Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions | Climate change probation Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:38, 22 May 2010 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,015 edits →Sanctions, especially bans or blocks, should not be based on edits made before the beginning of this probation?: licks dexion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:29, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,279 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(731 intermediate revisions by 59 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 4 |counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}

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

== Collapsing ==

HiP is taking it upon himself to collapse sections he doesn't like. In case it isn't obvious, I don't accept HiP as a neutral editor, and ask him to stop doing this. I'm sure the admins watching the page are perfectly capable of doing it themselves, should they wish ] (]) 18:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
:As you noted, (part) collapsing ones "own" section is acceptable in most circumstances. A good faith collapse of a section that is not ones own is permissible, but if reverted should then not be done so again. In this instance HiP collapsed a particular discussion that he was not part of, and you reverted it. Unless either of the two main participants in the discussion wish it collapsed then it should be actioned by them, but otherwise it should now be left as is. ] (]) 18:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Just to be clear: I'm happy if uninvolved admins collapse (or remove entirely, perhaps to talk, perhaps to the bin) sections that they judge unhelpful or meandering. Indeed, I think it is the duty of admins patrolling the pages to do this (I have, on occaision, bitterly whinged at arbcomm for failing to do its duty) ] (]) 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
::: A collapse by an uninvolved admin is also fine, but might be only undertaken when there is serious issues - a simple action that may otherwise spawn reams of complaint, explanation and opinion, so unlikely to be undertaken for minor issues such as "distracting", etc. No problem with a non admin also collapsing content not involving them as major participants, providing that such actions may be reverted by otherwise similarly uninvolved editors. Most readers will recognise when a specific discussion is going off topic and choose whether they are interested in that diversion or not. ] (]) 21:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
:] a halfhearted request for a restoration of my two collapses by an uninvolved admin.--] (]) 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
::::I don't believe admins should have any more control over this than any other user. Unless it comes to the situation of having to enforce clear consensus. ] (]) 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Admins already have a section to themselves making them more important than other users, against wikipedia principles and this concept is disgusting to me. Admins are here to enforce consensus if need be and nothing more. ] (]) 14:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Actually I just think I have hit upon the point. Enforcement sets admins up as Judge and Jury. This is utterly against wikipeida principles, where admins should simply enforce consensus. Now the argument that enforcement is some sort of community consensus that allows admins to act as judge and jury (and police) is complete and utter shit ] (]) 15:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::One of the unfortunate aspects of Misplaced Pages principles is that they are consensus determined. Cases where the consensus decision is anti consensus cannot easily be resolved whilst Misplaced Pages has no form of constitution harder to change than by the action of instantaneous consensus. Arbcom has been set up (by community consensus, nearly) for cases where there is no possibility of a solution being reached by simple consensus. The consensus of Arbcom in this case seems to be that there is a need for uninvolved adjudication and that the only suitable adjudicators are uninvolved admins. This is an unsatisfactory situation in lots of ways but the consensus process to overturned it is unlikely to work well if you start off by declaring things to be "shit". Anyway the point is that the macro-consensus of this probation is to over-turn microconsensus which is unworkable. Not my idea but there it is. --] ] 21:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Okay so what you are saying is that admins are police. All my idealism is out of the window and I should get real and start policing cimate change articles in favour of those who I agree with, as seems to be happening at present. I am utterly disgusted. I admire your actions but not your conclusions. Maybe I will become another Stephan Schulz and act as uninvolved just to balance things out. ] (]) 12:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Weren't you planning an RfC over this 'probation'? --] (]) 19:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::The community placed this topic under general sanctions, and explicitly empowered admins to make these decisions. Therefore, admins ''are'' enforcing consensus by policing this area, as the community wants them to. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 02:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::''The Community'' did nothing of the sort. A few wikipedia hacks and a few of the people currently arguing with each other on these pages did it. I personally as a semi active editor in this area was not even made aware of sanctions until templates started being slapped on several articles I had on my watchlist. ] (]) 09:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::As for an RfC. I think it should come soon as this probation is turning out to be a joke. ] (]) 09:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'd support it, and help you with it if you wanted.--] (]) 03:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== WikiProject Global Climate Change?? ==

Would it be at all sensible for someone to try to make a proposal for a WikiProject Global Climate Change? The idea is that it would have members from "both sides of the street". I can think of some arguments for and against it.

For:
# There are enough people interested in the topic to make a wikiproject.
# It would be good to have a forum which was not dedicated to games of gotcha.
# It has been suggested that it would be good to have a forum which did not give special privileges to uninvolved admins.
# Another wikiproject on a contentious subjects, ], sort of worked for a while (although it is semiactive now).
# What we already have is dysfunctional so, if this works at all, it would be an improvement.

Against:
# It might well degenerate into a permanent food fight (something like this page) requiring constant administrative intervention. If this happens, it could be eventually MFD'd, but that might take a while.
# It might turn out to be pointless wiki-process.

What role would I play in such a wikiproject? I would join it, but, in keeping with my ] nature, would likely only just barely participate in it. ] (]) 01:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:There is a ]. <font color="maroon">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 01:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
::I see, thanks. ] (]) 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
::: As I recall, the cl ch t f is somewhat moribund. Anyone wanting to bring such an issue to everyone's attention tends to post to t:GW. Or, nowadays, maybe to here ] (]) 19:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Many of the editors who have made appearances here in this enforcement board have been active in the AGW articles for yeras, yet the AGW task force in the environment project doesn't appear to be very organized. As far as I can tell, in four or five years of work only one AGW article - ], is featured and only one other article -] is GA. Are there more? ] (]) 05:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::I think most of the long-term editors are more concerned with the quality of the article than with formal promotion of them. --] (]) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Well, I remember asking a number of involved editors if they could help out on improving and expanding the ] article in unison with me and several others' efforts with ]. I haven't checked Watts Up lately, but I'm looking forward to seeing the level of quality that that article has subsequently attained. With the expertise and experience shared by the editors that are working on it I'm sure that any formal promotion of it will naturally follow. ] (]) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I'm a bit apathetic about those blog articles, to be honest. Even if they become as good as possible, there simply is not very much interesting to say about the subject matter. Getting something like ], ], ] or ] up to scratch would be more useful. --] (]) 06:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Well, in spite of how boring the topic may be, I see by checking the Watts Up article history that since it was first posted on 10 March 2010, it has received quite a lot of activity in the succeeding two months. The history shows 45 edits by marknutley, 14 by FellGleaming, nine by me, 38 by William M. Connolley, 16 by Short Brigade Harvester Boris, 13 by KimDabelsteinPetersen, 14 by Hipocrite, a good number by JPRW, TonySideaway, TMLutas, Tillman, Dave Souza, and Guettarda, among a few others, plus 12 from you! Of course, all that effort is greatly appreciated. With that amount of activity by so many editors concerned with the quality of articles, I'm sure that article must be almost ready for GA promotion already. ] (]) 06:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::That statistic means the topic is contentious, not interesting. --] (]) 07:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

== Polargeo ==

I don't know if a formal request is warranted, but perhaps the uninvolved admins might consider banning Polargeo from the enforcement page? He is now littering the uninvolved admin section of WMC's request with repeated inflammatory comments attacking other admins and using sarcasm involving the antichrist. Is this really helpful? Marknutley was banned for several months for simply raising a complaint; Polargeo has filed a pointy request against himself and has repeatedly jumped back and forth between "I'm an editor commenting on the merits now!" and "I'm an uninvolved admin now!" He has also expressed repeatedly that he does not believe this CC enforcement page should remain in existence, so it calls into question his motives in his pointy requests and flip-flopping between admin and editor. This is much more disruptive than anything Marknutley did, perhaps a ban for Polargeo should be considered? Note that many of the points Polargeo is making are already being made in much less inflammatory terms by others (i.e. Hipocrite, Boris, Stephan) so his absence will not create an imbalance of opinion. ] (]) 05:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:I'll second that. Polargeo's comments in the admin section do not appear to be very helpful in assisting the uninvolved admins in reaching a decision. ] (]) 05:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::I don't agree with all the points in ATren's characterization (especially ]), but essentially concur on the broader issue. ] (]) 13:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. It would be helpful to keep the posts on that page constructive. <font color="maroon">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 16:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:I concur as well. Polargeo's been making a string if pointy, timewasting, uncivil, distracting comments. Perhaps this should be moved to the project page as a formal complaint. -- ] (]) 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

:I have said this elsewhere already. I agree with the sense of this. ObDisclose: P and WMC were the coinitiators of the RfC, with the stated goal of getting me eased out of working in this area but I don't think that has unduly influenced my perception of Polargeo as being disruptive. ++]: ]/] 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::This is a plainly wrong statement - ontologically, the RfC is not trying to do anything, being a social construct without an independent will, and substantially, no, no-one wants to get you "eased out of working in this area". The aim of the RfC is to get you to recognize (if necessary) and acknowledge that you are not uninvolved, but came to the arena with a massive predetermined bias, not to mention that you use a very double standard for when to appeal to policy, when to common sense, when to tradition, and when to just claim ]. Claiming uninvolvement is in no way a prerequisite to working in this area. --] (]) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Restated the first part, as it was malformed, RfCs have no independent volition. Thanks for calling me on that, although you are all wet with all the rest of your commentary, I'm afraid, Side issue though, the point being that Polargeo is disruptive. Don't get sidetracked. ++]: ]/] 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
*I am on a general wikibreak but wish to make a brief comment. I initiated that RfC to question Lar's involvement as uninvolved with WMC. I did not know that WMC would come in and "co - initiate" it. I did not know what other editors would do. Therefore I have had no coordination with WMC except on a formal wikipedia level, just as Lar does. I have had only fairly minor contact with WMC on-wiki. I certainly did not call WMC a "wacko" on his talkpage as Lar did before these sanctions even started. I genuinely believe myself to be as uninvolved as Lar is on this. I really genuinely believe that. ] (]) 10:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::You have misread this section and have again taken the opportunity to drive home a tangential ]. Please reread the text here. Incidentally, and if it isn't already clear, I 'third' or 'fourth' or 'whatever' the present proposal.--] (]) 10:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I realize this is the talk page,and not (yet) a formal request for sanctions, but it appears to me, procedurally, that jumping to a proposal for a ban before even trying a polite”Hey, can you dial it back a little?” is getting ahead of ourselves.<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 12:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
:::: I think that's been tried already. I can dig up some cites if it's really needed. ++]: ]/] 13:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I think it's far beyond ''”Hey, can you dial it back a little?”'' "general wikibreak" sounds like a very prudent step. -- ] (]) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: "minor involvement" - The intersection tool shows 8 AfDs in the Climate Change category in common, as well as 50 user talk pages in common. 35 articles in common, almost all of which are clearly in the same area. Presented as data only. ] (]) 13:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
:::As an editor I occasionally, but do not primarily edit climate change articles. How do I avoid having some article overlap with WMC? As for the talkpage crossover. Lar has a 220 user talkpages in common with WMC. These sort of statistics are of little value. ] (]) 09:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::::I got my adminship mostly through my work in AfD. Also of the 8 AfDs we have in common I didn't !vote the same way as WMC on 3 of them. Two of the other 5 were nominated by me. It is hardly like I am following WMC around mindlessly backing up his position. ] (]) 08:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::I think you will find that I have dialled back considerably. Anyway I'm back on wikibreak now. I just wanted to defend myself on this talkpage. ] (]) 08:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I count you as agreeing with WMC on 6 of the 8, quibbling with him on procedures (whether articles by country are encyclopedic or not) on 2. I found zero cases where you showed any substantive disagreement wth WMC on any of the 8 AfDs. And again, the material is furnished as data only, not any sort of accusation. Meanwhile, I would suggest that every time I have seen an RfC/U with one user devoting well over 150 edits to the topic, the person has gotten far too emotionally involved. The purpose of an RfC/U is to gain comments from others, not to iterate the complainant's views. I daresay most people reading the RfC/U already know how you feel <g>. ] (]) 11:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::::That is not completely fair. I started the RfC/U and so needed a certain number of edits, also to agree with the comments of others. All of my edits on the main page of the RfC/U are very balanced and unemotional. Most of my edits which you are counting have been on the RfC/U talkpage where okay I got a little annoyed at times but a substantial amount of this was dealing with your own 30 edits presenting wikistalk data that was trying to tie various editors together, including myself, as some sort of a cabal, similar to what you have presented here. ] (]) 12:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Kindly redact your accusation. '''At no time''' did I state "cabal" about any group at all. Nor did I use any term other than "data" to describe what I have presented here. Meanhile, 170 edits > 30. Outediting others by a factor of more than four is evidence enough that you have somehow become so emotionally entangled here that you are unwilling to let outsiders (such as myself) have reasonable say (which, funny enough, is the purpose of an RfC/U). Thank you most kindly. ] (]) 13:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::I did not say that you personally stated "cabal" did I? Also most of my edits have been on the talkpage not on the mainpage. "Outsiders" have been commenting quite properly and happily on the RfC/U mainpage with me simply endorsing their comments or not as the case may be. I did not realise that as initiator of the RfC I was restricted from defending myself on the talkpage when people were trying to show I was part of a group and to therefore discredit my motives. ] (]) 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
: Polargeo: In general your participation in the RE page, and in the RfC, has been manifestly unhelpful. That said, one of the reasons you have a high edit count in general is that you often take 5 edits to say what could be said in 1. Preview is your friend, as is composing your thoughts offline to make sure you say everything you want to say at one go instead of tacking five postscripts on. I'm guilty of this too, mind, although I don't think quite as much as you... Hope that helps. ++]: ]/] 15:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== ATren ==

Lar closed the ATren request with indecent haste. If there were several admins all agreeing it should be closed, that would be fine. But one alone is not acceptable ] (]) 16:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
: One alone is perfectly acceptable. It's such a transparently obvious close that there's no reason to waste time on it. ATren will cease being intentionally incivil or he will get progressively banned. That was the only and obvious resolution from the second I filed it to the second it was closed. It should have taken about three seconds. Appeal it through the appropriate channels, if you must, but you are wrong. ] (]) 16:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::Agree. --] (]) 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

:WMC, would you agree to retract all your recent incidents of incivility and I will retract mine? ] (]) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

:: If you are not going to retract incivility that you are aware of unless someone else does something, I'll file ATren2 right now. Is my understanding correct? Which incivilities of yours that you are aware of have you not yet retracted? ] (]) 16:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Go ahead if you like. I am trying to extend an olive branch to WMC, why do you take it as something different? ] (]) 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

:::: Olive branches are phrased like this - "WMC, I'm sorry I was incivil to you. I'm retracting everything I said that was wrong. It would be nice if you'd do the same, and I hope we will be able to work together productively in the future." Tit-for-tat requests for appeasement are phrased like this - "WMC, would you agree to retract all your recent incidents of incivility and I will retract mine?" See, the "Olive Branch" thing is you putting yourself out there, not you asking both parties to do something. ] (]) 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Well, I'm sorry I don't meet your standard of what an olive branch is. In any case I stand by my offer. ] (]) 16:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

:::H, if you're really concerned about incivility might I suggest you begin with WMC? <font color="maroon">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

:::: ] suggests that given the limited amount of time I have, I should not only aim for low-hanging fruit, but also only fruit that I'd like to eat. I suggest that one could infer that while I am not a fan of all of WMC's editing, or any of his incivility, I am, in fact, a fan of many of his main-space edits, particularly those that are not about living persons. To be fair I am also a fan of some of Atren's main-space edits, particularly those about living persons that are not the focus of off-wiki pressure groups. ] (]) 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::There is no lower-hanging fruit than WMC when it comes to incivility and policy violations. As for eating only fruit you like, I'm currently expanding the bio of a man I disagree with. It's good for the soul, and it's what Wikipedians are meant to do. <font color="maroon">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 16:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


== Comment about latest RfE against William M. Connolley ==
:::::: I don't think it's my obligation as a wikipedian to assist people who are interested in misinforming the public. If WMC weren't editing, articles like ] would be misinforming the public. I try to get him to be more civil and be careful with BLPs in ways that are less likley to make his inarguably good edits to articles about science more likley. ] (]) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Honestly guys, ]. <!-- How the f*** do we not have an article about this song!? --> Someone should draft a proposal to ArbCom to issue an temporary injuction against WMC until the case is closed. Yesterday's fiasco need not be repeated. ] (]) 14:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::Hipocrite, what do you mean by "particularly those about living persons that are not the focus of off-wiki pressure groups."? ] (]) 16:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


: The "ban my content opponent" game has to stop. I recommend decisive actions be taken to prevent further battleground behavior by any party. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::: , and the like. ] (]) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


::It's not a question of banning an opponent, it's a question of ending the disruption. ] (]) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I endorse this closure, if it makes WMC feel better. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
: Thanks for that! On the other hand if other uninvolved admins decide to undo it, I'm fine with that ahd have no issues with it. I do agree it was done somewhat quickly, but H had a point.... we got about all we were going to get I think. I note that I didn't close it the way H wanted it closed, not exactly. ++]: ]/] 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Yes, you didn't lay out a penalty schedule, but it's pretty much implicit anyway. ] (]) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


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


== Two edit wars at ] <s>today</s> that began yesterday, one of which continues into today ==
2over0 is drafting an RFC for this Project . A better archive index may help in this effort. Due to the many collapses, the Archives can be difficult to review who filed against whom. Would anyone disagree if I amended the archives to specify the complained and complainer before the close boxes? Thanks, ] (]) 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


*Edit war #1
: First pass at Archive 1 ] (]) 14:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
*Edit war #2
Can an admin please lock down the article? ] (]) 13:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


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


Is it possible to have an editor who is so biased one way that anyone who comes close to them is assumed to be biased the other way? ] (]) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC) ::::I wonder how many of these so-called socks were really socks, and I wonder what does it say about Misplaced Pages, when the so-called socks' edits are better than those with accounts? ] (]) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
:Have you been chatting with that Phil O. Soffey again? ] (]) 08:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Well, I have a better time with ]. ] (]) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


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


::::::Yes, it reveals that I try to focus on the content, not the contributor. ] (]) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I realise that AGK also commented, but Sandstein incorporated that into their . To avoid the dreaded threaded discussion, and to permit non-"uninvolved admins" to comment, I have opened a discussion here.<br>
My response to Sandstein's main point, that Requests for enforcement was set up to allow the first uninvolved admin to action the request in the manner they thought appropriate, was, "It evolved, necessarily". I can well imagine that there are editors involved in CC related articles that would prefer that I was not the sole arbiter of a complaint brought by or against them, that other contributors are likewise disinclined to have a Request involving them solely adminned by certain individuals, and there was/is a historical perception that editors were treated differently according to their viewpoint regarding the validity of AGW. It was found that by enlarging the number of admins reviewing a case, and discussing where their conclusions differed, that not only would a consensus arise between those admins but the other parties could see how actions were arrived at. Further, it meant that admins reviewing a new case were aware of how consensus had dealt with similar matters and could suggest proposals that were consistent with those decisions, or proposals that dealt with perceived deficiencies of previous conclusions. Lastly, it meant with that enforcement actions handled by one admin following a decision were taken as being supported by all participating admins and the potential of another admin reversing it extinguished.<br>
That last is why I think the admin only section is required, so that there is a clear collective responsibility for the conclusion of a case. ] (]) 09:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
:Exactly. I think we should be very leery of (in this particular enforcement) going to a "first on the scene" system of enforcement. We have a system that works, sort of. ++]: ]/] 13:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
: It is apparent that you are all misunderstanding what I'm saying. You can certainly reach a consensus amongst yourselves about what sanction is necessary. You are directed not to have a discussion amongst yourselves about the facts of the case. "I think he should be blocked for five months." "No, three months." "Four months?" "Done!" is fine. "Hipocrite is a hothead." "Could you show some diffs showing he's a hothead?" "Here are some diffs." "Thanks!" is not admin-only discussion, and should be conducted where other people can interject without feeling the need to ". ] (]) 14:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
::"You are directed" ?? Er, ok... But no. I think it's likely we'll keep on with what seems to work well. ++]: ]/] 15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
:::"works well"? Can you please let me know what kind of evaluation criteria you use or what you are having? --] (]) 16:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Experiential rather than specific criteria. And I refer to the discussion itself rather than the entire enforcement regime. However you may be right, I note that many folk seem to still be up to the same mischief they were before this all started. A nice orderly discussion doesn't quite make up for that, does it? Perhaps we should try it your way. As always I will defer to the consensus (in this case, of the uninvolved admins, which I note does not by any stretch of the imagination include you) should it change. ++]: ]/] 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::"Experimental rather than specific criteria"? Sorry, that does not make sense to me. Do you mean "I did an experiment and the result felt good"? And, as before,''ceterum censeo'' you are not uninvolved. --] (]) 17:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Experient'''i'''al not experie'''m'''ental. So, no that's not what I meant at all. Regarding your postscript, as before, I am uninvolved, you are not. Regardless of how many times you repeat yourself. You have no standing to comment further, as far as I am concerned. ++]: ]/] 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Note that AQFK *still* regards the Scibaby blocked socks as a "witch hunt" ] (]) 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
::It may more be the case of "What shall we do about Hipocrites hot-headed comments here?" "Nothing, he was just being a little passionate." "I say ban him forever and blank his Userpage!" "Um, why not just ask him to put his comments in more dispassionate terms?" "Okay, that seems reasonable.", "No! Ban him, blank his userpage, and go through all his contributions and see if we should revert the lot!!!" "Er, not this time, Less, I think an admonishment will be the right response..." - sometimes there is debate between sysops whether a case has been made, and then whether there is a need to sanction as regards the circumstances. I do agree with a developing view that we should try and move to a quicker consensus, and less musing. ] (]) 15:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


== What, now, is the purpose of these pages? Time to pull down the shutters. ==
* I agree fully with Lar's comment regarding the "first on the scene" approach. I have never undertaken my work at AE in such a way, although I realise that in doing so I am at odds with some of my colleagues. As with most Misplaced Pages decisions, an element of consensus-building ought to be present in AE discussions (if not because that's the "Wiki Way&trade;" then certainly as a sanity check). Ultimately one sysop will have to proceed to action the complaint one way or another, but setting some time aside for reasoned discussion is in all cases beneficial.<p>With respect to Hypocrite's point that we should not debate the facts of the complaint, I agree. Where the facts are ambiguous or misunderstood, requesting clarification must be an option. So long as that can happen, I don't much care who supplies (to answer your hypothetical) the diffs illustrating that Hipocrite is a hothead. The danger of allowing involved parties to supply those diffs in the section reserved for "uninvolved users" is that they may dilute the usefulness of the discussion there (as those with a vested interest are inclined to do). But should that happen, a sysop can always simply move their comments back up to the statement reserved for the parties' statements. Dictating precisely where everybody may comment, with no latitude afforded either way, strikes me as instruction creep. I always did prefer open, fluid discussions, and Hipocrite is right to criticise anything that appears to be a movement away from that.<p>In reply to LHvU: I'm a muser by nature, so I'm less inclined than most to action a complex thread immediately without at least some detailed examination and in most cases some time for comment by uninvolved users. But unnecessary delay is a bad thing, so you might be right. Again, I hesitate at subscribing to set philosophies here: there is so much scope for variety in an AE thread. ] 18:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


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


I realise that Jehochman hasn't been attending this enforcement page much in recent times (not since he was warned about edit warring to close a case against one of his buddies I thought) but could someone explain to him that the uninvolved admin section is not for him to commandeer for the purpose of replying to everything anyone says in the other sections? It's a most unfortunate way to hold a 'conversation'. If you could just read the bit in itallics to him that might be enough. ] (]) 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There have been disputes about the "uninvolved" admin "Result" section on the Requests for enforcement page. See ]. It appears the definition of ''uninvolved'' given on the ]:
:*For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
is at variance with definitions used by various admins on this page. Uninvolved is clearly defined on the probation page. If users here disagree with that definition - then seek consensus to change it. Meanwhile, it is the "definition" of uninvolved for this page. ] (]) 03:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::Therefore I am uninvolved in the dispute regarding WMC as I have never edited ] (article or talkpage). I am no more involved than Lar regarding the current RfC. I disagree that an admin should never have edited a climate change article to be uninvolved. This is an extreme view that is designed by a few people here and its primary purpose appears to be to keep certain admins away. Although it is enforced by Lar (moving my comments for example) it is not supported by any wikipedia policy. ] (]) 08:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::However, I accept Lar's move of my comments appears to have consensus amougst other admins here. Nobody has really criticised him. Therefore I respect the verdict. ] (]) 08:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::: So then, you are involved, and I am not, by consensus? Would it be time to fold up the RfC as a bad job? To go along with what ArbCom members have said several times now? Or no? ++]: ]/] 15:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::(ec)I said there was a "consensus amoungst the admins here" (mostly I interpret this by their silence on the matter) not to disagree with your move of my comments. I see no point in fighting this here as you appear to be gaining an upper hand in CC enforcement through shear persistence rather than from reasonable arguments. For this very reason I think there is now even more need to keep the RfC open for the full duration. ] (]) 16:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


== Responding to NW's question ==
Errm, isn't it obvious that there is a massive problem with ''not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions''? It means that someone who makes edits directly in support of mine is not "involved"; only someone editing against me is "involved" with me. That seems to me to be wrong. However, in the past Lar has leant very heavily on the letter of the defn of involved rather than the spirit. Use of this defn (which appears to be the operative one) means that Lar's move of Stephan's comment was an error: I am not invovled in a current, direct, personal conflict with Stephan ] (]) 16:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:Erm, I'll go with what ArbCom members have opined several times already, when asked... Stephan Schulz is involved in this topic area and all enforcement actions. Generally. Across the board. I'm not. Generally. Across the board. Unless you can bait me into losing my temper enough times, I guess. Keep trying. ++]: ]/] 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::Then perhaps you should seek to change the definition of "involved/uninvolved" quoted above from this probation. I and others should be open to discussion about such a re-definition or a clarification of "uninvolved" for this probation. And further stop applying a different "definition" while that definition remains as stated and in effect. ] (]) 17:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::: Policy is what we do, and the writing catches up as it can. If most everyone with standing seems to agree on a definition in practice, that's good enough. You can change the writing though, if you like. ++]: ]/] 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::: No, this won't do, because you have in the past relied so very heavily on the letter of your version. Unless you're arguing that since you've got away with it so long, we're now obliged t change the policy to fit whatever you do? ] (]) 17:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::::: I don't think that's a correct assessment on your part. ++]: ]/] 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::::(ec) That seems a rather absurd statement - especially as some "in good standing" obviously don't agree and are basing their comments and actions on what is written as policy. Or are you implying that no one who disagrees with you can be "in good standing"? We change policy by consensus and discussion - not by individual whim. So where is this consensus discussion regarding the definition concerned? Or is the definition as written back in January in error and no one "in good standing" pays it any attention? ] (]) 17:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::::: I said ''with'' standing, in other words, the uninvolved admins have been deciding who's uninvolved. Which decisions ArbCom members among others have been endorsing. ++]: ]/] 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Responding to NW's
The cited definition makes sense in the context of individual admins taking action on their own, which in my understanding is generally what these sanctions empower. It just doesn't make sense on this board. If Stephan wanted to unilaterally block WMC, I think the point is that he could do so as long as he wasn't in conflict with WMC. The problem is that on this board where admins are trying to get consensus, it's obviously disruptive if an admin who is involved in the general sense jumps in the way. So perhaps that should be clarified, but maybe it's also common sense that discussion set aside for uninvolved admins should use the standard definition of involvement, and not the one for applying sanctions, since otherwise this board couldn't be used. ] (]) 21:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
<blockquote>
''And your thoughts on SBHB's comment?''
</blockquote>


which is a reference to:
== Sanctions, especially bans or blocks, should not be based on edits made before the beginning of this probation? ==
<blockquote>
''The practice of using this enforcement board for point-scoring against opponents needs to stop. That will not happen until those who file frivolous actions know that they can be disciplined for doing so. (And yes, this applies to both "sides.")''
</blockquote>


I have a suggestion, that should apply going forward:
I draw your attention to this edit ''Sanctions, especially bans or blocks, should not be based on edits made before the beginning of this probation'' by Cenarium. This seems to me to be a good principle. Discuss ] (]) 17:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyone choosing to file an enforcement request against anyone, would be well-advised to ask at least one other editor, ideally from the "other side", whether the complaint has enough merit for a serious discussion. (This is not the same as agreeing with the complain, just agreeing it deserves a hearing.) To avoid game-playing, this is not an absolute requirement, but failing to get someone else to agree the case should proceed and a finding that the complaint was frivolous will results in penalties, including blocks, and/or multi-month bans from fling another request. There's too little time in life to deal with this nonsense, and there need to be repercussions for taking up the valuable time of editors and admins. (Open to fine-tuning, and even a finding that one should not post when totally pissed off, but enough is enough.)--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
:What is past is prologue. Searching for patterns and behavioral styles can go back further, yes, but the sanctions should be based on actions after the start of the probation. Why do you ask? Do you think there's been marked improvement in your behavior since the start of the probation? ++]: ]/] 18:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Current actions are different from past enforcement history, the former is material to bring cause, the latter is referable. ] (]) 18:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC) :Who is going to make the list of which side is which? ] (]) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
::You don't need a list. All you need is some person to say, yes, I generally have a comparable POV to the person you wish to file against, and yes, I think the complaint has sufficient merit to go forward. If you can't find such a person, either the claim has no merit, or sides are so entrenched that editors aren't willing to challenge egregious errors of one of their own. If the latter, then we need a scorched earth approach to the subject.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 19:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
:Per my 'If we block for historical bad edits, where is the incentive for an editor to contribute in a policy compliant way now?' rationale. ] (]) 21:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::BTW, I'd be happy if someone claims to be uninvolved and seconds the complaint. I'm just looking for some mechanism to reduce the number of frivolous requests.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</span> 19:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
:: Numerous diffs brought up during the FS case were from before the probation ] (]) 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::] exists. --] (]) 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
::: To evidence an allegation of continuing issues - which in part is why I feel your withdrawal from the article is appropriate - with the same subject. You get sanctioned, or not, for returning in an alleged non appropriate manner to an area where you have previously been seen as having issues, not for those historic issues. ] (]) 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::: I don't think so. TW certainly disagrees; his close is based on pre-probation diffs. Much of the discussion around this RFE was based on pre-probation diffs ] (]) 21:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::An analogy; person X is believed to have vandalised Z car previously, and there are some disputed eyewitness accounts of same. The case does not proceed because of lack of reliable evidence. Should person X then be found to have subsequently to have caused some minor damage to Z car, the excuse of "I only kicked the tyres a little" does not suffice for a penalty not be applied. The apparent subsequent behaviour indicates that there may have been substance to the earlier issues, and that that problem still exists. It is, however, wrong to penalise person X for the broken headlight that happened previously. ] (]) 22:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


== Request for admin ==


I'd like to post a request here regarding Stephan Schulz's comment on one of the ongoing requests, . This is plainly in violation of ], without any justification provided. Stephan has done this before, where he responded to another editor's personal attacks by stating that AGF is not a "suicide pact" (that editor was subsequently blocked for sockpuppeting). Editors should not be subjected to this, and should not feel the need to respond. The issue is clearly tangential to the request, however, so I am adding my request here that the issue be quickly resolved. ] (]) 23:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
:::::(e.c.) WMC, there were three groups of edits which concerned me: (1) the Martian edits from 2008, (2) the critical material sourced to RealClimate (2009), and (3) the addition of a link to a personal website which contained personal information on Singer (2009). As you say, these were all from before the probation, but it was never clear to me whether you considered them to be inappropriate (then or now). And if you don't consider them inappropriate, my concern is that you might do it again. So in the spirit of moving forward, perhaps you can acknowledge that you recognize the problem with those edits, and commit to avoiding such edits in the future. And in that case I will have no objection to you further editing Singer or any BLP. ] (]) 22:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::This really seems the crux. We want better editing going forward. The edits in the past are deficient. Regardless of whether the more recent edits are or not. The questions are to WMC: Do you agree with the generally accepted view that the edits are deficient? Do you think your editing in this area will no longer be deficient in the way those were? Do you understand and accept that others have concerns, and accept the validity of them? That's the heart of the matter, not sparring and faffing about. ++]: ]/] 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I can tell you right now that #2 isn't (RC is an RS on non-BLP material, and the material was non-BLP) and #3 wasn't discovered until very recently despite that a multitude of editors of opposing viewpoints have seen it. #1 is very much debatable - its a context issue - there is no doubt that Singer at the time expressed that Mars might be artificial, and there is also no doubt that the article at no point in its history has stated that "Singer believes in martians" (no matter how formulated). #1 is not a BLP issue - but may be a due weight one. You will have to explain how they are deficient in specifics here. --] (]) 22:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


== lights ==
Could we please discuss of WMC or any editor, edits, etc on the RFE page itself, to avoid splitting discussions and because it's where it should be discussed. With respect to this procedural point, I think it's a direct corollary of the ] (2nd point) "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions;...", it follows under basic due process that edits made before the beginning of the probation can't be hold against a user as basis for a sanction since the warning could not have been given before those edits. See also ]. ] (]) 00:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:I'd be happy to have WMC answer the questions asked. Here or on the main page, as he finds convenient. I am less happy to have KDP running interference. To be clear, I'm not saying WMC is sanctionable for edits made before the probation started. I merely want to know if he understands that many folk find his edits of Singer (in general) deficient, and if he agrees, and if he thinks he is doing better now, or about the same, or worse, or what. KDP's smokescreens notwithstanding, that's the crux. ++]: ]/] 00:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
::Note: I'm rather unamused by the ] expressed both here, on Lar's talkpage and on the main page. --] (]) 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
::: ''I'd be happy to have WMC answer the questions asked'' - I think it is regrettable that Lar, and ATren, are seeking repeatedly to derail this discussion. The question here is, "do edits before the probation count", not "are there any edits before the probation you'd like explained". If yuo'd like the second question answered, start you own section ] (]) 09:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


<looks around, and reaches for the switch>'''''CLICK!!''''' ] (]) 20:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::: I'd say yes, edits before the probation period count, but not so much that they count all on their own. By that I mean the probation didn't give any editor who had a persistent problem a clean slate. If an editor makes a mistake, ok, correct the editor. But if it is the tenth time and it just so happens that the other nine times were before probation started, then that would be evidence of a pattern, rather than a one-off mistake, and those two different motivations should be treated differently.
:::: So as supporting evidence to show a repeated pattern I think old edits/blocks/warnings/whatevers can be useful, but only to support a current complaint, and only to show an ongoing problem of the kind the current complaint is about. I would take the wording of the probation to mean that no action should be taken ''solely'' on anything done before probation was enacted, but I don't think it helps to ignore evidence of a repeated problem, if one exists. ] (]) 10:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:29, 8 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcut
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days 

Comment about latest RfE against William M. Connolley

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

The "ban my content opponent" game has to stop. I recommend decisive actions be taken to prevent further battleground behavior by any party. Jehochman 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not a question of banning an opponent, it's a question of ending the disruption. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

  • Edit war #1
  • Edit war #2

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

Not today any more. I oppose the request to lock down, on several grounds. Firstly, AQFK has mixed up Scibaby edits and reverts of Scibaby edits in those diffs. AQFK is fully aware of Scibaby, so that is bad faith on AQFK's part. Secondly, another of those reverts is a drive-by revert by User:Peterlewis with no attempt to participate in discussion. Peterlewis is already in the sanctions log as warned for revert-without-discussion Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Log so perhaps it is time for a stricter sanction on him. The rest are down to User:M.w.denotter who is new. But discussion of this is proceeding on his talk page, and the article talk page, so I don't see why there is any need to rush to protect William M. Connolley (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Just noting -- WMC had 5 reverts in 24 hours. Minor4th 15:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The only reverts I see of non-sockpuppets are and . Am I misreading something? NW (Talk) 15:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I have 3 reverts in the last 24h, even counting socks. Contiguous edits count as one. I think M4th failed to realise that William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I will look at it again and see if I have missed something here. That's possible. Minor4th 17:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right, it was 4 and the last one may have been a sock. So I just want to clarify that as long as we only push it up to the 3RR threshhold, there can be no sanctions and everyone is fine with that? And we can get to the 3RR limit on several articles in the topic area on the same day, and that is still not sanctionable or problematic? Please do clarify this because this may be where my misunderstanding lies. Minor4th 17:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
For those who are curious or require more proof of my analness, I've examined every edit-war at the Phil Jones article since November 30, 2009. It took me half of the day and I'm sure that there are mistakes (corrections are encouraged!), but by my count, there have been at least 13 edit-wars involving approximately 60 different editors. Details are available at: User:A Quest For Knowledge/Phil Jones Content Disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I looked at AQFK's sub-page, and some interesting stuff emerges. For example, some of the "edit wars" are completely faked, and only exist due to Scibaby socks. See User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/Phil_Jones_Content_Disputes#Climategate_E-mails:_Were_they_.22leaked.22.2C_.22stolen.22_or_both.3F_If_stolen.2C_were_they_.22stolen.22_or_.22allegedly_stolen.22.3F (which is collapsed, you have to uncollapse it). I've annotated that section with the accounts which are socks, and the results are quite revealing. I don't think you can interpret that page properly without knowing which accounts are socks, but AQFK doesn't want you to know that . His reply is also rather revealing: its all a witch hunt, apparently William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder how many of these so-called socks were really socks, and I wonder what does it say about Misplaced Pages, when the so-called socks' edits are better than those with accounts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, your tendency to defend Scibaby is painfully obvious. And if you think the edits are good, that too may be rather revealing. If you think any of those accounts are wrongly blocked, then you should of course take that up with the blocking admin(s). But if you don't, you should quit whinging and insinuating William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it reveals that I try to focus on the content, not the contributor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

If that's your swan song for this probation enforcement, I'd like to say thanks for the enormous amount of energy you've invested in this process. It is much appreciated. --TS 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll add my thanks as well. My observation that this hasn't worked perfectly in no way mitigates my observation that the task was enormous, and this was an impressive undertaking. Future challenges may look to this, if not a model to adopt exactly, at least as a starting point for a mechanism. However, the ArbCom decision is not rendered. I assume that AE is not the place to go until the decision, or at least that aspect of it is finalized. Given the unfortunate fact that there are edit wars in progress, do you propose that they be ignored, reported to ANI, or something else?--SPhilbrickT 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The probation already authorizes all uninvolved administrators to take discretionary action to handle edit wars. --TS 17:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Per Tony. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
It ain't over 'til the fat clerk sings. There is a FoF which notes "a consensus of 7 administrators" - that consensus was reached here, so clearly ArbCom see at least some merit in these proceedings. I've never really understood why there should be a major conflict between consensus action and unilateral action. I'll ask here, as I have elsewhere: are there cases where a consensus decision that had been reached here, closed and enacted, was disregarded by an admin acting alone? I'm open to examples, but my observation has been that consensus decisions have stuck pretty effectively. Franamax (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Responding to NW's question

Responding to NW's question

And your thoughts on SBHB's comment?

which is a reference to:

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

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

Who is going to make the list of which side is which? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You don't need a list. All you need is some person to say, yes, I generally have a comparable POV to the person you wish to file against, and yes, I think the complaint has sufficient merit to go forward. If you can't find such a person, either the claim has no merit, or sides are so entrenched that editors aren't willing to challenge egregious errors of one of their own. If the latter, then we need a scorched earth approach to the subject.--SPhilbrickT 19:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I'd be happy if someone claims to be uninvolved and seconds the complaint. I'm just looking for some mechanism to reduce the number of frivolous requests.--SPhilbrickT 19:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:PETARD exists. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for admin

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

lights

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