|
On the ] I removed the tags per talk page consensus for no merge. I reverted the removal of reliably sourced material. Mainly the ] and ] which had been removed by a person who wants to delete the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
I had not realized the removal of tags per consensus counted as a revert. ] (]) 23:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley ==== |
|
|
I see no attempts to talk to MN before filing this request. It may have been an honest mistake. The disputed edit is also extremely recent. So I suggest WMC (or the enforcement 'committee') simply asks MN to self-revert to restore the merge tag, and if he agrees, collapse this thread. It'd save everybody a lot of time.--] (]) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Not possible, wmc has already reverted me on the tags, against the talk page consensus i might add. Same with the other diff, as soon as someone adds content to the ] article it gets reverted straight back out by the same guys who are trying to get the page deleted. After all being mentioned by the ] and ] are obviously not good enough for an article. ] (]) 23:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::You mean Guettarda (). |
|
|
::Perhaps we can assume with ] that you were aiming to self-revert, and treat Guettarda's edit as your own w.r.t. his 3RR restrictions? Just a thought. I'm going to leave this to the discretion of the CC admins now. Happy editing.--] (]) 23:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;Comments by Nsaa |
|
|
I've just learn something new about the English word . Mark nutley has shown great willingness here to self revert if he had got the chance. ] (]) 01:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Comment''' I think that ] should redirect here. Not this section, this whole page. Happily, I don't think I'm part of anyone's team, so there won't be a request for enforcement for this otherwise disruptive comment. ] (]) 09:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;Comment by Hipocrite |
|
|
<s>MN is discussing it as opposed to edit-warring over it. As such, even though I think there's probably a 1rr violation in there, the rules are designed to improve the encyclopedia and the environment. Blocking MN at this point would not help. Thus, I suggest this be closed without action because probation is not a way to block people for no good reason. ] (]) 21:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
|
|
|
As Marknutlety has yet again engaged in stale revert warring without discussion (), I retract my request for lienency in light of positive progress. Perhaps a break will do him some good. ] (]) 13:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:How is that revert warring? I`ve not removed that before. And there is no ref for that claim. Why not just say i can`t edit the articles at all for christs sake ] (]) 13:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Mark, either you assumed that edit would be uncontrovercial, or you discussed it on the talk page, right? Which was it? ] (]) 13:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I figured removing unsourced POV stuff would be uncontroversial yes, it`s what we are meant to do. Your removal of the fact that the book is non fiction, saying in your edit summary that it is fiction is however controversial would`nt you say? ] (]) 13:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: It's as controversial as your removal of "polemic." ] (]) 13:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No because the book is non fiction. ] (]) 14:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Yes because the book is a polemic. ] (]) 14:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
;Response by William M. Connolley to LessHeard vanU |
|
|
: MN has two reverts. I've provided those two reverts. They occur within 24h. That they are not the same revert is irrelevant ] (]) 22:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Comment – LHvU is using the standard 3RR definition of reverts being to the same material in whole or in part, but if I recall correctly, it was established in earlier discussions that in relation to these sanctions 1RR means no more than one revert, regardless of whether or not it's the same revert. If the rules are to be changed again, clarification is needed. . . ], ] 09:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC) add iirc . . ], ] 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: But you'll notice that *isn't* the defn he used when blocking me for 1RR ] (]) 09:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Your 1RR block was for reverting Marknutley twice relating to the same paragraph, , so I fail to see how I am supposed to have taken two dissimilar changes to the same text as being two completely different edits? Unless you are arguing that a revert is only a change <u>to</u> the reverters perferred version, and not a change <u>from</u> the revertees version. That is not a hair I had previously seen split. ] (]) 13:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Those aren't the same revert. You seem to be making the rules up as you go along in a desperate attempt to avoid finding fault with the skeptics ] (]) 15:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I provide the revets and the previous version reverted to for the two reverts as a point of information. As a further point of information, since WMC pretty much defined how 3rr is adjudicated, I'd consider him more authoratative than any policy document. |
|
|
|
|
|
reverts . |
|
|
reverts . If you are defining 1rr as "reverts '''the same thing''' more than once" then it's not a 1rr violation. However, those are both "reverts" and so someone who is not permitted to "revert more than once in a 24 hour span" is not permitted to do that<s>, with the caveat that I place practical over rote rule following</s>. ] (]) 13:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: The 1rr restriction is located at ]. It states "Marknutley is restricted to one revert per 24 hour period to any article in the probation area until 2010-10-01." Thus, while the reverts were totally unrelated, they were to the same article. ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Marknutley=== |
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|
|
*I am only seeing , and it did not relate to the tags - therefore I suggest that there was only one revert. Similarly, the does not relate to the merge tags. Marknutley's 1RR restriction notes that it applies on an article basis, and thus MN is acting within the wording of that restriction. Marknutley's continuing failure to properly apply ] and ] to sourcing content is currently being discussed elsewhere, and in this case I suggest is only noted to that discussion. ] (]) 21:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:*(resp to WMC)Ummm... okay, I will wait for other admins (and others) to comment upon that interpretation of revert as regards 1RR. ] (]) 22:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Technically I think WMC is right per how the rules are written and used in practice. But MN may not have understood how RRs are worked out (it isn't obvious). So if this is the first time he is claiming "didn't know that" I am inclined to be lenient (I know, I hate sanctioning anybody)... --] ] 20:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::*Following the comments by WMC and Hipocrite, I see how the wording could be construed (although I had not quite grasped that aspect when sanctioning WMC for what I deemed to be the meaning per 3RR) as no second revert to any part within 24 hours. As regards sanctioning, I did block WMC for the technical violation - and despite WMC's (continuing) disagreement with my call, and other editors suggestion it only just fell within the time scale - so I am unsure that we can allow MN this ''grace''. I will enact the block, if that is the decision. ] (]) 21:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*There is a kind of "two wrongs don't make a right" argument to consider here. I don't see we should feel obliged to make equalhandedness more important than doing the right thing in each case. I also think with both this case and WMC we really need to stick to only blocking for prevention not as a punishment. However, I do hear your argument. --] ] 07:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*Do you think ''not'' blocking MN for violating the same technical violation as WMC was sanctioned would prevent further disruption, with the potential of claims of bias toward one editor over another? As admins we are of course always going to be wrong, but we have to consider the ramifications of one type of wrong over another going forward - certainly in a situation like this. ] (]) 09:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::*Okay, am finding it hard to care much. Do what you think is best, with my blessing. Personally I am start to get the strong impression that to do the enforcement properly we should spend less time on this page and instead watch a subset of CC pages themselves more diligently. At present I only have four on my watch list and find trying to decide stuff from the diffs presented here when it is as subjective as Lar implies is just non viable. I wonder if we should assign ten pages each or something and stand there rapping knuckles before stuff comes here. --] ] 10:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Polargeo == |
|
|
{{hat| point made, no action needed}} |
|
|
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|
|
===Request concerning Polargeo=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 09:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Polargeo}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# I inappropriately acted against Lar’s comment in the uninvolved admin section. I am involved and I believed that Lar was also involved. Both our comments were moved as inappropriate but I should know better this was the wrong way to protest. |
|
|
# My comment was “Please move my comment it appears to be in the wrong section. This is the section where "uninvolved" admins become more imortant than other editors based on, well nothing really.” This was pure disruption per ]. I firmly stand by this as I believe this is a terrible situation to put on this section of Misplaced Pages but as I seem to be the only person who agrees with myself this is not good. This comment was also moved per my request. |
|
|
# need I say more? |
|
|
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): <p> |
|
|
There are no prior warnings. I understand the situation. |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : I should be banned from ever adding a comment to the section for uninvolved admins on ]. If admins wish to take this further and ban me from ever editing the page ] then that would be acceptable to me and I would not complain, in fact I think it would help. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : This is not a joke or a disruption. It is a genuine attempt by myself to resolve this situation. ATren was confused about my involvement from the comments I made and assumed I was genuinely trying to comment as an involved admin. |
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree passionately with this probation. I believe it was initially not advertised wide enough to be a proper consensus. I think it is a joke where every small issue that would otherwise go unnoticed now invites every nutcase (including myself) to come and have some sort of partisan say on it. The very idea that three or four self appointed high sheriffs could ever police this area is a joke and goes against my core feelings about what Misplaced Pages should be. My comments in the admin sections are largely to do with a protest against Lar’s involvement but that is not the motivation for this request. The motivation is to bring about a sanction on myself which clears up my involvement status and in extreme prevents me from commenting in the enforcements area altogether which is an area I fundamentally disagree with. |
|
|
|
|
|
; 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 ] of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning Polargeo=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Polargeo==== |
|
|
I think Polargeo is right and I should be banned. The level of the ban is obviously up to uninvolved admins to decide on. This would violate ] if Polargeo had not genuinely requested a ban per sanctions. He has requested this and as such I am prepared to accept any decision based on his request and feel it would do me good. ] (]) 10:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have several times commented as an uninvolved admin when I clearly was involved and therefore should be banned from doing this again, ever. Sorry if this sounds a little strange. I am really genuine about this. ] (]) 11:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::If raising this enforcement request is perceived as disruption then that is only a further reason to bar me from acting as an admin in the enforcement area and possibly even ban me from enforcement altogether. ] (]) 11:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I wish to avoid any confusion and I will comply 100% with any sanctions. ] (]) 11:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Okay. Here is the point. I am an admin but I don't wish to act as an admin in this area. I want people to see that I am not an admin as far as the area of sanctions enforcement goes. I was motivated to request a ban by ATren lumping me together with enforcement admins and complaining of my possible bias. I think a ban will serve to show my non-admin status in enforcement to everyone and keep me away if I ever start to wobble in my resolve. However, it does seem nobody is keen to grant my request and so if any uninvolved admin wishes to reclose this as a pointless mistake then feel free to. ] (]) 07:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning Polargeo ==== |
|
|
This request for enforcement was filed in violation of ]. I suggest the applicant withdraw.--] (]) 10:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''comment''' I think the applicant should have tried discussing the matter with Polargeo before filing the complaint. It's a clear breach of AGF to just bring the complaint here without trying a bit of discussion first. I think applicant should be flogged with a warm lettuce until he calls "uncle". Polargeo on the other hand should be given some warm cocoa and buttered toast. ] (]) 10:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Just to (perhaps foolishly) take this seriously for a second, there is no actual breach of the climate change probation alleged or demonstrated here, except arguably in raising this enforcement request itself. I suggest that having made his ], Polargeo should simply blank this entire request and leave it to live on in legend as the strangest thing in the already-strange history of this page. ] (]) 11:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*I believe this diff posted be Polargeo above sums up the matter. This request is nor a joke or a point it's a problem with the self accused.--] (]) 18:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree ] (]) 19:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
If you're looking for some advice Polargeo, I would suggest not ] to try to avoid losing an argument. ] (]) 22:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Polargeo=== |
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|
|
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|
|
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
|
|
*Please move my comment because I am involved with Polargeo ] (]) 10:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* 28 days to late... --] (]) 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Are you trying to make some kind of POINT? because I don't see it. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 01:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Thegoodlocust== |
|
|
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|
|
===Request concerning Thegoodlocust=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 21:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Thegoodlocust}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] Banned from discussing climate change, including user talk pages |
|
|
|
|
|
Deliberate incivility and baiting, ethnic slurs: |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# Piles o' stuff in ] |
|
|
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): <p> |
|
|
# He is under santion |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : As deemed appropriate by a really uninvolved admin |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|
|
|
|
|
Note deliberate incivility by TGL, obviously LHVU / Lar will now need to "narrow" the meaning of slur to exclude this use ] (]) 20:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning Thegoodlocust=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Thegoodlocust==== |
|
|
|
|
|
The topic ban extending to user talk pages is clearly not valid under the climate change probation (esp. ones that have been repeatedly stated to be an '''open forum''' for discussion) nor was the topic ban valid to start since 2over0 (who basically disappeared after unilaterally declaring the topic ban - likely out of some sense of shame) didn't even bring the discussion to this noticeboard. Of course, this is brought up, again by Connolley, because I'm daring to defend someone that he wants gone - attack, attack and attack. ] (]) 22:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Update:''' appears to have changed his definition of the scope of the probation; when a similar problem came up with WMC, he correctly stated that the probation didn't apply to user talk pages (correcting me in fact). ] (]) 20:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Response to Bozmo''': I was making the request to you as a courtesy instead of making an RfC. The previous link has flat out shown that you change your interpretation of probationary scope depending on who is on the pillory and I was hoping that even you would take pause when presented with such damning evidence. ] (]) 21:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Awickert==== |
|
|
|
|
|
I brought up the original topic ban (coincident with 2/0's) against TheGoodLocust. While this could be a technical violation of the ban (haven't checked), I don't see any problem with TGL's behavior at Lar's talk. I originally brought it up for his grandstanding/aggressive behavior at article talk pages, which I saw to be detrimental to collaboration and article-space editing. I found this request because I just responded to him in a very civil conversation at Lar's talk. In addition to the civility, this conversation is ongoing at an out-of-the-way venue (i.e., not one of the article talk pages) with the blessing of the venue's owner. I am afraid that a topic ban extension will be detrimental to the environment here, as I think TGL will be nabbed for a crime he didn't think he was committing (yes, maybe its in the rules, but...), and that such an extension simply will create more bitterness that will extend into the future and beyond the realm of TGL's work here. I would suggest that TGL's topic ban not be extended, and that he be encouraged to continue the currently-more-productive mode of behavior that I see at Lar's talk. ] (]) 01:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning Thegoodlocust ==== |
|
|
:I am recusing from uninvolved admin commentary, since I was part of the same discussion noted by Doctor Connelley and specifically addressed TGL. ] (]) 22:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::And yet the admin who got me talking about climate change on Lar's talk (baited?) has not recused himself and is, in fact, wanting to extend an already illegitimate ban that I've only followed out of sheer laziness even though I've stayed far away from climate change articles and their talk pages for 3 full months. ] (]) 22:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Could you be more specific, preferably with diffs, about how you were "baited" by an admin who "got you talking" about climate change? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: "'''sadly for you I am still a trained scientist and therefore more inclined to the scientific methodology and consensus, which is an area where WMC excels.'''" Or you could go with the previous post of his in that same topic. I consider that baiting since I am quite a fan of science and don't like people trying to marginalize my beliefs as unscientific, nor to I appreciate the annoying suggestions that crop up frequently of creationism/ID sympathies (I'm an atheist). ] (]) 23:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No one invited your comments at a third party's talkpage, and I was as forgetful of your restriction as likely they were. I therefore do not see any attempt at baiting, and think you might withdraw that allegation. I also strongly suggest that you do not make interpretations on either the validity of the original restriction or the admin's rationale in doing so - the admin who is commenting is suggesting a response that is unlikely to appeal to any other sysop who reads your claims here. ] (]) 23:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Well, Lar did invite me to use his talk page, several times, and I think it is a very healthy thing to have such an outlet (for all parties). And yes, the restriction 2over2 imposed on user talk pages does not fall under climate probationary sanctions and is certainly not preventative as admin actions are supposed to be. After all, the probation clearly states, "'''bans from editing the climate change pages and/or closely related topics'''." And I don't think Lar's talk page qualifies under that definition - that definition was meant to include things like esoteric biographical articles and not userspace. ] (]) 23:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Your topic ban, including user talkpages, was clarified , before Lar (or I) became involved. Lar's invitation would have been made in good faith, in ignorance of the detailed terms of the ban. The issue of interpretation of bans, sanctions, etc, is why there are these long-winded discussions on these pages now - so everyone knows, or can refer to, the extent of the decisions. Your ban was before this practice was established, but appears otherwise within the remit given to admins by the Probation. Personally, I think it sucks just a little and you have been snared by your and other people's (me included) carelessness - but I also think you should accept this harsh lesson and accept the minimal sanction being proposed. ] (]) 00:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::There were always longwinded discussions - as long as the sanctions were discussing someone like WMC. Skeptics were far more likely (the only people I believe) to get unilateraly banned by someone like 2over0. And yes, he can clarify or declare his sanction as much as he likes but it simply is a massive overreach, to ban my use of user talk pages, that simply isn't available as a means of sanction via the way the probation was set up. ] (]) 01:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
While there's room to argue whether s/he crosses the line before that point, is a clear violation of his ban: ''I suppose my main problem with the whole thing is that the fundamentals of the theory don't make any sort of logical sense. For example, all the catastrophic scenarios of runaway global warming, envisioned by computer models, only work by assuming that the 3-4% of CO2 that man produces (1.52 × 10-5 of the atmosphere) will cause positive feedback loops - this just doesn't make sense to me because CO2 has been so much higher in the past. It is a giant non sequitur - and add that other phenomena better explain events and it all seems rather silly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Blaming others for "baiting" doesn't really hold water. Not only are you responsible for your own actions, but it also seems pretty clear that TGL raised the issue of climate change by saying ''I'm not sure how I feel about you Bozmo. I don't like that you've set up carbon permit trading (seems like a major COI)''. With that comment, TGL ''initiates'' the conversation between him/herself and BozMo. ] (]) 00:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Which was in direct response to him calling me out by name on a page I watch. I guess you missed that part. Odd how Less has the integrity to recuse himself and not the person directly responsible for my so-called breaking of the violations (and since you mentioned that comment, a person who has mistated facts about me in the past in an attempt to ban me). ] (]) 01:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Diffs, please. ] (]) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: He stated I had done 4 reverts in 24 hours (I hadn't) and understated WMC's reverts. ] (]) 01:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Since there were a number of complaints about tgl in a short period it seems a good idea to link to the whole conversation but as I recall the fourth revert was just outside 24 hours so I was slightly incorrect. --] ] 08:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Odd how when there are a number of complaints against WMC in a short period they get "closed as a mess" (ignored) instead of being dealt with. And yes, you were "slightly off" in that the extra diff would've made me break 3rr, and you were slightly off in that WMC had an extra revert that you didn't count (as pointed out by Unitanode). However, I did edit war and was sanctioned for it and now understand the edit warring rules better (I'd been going by WMC's example - and I believe he'd actually been formally warned by Arbcom for his edit warring). ] (]) 09:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I'm confused as to how an edit back in February caused you to break your ban on discussing climate change 3 months later. ] (]) 04:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I'm not here to resolve your confusion. I'm here because WMC was trying to improve the project by dragging me back here. I hope he gets what he is wishing for. ] (]) 05:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::You said: "Which was in direct response to him calling me out by name on a page I watch". But your diff points to an edit 3 months ago. I really don't think you're saying an edit from 3 months ago "baited" you into discussing climate change on Lar's talk page. So what are you saying? ] (]) 05:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::The diff was obviously about what was in the parantheseses since I assumed Less was capable of scrolling up on the previously provided diff to see Bozmo call me out by name. I thought this was quite clear and blazingly obvious, but then again I thought the same amount the simple math in our previous discussion where you required further explanation. Cheers. ] (]) 05:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Banning an editor from discussing a topic on user talkpages is the same as banning every other editor from initiating discussion about the topic with said editor. That seems quite a restriction - why shouldn't editors be able to participate in civil discussion on each others talkpages? I see the link to where the block notice was left on TGLs talkpage, but does anyone have the link to the discussion that gave consensus to the terms of the block? Seeing that discussion would give the terms more context in light of this request. ] (]) 07:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I do not think the terms of probation say anything about requiring consensus for the terms of a block. Uninvolved admins have wide discretion to do that kind of thing and the practice of seeking consensus (and also erring on the side of inaction) is a recent practice. Anyway, this is not the place or occasion for reviewing the original decision; this is for dealing for infringments of an existing block. --] ] 07:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agreed, it's not required that there be consensus. It is often helpful to get it first, and it's a common practice here (although not elsewhere), but it's not required. ++]: ]/] 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::As I stated previously the "erring on the side of inaction" is not a recent thing - it is simply the status quo of sanctions for one side of this debate while the other side has gotten unilaterally banned when they get too uppity. As for weakopedia's original question, AFAIK no other admins were consulted on the ban and indeed, if standards were applied equally people like WMC would've been banned 10 times over by now due to his far worse behavior. 2over0 simply '''went out of his way to diff mine and then ban''' me without asking other admins for input. ] (]) 08:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Hmm. There was a concurrent complaint about you on the probation page which got closed without action as no longer necessary however. --] ] 10:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: @ ] Have you ever tried discussing this with 2/0? He is understanding and listens to concerns. Your attacks here are not the way to go about things though. My understanding is that 2/0 left because he wanted to edit articles and not burn out from all of this stuff. As Lar always says, stop blaming others and take responsiblity for your own actions. You are blaming everyone above for this situation and not saying anything about your own behavior about this. I think that the sanction should be extended because of this behavior you are showing. Sorry, --]] 13:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Re Lars comment in the section below; I agree that this should be clarified, since it appears that the original intent was to prevent disruption of CC related space and the antagonism of certain editors. Posting on editors talkpages where they are welcome or otherwise invited, ''but not where there is comment already from one of those parties with whom TGL's restriction is intended to reduce interaction'', may be permitted. I also agree that RfC's, like RfArb, is an area where such restrictions are suspended. ] (]) 15:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think it is rather clear from the clarificationon TGL's comment at Marknutley's page , that it included "suggestions" and other indirect involvement in CC related space. From what i can recall it was either a complete ban, or a wide topic-ban - and in the interest of congeniality and a feeling that TGL might have things to offer to WP outside of this area - it ended as a wide topic-ban. --] (]) 17:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC) <small>] (]) 17:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)]</small> |
|
|
:: Which can be revised if there is a need. ++]: ]/] 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Of course it can. It can also be completely overturned. But that doesn't exclude the need for full disclosure of what the specifics were, so that a decision can be based upon such. --] (]) 17:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Oh absolutely. Specifics are always good. We've had some confusion about what things were in force and the like, lately too (e.g. with TGL), so the point is well taken. ++]: ]/] 18:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
''Rather than extending the ban, I think it should be clarified/narroewd'' - so lets be clear. TGL is subject to a ban. He breaks it. Lar's response is no sanction whatsoever, but the ban itself should be narrowed. Yet more bending over backwards to be helpful towards the "skeptics" ] (]) 18:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I suggest you look at Bozmo's talk page - you broke the same restriction and back then he decided that user talk pages were not subject to the climate change probation (and indeed they are not mentioned in the rules). Or, if you like, when 2over0 not only unilaterally closed a complaint against you, but refused to reopen it even after being asked to by several other admins. ] (]) 20:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Indeed TGL is subject to a ban, and BozMo's suggestion is that the violation is noted and TGL warned against further infractions. Lars suggestion is that some consideration is given for the ban to be varied going forward, not that the violation is disregarded under a new definition of the original ban. It is within the remit of the admins to see if there is a consensus for variations of existing sanctions, since it is common practice to make them more stringent or wider ranging when it is concluded that the existing wording has not achieved the desired outcome and may also be narrowed or varied when reflection provides reason to do so. Not all breaches of the Probation, or editors restrictions and even WP policy, are met with the application of the maximum sanctions available. This is true of many editors reported here. ] (]) 20:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The message sent by the proposed close is clear: "If there is any real or ambiguity in a sanction proposed here, you should violate the sanction (or at a minimum ]) without asking first. The worst that can happen is that there will be a 'clarification' of the sanction." If that is indeed the message you want to send, go ahead and close the case in this way. ] (]) 20:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:As I've already demonstrated, when this exact same issue of probationary scope came up with WMC it was dismissed, and, in fact, Bozmo's opinion on the scope of the climate change probations was quite different then. ] (]) 20:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*<s>I concur with BozMo's proposed wording, that future violations of the ban - in whatever form it takes - will result in a 3 month extension (or 6 month, if it is decided to open some avenues to a form of restricted access to be decided). I know this isn't quite what BozMo proposed, but the discussion is ongoing on the latter aspect.</s> ] (]) 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I now suggest that the original topic ban, in the most stringent reading of its provision as clarified by Admin 2/0, be extended by not less than 3 and not more than 6 months, given that the olive branch offered in varying the conditions going forward has been used as a bludgeon in reactivating old issues. It appears that the behaviour that the topic ban was intended to remove from CC related space - as I said, including editor talk pages - is still in evidence. Enough. ] (]) 21:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::OK. Re-reading commentary in the "uninvolved" admins section below it's not entirely clear what the proposed close happens to be. Lar proposes that the appropriate response to the violation is to ''weaken'' the sanction; BozMo's suggestion is to clarify the sanction. You do not have a response there, but in light of the above your response to appears to be "don't do it again, and this time we really mean it." So it appears the admins are not of one mind as I had gathered from my first reading. ] (]) PS: As an aside, perhaps are acceptable because they were not explicitly prohibited by the terms of his sanction? ] (]) 21:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::lol, that's right it was a "slur." I intentionally slurred my own family (Kaiser FYI). This is the fine sort of interpretation that got me topc banned in the first place - and which is conspicuously absent when it comes to WMC et all. ] (]) 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I think TGL is hardening attitudes by his continuing violation of the existing understanding of the topic ban and his apparently increasingly bellicose commentary. I am striking and replacing my comment above. ] (]) 21:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It isn't a violation. Bozmo has stated in the past that user talk pages are not subject to the probation. I was merely following his guidance. ] (]) 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The admin who placed the ban clarified that it was, and until consensus changes that is still the case. BozMo may have been voicing an opinion, but I am certain was not varying the terms without the aforementioned consensus to do so. ] (]) 21:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Clearly, the terms of applicability in terms of pages of the specific ban prohibiting tGL from discussing Climate Change widely across Misplaced Pages is not the same thing as the area on which the general probation terms apply. tGL was banned from discussing CC on a wider area than the probation area itself for reasons which are perhaps becoming apparent. This has been pointed out already but I think tGL is not managing to listen well. --] ] 22:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Well "clearly" if I was not banned under the rules of the climate change probation then this case shouldn't be before the '''climate change probation''' enforcement board. And yes Bozmo, the reasons are apparent, I tend to find and point out hypocrisy and inconsistency that some would rather not see the light of day. ] (]) 22:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Odd how his opinion on the rules changed so drastically in my case - either he thinks user talk pages are subject to the probation, as he states now, or they are not, as he previously stated, and which the climate change probation itself implicitely states. I would like to know what changed his mind all of the sudden. ] (]) 22:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::My mistake was that I misread probation for ban, (or the other way round). No, the Probation does not cover user talkpages. You, however, are banned from commenting in relation to CC matters everywhere except RfArb and RfC pages - and your mistake is continuing to flout the ban. ] (]) 22:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Okay, I believe we are making some progress, but you've confused me a bit. Since the probation does not cover user talk pages, then what exactly am I being accused of? I've respected the probation ban w/ regard to how the rules are set up (no edits to any article, article talk, or even on this page until this came up). ] (]) 22:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::While the Probation covers violations within those spaces, a sanction such as a ban following from those violations may cover more than just the probation area; such as, for instance, Misplaced Pages. In the instance upon which the topic ban reach was clarified it appears that you were attempting to ''proxy'' your arguments by presenting detailed comment at another users talkpage. Had this been permitted, then the restriction on contributing to the CC article area would have nullified. Thus you were prohibited from discussing CC related topics pretty much everywhere within project space. A ban from areas outside of the topic space is permissible, where it may be considered that they will be used to circumvent the ban. ] (]) 23:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
n.b. BozMo appears to be a ''teensy bit involved'' in the RFC/Lar discussion, and can certainly not be considered totally neutral here. Rather like the cat in the mouse's poem in Alice. ] (]) 22:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Thegoodlocust=== |
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
|
|
Also at ]. Disrespect of existing ban stated clearly at |
|
|
Yes it is a clear violation now we have been reminded of the ban. Suggest we extend by a further 3 or 6 months with a ban if the terms are violated again? --] ] 22:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:To be absolutely clear despite tgl's comments about I did not recall the terms of the ban on tgl until this was posted if I ever knew them exactly. He seems to have returned first to Lar and then to WMC's talk page then to the RFC on Lar before engaging with me. And he made some vague and incorrect comments about my involvement permit trading which invited a reply from me. I would however be interested in Lar's view before fixing a decision. --] ] 06:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I note the use of "really uninvolved" in the request for enforcement, which seems a preemptive strike. I don't think any of the admins here fit WMC's "really uninvolved" definition with respect to this matter, as we've all had conversations with TGL at one point or another. That includes LHvU and BozMo. This response of mine is to a direct question. |
|
|
::Rather than extending the ban, I think it should be clarified/narroewd to exempt user talk pages where TGL is welcome. A statement from the owner to that effect should suffice (this would mean mine, where he ''is'' welcome, since I host wideranging and open conversations on a regular basis, and I don't remove comments I disagree with or that are critical of me, but ''not'' WMC's, where he has been explicitly ''told'' he is not welcome and where wideranging and open conversations are apparently in general not welcome, and where comments that are critical of WMC or his approaches, or just from from people he apparently has animus toward are routinely removed. All within policy, to be sure but not likely to win any Miss Congeniality awards) Further repetition of comments on pages he's not welcome on would be sanctionable. Note that we cannot and should not extend CC enforcement to user RfCs. ++]: ]/] 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Okay. If you are saying he was explicitly welcome on your talk page I am happy that we just clarify where he can go. I had not seen the invitation you offered him but as host to the discussion I take your views seriously. However I think he also needs cautioning about the tendency displayed above to attempt to assume bias and bad faith where none exist (or in the case of bias where none is relevant). --] ] 18:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: EVERYONE is welcome on my talk page, but I'm happy to make explicit invitations where that's needful for clarity. In TGL's case I think I did explicitly invite him at some point, perhaps on his talk, although I don't have the diff handy nor do I know of the ordering of events exactly (to the best of my recollection, it was after he gave me a barnstar though, and WMC responded with (note both the words and the edit summary), and TGL went to talk to WMC about it, and was in turn disinvited from WMC's page in what was actually a pretty mild way by WMC... ah is my invite. ). So with that settled (?) I want to turn to the latter part, assuming bias where none exists is indeed not a good practice, and we all should be admonished not to assume it where none exists. So, support this approach. ++]: ]/] 18:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Meanwhile tGL is continuing to violate the terms of his probation without invitation and repeat allegations of bias etc. even here where he definitely was not invited. So the stuff on Lar's page is by invitation (thats ok), the stuff on the RFC is because even though a site ban was considered RFC's are always in play (50-50), the stuff on the RFC talk page not actually on the RFC is well, kind of nearly ok by association (75-25), the drop by at WMC's was provoked, the use of this probation to make allegations about the existing ban is... or hang on are we missing something? I am always quick to unblock people who have got the message and say they are changing but here we have a clear case of someone still claiming they are right and the world has no justice and they want to carry on. So I think I would rather add three months to the probation period, and caution against allegations. But I am open to hear other views? Oh and varying the terms a little and clarifying them is fine by me, still.--] ] 21:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|
|
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
|
