| Revision as of 12:38, 7 June 2010 editPolargeo (talk | contribs)9,903 edits →Comments by others about the request concerning Torontokid2006: agree← 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| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators105,825 edits update as the sanctions that superseded the community-authorised one are now CTOP as they were placed by arbcom |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 = 8 |
|
|
|
] |
|
|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. |
|
|
|
|
|
*]--] (]) 06:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
<!-- |
|
|
Format: |
|
|
* {{User|ExampleUser}} ~~~~ |
|
|
* {{ip|ex.am.pl.e}} ~~~~ |
|
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
{{hat}} |
|
|
Can anyone justify why this obvious sockpuppet is allowed to continue editing? ] (]) 17:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: If you have evidence that I am a sock puppet please bring it forward. Otherwise you are being uncivil and on the probation requests page no less. Lack of evidence is certainly justification to allow me to edit. --] (]) 17:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've blocked as an obvious failure of ]. ](]) 17:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Are you saying you have blocked this guy before a CU has been done? ] (]) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::CU doesn't need to be done if its blatant. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::How is it known to be blatant, please note i am highly suspicious of this block people based on no evidence at all, when i first got here i was automaticly accused of being a sock of scibaby. The whole sock thing is used to ban people on the most spurious reasons, if there is no actual evidence then you have to AGF and wait until a CU is done ] (]) 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Behavioral evidence is compelling sometimes, even if we don't know whom the sockmaster might be. Since Scibaby is adaptive, and the account could potentially be him, it would be a bad idea to discuss the warning signs here. If you like, I can correspond with you by email or any other means of off-wiki communication. If an account is obviously a sock, there is no point in taking up more of the Checkusers' time, especially considering that they are already shorthanded. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hipocrite, I reverted your comment. Please don't give details of behavioral evidence, since Scibaby is known to adapt to this when he knows how he is identified. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Abusive blocks are grounds for an RFE request here. Please reconsider the block. ] (]) 19:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have had a quick look and agree it is an obvious sock. --] ] 20:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I must assume this user is being blocked for pointed behavior, there is no other evidence to be cited. If the user isn't a sock, this blocking behavior may turn them into one. I appreciate there are behavioral concerns in the contribution history; however, the block seems disturbing without any reasonable caution or warning. With this challenge, I suppose the user is being forced to reveal their identity before any other evidence is revealed? ] (]) 02:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
{{hat}} |
|
|
Can anyone justify why this obvious sockpuppet (10 edits then semi-protected climate change articles!) is allowed to continue editing? ] (]) 17:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Blocked as an obvious sock, possibly Scibaby. ] <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::And unblocked again, following an SPI that proved no connection to Scibaby, and a bunch of time wasted. The unblocker and checkuser assumed good faith - something that does not seem to have been done while blocking or bringing this request. ] (]) 09:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
==Torontokid2006== |
|
|
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|
|
===Request concerning Torontokid2006=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Torontokid2006}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# Rv 1 |
|
|
# Rv 2 |
|
|
# Rv 3 |
|
|
# Rv 4 |
|
|
# Rv 5 |
|
|
# Rv 6 |
|
|
# ... |
|
|
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): <p> |
|
|
# Warning by {{user|Thparkth}} |
|
|
# |
|
|
# ... |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : up to you guys |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Not only is he massively over on reverts his removal of tags before consensus is reached is disturbing. I leave it to the admins to sort out a punishment but i believe a 1r minimum is needed here ] (]) 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*Comment, Would someone be so good as to talk to this guy? Today he is on 3R`s on ] And accuses him of edit warring :) ] (]) 22:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:*On my way. ] (]) 22:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC) BozMo got there already. ] (]) 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Cool, how about this RFE gets wrapped up btw, i suppose i was to hasty in bringing it to be honest ] (]) 23:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : '''' |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning Torontokid2006=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Torontokid2006==== |
|
|
Hi everyone, I'm a little new to wikipedia but if it's possible I would like to file a counter-complaint against Marknutley as he was attempting to add tags, repeatedly, without consensus or looking at recent discussion. The sentence that he calls to question has been thoroughly discussed ] on the talkpage ] and that is why I reverted his actions. I have told him numerous times ] to read the discussion and see for himself that a consensus had already recently been made and he did not need to add said tags (which served to only weaken peer-reviewed scientific evidence). |
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally another user ] was attempting to vandalize the article by removing an entire section without any discussion! From what I have read in wikipedia policy, it is ok to stop vandalism. Here's one of the vandal's edits (Sorry, not sure how to make diffs)] the only comment he made was "removing the trash again". Here is another: ], he says "rv blatant rubbish". Again, he made no comment in the discussion before removing an entire section from the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
If I was wrong I will accept full responsibility. But I feel like I was protecting this article from vandalism and arbitrary tags that were against consensus. If I knew better the steps of making a complaint I would have filed one for ] and ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
In regards to my "6" reverts, 2 of them were on my own actions, 2 were on ]'s huge deletes, and 2 were on ]'s insistence to have tags that did not meet consensus nor take into account the recent discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, for the trouble. Have a good day. ] (]) 08:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning Torontokid2006 ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
TK needs to be forcefully reminded that 3RR *does* apply to him, contrary to his assertions otherwise . Mind you, in normal times a 3rr violation would just be grounds for a std 3rr block, not a RFE. Hopefully a watching admin can simply assess whether a 3rr vio has occurred and make the appropriate block/warning ] (]) 07:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Two of those reverts were reverting his own comments, the net change to the article of the two edits was zero as they cancelled each other out, so that is just four reverts. Two of the reverts were reverting 'vandalism' from an editor who has been subsequently blocked for vandalism, and I think that reverting blatant vandalism does not fall within 3RR, so that makes it potentially two actionable reverts. The two remaining reverts are debatable, but that debate really should take place on the GW talkpage until such time as someone ''really'' violates 3RR. That doesn't mean the remaining two reverts are valid, and it's never good to edit-war over tags, but it doesn't seem like this matter yet requires enforcement action. ] (]) 09:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Well, if you feel that he was simply reverting vandalism you might want to consider where it appears the vandal as well as the comment just above yours. Was he actually being a vandal? --] (]) 20:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
A strongly worded warning should suffice but I think this discussion here is a fairly clear warning in itself. I would have prefered a standard warning rather than through enforcement. The warning outlined above by Marknutley is not a warning regarding the reverts but is simply informing the editor of probation. Also Marknutley has not bothered to outline why any of the particular diffs are problematic and is just throwing in everything he can and leaving it for others to make the difficult judgement with the comment "I leave it to the admins to sort out a punishment". This is a rather poor use of enforcement. (On a general note as an admin, ] and its talkpage are pages I have never edited and Torontokid2006 is a user I have had no dealings with. Therefore although I cannot deal with him as an admin in enforcement due to the recent ruling I could deal with him as an admin per general wikipedia guidelines.) ] (]) 09:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Excuse me? He was edit warring, i see no need to explain why the diff`s are problematic. And removing pov tags without reaching consensus first is problamatic. I also asked him on his talk page to stop edit warring and to self revert, he refused. And yes i leave it to the admins to decide a course of action, that is their job here not mine. ] (]) 13:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)] |
|
|
::Next time, if there must be a next time. Yes you should explain exactly why diffs are problematic. It is tough for uninvolved admins to just act on 6 diffs with out any explanation of why you think they are in breach of the rules. ] (]) 14:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Polargeo, what do you think "He was edit warring and removing POV tags without getting consensus on the talk page" is? that is an explanation is it not? ] (]) 14:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You failled to outline which diffs do this and which diffs do not and which bit of the talkpage consensus has not been reached on. You just presented 6 diffs with no detail. For your own sake I advise you to put together a proper RfE or just do not bother. It is not up to others to chase around for the answers. ] (]) 14:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
I have interacted with TK2006 and find him to be a good-faith editor who though editing from a strong and obvious point of view, at least ''intends'' to follow wikipedia good practices and work within consensus. It's probably fair to say that he doesn't yet have the experience to always know what good practice is and make good judgments about when consensus has been established. In particular I think he is over-aggressive in repeatedly reverting to exactly the same language (albeit not exceeding 3R a 24 hr period) when others are attempting to find compromise wording, and he can be offensively dismissive of those other editors. For example, he has regularly used things like "if you actually read the source" as edit comments on his reverts, when the source only "actually" says what he thinks it does with a large dose of synthesis. Again, I believe this is mostly an issue of inexperience, and I'm sure most people see that and make allowance for it. I think some polite but firm and specific advice from an administrator about the standard of behavior expected in the climate change space would be enough to help him understand. As an aside, I wonder if the administrators reviewing this might consider extending 1RR to the "Global Warming" article - more talking and less reverting would probably have been a good thing there over the last little while. ] (]) 11:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:1rr is a potential nightmare and should not be used liberaly ] (]) 11:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
If I was allowed to act as uninvolved as I would be per standard wikipeida guidelines I would agree with The Wordsmiths conclusion. ] (]) 12:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Torontokid2006=== |
|
|
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used by others to conduct discusson or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate by other than uninvolved administrators, will be moved to the section above. Adminstrators engaged in extended discussion or debate, especially if not directly related to the proposed outcome, should strongly consider using the above sections.'' |
|
|
:''There is disagreement as to the acceptability of any threaded discussions in this section. Please see ] before engaging in any threaded discussions.'' |
|
|
*<s>I am inclined to deny the RFE per WMC; bring Torontokid2006 up to speed regarding 3RR generally, the CC Probation specifically, and bring any further edit warring to that noticeboard - only bring here again if they trip over one of the 1RR exemptions or probation related issues.</s> ] (]) 11:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*I agree with LHvU. This is a case where I would not make a 3RR block. I also see no reason to impose special sanctions just yet. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 14:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Concur. I'd add a gentle reminder that Mark ''does'' need to give a bit more than just the bare diffs... as it turned out, analysis of these showed not all qualified as reverts that "count". If Mark had tried to write the supporting material asked for in the request template, he might have realised this and structured his request differently. With three in concurrance I move for a close. Although I would like my reminder tacked on :) ++]: ]/] 14:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*I propose the following closure: |
|
|
**''Editors are reminded that they should seek to provide relevant context along with evidence presented as part of a Request for Enforcement.'' |
|
|
**''{{user|Torontokid2006}} is advised to discuss content with other editors and seek to compromise, instead of edit warring.'' |
|
|
*-<span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 02:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***support wording by TWS --] ] 11:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***support wording by TWS, striking out previous comment since Torontokid2006 has not yet "got it". ] (]) 12:32, 7 June 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.--> |
|
