| Revision as of 14:44, 3 August 2010 editGregJackP (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,867 edits →Objection to involved admin Lar's proposed close: 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| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators105,825 edits update as the sanctions that superseded the community-authorised one are now CTOP as they were placed by arbcom |
| (702 intermediate revisions by 66 users not shown) |
| 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 == |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- ] 20:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
Following discussion at ]<!-- Please update when that section archives. -->, this section is established to list ''active'' suspected Scibaby sockpuppets. This list is merely a courtesy to other editors active in this topic area, and does not replace ]. Please remove accounts that have been blocked or were listed in error. Accounts listed here are ''probably'' ] of a banned user, and may be reverted on sight. Any editor in good standing may "adopt" an edit that in his or her considered opinion improves an article, subject to common editing norms. The utmost care should be exercised to avoid listing accounts in error, and any mistakes should be promptly recognized and rectified. |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- |
|
|
Format: |
|
|
* {{User|ExampleUser}} – reported by ] (]) 08:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* {{ip|ex.am.pl.e}} – reported by ] (]) 08:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Request concerning William M. Connolley and Kim D. Petersen == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|Close as stale, no further action taken. ++]: ]/] 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; Users against whom enforcement is requested : |
|
|
*{{userlinks|William M. Connolley}} |
|
|
*{{userlinks|KimDabelsteinPetersen}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# WMC readds single, self-published source (personal webpage of a university professor hosted on the university's website) that is extremely critical of ] |
|
|
# Kim D. Petersen then fights on the article talk page for inclusion of the material and source. |
|
|
|
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Correct the behavior |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|
|
|
|
|
*Misplaced Pages is strict about enforcing its BLP rules after several real life cases have caused harm to BLP subjects. There is no leeway for misbehavior or abuse in this regard. WMC and Kim have a long history of BLP abuses. WMC usually makes the bad edit, then Kim tries to justify it through wikilawyering on the talk page. Please make them stop. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning William M. Connolley and Kim D. Petersen=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by William M. Connolley==== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Kim D. Petersen==== |
|
|
|
|
|
My comments on the talk page should stand by themselves. As for Cla68's claims: No i haven't fought for inclusion. No, i do not have a "long history of BLP abuse". This is a simple content dispute, which is being blown extremely out of proportion. I disagree about the BLP claim (and still do), and strangely enough, this matches rather precisely some principles that i wrote down for the ArbCom case, but didn't submit, since it became obvious that ArbCom would not make content or policy decisions - but rather focus on behaviour: ]. Since it is 1:47 AM in my timezone, i will probably not reply anymore, unless i can't fall asleep. --] (]) 23:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley and Kim D. Petersen ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an unreasonable request. The material in question is the claim that someone called Abraham made a presentation criticising the views of someone called Monckton. I kid you not, that's it. No-one has proposed giving any details of the presentation. This is not liked by several editors, but it seems to be common ground that it is true and verifiable. In other words, there is nothing contentious here and therefore no BLP issue. If anyone wants to see a genuine BLP breach regarding the subject of this article, I can very easily give a demonstration of what one would look like, so that you can tell the difference for future reference. --] (]) 23:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly a violation of a number of Misplaced Pages policies. First, it was a self-published source, in addition to being a primary source. Second, the source accused the subject of the article of making up a false quote, clearly against BLP policy unless. The entire presentation was an attack piece. The BLP policy states to ''Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below)...'' The self-published source, in and of itself is grounds for removal. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 00:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:BLP also states "We must get the article ''right''". Trying to remove the fact that there was notable comment on the opinions of the subject by someone who knows what they are talking about isn't consistent with that.©] 00:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, the admins aren't going to rule on anything (except the most egregious conduct and this isn't it) with ArbCom about to announce their proposed decision. Face it, the probation has come to a screeching halt. I suggest that the filer withdraw this RfE. BTW, ArbCom asked us to take a break from these articles, so I don't understand why anyone's working on them right now. Find some other articles to work on. ] (]) 00:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, I hope that the admins will consider placing a temporary injunction prohibiting WMC and Kim from editing any BLPs, including the talk pages, pending the results of the ArbCom case. Even when the proposed decision is posted, it will probably still be several days at least before all the Committee members finish voting. ] (]) 00:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Look, I have a solution for everyone. Please click ''']''' and improve the article. ] (]) 01:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Unfortunately, when I clicked on it, I got ]... --] (]) 01:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
@Wordsmith: There hasn't been a ruling from the admins for the last 7 RfEs. Not only has there not been a ruling, there aren't even any admins discussing the issues. Not one active discussion. Sorry if I've broken some protocol by pointing out the obvious. If I have, let me know, and I'll redact. ] (]) 01:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' -- This may be the most egregious BLP violation I've seen on wiki. And several hours spent arguing for its inclusion is stunning. I am unfamiliar with the enforcement mechanism in this area, but given the seriousness of this BLP violation, it is disappointing that admins have not looked in and/or taken decisive and firm action in this case. Do you guys ever use the BLP noticeboard, or do you just bring issues here to the probation enforcement? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 02:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As is his wont, Cla68 has included a long string of diffs many of which are of little or no relevance. Administrators handling the case should be careful to examine each diff. ] (]) 02:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that BLP doesn't allow the Abraham comment. But this is a content dispute. It should be raised at BLP/N, not here. ] (]) 23:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Lar is not an uninvolved admin ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
Lar, being in an adversarial role to both KDP and WMC in the ], where he explicitly proposes a topic ban for KDP and a year-long ban for WMC , is not neutral by either the common sense definition of the word, by previous ArbCom precedence, or by the definition in ]. --] (]) 05:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Curious about this. So are you saying that if an admin, at any point in the past, expressed an opinion that a certain poster engaged in behavior deserving of sanctions, then that admin is forever after an "involved" admin for all purposes and cannot participate in enforcement discussions about that editor on totally unrelated events that the admin was probably not even aware of until he read about it on the enforcement page? What about an admin who has expressed an opinion that either of these editors did not deserve sanctions in the past -- is that admin also forever tainted because he is not neutral, as evidenced by his having an opinion in the past? It seems like that's what you're saying but that can't be what you mean. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 06:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that an admin who is ''currently'', at this moment, part of an ArbCom case and is proposing drastic measures against certain editors, is not uninvolved. --] (]) 06:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I know you said ''currently'' but I thought you just chose the wrong word -- that opinion that Lars had about sanctions was days or weeks ago, and it was about incidents that are not related to this enforcement, right? I could understand the concern if Lar was in a ''current'' content dispute with these editors and was using his admin tools to win, but that is not the case. There's no requirement that an admin be neutral to be uninvolved -- if an admin is completely neutral how could a decision ever be made? By the way, why does it matter whether he is uninvolved or not -- he is apparently not even recommending sanctions according to his comment. He merely said it was not nice. You started this whole new section, so it must be important in a way that escapes me. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 07:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"Currently" was chosen advisedly. Lar's suggestion were 4 days ago in a dispute that has been running for months (and for several weeks in Arbitration), the arbitration case is still open, and Lar's proposed sanctions are his current proposal. Why this ultimately matters is beyond me, but, if you check the history, it is apparently paramount that only uninvolved admins comment in the "Results" section, no matter what they say. People have filed ArbCom cases about this... --] (]) 09:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Thanks for the clarification on ''currently'' -- I suppose we view "uninvolved" differently. It seems like youre saying that an admin who holds a negative view about these editors' bad behavior is disqualified from commenting. Or maybe it's the section heading that is throwing this into the realm of the bizarre. What is your opinion on the behavior Lar is commenting on though? (irrespective of where he placed his comment). I hope youre not in favor of edit warring or BLP denigration. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 11:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*This is the latest in a long list of Lar stretching the rules for himself on this page. He seems to think yet again that any deep long lasting conflicts with certain editors (often with him in a non-admin role) does not count whilst simply not editing certain articles makes him Mr neutral (uninvolved). ] (]) 10:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**This isn't about me. This is about KDP filibustering to block consensus. Trying to make it about me is yet another example of inappropriate tactics to avoid the actual issue. BozMo has also proposed things in the case, that doesn't make him involved either. You guys know better. However that doesn't stop you. Which is why there's a case. ++]: ]/] 10:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***Lar. Correct it is not about you. So do not make it about you by commenting where you really should not be commenting at present. This seems to be your usual method but I hope it can stop right now. ] (]) 11:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*The below comment chain is a response to a comment by WMC placed in the wrong section, (first diff below), moved here (third diff below), edit warred to retain (second diff below), moved here again and then by WMC who apparently is more concerned with having it in the section he wants than having it be visible. ++]: ]/] 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
** Nope, you're not. ++]: ]/] 10:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*** Further, you're not allowed to when correct you. Don't do that again, please. You have been repeatedly warned not to, and blocked when you did not heed the warnings. ++]: ]/] 11:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
This is again a case of "Lar is involved because I say he is involved" where the RFC/U did not arrive at such a conclusion. I guess if people ''claim'' it is true it becomes true? An interesting thesis. ] (]) 11:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:No it is a major case at arbcom currently running with many serious and valid points that need to be answered. This is not a standard ATren "I say you are involved" or even a simple Lar "you have edited a CC article so you are involved" case so please do not dismiss this in the usual way. Any admin worth their salt should recuse themselves in these circumstances or face some serious come back. ] (]) 11:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::He is only involved because the members of the want him excommunicated because he enforces the rules. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 12:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::GJP this is potentially a ] addition to send this back to a them and us. When in this case I am not a them or an us but someone trying to get wikipedia right. Let us carry on in a more productive way. ] (]) 12:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That was not directed at you, but a general comment on the state of affairs in this area, and if you interpreted it to mean that it was intended for you, my apologies. It just seems to me that this has broken down into two basic camps, with a smaller third camp that just want the rules applied to all. I certainly did not mean to imply that you were out of line in your comment. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Question for those who think this is not a BLP vio==== |
|
|
Several (Geni, NW, Wordsmith, BozMo) have questioned whether this really is a BLP vio. I would like them to justify here why it is not. Specifically, answer these two questions: (1) is the material contentious? (2) is it self-published? If you respond yes to both, then it's a slam dunk as far as BLP concerned: it is to be removed immediately. If you respond no, then please explain your reasoning. Note that the material in question triggered legal action, and was only ever "published" on Abraham's personal webpage at the university. ] (]) 13:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I realise you aren't asking me, but I thought I'd inject a few thoughts anyway. One issue is whether it's biographical - whether information is subject to BLP depends on the subject of the material rather than the location. So that's one hair worth splitting. The other, as BozMo pointed out, is that the material ''is'' covered by reliable sources that are not self-published. So the ''information'' can be reliably sourced to sources that are BLP-appropriate. Which makes this more of a formatting issue than anything; cf. ]. ] (]) 13:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Guettarda, the source ''I removed'' was unpublished and contentious. Read BLP -- that's sufficient for removal, and the policy language is not just firm, it's draconian, filled with bolded terms and references to proclamations from Jimbo. In any other situation this would be a non-controversial removal, but here it's opposed. Your classification of this very serious issue as simply "formatting" is startling. ] (]) 14:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Assuming this was a BLP issue (which is less than clear-cut, since it was a discussion of ideas, not of people), it was not inappropriate to remove it. But this request wasn't filed to discuss your behaviour, was it? The fact remains that the material was discussed by non-SPSs. Once that was clear, it became a formatting issue, a content issue, but not so much a BLP issue. Assuming, of course, that it ever was "biographical information about a living person". ] (]) 14:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:You are simplifying the matter too much. The answer to both of your questions is "yes". However, there are other matters to consider. The full content of the addition is "In response to Monckton's 2009 appearance at a symposium sponsored by the "Minnesota Free Market Institute," ] professor of Thermal Engineering John Abraham prepared a 73-minute slide show titled "A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton," rebutting all of Monckton's claims." Let us exclude for the moment the final clause (specifically the "all") of the sentence, which I agree is bad practice as it takes sides in this real world dispute but also could have been solved without any escalation whatsoever. The purpose of BLP is to provide both truthful and verifiable information on subjects so we don't have repeats of incidents like the ] or the situation involving Mr. Brandt. Is it true that Abraham did such a thing? Is it verifiable that he did such a thing? Is it the case that some material in biographies of living persons, depending on context, does not have to be held to the same standards of sourcing as other material because it does not focus on biographical details but rather incidents? If the answer to all three is yes, I believe the spirit of what BLP is trying to prevent is met. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::NW, read BLP -- sources such as this are to be removed on sight. There is no gray area here. BLP policy is clear on this and it supercedes all other analysis, including WP:V. Again read BLP: the spirit of that policy is basically ''draconian suppression'' of ''anything'' that is contentious and unpublished. In the first few sections alone it says repeatedly, in unambiguous language that frequently includes '''bolding''', that such material is not permitted. Period. Full stop. This unpublished source triggered ''legal action'' between the parties. It's hard to imagine something more controversial than that (or as forbidden from a BLP policy standpoint). This is a slam dunk, and your reading of the spirit of the rule is frankly wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Now, if the wording and sourcing ''had'' been different, then we might have been discussing different issues like weight and verifiability. But the BLP issue was so straightforward that all those other concerns were irrelevant. Or should have been. ] (]) 14:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So what if it led to legal action? That doesn't make it impermissible to add it to the article. If anything, it only makes it more notable. In any case, ] says to avoid using a self-published source as "sources of material about a living person". '''This is not a source of material about a living person, even though it is in a biography.''' Therefore, normal ] rules apply, which this qualifies under as the material is self-published by a notable academic and scientist. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 15:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::NW, this is splitting hairs. Monckton's name is prominent throughout the entire presentation, and in fact he starts the presentation by discussing Monckton's qualifications in a way that would imply that Abraham thought Monckton to be unqualified. You don't consider that to be directed at Monckton himself? If someone posted a long presentation about ''your'' views in that format, questioning your qualifications and then presenting dozens of slides criticizing your arguments and your arguments alone, are you seriously saying you would not feel it was directed at you? ] (]) 19:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Your concern might be relevant if the presentation was being used as a source. But since it's not, at least in the current version, it's an irrelevant issue. -- ] (]) 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::ChrisO, it '''''was''''' used as a source - that's what this request is about. I reverted the source and the text out, citing BLP, and it started a huge discussion on talk where editors were claiming it wasn't a BLP vio. ] (]) 19:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Let me refocus: BLP is meant to ensure that we have verifiable information in our article. Linking to the scientist's website is acceptable to use to verify that he criticized Monckton, as that is where he did it. Whether or not the criticism is notable is another matter. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 20:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::''"BLP is meant to ensure that we have verifiable information in our article."'' No, that is precisely what WP:V is. If WP:V covered it, we wouldn't need WP:BLP. BLP policy exists as a separate entity because the standards are different. Where WP:V has gray areas, BLP is black-and-white; where WP:V stresses verifiability and "getting it right", BLP stresses solid sourcing and protecting the person. I think you are misinterpreting policy here. ] (]) 00:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Well, I guess we differ in our intepretations/opinions then. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 12:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::@NW Aren't you overcomplicating things? I thought question 3 would be something nice and easy like ''Is it notable?'' And probably question 4 should be ''If being the subject of a Guardian blog post makes criticism notable enough for a BLP does that mean all objections to using such blogs are now gone?''. Or maybe it should be ''Is non-notable criticism appropriate for any article, regardless of whether or not it is a BLP?'' Or how about ''When Jimbo pushed for BLP rules did he envisage people adding non-notable criticism to BLPs, backed up by admins telling them it was ok if it wasn't to the BLP part of the BLP?'' ] (]) 14:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@ATren, If it was a BLP vio and you had a simple option to fix it or remove it, which would you do? If the exact form of words and that link was all that was available I would have deleted them. But it looks unimpressive that people warred over the removal rather than discussed the simple fixes possible. Unimpressive all round really. You might as well go the whole hog and say "the article contains a BLP vio lets delete the article". Or "Misplaced Pages contains a BLP vio lets shut down Misplaced Pages". Ok, come here and complain about it but I don't think you get a lot of sympathy when more constructive and quicker avenues to deal with the BLP bit had not been tried. --] ] 15:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::@Weakopedia: I think, and that was the point of the discussion, that the question of "is this notable", is quite separate from the "is this a BLP violation" question. But, you can't discuss "is this notable" before you have "is this a BLP violation" solved. Dunno if that makes sense - but that is/and was my view. --] (]) 15:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC) <small>] (]) 15:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)]</small> |
|
|
::::This whole business is really quite silly and it shows yet again two destructive behaviours which need to be curbed - the lack of any serious effort to discuss the fixes mentioned by BozMo, and the instant resort to a probation enforcement request (which, frankly, is an abuse of this page). The fixes required are obvious, merely a matter of providing reliable sourcing. Following BozMo's comments I have added a new version of the Abraham para which uses reliable sources and presents no BLP issues - see . Hopefully that will resolve the immediate problem here. -- ] (]) 19:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::ChrisO, the text that was inserted 3 times over the past few weeks (and reverted most recently by WMC) had language and sourcing that was quite obviously a BLP vio. Whether there are other wordings/sources which would fit is another question, but the text as it was inserted (repeatedly) was clearly a violation. Now, if someone else had presented alternate sourcing and wording (they did, quite far into the discussion) we could have perhaps evaluated it, but most of the discussion was denying the obvious BLP problem that existed. That's why the request went up, and your insinuations otherwise are misleading. ] (]) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::<small>Having said that, this text has serious weight issues and probably shouldn't be included anyways, even if the BLP problems are addressed. This criticism was barely notable. As a counter example, consider Mann's hockey stick. If you go to Michael Mann's page right now, there is barely a hint of the enormous controversy generated by that theory (warranted or not, there's a ton out there). If well-sourced hockey stick criticism is removed of Mann, how can this barely notable unpublished criticism be kept in here? But this is perhaps a question for the talk page.</small> ] (]) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It's disappointing but perhaps predictable that Marknutley is trying to edit-war the revised paragraph out of the article, claiming BLP violations again , , and declaring his intention to continue edit warring indefinitely. I think a block would be warranted at this stage. -- ] (]) 22:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
ChrisO: You're also edit-warring over contentious material in a BLP: ] (]) 22:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:As I said above, I followed the sourcing suggestions of BozMo (and I see also NuclearWarfare) and added a rewritten version of the disputed paragraph, avoiding the BLP problems that some were claiming with regard to the sourcing. I subsequently reverted once. That does not make an edit war. Marknutley's three reversions when he's on a 1RR parole are more difficult to justify. -- ] (]) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*In my view, it would have been perfectly defensible to cite the Guardian and mention that Abraham had produced a slide show rebutting Monckton, but adding the self-published slide show to the BLP was not. It is not the purpose of BLPs to argue science, or to show why BLP subjects are wrong. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 23:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree, and I agreed with the earlier views that the sourcing was inadequate and the wording poor - which is why I changed both to provide reliable sources and neutral wording (see . Note that the two Guardian articles I cited give both sides of the argument (i.e. Abraham's that Monckton is wrong and Monckton's that Abraham is being malicious and his demands of Abraham). There is of course room for a discussion about weighting, but I don't see anyone objecting on undue weight grounds in the earlier discussion. This seems to be a new objection now that the sourcing and wording problems have been resolved. -- ] (]) 23:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Note:''' ChrisO added the contested source back in. MN reverted, WMC reverted, MN reverted, MN got blocked, and SirFozzie protected. At least he protected with the contested source out, but it's a shame it had to come to this. If Marknutley added an unpublished criticism of the hockey stick from a skeptic scientist to Michael Mann's BLP, he'd be ''immediately'' sanctioned. But he's sanctioned for ''removing'' a bad source here. It's a joke. But this will be my last comment on the matter; it's not worth the trouble anymore. I've spent 3 years battling these same half dozen editors on obvious BLP transgressions, and nobody seems to care. So I don't either. ] (]) 00:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, that's completely wrong. I did not "add the contested source back in". I rewrote the material in its entirety, sourced to two Guardian articles. The contested source was '''not''' used as a source for anything. Nor was Marknutley blocked for removing a bad source. The block was on him rather than other editors because "a) it wasn't a BLP violation, b) they did not break an edit warring parole, and c) they did not signify their intent to continue edit warring even past that". Please check your facts before jumping to conclusions. -- ] (]) 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
@ NW, in response to his comments below and elsewhere: NW, either you accept the wording of ], or you don't. If you don't accept it, argue your case at the WP:BLP talk page; but while WP:BLP policy stands as it is, this was a WP:BLP violation by the letter and spirit of that policy. Arguing otherwise is, with respect, the equivalent of putting your head in the sand. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 10:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree that the source is not ideal (which is why I replaced it) but I don't think the issue is as black and white as you portray it. WP:BLPSPS does not seem to fit very well with self-published academic work by experts in their fields. If Professor Y, a published expert in his field, publishes a detailed critique on his website of a work by Professor Z, that doesn't really seem to fit into the BLP framework. The subject of the critique is not the individual as a person but a work by that individual (a book, speech, TV show, whatever). On the other hand, if Professor Y uses his website to post ''biographical'' claims, that clearly would fall within the BLP framework. But I can't see how a critique of a work, as opposed to biographical claims, would be caught by BLP. Suppose in this case that Professor Abraham had published a scholarly critique of a book by Monckton, rather than a speech. Would that make any difference? If so, why? -- ] (]) 12:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree it feels different if it is a book, rather than a speech; it is less personal. Even so, I believe we wouldn't cite a self-published critique of a scholar's book in the scholar's biography; especially if it is a hostile critique which casts doubt on the author's integrity and competence, as is the case here. Apart from BLP, it comes down to ], "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." But I appreciate you tried your best to find a way for the passage to work. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 00:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:If you approach Misplaced Pages with a black and white view of things ("the information is in a biography of a living person, therefore all aspects of ] must apply", for example), then you are only setting yourself up for failure. That statement I wrote in parenthesis is not true. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 12:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::See ]. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 23:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
====Topic rest==== |
|
|
I agree with Lar (below) that all parties to the recent BLP incidents in the CC area should give CC BLPs a rest until the arbcom decision. I don't agree with some sort of oddly contrived sanction to enforce this, maybe it could be enforced for the parties involved in the recent edit war on the Monkton article but to cast this wider as a sanction would be an over the top and messy solution for the sake of just a day or two. I come to this conclusion because it is just getting crazy following all the twists and turns and not at all helpful in any way. I still think Lar should not be commenting in the section below. ] (]) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning William M. Connolley and Kim D. Petersen=== |
|
|
|
|
|
:''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.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
*A Quest For Knowledge above states that admins are unlikely to rule on this issue because there is an Arbcom case on. This is false. ArbCom has not nullified this board, and it is still the place to take disputes that are not resolvable through the usual channels. That said, I think this issue isn't a clear-cut BLP violation, but a content dispute. I would suggest remanding this case back to the article talk pages, with instructions to play nice with each other. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 01:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*That's one possibility. Another would be to point out that KDP seems to be arguing against all comers in quite the tendentious way, and the participants ought to call consensus, and if they're reverted again, ask for protection. Taking it to talk is good. Trying to filibuster isn't. I see why most folk would see this as a BLP violation. And why many folk would be frustrated with the level of argumentativeness from KDP. Sanctionable? Maybe not. But not nice. ++]: ]/] 02:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
** Addendum. WMC needs another sanction/warning/admonition about pointy behavior and about edit warring to preserve pointy behavior. And if that doesn't do the trick, a block. ++]: ]/] 11:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*I must admit I approached this by belting up my gun and setting of to arrest people abusing sceptic BLPs (again). I found a link to the views of an associate professor (aka "lecturer" in the UK) which were around the place. In my view the wording of the mention was a little POV ("rebutting" etc) the link probably should not go to the presentation (which isn't peer reviewed or anything and is a primary source) but to some of the coverage of it but all in all I am a bit disappointed that everyone went for the mattresses without much attempt to find a compromise text. But I think this is at heart a content dispute where some constructive approach from both sides would help. As For Kim, per one of my children, I would describe him as a "determined" editor, tenditious being a more polemic word but there are other determined editors in CC too. We should close this and send it back to talk. --] ] 08:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*I am inclined to topic ban all participants to the Climate Change ArbCom from all Climate Change topics, including talk pages and only excluding reverting obvious vandalism and socking (any ip or new account), until there is a result. I seriously doubt if the world outside WP would be harmed by not having articles updated for a week or so, and it would put an end to this type of behaviour. ] (]) 13:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**A list of people you would ban please? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***All parties to the ArbCom case; specifically anyone who has been complained about, for any reason. Everyone can take a step back, and go and do something else. ] (]) 19:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**** An idea somewhat like this is being mooted on the evidence talk page. I am coming round to this idea as being possibly workable, since I don't think we are going to get consensus for the "right" set of blocks and sanctions. Some sort of scheme that allows folk so identified to bid for others that also are (3 bids and that person gets added too) might not be totally unworkable although I think it needs more elaboration as an idea, but since it's temporary only? ++]: ]/] 14:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*What BozMo and The Wordsmith said. Describing as a BLP violation is simply wrong. While ''The Guardian'' piece might have been a better reference than the professor's website and there is the matter of ], neither is a matter for this board. Oh, and with regard to ]: nonsense. If we did that, we would have to apply the same to Cla68 for arguing that ''The Hockey Stick Illusion'' is a reliable source on multiple pages. Both are simply the respective editor's opinion, and just because they can argue their point well doesn't mean their are acting disruptively or tendentiously. <small>Caveat: I have not seen Cla's edits since last week and am going by memory</small> '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Suggest a close as stale. As below, is there anything else that could be agreed to after this sat for a week or so? I think not. As below, I propose to do so barring any objection in the next 24 hours. ++]: ]/] 19:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
** There being no objections, enacted. ++]: ]/] 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== ChrisO is seeking enforcement directly from NW == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|Closed: Not formatted as request. ] (]) 15:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)}}; |
|
|
FYI: . I am posting it here because I believe NW acted inappropriately before in blocking MN, and thus ChrisO approaching him directly is also inappropriate. ChrisO should bring it here, not go directly to a friendly admin. ] (]) 21:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oh for goodness' sake. I took it to NW because he was the blocking admin last time, not because he's a "friendly admin"; I asked him to have a word with MN, not to block him; and I didn't bring it here because I didn't want to set off yet another shitstorm, which you obviously do. This was an attempt to get MN's latest 1RR violation resolved quietly without ending up with him being blocked. Your bringing it here makes it much more likely that he ''will'' get blocked. Talk about counter-productive! -- ] (]) 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Is this a request? It is not formatted as one... I would note that Mark nutley has previously asked me to look into possible violations, which seems to be the case here with ChrisO and NW; as long as they are not looking to have the Probation or personal restrictions enforced then it is not an issue. ] (]) 21:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::It appears to be exactly that -- enforcement of mark nutley's personal 1RR restriction. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 22:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I asked NW to have a quiet word with MN to ask him to desist from violating his 1RR again, less than 24 hours after he got blocked for it. But fine, if MN's friends all want to make this a formal enforcement request, let's do it. -- ] (]) 22:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Suggest people read the thread on NW's page: ]. I leave it to uninvolved admins to sort out. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 23:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Chris - I don't think the issue is you asking NW to have a word with MN so much as it is NW did actually impose sanctions in the form of a block without it going through probation enforcement. But I could be wrong. I think I'll leave this topic for a while at least. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 23:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I'm afraid you're mistaken, NW hasn't imposed any fresh sanctions on him. See the . MN's last block was imposed 3 days ago after the issues discussed in ] above. -- ] (]) 23:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::{{editconflict}} 1) Admins are allowed to do impose discretionary sanctions without going to ], the same would apply here, and in any case: 2) I didn't even do that, I blocked Mark for edit warring. There's a difference. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Your block on MN was a bad block that violated BLP, and if arbcom doesn't deal with it, I will start formal recall procedures after the case. But for now, ChrisO should not be asking you to deal with MN privately. That's all. ] (]) 06:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Which is well known by all participants, and where there is never any snarkiness from individuals commenting that certain admins talkpages are the common resort for some editors when probation violations may have taken place; nope, no one ever attempts to portray an admin as being biased because there is a tendency for contributors who edit toward a particular viewpoint to tend to approach a restricted circle of admin<s>s</s> - I cannot think of any participant to all these recent issues who would make such insinuations ... Well, providing I remove William M. Connolley from the equation, of course. No one ever has an issue of an editor approaching an uninvolved admin over potential policy violations. Never. ] (]) 23:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Er. what? Where did that tirade come from? I simply stated the facts about the probation. If we couldn't agree on those facts we'd be in a pretty pickle. --] 23:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Yup. And I started the practice of getting other uninvolved admin's consensus on acting on a request <u>because</u> there were accusations of admins preferring one side of the discussion to another when acting unilaterally , and, guess what? The accusations remain - apparently, I am the "go get guy" for editors of a skeptic viewpoint. At the top of this section, we see the same accusations of collusion made between an editor and an admin, but to the scientific consensus viewpoint. As for the pickle, we are already there - there is an ArbCom case, you may have noticed, where much has been made of my (and another admin whose name escapes me) supposed subject allegiances, based upon comments made in attempting to find consensus or, in my case, acting unilaterally. In this matter it is a foolish admin who acts unilaterally and expects that there will not be accusations of bias and prejudice, because even ensuring that there is a wide consensus for decision does not stop comments being presented in evidence in ArbCom cases. So, yeah, bollocks. ] (]) 00:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::''bollocks'' Did i start a trend? ] (]) 00:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
LessHeard vanU, before you start making observations regarding your status in this probation, please recall that I first contacted you to take a look at possible violations of the probation, and I don't think anybody would describe me as "of the skeptical persuasion" (in the colloquial sense, although of course I adopt a ] outlook regarding all science) on climate change. You say "it's a foolish admin who acts unilaterally", but that doesn't make any sense at all. All admin actions are, perforce, unilateral, and this probation is specifically intended to encourage admins to take action. "Wide consensus" on specific admin actions is explicitly ''not'' required. I'll stop there because it's pretty obvious that I can't make sense of your reasoning in the context. --] 01:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:And in my case, as I already stated, my approach to NW was simply because he was the last admin who had dealt with MN and because I felt that (for obvious reasons) he would be listened to if he had a word with MN about his recent edits. Is NW a "pro-scientific consensus" admin? I don't know what his position is, frankly - he's never stated it anywhere I've seen, and it's not relevant to what he does as an admin. -- ] (]) 01:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Is this going anywhere useful? I suggest that "The regulars" refrain from going directly to admins for anything that might be viewed as in any way not completely uncontroversial, and that the admins, if someone happens to turn up, decline to act unilaterally and suggest the matter be brought here for discussion. Doing those things avoids the suggestion of impropriety and lets this process work. ++]: ]/] 02:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: What process? And why do we have a probation to encourage admin intervention if some people insist on interpreting in such a manner as to discourage admin action? --] 02:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: ''THIS'' process. Which works, (slowly), if allowed to work. Decisions that have consensus stick. ++]: ]/] 02:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
What we've got here is a process for wikilawyering. If it worked to make things better, there would not be an arbitration case. You've been around long enough to know that consensus is not necessarily aided by inserting a bureaucratic process in between problems and decisions. Doing so would only have been conceivably necessary if there was a pre-existing problem of admins taking ill-advised actions. In fact the opposite was (and still is) the case. Few admins will touch this area. --] 03:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:A few points. First, it doesn't follow that there would not be an arbcom case if this process made things better. It's entirely possible that matters would be ''even worse'' than they are now without this process. It's not perfect but it does make things better. Second, we ''do'' have a problem with admins taking ill-advised unilateral actions instead of coming here first. Some argue I did so. Some argue 2/0 did so, Some argue NW did so. I could go on. Third, that few admins would touch this area is perhaps due to a powerful faction seeking revenge on those who take a principled stand, or one that isn't uniformly in that faction's favor. Which is the elephant in the room. Most everyone knows it, but not all will admit it. The case will be in PD stage soon enough and we shall see. ++]: ]/] 03:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Could you explain why you think 2/0, you or NW may have taken action within the probation that might have been ill-advised? I find the notion somewhat novel. Could you also explain what this "powerful faction" is? Do so clearly and unambiguously. I've noticed that you've referred to "the elephant in the room" and the like for some time now, but I don't know what you mean because you don't explain. If the elephant were so obvious I would probably be able to identify it. I can't so please explain now. You know I disengaged from editing precisely because of similar, equally perplexing, not to mention utterly baffling, if vague, accusations. So stop it and make your meaning plain. --] 00:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I said "some" have argued unilateral actions were ill advised. I personally don't think any of mine were, (offhand I can only think of the WMC block, which wasn't "ill advised" even if it got overturned by another admin, also unilaterally). We are talking about a unilateral action about NW, so that sorts that one. As for 2/0, I leave that to others for now. My point really is that reaching consensus ''first'' tends to reduce argument ''afterwards''. As for the rest... I've made my meaning plain at the ArbCom case, as I explained further on my talk. I was advised not to endlessly repeat myself in detail. If you can't or won't see the factionalism active in this area, I'm not sure what more useful there is to say to you, at least at the moment. The case will be in proposed decision phase soon, hopefully. But not soon enough. Finally, your hectoring tone (maybe not intended, but that's how it reads) isn't helpful. ++]: ]/] 16:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I think this discussion would be best served by being on the talkpage, and I <u>know</u> that it would be best if I were to participate when sober. ] (]) 00:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**A little more sobriety from all admins involved in this area would be welcome. I do agree that this entire section is really a talk page matter. --] 02:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This whole thread is a waste off time. Close it, and send ATren off with a flea in his ear ] (]) 07:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Request concerning MarkNutley and BigK HeX == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|Close as stale, no further action taken. ++]: ]/] 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; Users against whom enforcement is requested : |
|
|
*{{userlinks|BigK HeX}} |
|
|
*{{userlinks|Marknutley}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so |
|
|
<!-- When providing several diffs, please use a numbered list as in this example. --> |
|
|
=<p> |
|
|
# BK Reverts prwatch into a BLP |
|
|
# BK Reverts an advocacy group into a BLP |
|
|
# BK Reverts a blog into a BLP |
|
|
# Mark Nutley reverts suspect sources out. Note edit sumary. |
|
|
# BK reverts Mark Nutley, against policy i might add. |
|
|
# Mark Nutley reverts BK hex claiming blp exemption due to blogs and advocacy ref`s being used. |
|
|
# Talk page thread begins. |
|
|
# BK reverts these sources back in. And still has not gone to talk. |
|
|
# Mark Nutley reverts with the edit summary ''rv as before, you can`t use blogs and advocacy sites in a blp STOP'' |
|
|
# BK reverts refs back in warning mark nutley he has done 3r`s. BK has also broken 3r with this revert. |
|
|
# ... |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|
|
I am on a 1r parole broadly construed, i have been told i broke it at ] |
|
|
Bigk hex broke 3r on the article by reverting in blog and advocacy refs. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : I won`t bother to notify meself |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning Mark Nutley and BigK HeX=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Mark Nutley==== |
|
|
I have been tidying this article up for a couple of days, removing obviously unreliable sources for a BLP and tagging others such as this Tagging deadlinks fixing deadlinks using wayback And also removing Primary Sources . I was surprised that BK began to reinsert the obviously bad ref`s back in and reverted him. Note my edit summary . BLP is quite clear on this, any content poorly sourced must be removed. Reverting these out does not count as reverts. That article is still full of primary sources which need to be removed. ] (]) 13:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment in response to BK''' I never mentioned ] and i am unsure were that has come from. I removed sources which were a breach of ] and ] policy. The content was not in my opinion libellous and did not need removing, but i`ll go check, the sources however did need removing which is why they were removed and cn tags left in place. I did also remove content which had been sourced to blogs. I would prefer for BK to explain why he edit warred blog and other crap ref`s into a BLP ] (]) 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by BigK HeX==== |
|
|
I'm just amazed on so many levels.... |
|
|
|
|
|
A 1RR editor is reporting ''himself'' ... after three reverts? |
|
|
|
|
|
And, it also seems pretty silly for this report to be submitted looking like this, and the editor apparently going off to bed or whatever. |
|
|
|
|
|
I guess, most importantly, I have no clue why I'm in any report here, as I was unaware of any sanctions going on with the climate stuff. I'm somewhat annoyed to be in this request for enforcement, when, apparently, mark nutley's indicate that he is aware that this is new to me .] (]) 06:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that there's an actual report to respond to, I'll say this. It was quite a while until it dawned on me that ] was trying to refer to directives such as ], as the justification of his actions. My slow realization was caused by the fact that he didn't actually ''remove any of the article material'' he deemed as contentious -- he removed only the ''citations'' for these allegedly libelous statements. Being that I was puzzled as to why he went around leaving the article less sourced, I asked him to explain on the talk page. Frankly, I've seen this editor's application of guidelines, and in many cases it has been pretty suspect, as, for example, the first source that I saw was a ref which basically was being used as opinion of the authors. Later, I stated that the publication in question (by a group called the UCS) is an RS for opinions of the UCS and he that they can't be used as an RS for the opinions that they hold. When I started editing, I thought there might have been a good chance that the refs could have been removed accidentally. Then mark nutley started deleting the refs only, still with little explanation as to why the refs needed to be removed imperatively (but the material previously supported by the refs was good enough to keep). I kept requesting an explanation, as I couldn't ascertain his thinking, but got very little even when he did start posting on the talk page --- I decided that very little was going to be forthcoming from ], based somewhat on previous interactions with him, which have made me ''very'' unsure of his level of English comprehension (which is also odd to me since he seems to be able to convey himself fine in English when he chooses to). |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyways, it started to become clear that my disagreement could quickly escalate into a strange edit war over leaving the article ''less sourced'', so I decided that it would defuse the situation to find alternative sources and start an ], which has indeed seemed to remove the contention discussed here. ] (]) 17:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning Mark Nutley and BigK HeX ==== |
|
|
This is pretty clearly both a BLP violation and a 3RR violation by BigK HeX. The sources are not RS, in that one is a blog and the advocacy group cite is to a press release. None are acceptable for a BLP, especially when it is negative information. MN is in compliance of his 1RR due to the fact that he was reverting a crystal clear BLP vio. There is no such explanation for the reverts by BH. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 12:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In the real encyclopedia, MN would be fully in the right here, but this article actually resides in ], where wrong is right and right is wrong. In Bizarro Misplaced Pages, poor sourcing is encouraged, BLP doesn't apply, and enforcing BLP policy gets you blocked. In this particular example, MN removed blog sources for criticism, which is a ''big no-no'' in Bizarro Misplaced Pages. Blog sources for criticism are the ''foundation'' of Bizarro Misplaced Pages, where ] is the ] and The Times itself is considered unreliable and unusable. Mark should know this, and I hope he gets a nice healthy block for his transgressions. ] (]) 14:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Comment to BigK Hex - you welcomed yourself to the drama with your repeated insertion of weak disputed citations that were not ] and your failure to follow good practice like ]. IMO you are the one most responsible for creating this report , that is why you are surprised to find yourself in this report. ] (]) 08:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Here's an idea. How about the section for "Statement by BigK HeX" contain just those statements. Regardless, it's pretty asanine to "request enforcement" of a sanction that I was unaware of ... but it's unsurprising that you miss that point. ] (]) 15:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Here's an idea, you accept your major part in this disruption and accept your editing was in the generally accepted style that is referred to here at wikipedia as '''disruptive edit warring'''. ] (]) 15:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
MN has a point about some of the sources being introduced in this article. However, I question whether this is the right forum, as the article involves someone who comments on many subjects, not just climate change. Do we use these enforcement forums every time someone breathes a worth on the subject and there's an edit that is objectionable? Must every content dispute end up here? ] (]) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:This process set up to address CC issues, '''broadly''' construed. This is clearly an appropriate venue. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 17:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: ScottyBerg is right that this should not be used as a forum for every objectionable edit - as with every other article, one starts with clear edit summaries, escalates to discussions on talk pages, and pursues other elements of DR if discussions on talk pages do not reach a satisfactory conclusion. The other elements of DR include posting to content specific noticeboards (RSN, BLPN) as needed, but the usual escalation to ANI is supposed to come here instead of there. BigK HeX has not been aware of this board, and clearly isn't aware of the history, if astonished that someone self-reports (this is the third example I can recall OTTOMH). Frankly, I think a little more discussion at talk and noticeboards was called for before coming here, but others may feel it was inevitable that it would end up here, so why wait. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 19:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Rlevse told me on Nuke`s talkpage that this article fell under the CC probation. As such i have brought it here. BK mey not have known about the probation but i am sure he knows not to edit war, nor insert unreliable sources into a BLP. That is why he is here. I am here as i am a 1r restriction and want it clarified that i did not break it. I do not want another spurious block due to people not looking at the evidence properly ] (]) 19:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I understand that you included your own edits because you wanted clarification that your edits were fine. And I'm not disagreeing that this is the right forum once the need for escalation occurs, as the article is clearly a CC article. My only point is that one shouldn't come running to this board whenever there is a dispute, but try to work it out through other means first. While it was mildly contentious, I thought there was some reasonable progress at the RSN, and it is possible that discussion on article and individual talk pages, as well as relevant notice boards, might have been sufficient to resolve the issue. Or perhaps not, but it is helpful to remember that this board is not intended as the first resort for disputes, but as an alternative to ANI when other options fail.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 21:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I have nor looked at the edits in question, but on a purely technical note, let me quote ''Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines'' from the ]. I don't think this has happened here, and neither has ] been tagged. --] (]) 21:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
** Yes(to StS and SPh as well, just above). Especially if the article talk wasn't tagged. See my proposed close below. ++]: ]/] 22:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***"Editors are expected to be aware of sanctions on articles, assuming the article talk carried the appropriate warning message." - I find that misleading, since the article did not, in fact, carry the appropriate warning message, either as an edit message or as a talk page banner. I suggest you strike that part to not leave a wrong impression --] (]) 22:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
****Would that it were so. Editors have been punished even where ''no'' clear notice exists, and told thatt they ''ought'' to have noticed motices which were not there (and which, in one case, were placed ''after'' the infraction), and ''not'' been cleared of wrongdoing. I take it you are proposing this as a change from current practice - it surely doe not represent current practice. ] (]) 11:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*****I'm not aware of any such case. Please clarify. --] (]) 11:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**** You're right. I've taken another cut, see what you think. ++]: ]/] 00:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***** Better, but still somewhat incongruous with how things have happened before. Only a very few number of relevant articles are tagged with edit notices, and its not reasonable to expect all editors to read talk before editing, or to note a probation header if they do - do you go through all the boxes in the top? I don't. We have previously informed new editors in the region with friendly notice to their talk page, recorded at ]. That seems to be a lot more robust. --] (]) 08:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
******* Point. But it seems I just can't satisfy you. Do you agree with the general theme of no sanctions for anyone? That's the important bit to me. Propose a close taking your concerns into account, here in this section, and if it's good, I'll copy it down and support it in lieu of mine. This needs closing, it's small beer in the grand scheme. ++]: ]/] 15:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
********I think "We take BigK HeX at his word that he was unaware of the existence of the CC article probation in general, or that this article might be subject to it, and no sanction is imposed on any party" without further comments to be sufficient. Why use more words when less will do? It's obvious that he is aware of the probation now, and someone can put him onto the notified list. --] (]) 22:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Making sure to notify editors is great (and certainly much more fair than hitting unsuspecting ones), but IMO a prominent Edit Comment Warning is likely still necessary on tangential articles like this one. For this case, in particular, Climate skepticism is only one facet of the many things that ] objects to. So far, it seems the only true criteria for whether some future un-templated article falls into sanctions is whether it is prone to become a ] between the editors whose names I see in the various sanction requests on this page, and without some warning on the article, it this type of criteria seems subjective enough to snare quite a few people. ] (]) 16:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Yes, you should have been warned by MN (and the warning logged) about this after the first revert so you were aware. That apparently was not done. This whole thing needs to be closed no action but with some lessons learned. ++]: ]/] 16:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Also, how does one add an warning to the edit page for articles like this? ] (]) 16:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: It actually goes on the talk, which, if you are reverting, even once, you should be adjourning to immediately to explain why and justify. That's common practice everywhere on wiki, not just in this area. ++]: ]/] 16:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: As mentioned by someone else though, it also may be common practice to skip the menagerie of boxes at the top of every talk page. Some sort of warning near the edit window itself is probably more foolproof, though talk page templates would minimally cover the bases (officially, anyways). ] (]) 16:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Here`s what is common practice, not edit warring blogs into a blp, try to remember it ] (]) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Given your participation in any edit war here, you'd be well advised to take a look in the mirror, champ. ] (]) 20:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
Agree with Lar's proposed close. ] (]) 23:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I changed it so your agreement may not be operable. ++]: ]/] 00:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Just reaffirming my endorsement fwiw. That's how I took it from the start. ] (]) 01:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The correct approach when one believes that an edit has been made contrary to WP policy is to notify that editor of the relevant policy and pursue the matter through the RSN, BLP, NPOV or 3RR noticeboards. For special cases like article probation and 1RR, the editor should be notified of this. From mark nutley's statement, this was not done and therefore this discussion thread is premature and should be closed. ] (]) 23:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure that this is stale. BigK HeX is continuing to harrass Marknutley, repeatedly accusing MN of misconduct on an article talk page: |
|
|
] (]) 19:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is certainly acceptable to complain to another editor after he has repeatedly requested input for a change of name when there is no consensus for it and to repeatly make the same arguments to people when it is clear they are not convincing. I have made my views clear on the name change and my opinion will only change if new evidence and new arguments are provided. I do not appreciate that virtually the same discussion is raised by mark nutley over and over again, requiring me to restate the same objections I had before. ] (]) 19:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's true that Mark opened an RfC, but the current round of article title discussions, I believe, was started by someone else. In any case, article talk pages are not the proper venues to discuss editor conduct. If BigK HeX has a problem with Mark, he should take it up at his talk page or file an RfE. ] (]) 19:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning BigK HeX and Mark Nutley=== |
|
|
|
|
|
:''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.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
* <s> Suggest this be deleted for now, and restored by Mark when he has the details and diffs ready to share. ++]: ]/] 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)</s> Has been filled in now, the above suggestion is no longer applicable. ++]: ]/] 22:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* <s>Editors are expected to be aware of sanctions on articles, assuming the article talk carried the appropriate warning message. Nevertheless I'm inclined to take BigK HeX at his word that he was unaware and close this with an admonition that now he is aware and now he needs to be more careful and cognizant of the restrictions as next time ignorance will not be accepted, and no other action.</s> Thoughts? ++]: ]/] 22:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
**StS points out the above is a bit misleading; and he's right. The article talk wasn't tagged and apparently still is not. Here's my actual proposed close: (Arkon's endorsement should be disregarded as it is prior to this wording): |
|
|
*::''Editors are expected to be aware of sanctions on articles, assuming the article talk carries the appropriate warning message. In this case the article did not, and as of this writing still does not. That should be rectified by any concerned editor. We take BigK HeX at his word that he was unaware of the existence of the CC article probation in general, or that this article might be subject to it, and no sanction is imposed on any party. BigK HeX is cautioned that such ignorance only works one time.'' |
|
|
*:Thoughts? ++]: ]/] 00:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::*I agree with the gist of this but I am concerned that it reads as "''You didn't know about the climate change probation, so you will not be sanctioned.''" To my mind this is insufficient; if I had come across this as a current edit-war in an AN3 report, I would likely have blocked BigK HeX for edit-warring regardless of the existence of the probation. I think any close needs to make clear that this pattern of editing is unacceptable in any Misplaced Pages article; that BigK HeX has not been blocked is due ''both'' to his ignorance of the probation ''and'' to the fact the edit-war was stale by the time of this report. ] (]) 02:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*Good point. ++]: ]/] 03:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Suggest a close, no action, as stale. At this point is there anything else we could do? I doubt it. I will do so barring any objection in the next 24 hours. ++]: ]/] 18:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:support close as stale. Life is too short --] ] 19:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::So enacted. ++]: ]/] 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Viriditas == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|Closed as A Quest For Knowledge said he would withdraw once Viriditas had restored his comment. 19:42, 27 July 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 Viriditas=== |
|
|
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 13:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Viriditas}} |
|
|
|
|
|
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] |
|
|
|
|
|
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> |
|
|
# Edits another editor's (me) comments. |
|
|
# Does it again. |
|
|
# Does it again. |
|
|
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): <p> |
|
|
# Warned Viriditas not to edit my comments (in edit summary) |
|
|
# Warned Viriditas again not to edit my comments (in edit summary) |
|
|
# Warned Viriditas on his user talk page to not edit my comments. |
|
|
# Request Viriditas one last time to not edit my comments. |
|
|
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Standard 24 hour block. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Viriditas is clearing being ]. He is editing a comment I made in an RfC despite me asking him several times not to do this. He's claiming that "table is disrupting the layout and presentation of the discussion. The reader comes first." The evidence I presented is in '''collapsed section''' so it only takes up a single line. So his complaint makes no sense. In any case, you're not supposed to be editing another editor's comments and certainly not edit war over them. |
|
|
|
|
|
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|
|
Viriditas notified. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion concerning Viriditas=== |
|
|
|
|
|
====Statement by Viriditas==== |
|
|
I did not change any "comments". I replaced a collapsed list that was disrupting the layout of an RfC discussion with a direct link to the list that already existed in user space, preserving the format of the RfC. Problem was explained to user but user refused to acknowledge or fix it in any way. A compromise was proposed after further discussion, and yet again, user refused to address the issue except to issue multiple threats to file a RfE against me. ] (]) 13:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Update: I've apologized to AQFK for my behavior and for failing to ask for his permission before making my changes. Looking back, I should have brought it up with him first. ] (]) 17:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Update: I've self-reverted. ] (]) 00:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comments by others about the request concerning Viriditas ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
Thin skins abound. Both parties to this conflict are in the wrong. ] (]) 14:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Other than a premature rush to this page, I see zero evidence of fault by AQFK. I'm not aware of any policy proscription against use of a collapse section in an RfC. Is there one?--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 16:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Why does AQFK need to include his long google list as a collapse box? Why does Viriditas need to remove his collapse box and replace it with a link? Neither side is bathing themselves in glory. The policy in question is ]. ] (]) 16:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Why does an editor include any material in a discussion? Because they think it is relevant to the question. In an RfC about the appropriateness of a name, AQFK gathered some information about the usage of the term. While different editors may assign different weight to the information, it would be astounding if anyone claimed it wasn't on-topic. We normally give wide latitude to how editors choose to express themselves on talk pages, and while the ] urges editors to be friendly and not confrontational, I don't see any guidelines prohibiting the inclusion of lists. I see a lot of ], but I'm not seeing much ]--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 16:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] applies, there should be agreement on this. ] (]) 14:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I think you're right, it does apply. Note in particular the lack of prohibition. Note also the point about moving stuff off-page, which was exactly what was done ] (]) 16:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Note also: ''If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.''--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 16:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Viriditas=== |
|
|
:''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 {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired (It usually is, so hat/hab should almost always be used) --> |
|
|
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Article tags== |
|
|
<small>Fake timestamp so this doesn't get archived prematurely: 22:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
I am getting sick and tired of people edit warring over things like {{tl|POV}} and other ] tags. Therefore, for a two week period, all editors are prohibited from adding or removing any tags listed ] or those that are related to those tags, broadly construed. This restriction may be bypassed through local article talk consensus. If you feel that an article is not neutral, then either fix it or talk about it on the talk page. |
|
|
|
|
|
Violation of this sanction will result in first a notification of the existence of this sanction, and then a block if edit warring continues. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion=== |
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking as someone who's been entirely uninvolved in tagging articles, I have to say I find it annoying when people '''on both sides''' fight over tags and waste their time (and that of others) squabbling about it. The sanction is clearly necessary, so thank you for this intervention. However, it's ridiculous that it's got to the point of needing a sanction. A number of editors really need to raise their game. -- ] (]) 22:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sounds like common sense to me. Edit warring over something like this is silly. Discussion on the talk page is usually the way to go for putting tags up in an article. If the editors don't agree then the tag gets put up until there is enough editors agreeing that the article is fixed and the tags get removed. Good call here. Good night everyone, --]] 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::From what I've seen of the tag warring, it often seems to be a matter of one editor slapping a "badge of shame" on an article against the wishes of the other editors. It's not remotely a productive way to operate. -- ] (]) 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Fine by me. The underlying problem remains, of course - that tags are being used for hostabe and revenge, sometimes explicitly - but this is probably a good solution for now ] (]) 07:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Working on the underlying "waring" and battleground behavior would be a better effort. See ] which recommends applying tags. If there is a tag dispute, then there is a dispute to be peacefully resolved. Tags are less harmful <s>harmless</s> than mean spirited reverters (like WMC, who should be on self imposed zero revert by now). This proposal assumes the status quo is best for Misplaced Pages, which i find difficult to accept. This can be a better place when revert wars are disarmed. ] (]) 05:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I disagree with this unilateral move. Tagging an article as POV is entirely appropriate and the only way to get movement on some articles. I do not condone edit warring, but that is a separate issue from the tags, and can be appropriately addressed in other ways. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 10:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I support it. It gets rid of some of the useless bickering, baiting, and pointiness. Tagging is useful to mark articles where problems otherwise might go unrecognized. Fat chance of that in the climate change articles, where essentially any tag will be followed by a fierce discussion anyways. --] (]) 11:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
** Tags are for the benefit of the readership, as well as editors. Disallowing a tag can (not always, but can) do the readership a disservice. Stats show that many readers do not visit article talk space. ++]: ]/] 11:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
***Yes but nobody is disallowing tags. If there is either a consensus or no objection that a tag is needed on the talkpage then one can be added. At the moment tags are being used to fight battles and this needs to stop. ] (]) 11:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* In general, I would suggest the presence of a tag is far less a problem than the removal of a tag. For POV tags especially, the fact that an editor believes POV exists should be presumed correct - no single editor or editors can decide POV is not a problem in an article. Tags are aimed at alerting readers to problems which might be in an article - they are not just for editors (who, presumably, are aware of article problems without tags.) ]] is useful here. ''In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV'' is sound advice. ] (]) 11:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::In general you are spot on. I agree if a significant number of editors feel that an NPOV tag is needed it does not matter if there is complete consensus for it, the tag should be there until the issue is resolved through compromise. That is not the same as an editor slapping an NPOV tag on an article as part of a content battle, which is what is happening in climate change. ] (]) 12:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Lar's proposal, by contrast, is junk and would make things worse. Throw it out ] (]) 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Actually, Lar's solution is better than the original option. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 13:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Sounds like a thoroughly horrible idea, but I see no better way to save people from themselves. People keep getting dragged into edit wars over this. This can lead to enforcement issues or page protection. Neither of these really gets us to a better encyclopaedia. ] (]) 13:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Why did it suddenly become a problem?=== |
|
|
|
|
|
The WMC faction has been gaming the POV tags for months -- look at ] for an example. Now all of a sudden it's a huge problem because I tagged one of their heros, ]. I'm suddenly accused of "revenge tagging" (yes, really) because I tagged Mann for not having a single substantive criticism of the hockey stick even while the WMC faction is edit warring to include some guy's private rant in Monckton's BLP. This entire topic area is a parody of what Misplaced Pages should be, with the WMC faction constantly attacking the only two truly neutral admins here (Lar and LHvU) while obvious faction defenders like NW are creating new sanctionable offenses at the behest of the faction. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to know what is inappropriate about adding a tag to an ] in which criticism from published books and newspapers like the WSJ have been suppressed for months. Similarly, I would like to know what's wrong with untagging an ] which hadn't had a single talk page comment in 3 weeks. Because those were the two things I did which triggered this royal proclamation from NW, and neither is problematic in the slightest. ] (]) 12:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: It would be nice if you could leave you hatred at the door. There is no "WMC faction", and if you think there is, you should have presented evidence of same to Arbcomm. Please try to avoid hijacking every thread with the same tired spam. You're accused of revenge tagging because you've quite blatantly done it ] (]) 12:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In 10 minutes, I found multiple published criticisms of Mann and his hockey stick, and until yesterday barely a whisper of controversy was in the article. I looked through the history and found your faction consistently deleting that criticism. So I put the tag up. Later I added the material, and predictably, one of your faction whitewashed it, keeping the source but not the details. So I added the tag again. This is how it's supposed to work, but ever since your faction got a stranglehold on this topic area, everything is upside down, and suddenly we have "neutral" admins decreeing that tagging is now an offense -- even though your faction has been gaming the tags on Lawrence Solomon for months. Typical Bizarro World enforcement here, where blatant POV pushing from your faction gets a pass while new transgressions are invented to squelch the editors trying to fix the damage you've done. ] (]) 12:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::ATren, I'm getting very tired of these constant accusations of "alarmist factions", "whitewashing" and biased admins. I'm obviously not the only one who feels that way. Please tone it down. -- ] (]) 13:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::See ]. ] (]) 13:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::See also ]: "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people." Might be time to drop the stick or file that RFC you were talking about. |
|
|
:::::: ATren found trash by ] which he seems to think suitbale for inclusion ni a BLP. Which speaks for itself ] (]) 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Seems to me that it would be just as appropriate as anything from . <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 14:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*It was the edit war yesterday that made me add this sanction, yes. I also remember this issue coming up on multiple other pages, including ]. The reason I added this sanction was not to protect my favorite version of any article (indeed, I did not know which articles had tags and which didn't when I applied it), but more because I felt generally frustrated with how they were being used as battleground ammunition. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 13:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I would agree that tag strikes are on the rise. I had a non-climate change article trolled by CC regulars, tag bombed and put to fierce scrutiny by a nomination for deletion deadline. This is after the drive by tagger offered no talk and tagged. The level of malicious intent toward others, is to be a cause for concern. ] (]) 13:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::He means ] and he is effectively calling me a malicious troll, not that I care. ] (]) 13:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Wasn't there a here where a warning about the use of statements like "WMC faction" was the resolution? <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 14:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Objection to involved admin Lar's proposed close=== |
|
|
|
|
|
I object to Lar's proposal of a quorem of two, given that both "factions," according to Lar, have readily available sycophants who will gladly support whatever nonsense their cofactioneers propose, without doing any substantive due dilligence. I propose that to add any tag, someone needs to get approval of said tag from a fully distant editor - that means no "uninvolved like lar" admin, but rather some random, saying that said tag is appropriate. Such editors can frequently be found at ], or ]. ] (]) 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Do you mean "quorum"? Just curious since ChrisO watches this stuff closely to determine an editors educational level. Regards, <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">] ]</span> 14:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Agree. Also note Lar's invalid moving of comments ] (]) 12:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Half ], and half an attempt to cement factions? Horrible, effectively unpatrolable, and an invitation for honest mistakes to be blown into wikidrama. --] (]) 12:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Whether Lar is involved or not is beside the point. His idea is a formula for gridlock, and for every single Climate Change article being slapped with an unwarranted NPOV tag forever. That benefits only the most extreme voices on both sides, and is a formula for endless bickering and wikilawyering. ] (]) 14:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Result concerning Article Tags=== |
|
|
|
|
|
:''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.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
* I'm not sure there's necessarily consensus for this unilateral imposition among uninvolved admins. I'm not necessarily opposed but I'd like to see that consensus. I do have concerns about disallowing tagging which is a valuable and normally routine thing to do. ++]: ]/] 10:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think it is a good move and I support it. I also think under thr original probation terms this kind of unilateral action by an uninvolved admin was what people had in mind so it is legit. However, I agree since then practice has proven more about consensus. I would be happy providing a post hoc blessing in this case --] ] 11:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*After some thought, I have a compromise proposal to put forward that I think addresses the edit warring aspect without removing the benefit of appropriate placement or removal. It's my view that by default, it should be easier to place a tag than to remove it. It's unfortunately more complicated. Here goes: |
|
|
:: For the duration of this sanction, placement of a tag requires that two editors who participate in editing the article support it. (so that it's not just one person's view) Tags placed that do not receive such support are subject to immediate removal by anyone until they do. (thus if I placed a tag, it could be instantly removed, and only after talk page discussion including two editors that did edit would it be restorable without sanction... placing it of course would move me to involved :) ) Tag removal of validly placed tags cannot occur less than 24 hours after placement and cannot occur unless there is a clear and overwhelming consensus that the problem identified has been resolved. Such consensus should be among a quorum of all the editors who have recently (within 2 weeks) edited the article in any way (even vandal reversion or typo fixes). Notification of editors that there is a discussion is permitted but not required. If notification is done, it should be per our standards, neutral, and it should be to all editors eligible to form that quorum, not a subset, excepting only editors already discussing the matter. |
|
|
:Smith away. ++]: ]/] 12:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Too subject to wikilawyering and too ], in my opinion. I would prefer the temporary blanket ban with exceptions once something has concretely been established to be a problem. The point of my sanction was not to prevent tags from being used at all, but to prevent them from being used as a battleground behavior. This modification I fear would not be able to hold up. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 13:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Your proposal makes it exactly as hard to add as to remove. That's wrong. Adding needs to be easier than removing, per long standing practice. Modify your proposal to tilt that way and I'll support it. As written, sorry, but no. Consensus of course may go against me which is fine. ++]: ]/] 13:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==AN/I issue== |
|
|
{{collapse top | No action - leave it for ArbCom to decide ] <sup>]</sup> 04:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)}} |
|
|
I should flag up the fact that I've raised an issue at AN/I - see ]. Since this noticeboard has completely broken down - every request gets closed as stale - I've taken it there, particularly as the issue needs to be dealt with quickly. -- ] (]) 02:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
