| Revision as of 22:38, 5 July 2010 editDarknessShines2 (talk | contribs)11,264 edits →Statement by Marknutley: cmt← 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| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators105,825 edits update as the sanctions that superseded the community-authorised one are now CTOP as they were placed by arbcom |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 = 9 |
|
|
|
] |
|
|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. |
|
|
* {{User|BanVan}}] (]) 15:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* {{User|Thoop33}} ] (]) 13:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* {{User|Ben Peltier}} ] (]) 17:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
<!-- |
|
|
Format: |
|
|
* {{User|ExampleUser}} ~~~~ |
|
|
* {{ip|ex.am.pl.e}} ~~~~ |
|
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Marknutley (civility) == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{report top}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, ''Your full of crap hipocrite'' appears to be a violation of his civility parole. A while later he refuses to strike it after being asked to and repeats the offence ''however what he wrote above is crap'' ] (]) 14:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:You guys are full of it, is this a case of throw enough shite and hope some sticks? First my edit summary was about moving stuff to a new section, not to do with the see also`s. Did i get a chance yet to reply to hipocrite`s last comment? No i have not. So how do you know what i intend to do? Got a crystal ball? or perhaps you modelled it. WMC that is an out and out lie, when was i asked to strike it? And as hipocrite has not asked me to then there is no issue with it ] (]) 15:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:<s>"full of crap" seems light compared to some of the crap that's come out of WMCs mouth and strikes me as highly hypocritical. -] (]) 16:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
|
|
|
As well as the above (''you guys are full of it'') we have ''What the hell are you on about?'' ] (]) 16:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:<s>May I suggest that you open a separate request for civility issues if you think that's useful? I consider the original issue a simple matter that can be - constructively or destructively - solved without much discussion. Civility, on the other hand, is a general mess on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 17:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
:: OK, added a header. Mind you I only added this here because it was convenient to piggy-back on your report. MN still has a chance to redact and close this ] (]) 17:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It has been redacted ] (]) 17:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: If you mean - convention is to strike through not silently alter. But no, this is not done: the other 3 PA's remain ] (]) 17:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The WS asked me to remove it, i did. The rest are not PA`s i`m done here ] (]) 18:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Response to LHVU (below) == |
|
|
|
|
|
: ''What civility parole?'': ] (]) 22:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: And you've forgotten ''you guys are full of it'' ] (]) 22:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Now here`s a funny thing, i`m not actually on a civility parole ] (]) 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Do you consider ''I will give my word to be civil at all times from this moment on. This will mean if i`m insulted or other crap is chucked my way i will get up, go for a fag and then respond.'' binding? ] (]) 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Isn't top-posting such a helpful mode of discussion? ] (]) 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I do not think it is binding in a sanctionable meaning, although it may be that Mn might be placed under an official civility parole as his voluntary one seems to have fallen to the wayside. I also did note the use of "full of it", in the penultimate sentence. ] (]) 20:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: It would be nice to have a less partial admin comment. Alas, they are all busy it seems. With an arbcomm case to play with, RFE is just so yesterday ] (]) 20:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Note: MN considers his civility parole to be binding , even if LHVU considers it binding in a non-binding sense, whatever that is supposed to mean. Although apparently he does not ''think saying to someone they are full of crap is a personal attack''. Let us hope that the admins here will disagree ] (]) 21:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I have no idea how you think me saying, ''"...I agree that ''"... is full of crap"'' constitutes a pa"'' means the opposite. I would also note that I am aware that Mn considers his civility parole binding, but I am also aware that he does not consider his choice of words constitute a personal attack. I cannot square the circle you are attempting to present to me, that Mn is under a civility parole by means of his personal undertaking and he has broken it by the use of terms he does not consider as being attacks. How can his word that he is under some restriction be used against him when he gives his word that he had not broken that restriction? I also would appreciate some other opinions in regard to this. ] (]) 21:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Why is this "crap" conversation still ongoing? Given it was removed as requested? ] (]) 22:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Another question I am unable to satisfactorily answer... ] (]) 22:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
=== Comments by uninvolved administrator(s) === |
|
|
What civility parole? I have reviewed the logs and noted both the 1RR and "good sourcing" restrictions upon Marknutley, but cannot find and was unaware of a specific civility parole.<br>Under general ], I agree that "... is full of crap" constitutes a pa, and am glad that it has been removed. Noting that an opinion is full of crap is unhelpful, but cannot be a pa since it addresses the content and not the commentator. Unless there is a civility parole, I would be minded to issue marknutley with a warning against further use of contentious terms for this and the "full of it" comments. However, "what the hell" is common terminology and would not fall under the WP:CIVIL umbrella as far as I am concerned. ] (]) 21:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I think a civility parole is now in order. Mark seems to be losing his temper a bit too much. ++]: ]/] 21:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**Standard wording then: "Marknutley may be blocked if he makes any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith"? Not really sure if it is worth it; it doesn't seem very different (more strigent) than the standards of ], but if you want... '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 08:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**I've put user:Marknutley on civility parole and logged it. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] | ] | 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
{{report bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== William M. Connolley == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{cot|1=Filer blocked as a sockpuppet; no action taken with regards to WMC. 12:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|
|
===Request concerning William M. Connolley=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 14:47, 24 June 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> |
|
|
# Reverts the removal of a (purported) BLP violation. |
|
|
# Self-reverts indicating that he has violated some type of 1RR restriction. |
|
|
# Makes the same revert <s>minutes</s> several hours later. |
|
|
# Suddenly realizes that he has just made the same 1RR "mistake" again. |
|
|
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): <p> |
|
|
# Warning by {{user|William M. Connolley}} He self-warned that he was violating a 1RR restriction. |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Appropriate sanction based on obvious gaming of the system. I believe that arbcom has on several occasions explicitly rejected the idea that self-reversion is an acceptable technique to evade restrictions in other contexts. I also believe that he is well aware of this fact and yet this appears to be exactly what he his trying to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : I leave the matter to the capable hands of the neutral administrators on this board. |
|
|
|
|
|
; 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 William M. Connolley=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by William M. Connolley==== |
|
|
|
|
|
Can we have a CU for this obvious sock please? ] (]) 14:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: No need - it proved it was a sock , using http://nhpproxy.webcreatif.ch. ] (]) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: That shows that I choose to edit through a proxy (a reasonable precaution on today's intertubes), not that I am a sock. You seem confused on the meaning of the term ]. --] (]) 15:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please note , where the above proxy abuser attempts to cover up for his continued abuse. ] (]) 16:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley ==== |
|
|
:This enforcement request was ]'s 9th edit ever. ] (]) 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is not a BLP violation. The LP himself referenced the blog posting directly in one of his papers, so obviously it's not a violation for him; and an examination of the post reveals strictly scientific analysis without commentary on any other individual. I note this with the qualification that ''many'' of the RealClimate references in BLP ''have been'' violations of BLP (for example, recent attempts to add a post from RC that called Fred Singer dishonest), and those should be dealt with, but this particular instance is not. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Perhaps BLP policy pages should be updated to reflect that the restriction is primarily for ''contentious material'', which this doesn't appear to be. ] (]) 19:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Actually, the rule is good. Blogs can't be used as a reference. In this instance, it was more of a convenience link than a reference to support article content. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 19:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The blog is not being used as a ''source'' here. The text says "Bradley recommended ''x''", and the link goes to ''x''. It's simply a convenience link. ] (]) 20:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning William M. Connolley=== |
|
|
:''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.'' |
|
|
<!-- 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.--> |
|
|
* I have blocked {{user|BLPWatchdog}} as an obvious and inappropriate use of an alternate account. I make no judgment about the issues raised in this request, and will leave them for discussion by others. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Blogs are not allowed as sources per ], but I think this instance is a valid ] exception. the BLP subject referenced RealClimate, so I don't think it is out of line to include a link to the post he referred to. WMC needs to be careful about reverting, but this case doesn't seem to be abusive. I don't believe that any further action is necessary. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 18:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*Bear with me for a moment... There is a request for sanction because WMC self reverted himself twice, in short order, to stay within the spirit of his 1RR restriction? So, because by self reverting swiftly WMC has only technically violated his restriction and Good Faith requires that we consider any reverted 1RR violating edits as null and void for the purposes of Probation enforcement, that the blocked SPA is suggesting we sanction WMC for... ''self reverting twice within 24 hours''? Is that the logic, that the two self reverts constitute a 1RR violation? Um, isn't there a ArbCom case where participants can more usefully expend their energies in relation to the editing of AGW related articles? ] (]) 19:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*This is pretty clearly just a section opened to troll. As no one is proposing to sanction WMC, I'm just to close and archive this section. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 06:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{cob}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== marknutley & Nsaa == |
|
|
|
|
|
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|
|
===Request concerning marknutley & Nsaa=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 08:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|marknutley}}<br>{{userlinks|Nsaa}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): <p> |
|
|
Both editors fully involved here |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : marknutley's sourcing provisions modified such that all sources must be passed through an en administrator or experienced editor '''with prior-approval''' from this board. Failing that, the creation of a running list of individuals banned from providing source blessings for MN. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : He's not going to stop using blogs as sources unless you stop him. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : , |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning marknutley & Nsaa=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by marknutley & Nsaa==== |
|
|
Ok Nsaa checked the ref`s. And was concerned about the use of ] so he checked the reliable sources archives and found a discussion which clearly says that the use of Watts up is fine for ] opinion And as such he ok`d it. As you can see from this diff of hipocrites removal the content was attributed to Watts opinion on the spoof video ], there has been no breach of either my parole or of WP policy here ] (]) 08:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=====Nsaa===== |
|
|
I was concerned by the use of ] source (<small></small>) to support this sentence "] on his website ] said of the video, "I’m still wiping the tears from my eyes. This is hilarious and extremely well produced". In the following I considered ] and ] as the same kind of references per ]: After reading it looked like all the parties agreed on that on ] on the following: "As for Watts - IMO, his blog is a reliable source for his opinion, as well. Obviously. Guettarda (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)" and the final "I agree that it is a POV-pushing (i.e. advocacy) source, but I think evidence has been presented that it may be used, with attribution, as a source of opinion. * "According to Jim Hoggan in his DeSmogBlog..." Cla68 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)". Maybe I've misinterpreted this, but as far as I see we have no reason to believe that ] has not said this on the ] web site. I also did a and noticed that it already was used in four mainspace articles: , , , and ] has been used in eleven articles:], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], (]) and ]. The last one should go out per ] that says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.". I will be away for the next week, so I can not follow up on this in one week. ] (]) 18:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning marknutley & Nsaa ==== |
|
|
I would say that the far worse example of sourcing in that article was a press-release, which was being used in the lead as a reference for factual information. Please see the discusssion here. The ref in questions was this and the version of the article where i tagged it as unreliable is here (ref #1). Mark removed the tag immediately claiming that this was a reliable source (somehow conflating it with the usage of the name climategate - which wasn't the information that i tagged it for). I'm still uncertain as to whether Mark has recognized that this is a press-release or not, and that the reference wasn't reliable to the information given. --] (]) 09:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Asking advice from someone like Nsaa - an editor involved in this topic area, with a POV sympathetic to Marknutley's (and therefore with an ideological blind spot) - strikes me as counter-productive. I suggest that Marknutley's sourcing restrictions be modified to require him to obtain a review from an editor who is '''uninvolved''' in this topic area. Otherwise we will just find Marknutley laundering bad sources through his friends, rather than getting an independent review. -- ] (]) 13:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Rubbish, i have recently asked five people to ok the refs in an article. It is still to be done a week later. Trying to restrict who can ok the sources will simply mean i can never do any edits at all ] (]) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::In your case, that would not be a bad thing. But what is needed here is to get ''independent'' reviews of sources, not just nod-throughs from ideological allies. -- ] (]) 13:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
(moved from uninvolved admin section): Would you recommend I file an enforcement action against NSAA seeking to have them prohibited from advising MN on sources? ] (]) 11:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I would be very wary of anyone attempting to limit who is an "editor in good standing" on an ideological basis - and all the more so when someone is in opposition to that stance. If anyone wishes to question the good standing of a contributor on the basis of their disciplinary record, editing in mainspace, etc. then it could be a matter for review. Otherwise, per AGF, we simply look at the edit and attempt to resolve issues through normal dispute resolution. ] (]) 15:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Which is why, despite the fact that I am ideologically opposed to him, I would insist that Cla68 be included on the pre-approved list. I would oppose including problematic editors on both ideological sides - for instance, there is no need to include Ratel on the list of approved reviewers. ] (]) 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I would ''suggest'' that the "editor is good standing" condition requires us to determine who is <u>not</u> in good standing by evidencing persistent poor editing or inappropriate behaviour. Should this probation be retained, or another method of overview adopted, it would add to the burden in having to draw up lists of approved editors - with various interests advocating or opposing choices for their own reasons and possibly disinclining editors from accepting that role. Also, as noted earlier, WP:AGF requires us to consider long standing editors as being in good standing unless proven otherwise. ] (]) 15:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: What would you suggest people do, outside of attempting to have marknutley banned from the entire topic area, to stop these endless blogsourced disasters from him? ] (]) 15:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I would suggest closing this as it is a content dispute. Whether or not ] posting on his site ] can be used or not i am not the only editor here who is saying it can be now am i ] (]) 15:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Yes, you and your ideological cadre all agree that anytime anyone says anything you agree with it's reliable and should be put in every article without question or second thought. I wish you'd stop with the blogs, already. I've asked you over and over - I didn't even decide on deletion of the article until it became clear that it was just another venue to translate blogsourced nonsense to the public. The level of trouble you have getting your articles approved is directly proportional to the times you use denialist blogs to source things you want to be true. Consider just not using them, ever. ] (]) 15:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::So you think an article should be deleted because you disagree with one of the sources? And calling an identifiable living person a denialist is a blp breach, please remove it. Can you explain why desmogblog is ok as a source but not watts up for the opinions of their authors? Why are you not running around removing all desmogblog references? Or realclimate? ] (]) 16:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: I don't think I've evaluated desmogblog. I've certainly never actively supported it as a source. If you pay for my time, I'll get right on your assignment. Until then, however, I'll merely support wikipedia policies and my own "side" in this dispute. Every previously attempt I made to compromise was met with me giving an inch and the other "side," which is frequently you, giving nothing and taking a mile. Perhaps if you were to try taking the first step you might see that I don't operate nearly as adversarialy as you do. I reject your statement that calling someone a denialist is any more a blp violation than calling someone pro-choice. ] (]) 16:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Placing limitations on specific editors for specific, multiple misapplication of policy is a sound use of enforcement policy. Targeting a collection of editors, based upon some assumption of their personal POV strikes me as quite out of line. Let's not.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 16:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I never suggested doing that. Please review carefully. I suggested preventing NSAA and others who would approve blogsourced garbage from further approving anything. ] (]) 16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: If you can show that Nsaa is committing the same type of error, bring an enforcement request. I read the dif, looks like Nsaa made a good faith attempt to confirm that the source was used appropriately. Maybe others will differ, but suggesting that legitimate content disputes should be turned into enforcement actions is over reaction.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 16:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
This RfE seems to stem from a misunderstanding on Hipocrite's part regarding our policy on ]. Blogs are absolutely reliable for the opinions of their authors, per ]. ] (]) 16:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree it would be useful for Hipocrite to reread the policy. I see a fair amount of heat, possibly GF comments arising from a mistaken understanding of policy. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 16:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Find one uninvolved respected user with more than 1 year of active editing and no entrenched climatechange position who agrees with your use of the opinion of blogowners and I'll retracted. Until then, this is more evidence that your "side" of this dispute doesn't care a whit about policy when it gets in the way of the "truth." ] (]) 16:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: That was out of line.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 16:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Prove me wrong by inserting the Dr. Connolley post into the article. ] (]) 16:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: ''Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves'' (]). Now, there are some conditions that go along with that, they are on the policy page, but it is difficult to look at that and see 'no blogs, not ever, and a block if you try'. Hipocrite has once again not shown a lot of good faith or even great manners while commenting on these enforcement pages, a good close would be a restriction placed on his ability to bring any more fruitless actions for a while. ] (]) 17:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Per WP:SPS, "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work '''in the relevant field''' has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Mark was citing Watts for his views on the production quality and humour of an online video. Is there any evidence at all that Watts is an established expert on videos who has published in this field? If not, Hipocrite's assessment of the unsuitability of this source is correct. Also note that SPS requires caution when using such sources, and while the source is being used for video quality rather than directly as a BLP comment, there are evident BLP issues with the video attacking the reputation of a scientist. "Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." . . ], ] 07:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:* It is apparent that there is a legitimate dispute over the correct use of a blog; however, the enforcement request is based upon Mn not referring the issue to someone in good standing. I do not believe that it has been proven that he didn't, because I see no rationale based in policy, guideline or practice that precludes Nsaa from that description. Even if Nsaa is wrong in their interpretation, it does not disqualify them from being in good standing. If there is evidence of a pattern of incorrect interpretations of policy indicating a bias, they have not been made here despite requests. The argument over the disputed use of the blog does not serve any purpose here. ] (]) 12:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Suggest Marknutley's restriction on sourcing be lifted, as it has proven ineffective. ] (]) 15:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Why? It is quite apparent that Hipocrite has misinterpreted our policy on ]. What does Hipocrite's error have to do with Marknutley? ] (]) 15:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::In what way has Hipocrite has misinterpreted our policy on ]? As set out above, makes use of a blog in a way that fails ]. Have you some other exemption for blogs in mind? . . ], ] 17:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's wrong in the way that I've already explained above. ] (]) 17:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So why is the opinion of this author significant? Is he recognised as having published expert opinion on video production or humour? Caution doesn't mean just putting unqualified opinions into articles. . . ], ] 22:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. This author's opinion is relevant because it is a notable voice in the global warming controversy and the Climategate scandal. ] (]) 22:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comment by Mark Nutley==== |
|
|
Not surprisingly I`m with what boris has said above, however let`s be fair about this and try to keep everyone happy. My ban on adding new sources to articles should be lifted, but if i add a source which i have not double checked with another user which let`s say ] deems unfit for wikipedia then i get a 24hr block. If that does not make me careful then nothing will :) I think this will satisfy all concerned and would also allow me to continue to create articles ] (]) 18:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oppose. The press-release item that i showed above, is rather clear indications that you haven't learned it yet. --] (]) 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Oppose. The ban should be extended to removing and tagging sources ] (]) 19:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well two other editors said it was ok and a primary source is usable if published in independent third party sources right?. And why are you not demanding WMC get`s put under the same restriction as me? At least i have never used my blog as a source in an article or a BLP have i ] (]) 19:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Mark - no one agreed on the press-release. They missed it. And once it was pointed out, everyone agreed that it wasn't an appropriate reference. You on the other hand, continued, and still seem to think that it is a good reference - and that ''is'' worrying - and the reason that i'm opposed. --] (]) 19:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Actually, I was the one who discovered the press release. ] (]) 19:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Sorry - i apparently did it independent of you :) --] (]) 20:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{ec}} |
|
|
::::] ''Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation''. It was covered by a ] and had supporting secondary sources to back it. Perhaps this would be more suited to the RS noticeboard? Given the caveat in my proposal of a 24hr block if hipocrite finds a source which may be suspect and i have not cleared i do not actually see what you are opposing to be honest ] (]) 19:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Mark, it is silly to keep defending a reference that everyone agreed was inappropriate <u>for the information given</u>(do please note what i underlined), all it does is to enforce the view that you are incapable of doing source vetting. Sorry. Nothing is black&white, and especially not sourcings - i've said it before - no source is ever 100% reliable and sources are rarely completely unreliable - everything depends on context. --] (]) 20:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning marknutley & Nsaa=== |
|
|
:''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.'' |
|
|
I have checked the wording of the restrictions relating to Marknutley in regard to sourcing overview , and note that the requirement is for an editor ''"...in good standing."'' There is no wording that indicates that the reviewing editor needs to be vetted. However I would note that Nsaa, whose userlinks I have included in the relevant section, has been editing since 2005 and has a clean block record; I should think they therefore qualify per the wording. A review of Nsaa's contributions also indicates that this matter is being discussed by them on the article talkpage, so I am inclined to regard this as a content dispute (per the concerns noted by KDP) and suggest closing this request <s>- especially since Nsaa has not yet been advised that they are a party</s>. ] (]) 11:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I would suggest that something be read into the result that addresses the concerns raised about Hipocrite's misinterpretation of policy (about when blogs can be used as sources) as well as something reminding Hipocrite not to post in the uninvolved admin section since he is not uninvolved and not an admin and in this case two nots do not make one not naughty. ++]: ]/] 04:58, 4 July 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.--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==ChrisO== |
|
|
{{report top}} |
|
|
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|
|
===Request concerning ChrisO=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 21:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|ChrisO}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# Canvasses Tony Sidaway. |
|
|
# Canvasses Atama. |
|
|
# Canvasses AniMate. |
|
|
# Canvases JzG. |
|
|
# Canvasses Ryan Postlethwaite. |
|
|
# Canvases 2over0. |
|
|
# ChrisO openly admits that he <s>"specifically chose to notify editors who proposed the ban."<s> "specifically confined myself to notifying the admins who participated and one non-admin (Tony Sidaway) who proposed the ban" |
|
|
# Warning issued to ChrisO. Also, I asked him if he would rectify the situation by notifying all the editors he omitted. |
|
|
# ChrisO responded by deleting the message. |
|
|
# ChrisO tells me to file an RfE. |
|
|
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): <p> |
|
|
# Warning issued to ChrisO. |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : I leave it to the community to decide what is appropriate. I would think that at the very least, a warning should be issued to not selectively canvass people for support. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ChrisO has been canvassing for support regarding <s>an indefinite blocking<s> a possible sockpuppet of ]. '''If''' ChrisO had dealt with this by equally informing all the other participants with the same message, there wouldn't be a problem. However, ChrisO selectively choose to solicit only those editors who previously proposed, supported or were willing to discuss an indefinite ban. He did not notify ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. All of them participated in the previous discussion. Misplaced Pages works by discussion and consensus-building. Selectively inviting only editors who you think will agree with you subverts the process. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ChrisO notified. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning ChrisO=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by ChrisO==== |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a frivolous request, made in bad faith and based on false claims. The facts are these: |
|
|
|
|
|
1) I posted a short neutrally worded message to the admins and one editor (Tony Sidaway) who had been involved in the banning of ], asking them for their views at ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
2) AQFK started following up my posts without notifying me , . He did not bother to contact me about his concerns. |
|
|
|
|
|
3) AQFK has consistently assumed bad faith: "ChrisO, are you canvassing for support?" , "So editors who defended GoRight were excluded from notification, and you selectively notified editors who had a previous considered an indefinite topic ban" , etc etc. (The fact that they were involved in banning GoRight has no bearing on whether or not they think the target of the SPI is in fact a sockpuppet. I have no way of knowing what they think on that score, since they haven't commented on it.) |
|
|
|
|
|
4) AQFK has falsely accused me of canvassing and votestacking , . SPI is not a community discussion and it is not "votes for banning". There is no voting involved. |
|
|
|
|
|
5) After stalking me from page to page, AQFK has been told by virtually everyone concerned that he is wrong, but he has ''still'' brought this to RfE. This is not only a waste of time, it's blatant harassment and warrants santions against AQFK for his disruptive behaviour. -- ] (]) 22:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning ChrisO ==== |
|
|
*When actually asked, on ], ChrisO gave a perfectly reasonable explanation. This is clearly not canvassing, as has been explained to AQFK, and unfortunately looks more like stalking by AQFK, who followed ChrisO around and posted about him rather than asked him directly as per ]. That is the real issue here. The complaint about ChrisO is silly and should be struck, while AQFK should be reprimanded for this behaviour. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> |
|
|
**Note the interesting disparity between AQFK quote: ChrisO openly admits that he "specifically chose to notify editors who proposed the ban.", and what ChrisO actually said. Either this is intentionally misleading or AQFK should "improve his reading comprehension skills". <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* AQFK seems to be under the illusion that the SPI si a community discussion. None of the diffs he provides above violate any of the provisions of this probation; this ill-conceived request should be dismissed ] (]) 21:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Well i dunno about canvassing but he should be reprimanded for the following edit summaries, ] (]) 21:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* The diff where ChrisO supposedly "specifically chose to notify editors who proposed the ban." does not, in fact, include that phrasing, or anything similar. (Note that the quotes are in the description of the diff). The full text of ChrisO's post is "I specifically confined myself to notifying the admins who participated and one non-admin (Tony Sidaway) who proposed the ban in the first place." That's a pretty big misrepresentation of what was actually said. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 22:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:* Call a spade a spade: it's a bald-faced lie. -- ] (]) 22:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sorry, about that. Damn Adobe update rebooted my computer and I had to retype out the entire RfE from scratch. Give me a couple minutes and I'll fix it.... ] (]) 22:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::OK, I fixed it. Not sure what happened. ] (]) 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* Perhaps AQFK could also correct his obvious misrepresentation "ChrisO has been canvassing for support regarding an indefinite blocking of User:GoRight." GoRight is '''already banned'''. ChrisO doesn't need to canvass to block him - he's gone. How much of the rest of what AQFK wrote was equally wrong? I don't know, but I do know that a focus on fact checking and accuracy is clearly lacking here. ] (]) 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Honestly, I'm sure what happened. I typed up the request and then stupid Adobe updater rebooted my computer and I lost my original RfE. So I had type it all out a second time. I'm not even sure where that quote came from but it's now fixed. ] (]) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Reply to LessHeard vanU. Sorry, I should have said that ChrisO was canvassing for support in a sock puppet investigation relating to GoRight. I have fixed it. Canvassing is considered disruptive behavior. I would think that disruptive behavior falls under the CC probation. ] (]) 22:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:* As has been pointed out to you by everyone else, my message did not ask anyone for support and you can't "canvass" a sockpuppet investigation in the first place. Repeating a falsehood does not make it true, ] technique notwithstanding. -- ] (]) 22:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::ChrisO, canvasing is where you selectively notify editors who you believe are more likely to agree with you. You didn't notify any of GoRight's supporters or those who might be more moderate. You don't have to specifically ask them for support. Merely selectively choosing is canvasing. ] (]) 23:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Reply to NW. Forum shopping refers to repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like. If the admins are saying that I filed this in the wrong spot, that's not forum shopping. ] (]) 23:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning ChrisO=== |
|
|
:''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.'' |
|
|
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|
|
*I think this is outside the remit of Probation enforcement, since the banning (or otherwise) of GoRight would be the consensus of the greater WP community. Since any discussion will be held there on a Admin Noticeboard, then that would be the place to present any concerns with the manner in which the proposal is made, supported or notified. I propose this request be closed and moved to a more appropriate venue, as required. ] (]) 22:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agree on lack of obvious remit within probation. --] ] 22:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agree with both of you, but beyond that, ChrisO's statement (especially point 4) is completely correct. Any movement of this to ANI would just be ]. This request should be rejected and archived ASAP. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:The precipitating incident is beyond the scope of this board and is already being dealt with in voluminous detail elsewhere. I don't consider notification of editors who previously participated in sanctioning another editor as canvassing at all, when it appears they may be returning prematurely, that's just looking after the wiki. I had recently resd that GoRight was intent on serving out their downtime and hope that is still the case. Nevertheless, the whole concern is beyond scope here. Draw on the other resources on-wiki, and close this puppy please. ] (]) 22:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
|
|
{{report bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Marknutley (sourcing parole July 2010)== |
|
|
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|
|
===Request concerning Marknutley=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 10:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marknutley}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] - ]: ''Marknutley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from introducing a new source 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. The WordsmithCommunicate 19:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)'' |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# Adds source without it being cleared by anyone |
|
|
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): <p> |
|
|
# He already has a sanction for this. |
|
|
# This is him refusing to discuss the matter, so I'm bringing it here. |
|
|
# ... |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Block; expansion of sourcing parole to prohibit removal of sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Note that the sanction says clearly ''is prohibited from introducing a new source 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''. It does not say "mention the ref on a talk page and use it if no-one objects". MN is fully aware taht he is violating his sanction ] (]) 12:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Note further than MN's sourcing errors continue: see ] where he decides that simply because he is unable to rad German a ref must therefor be a contentious BLP violation and be removed ] (]) 14:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: And continue further ] (]) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I've updated the "enforcement action requested" in the light of (a) MN's complete failure to understand that there could be a problem with his actions and (b) a couple of recent source-removals where he has stubbornly refused to admit the distinction between blog posts and scientific papers - e.g. ] (]) 22:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning Marknutley=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Marknutley==== |
|
|
I presented the source on the article talk page, nobody said it was unreliable so i used the source, this is yet another content issue being dragged here by an editor with a grudge, i would suggest wmc is told to keep content disputes on article talk pages and not here ] (]) 12:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:With regards to WMC`s updating the enforcement request, I do not see how WMC can cite his own websites and blog as a source, it is a pdf, how hard is that to alter? Putting an RS tag on what is obviously a suspect source is hardly sanction-able now is it ] (]) 22:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
Mark, I did object to the source and . The first one was 32 minutes after you first mentioned the source (and within a minute of your edit that added it to the main space page). --] (]) 12:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
@LHVU: ''Not so clear which is the previous violation of this restriction'' - does there need to be one? Or are you referring to my comment in the ''Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to'' section? That section is ambiguous in the case of violations of existing parole, since it is designed for bringing reports of violations of the overall sanctions. Oh, and I also object to your ''...to a blog'', because it is irrelevant. The sanction is against *any* sources not already present - please don't add to MN's confusion by offering possible loopholes ] (]) 13:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:You noted "He already has a sanction for this" in the diff section - without providing the diff. I reviewed Mn's block log and couldn't see anything obvious. Since you brought up the issue, and a repeat of a previous violation may effect the sanction agreed between the uninvolved admins, I asked (you previously have referred to past issues with Mn which are not part of the easily found logs) - if it is a matter that Mn has previous sanctions for violations generally, then that is another matter. As for the blog thing, I made a mistake which Mn noted at my talkpage; I log on during my lunchhour, and in trying to keep up to speed obviously read something that wasn't there. It is now struck through. ] (]) 20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Better safe than sorry with a BLP, please see my talk page were Stephan (who speaks german) has said the source was . ] (]) 14:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:What's next, I delete most of our articles on ] because I cannot follow the maths? If you do not understand a source, leave it alone, unless there is sufficient good evidence that it is wrong. Then reference that evidence. --] (]) 15:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
'''Comment by A Quest for Knowledge''' This sounds like a technical violation to me. Based on the diff above, Mark did not modify any actual article content. He simply added an additional source to already existing statement. ] (]) 19:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Are you not aware that his probation specifically concerns ''adding sources'' rather than modifying content? ] (]) 20:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Like I said, it sounds like a technical violation. ] (]) 20:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm not so sure about that. The restrictions are clear enough - he needs to "first clear a source with another long-term contributor in good standing." Treating silence as assent is not even close to "clearing a source" with another contributor. This looks like a case of trying to push the limits of his restriction while hoping that nobody would spot the infraction and bring it here. Obviously that didn't work out. -- ] (]) 20:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well, let's see what the admins think is an appropriate punishment for an infraction that does not involve changing article content. ] (]) 20:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Marknutley=== |
|
|
:''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.'' |
|
|
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|
|
*Clear cut violation of restriction - there needs to be third party input before posting a source <s>to a blog</s>. Not so clear which is the previous violation of this restriction, so am waiting for clarification before proposing sanction. ] (]) 12:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*"nobody said it was unreliable so i used the source" doesn't fit the terms of Mark's restriction, so agree with LHVU this is a violation. Would also like clarification on what the previous violation(s) was/were before sanction proposal. ++]: ]/] 17:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
|
