Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:General sanctions | Climate change probation Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:44, 23 August 2010 editWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley comment editing restriction modification: comment← 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| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators105,825 edits update as the sanctions that superseded the community-authorised one are now CTOP as they were placed by arbcom 
(445 intermediate revisions by 56 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 = 10
]
|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.

* {{User|RigidRotor}} &ndash; reported by ] (]) 07:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

<!--
<nowiki>
Format:
* {{User|ExampleUser}} &ndash; reported by ~~~~
* {{ip|ex.am.pl.e}} &ndash; reported by ~~~~
</nowiki>
-->

== Article tags ==
{{collapse top|1=All editors are prohibited from adding or removing POV, neutrality or factual accuracy (or similar) tags to articles within the topic area of climate change, broadly construed, without first achieving a consensus on the talk page. Any new addition or removal without first having a consensus may be summarily reverted. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 04:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
:Altered by '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' at 19:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC), per of The Wordsmith.
}}
<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">]&nbsp;]</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">]&nbsp;]</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)

* @admins, Tags are for the readers benefit and are harmless. How does this proposal help Misplaced Pages? This proposal is becoming another edit waring tool. Just work on the people who are waring, that's the answer here. I see no benefit in any tag restriction proposal unless applied to a specifically abusive editor. A blanket restrictions hurts Misplaced Pages. Abandon these tag restriction proposal. ] (]) 19:21, 4 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">]&nbsp;]</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)

@The Wordsmith: I don't think that NW proposed that that POV tags be disallowed on CC pages without a consensus to do so. In fact, that's ''against'' standard practice across Misplaced Pages. Tags should stay unless there's a concensus to remove them, not the other way around. In any case, I believe that NW's proposal is that all editors are prohibited from adding or removing any tags. ] (]) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
::Disallowance without a consensus was my read. ''"This restriction may be bypassed through local article talk consensus"''... As I said before, I find that problematic. Adding should be easier than removing. Make adding a bit harder? Sure. But it needs to still be easier. ++]: ]/] 16:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

===Objection to 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)
::<comment by GregJackP ><small>note added ], ] 00:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)</small>
::: Insulting other editors about their disabilities? Do you kick cripples on weekends? Spit at blind people? ] (]) 14:59, 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)
::::We need to reduce the amount of time spent fighting over tags, since that time would be better spent doing... well, pretty much anything else. NW's proposal, while arbitrary on some level, at least promotes that goal. I'm concerned that adding several layers of bureaucratic criteria for tagging will ''increase'' the amount of time spent fighting over tags (since inevitably, people will fall out to arguing about whether criteria 1, subsection c has been satisfied, or the meanings of "quorum" and "consensus"). In that sense, I think this proposal, while well-intentioned, would be counterproductive. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::Adding needs to be easier than removing. NW's proposal has the fatal flaw of that not being the case. I am open to other suggestions for ways to ensure that, while reducing edit warring but I cannot accept NW's proposal as written, it's counter to how we do things. ++]: ]/] 19:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I endorse NW's proposal that POV tags be disallowed on CC pages without a consensus to do so. It is not ideal, but then again neither is Misplaced Pages, or Wikipedians. The proposal is a pragmatic approach and is probably necessary at this point. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 15:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
===Extension===
*Announcement: This seems to have worked fairly well so far. Therefore, I am extending this to last until the closure of ]. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
**The way things are going, you might as well extend it until the ]. It would probably be a shorter extension. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 03:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

:: Worked? ... the articles are getting better because of this? ] (]) 03:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's working. I wasn't convinced it was a good idea to make it harder to add tags and easier to remove them (relatively speaking, with reference to the status quo ante). I'm also not comfortable with a <s>unilateral</s> imposition or extension ''outside of consensus. ++]: ]/] 03:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
:For what its worth, I endorse the extension, so it is not unilateral anymore. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 04:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Corrected phrasing, struck unilateral, new phrasing italicised. Your endorsement helps but is not yet consensus. It may form, as it did for the initial imposition, and I will go along but I will voice my opposition nevertheless, while supporting consensus if formed. ++]: ]/] 12:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
::It's not worth anything. Unilateral means "''Performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others''", so this remains a unilateral act. Without discussion, or community consensus, there is no necessity for anyone to adhere to this unilateral, out-of-process sanction. ] (]) 05:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Um, no. If this extension achieves consensus among uninvolved admins here, it will be enforced. You go against it at your peril. ++]: ]/] 10:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Call the question. So far I see NW and TW in support, myself opposed. Any more views? ++]: ]/] 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

==Request to have topic ban reduced to original length==

My topic ban was extended by 3 months due to discussing global warming on a user talk page I was welcome at. The CC sanctions do not apply to user talk pages. According to a consensus of editors and admins have confirmed that CC sanctions cannot be applied to behavior on user talk pages. This list of people includes:

# Dirk Beetstra
# Tarc
# Cardamon
# Dave Souza
# Dragon's Flight
# Wikidemon
# Jehochman
# Griswaldo
# ChrisO
# Bozmo

Additionally, the admin who instated the original 6 month ban did so without consensus and without filing an enforcement request against me here - I recall SlimVirgin saying that an admin who collects evidence against someone should not be the person deciding the sanction. He simply slapped a dozen diffs together, posted them on my talk page, and topic banned me for 6 months, which seems quite excessive considering the minor and/or misrepresented/out-of-context diffs that he posted and since it was my first topic ban in the area. Despite that I've followed the sanctions and not attempted to edit any CC articles or their associated talk pages to save myself some heartache and frustration, but I've also quit editing articles largely because of this experience as well.

In light of this, since 2over0 is willing to scrounge up evidence against climate skeptics and ban them for half-a-year he should be prevented from acting as an admin in this area or even desysoped (but I doubt that can be done here). At the very least the consensus is that a 3-month extension for talk on a user page was outside the scope of the CC sanctions and that extension should be immediately revoked. Cheers. ] (]) 00:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

:For clarity, I read the ANI consensus as: GSCC-based sanctions can not be applied to an editor's behavior that is unrelated to climate change. However, I would say that GSCC-based sanctions might apply to user talk page discussions regarding climate change, at least under some circumstances. I haven't studied your individual case TheGoodLocust, and probably won't have the time to do so, though I do sympathize with your evident frustration. In general, I would expect and encourage admins to give clear warnings before applying GSCC-based sanctions in potentially unexpected places, such as user talk pages. ] (]) 01:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

{{hat|Dragons flying with Rocky Mountain Locusts}}
::Yes it is difficult to put so many people on a list because people interpret things differently. My interpretation was that WMC's defense was based on the fact that the CC sanctions only apply to climate change related pages (see ) and therefore that usertalk pages aren't covered under the sanction (several people explicitly said this). ] (]) 01:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

::Oh, and I put you on the list because you said: ''The climate change probation created by Arbcom applies to behaviors on climate change related pages. WMC might even have deserved a block for POINTy behavior, but applying the CC probation to pages and actions not related to climate change seems like overreaching, and the applied restriction probably needs to be revised accordingly.'' I put you on the list in good faith and wasn't trying to misinterpret what you said. ] (]) 01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

:::No worries. I believe that "climate change related pages" may include things like user talk pages and noticeboards when editors are using them deal with climate change. To do otherwise makes it way too easy to game the system via an otherwise meaningless change of venue. But GSCC is still based on and limited to actions related to climate change. That kind of nuance of opinion can sometimes be easy to miss, and I certainly don't blame you for putting me on that list. Don't worry about it. ] (]) 01:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

::::Well, arguably WMC's actions and talk page are almost entirely related to climate change and his incivility trumps anything I've seen from any other editor (), but I think he does such things because he knows that admins aren't supposed to block or impose sanctions on behavior that occurs right after the sanction - some people might consider that gaming the system. In any case, his recent spat of "hattings" have called several admins stupid and that was after you unblocked him - I guess everyone (including himself) is so used to such incivility that nobody really cares. I can guarantee you that I've never acted anywhere near that badly, nor have I received two-dozen+ "warnings" or slap-on-the-wrist sanctions and yet I'm the one with a massive topic ban (not based on content since it was all well-sourced and written). ] (]) 02:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::Oh, don't get me wrong. WMC's behavior can be way beyond what is reasonable some times, and he can often be deserving of sanctions (which seem more than likely in the current Arbcom case). I didn't unblock WMC. I merely clarified the technical point that GSCC sanctions don't apply during those times when he isn't working on climate change stuff. In principle, ] and ], etc., should still always apply to him. In practice, there is undoubtedly something of a double standard. ] (]) 02:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
{{hab}}

'''Support''' - reduction in ban length to time served as soon as Arb posts their proposed decisions, assuming there is not a proposal that would impose something more stringent on you. So why were you topic banned anyway? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 02:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:A huge variety of reasons - 2over0 took a shotgun approach to it. Several of them were me talking about WMC et all's serious problems which I've evidenced on the ArbCom evidence page (e.g. describing how he deleted a 5 year old section in an article after he had to include another section - this was after over month (2?) of arguing with all of them until they were finally shown to be completely wrong when the IPCC itself admitted its fault). He also seemed to have a problem with me using the term "AGW advocate" which I thought was a pretty neutral term. Anyway is the full list, but look at the actual diffs themselves and not his descriptions (I'll provide context if asked). Also, I think there were a couple diffs of poor behavior on my part, in particular I re-opened a RfE thread which I shouldn't have done, but it was excessive to ban me for that after the fact when I'd already learned my lesson. However, I want to be clear that I'm just arguing to have the extension reduced which was based entirely on user talk of a civil nature on a friendly talk page - outside of the scope of the CC sanctions as shown by the rules and recent consensus on ANI. Reviewing 2over0's excuses to ban me, in detail, is only necessary to illustrate why he should be banned from CC enforcement. ] (]) 02:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
::Well that seems reasonable in light of recent events. And by the way, on the General Discussion talk page I did kind of get on a soapbox earlier about the disparity of sanctions and enforcement against the two opposing factions in this topic area. If you have not had a look, I think you'd be interested. I was not aware of your sanction at the time or it would have been a good example to use. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 02:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
* I'm not totally clear: are you asking to have your topic ban lifted because you see a technical angle that can be played, or because you intend to contribute constructively to climate-change articles? What can we expect from you if the topic ban is lifted early? ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 04:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

::I'm asking to have the extension removed since it was based on behavior not under the jurisdiction of the CC sanctions. My behavior afterward is irrelevant as long as I behave well. I can assure you I won't be calling multiple admins stupid nor will I be posting the private address/telephone numbers of people I ideologically disagree with while implying that they are committing tax fraud. ] (]) 04:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Can you give examples of articles you would contribute to, with specific additions and sources? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 12:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
::::Why is this necessary? Is this a ''specific requirement'' of the probation that I missed, that editors who were incorrectly banned by the letter of the probation now have to justify unbanning by providing a list of editing targets? Why are you creating a requirement that isn't there, and why to TGL? Is it because he opposes the faction? Once again, your uneven approach to this probation is evidenced. ] (]) 14:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::Wow. It's like yesterday never even happened. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 16:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::The questions that I ask are standard ones that ArbCom routinely asks to editors who are appealing a topic ban (see the bottom sections of ], I think), no matter what the circumstances of the original ban were. And if you have issues with my behavior, I again remind you that you have RfC as an option if you wish for the broader community to comment on my actions. This is not the place to do so. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 04:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* One of the most common justifications for lifting a topic ban is that the user has made significant contributions to articles in other topic areas, thereby demonstrating their ability to contribute constructively and harmoniously. TGL's contribution history shows precisely , inspiring little confidence for the future. ] (]) 04:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

::Yep, I stopped doing article edits for the most part due to the unjust nature of the ban. That is something that can be fixed right now though. Again, as I said above, I'm merely asking to put the topic ban to its original length since there is a massive consensus that the CC sanctions shouldn't be based on user talk page behavior. 04:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

TGL, in the last week you have written :
::"Seriously, the vast majority of academia and the media is liberal and yet you don't think this affects results at all? You can design a study to "prove" nearly anything you want - confirmation bias and groupthink is rampant. I've met more than my fair share of fruit loops when I was at college, but most of their work wasn't being used to justify the destruction of the industrial age - and so most people outside of the echo chamber of academia don't really care what they think and don't mount "political challenges" against their loony tune hypotheses."
This shows a disturbing disdain for the integrity of the academic community as a whole, implying that that studies published by reputable peer-reviewed journals are regularly rigged to find pre-determined results. You have also written, on the subject of the membership of the ] :
::"Also, having some 10% of the NAS signing off on a letter means very little to me. I can easily imagine that 10% of that body is foolish enough to think that wikipedia or "Real Climate" (hard to tell the difference really) are good sources of information - it is easy to con people by only giving them the facts that confirm a hypothesis rather than those that disprove it."
This comment was made in the context of suggesting Mastcell does not understand the distinction between a scientific hypothesis and a theory, and implied the same was true of the NAS membership. The NAS is the elite body of US scientists, and to suggest that they would not know the difference between hypothesis and theory, or that they are credulous fools unable to analyse results or information sources for themselves is disrespectful and shows a highly distorted picture of the scientific and academic communities.
Now, my question is this: in light of your comments, how am I or any other neutral editor supposed to ] that you are editing neutrally and not pushing an agenda? ] (]) 05:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:You don't have to assume anything. I'm not interested in playing the game of people digging up diffs so I can defend them and we can fill this spot with pages and pages of nonsense. If my article edits were bad then I would've been blocked for them - they were not. You are suggesting to block me for having an opinion. the fact of the matter is, despite any distractions thrown out there, that the extended block was based on user talk and the consensus is that the CC sanctions don't apply to that space. The three options are either to reblock WMC indefinitely, remove the extension on my topic ban, or demonstrate how rules apply to some people and not to others based on ideology. ] (]) 06:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

@EdChem: ChrisO has been expressing his ideology strongly in this topic area. If you are concerned about TGL, then I assume you will express similar concerns about ChrisO, who recently viciously smeared a CC skeptic blogger on a talk page. I look forward to you applying your criticisms evenly to ChrisO as you have to TGL. ] (]) 14:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - now that we have had all the talk about WMC on ANI we should all know why this is a bad block. Usertalk is not CC space, end of story. So TGL has only made a few edits recently? Well that is certainly abiding by the terms of the block isn't it - surely that is a good thing. Regardless of what anyone thinks, we now have the precedent that ''usertalkpages are not part of CC space'' so let's stick to that. It would be a real shame if certain people were arguing on ANI that usertalk is '''not''' CC related, yet arguing here that it is. ] (]) 06:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

::Two options here -- vacate TGL's block or reinstate WMC's. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 06:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per Weakopedia, this topic ban should never have been extended for the reason it was anyway ] (]) 08:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Whilst a "foolish consistency ..." it is also clear that some ''appear'' to ptoffer directly conflicting views of what the CC probation rules are. It is improper to suggest that one interpretation applies to some editors, and an entirely different interpretation applies to others. WP reasonably should be expected to say "choose one or the other" but using both depending on who is being involved is wrong. WP is not known for being "fair" but it well ought to follow its own procedures and policies, and not alter them depending on who the personalities are. ] (]) 11:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be in our standard format. I think we need at least the sections to segregate discussion added, because at least Marknutley and Minor4th are not "uninvolved admins. I've added one section below, but the rest seems a bit tangled. Perhaps someone else can give refactoring a go? ++]: ]/] 11:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

*'''Conditional Support-ish''' - Well it woulda been nice to be informed that an opinion of mine was being used as support for a sanctions appeal. :) I clicked here by chance from elsewhere, but anyways... Yes, I did support the limiting of the refactoring from applying to one's own talk page, but I don't think this should be used as a blanket precedent that ''every'' ArbCom sanction can be halted at the gates like that. When interaction bans are enacted, for example, the parties to that should be prohibited from ''all'' contact in any venue, one doesn't get a free pass to respond to the other one someone's talk page. Or a topic-banned user contributing to or creating userspace drafts of articles that fall within the topic, I don't want a loophole opened to allow that through. For this case, I'd like to see a link to the thread in question. If Thegoodlocust was discussing the topic agreeably and in good faith, I'd support a lifting of the sanctions here. If it was anything like when the Obama-topic-banned ChildofMidnight used to hang out on Grundle's talk page and BAWWWWW about other editors and the topic area being hijacked, etc...then that wouldn't be cool. ] (]) 12:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - of course we all know how uneven the enforcement of this board has been, where blatant transgressions by the science faction have drawn little or no sanction while "skeptics" were topic banned at the drop of a hat. So of course it should be overturned on that basis alone, but here we have a ''technical'' reason to overturn it. And we all know how important technicalities are these days, since even obvious trollish behavior is unsanctionable if it doesn't violate the ''letter'' of the probation. So clearly TGL should be free to edit again. In fact, he should just start editing ''in defiance'' of the invalid ban, because that's the way it works, right? As we've seen with WMC, there is no need for appeals, ''as long as you think you're right and you can get a mob to show up at AN/I to support you.'' We even have people there comparing WMC to (yes, really!), a clear indication that civil disobedience is now acceptable here. So, TGL, perhaps you should just plow through all the process and start editing again, and we'll have another monster thread at AN/I to sort it out. I'll be sure to chime in with a comparison to ] or some other ridiculously over-the-top analogy, like they do. Fuck process. ] (]) 15:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
::Fuck process, indeed. Yes, this is what "the community" has created. No doubt there will be more disenfranchised users popping up and rejecting their sanctions in reliance on WMC example. Are we absolutely 100% certain Scibaby's block conforms with the precise letter of policy? Can we be sure GoRight's block is not invalid? What about all those socks that were blocked -- can those possibly be valid under the letter of Wikpedia loophole justice? I think not. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 16:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''' removal of the '''extension''' - although I '''couldn't disagree more''' with ATren's characterization of the enforcement process, or the telling "science faction" label (which surely is an admission that the "other side" is an "anti-science faction"). After being topic banned until November '''and''' pledging to avoid the CC topic until ArbCom has finished its work, TGL was ''unwise'' to break the ''spirit'' of this ban and pledge by discussing the topic within the user talk space; however, this does not seem to be a direct violation that would warrant a extension to that ban. -- ] (]) 15:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''' removal of the ban. You can't have it both ways. If WMC's sanction is not valid due to being on a talk page, than neither is TGL's sanction valid. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#ffc">]&nbsp;]</span> 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
**Well...there is a hair to split here, actually. TGL's ban is a ''topic'' ban that was applied broadly. It could be argued that discussion of the topic, regardless of venue, fell under the purview of the probation. That's still going beyond the letter of the terms of the probation, but it could be argued that it was within the spirit of the terms. I haven't made up my mind whether I agree or disagree with that interpretation, but it's certainly possible to use that rationale to justify this ban. ] (]) 16:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removal of the topic ban. I've consistently argued against topic bans unless there isn't really any other way to deal with a problem. I find Lar's argument below very strange, though. If one believes that WMC's block should not have been lifted and stands by that, then arguing for TGL's ban to be lifted by invoking the WMC case, would be an argument for making a decision that violates ]. So, I think that Lar should first accept (or perhaps agree to disgree with) the lifting of the block on WMC before he puts forward such an argument. ] (]) 17:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
*:I read Lar's statement as saying he/she is willing to go with whatever decision the majority makes. It's just that if it's wildy inconsistent, it says a lot about the situation. (Correct me if I am wrong Lar) ] (]) 17:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
*::That's about the size of it. Also, see below, I've started a thread to discuss modifying the restriction. Perhaps there is consensus for such a modification. Perhaps there isn't. If consensus exists, it does set a possible precedent though. ++]: ]/] 18:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of LHVUs opinion (which is entirely about WMC and makes no mention of TGL or the original block at all) we have more than enough contributors to this thread to call consensus - let's not allow 'uninvolved admin' inaction to let this case go stale like all the others. And can we make some kind of ruling that uninvolved admins wishing to comment in the uninvolved admin section of any of these requests be obliged to comment on the other open cases? There is way too much picking and choosing based on who the subject of the enforcement request is. ] (]) 05:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
:LHvU's comment is not entirely about WMC. Further, 2 uninvolved admins commenting, not clearly in agreement on all points, do not make consensus. We need more comments I think. I do agree that moving these things along faster is goodness. Maybe I'll ping some of the regulars. Or post on ANI. Or you could. ++]: ]/] 12:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

===Response to Bozmo===

As I've demonstrated before (see evidence page on ArbCom) you seem to get your facts wrong when dealing with me a lot. In this case you are implying that I'm committing "forum shopping." What is your evidence for this? As for your claim that this situations are fundamentally different, taking on Guettarda's argument I suppose, I provided a diff for your particular statements on the matter in my initial statement in order to make it clear how you are once again interpreting rules differently for different people. Finally, I won't go over the many reasons why you should recuse yourself which I have previously listed, but I will mention the newer ones - your repeated assertion over several pages that you find me to be the most annoying editor on wikipedia and the fact that '''my ban was extended due to a conversation with you.'''

In fact, in the case to extend my topic ban you used as evidence against me the fact that which included, among other things, that you were interpreting the rules differently for WMC than you were with me. So now we have you using this argument, that talk pages aren't subject to the CC sanctions over the span of half a year when defending WMC, but with me the CC sanctions do apply to talk pages. Simply incredible. ] (]) 23:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

===Result concerning TheGoodLocust===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used 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.''

*I support either undoing the false "precedent" unilaterally imposed by Dragonsflight, or reduction of this ban to time served (now, not when the ArbCom case closes). The arguments given are compelling... if WMC can violate his sanction by modifying a directly Climate Change related comment in an exceedingly dickish and pointy way, and use the defense that it was a talk page, it is inconsistent to hold TGL to a different standard, especially when he was participating peaceably on a page where he was invited. WP isn't consistent. WP makes no promise of fairness, or of justice. But in this case I think propriety demands consistency. Further we should review every other sanction with a view to revision to increase consistency. ++]: ]/] 11:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
*We have previously restricted WMC's ability to disregard CC/AGW article related sanctions within his own talkpage; he is not supposed to use demeaning terminology when referring to skeptic/denialist inclined editors throughout the project spaces, and his previous restriction on editing comments that has only just expired noted he was not to make such edits even in places where it would normally be allowed - which would include his talkpages. The fact that the current restriction was not so carefully worded, and that no-one in the recent ANI discussion noted that there was precedent for WMC specifically, does not mean that all previous general restrictions are now void. Sorry. ] (]) 21:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:I do not support changing this sanction. The arguments of precedent etc are logically spurious. There is clear water between banning someone from the CC topic across WP (excepting Arbcom pages etc), particular when there are forum shopping issues etc and banning particular behavioural editing across WP. One is clearly within the intention of the probation the other is not clear. There is no inconsistency, the cases are different, the claim that those above who took one side in one case necessarily take a different side in a different case is false, of questionable faith and uninvolved admins trying to follow abstracted analogy as consistency would be unworkable. --] ] 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
*Since ArbCom is now voting on whether or not to completely ban Thegoodlocust from Misplaced Pages for 6 months, I think it would be best if we held off on modifying the sanction for now. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 11:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
**On the other hand, if, for example, we uninvolved admins find that the topic ban ought to be removed (should consensus for such exist, I don't see it yet, but I don't think TGL has made as complete a case as could be made) I think it would send a good message to ArbCom that they've lost the plot here if we remove it, and make them reimpose it against consensus. I see no reason to go lame duck early. We could still be many weeks away from case closure. ++]: ]/] 13:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Lar, Setting aside what appears to be a version of an ], is there any valid argument to remove the topic ban? Any sign for example that anyone has changed their mind since the consensus was reached? --] ] 14:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

==William M. Connolley comment editing restriction modification ==
''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 comment editing restriction modification===
; User requesting modification : ++]: ]/] 17:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC) (pro forma)

; User whose modification of restriction is proposed : {{userlinks|William M. Connolley}}

;Sanction or remedy that has been modified

:Discussion of sanction:
::*]
:Original text of sanction:
::*{{user|William M. Connolley}} is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors, for a duration of two months.
:Modification (modified section '''bolded''') which was done in :
::*{{user|William M. Connolley}} is prohibited from editing comments '''made by other editors about climate change or that appear on discussion pages related to climate change (broadly interpreted)''', for a duration of two months.

;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Approve this revision of the original restriction, by arriving at consensus here that we should do so, or find that no consensus exists and restore the sanction to its original form. ADDED: Or come up with a different restriction that addresses valid concerns raised.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : There is a lot of backstory, hopefully most folk are aware of it and it doesn't need repeating, but after a series of blocks, extensions, shortenings and an unblock, (with much AN/I discussion) {{user|Dragons flight}} unilaterally modified the sanction text, claiming consensus existed at ANI. It is not clear to me that such consensus existed, so I've reverted the change to the status quo ante.

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : Not necessarily applicable but I <s>will</s> did place a link in the ANI discussion to this page shortly as well as notifying WMC, DF, and NW. (as well as TW, BozMo, Franamax, FutPerf, and LHvU ... all the other admins who commented in the original sanction placing discussion)

===William M. Connolley comment editing restriction modification===

====Statement by William M. Connolley====

====Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley comment editing restriction modification ====

* I have made this request pro forma so I do not see myself as needing to recuse from discussion. I think whatever the outcome is, the modification as it is currently worded is itself subject to ruleslawyering, and needs some correction, even if there is consensus for the spirit of it. I will have more to say later and will place my final view in the "result" section. ++]: ]/] 18:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
::Did you just say that you plan to act as an uninvolved admin in a request that you have brought yourself? ] (]) 18:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Correct. It's a '']'' request. We've had a unilateral modification of a sanction, based on a claimed ANI consensus. I've brought this request to see if there is consensus for that. IS there? Let's see. ++]: ]/] 18:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
::::Even amongst folk who really don't care for WMC there are some who would question your uninvolvement with regard to any request about WMC - and you must concede that this is in part due to the manner in which you have chosen, at times, to express your opinion about him or his actions. If you really want a lasting result I think you would be better to recuse as an uninvolved admin in this case, if only not to taint any eventual result with the inevitible cries of involvement. ] (]) 19:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::Do you see that Lar is bringing a request that is favorable to WMC and not against him? Either way, it is not necessary for Lar to recuse because this is not adversarial, but still -- maybe to reduce the drama that will overtake the actual request ... just step aside now that you have made the request. I don't think this is a request that is going to require consensus by uninvolved admins either -- I think this is straight community consensus. Any involved editors' comments can be weighted or discounted accordingly by the closing admin. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 19:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::How can this possibly be favorable to WMC? From WMC's (Lar's) perspective the best (worst) that can happen is simply that the status quo is maintained, but there's a risk (opportunity) that a more restrictive sanction could be imposed. ] (]) 19:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I don't see how there's a risk that a more restrictive sanction be imposed --- as it reads, he's not allowed to edit other's comments at all. The only way it can be modified is to be less restrictive. In any event, do you not agree that there is no call for an uninvolved admin section in this discussion because it's a community consensus we're looking for? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 19:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Um, no. The short version is that Lar has reverted a change back to his preferred version (quite arguably, wheel-warring with other admins in the process) and is asking if he can keep it that way. ] (]) 19:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::SBHB: That's a novel interpretation. Novel, but false. I reverted a ''unilateral change'' back to the version that had consensus. It was the first valid revert so it's not wheel warring by any stretch of the imagination. ++]: ]/] 19:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::M4: No, this needs to be decided by a consensus of the uninvolved admins, not by a random sampling of whoever turns up. A single admin, acting unilaterally, doesn't get to overrule a consensus. Since there was some question about the language, I started this request to seek clarification. I recused from further discussion fairly late in the process on the orginal request as there were enough other admins here to get to a good consensus. If enough uninvolved admins participate here again, I no doubt will again. So far I haven't stated my actual preference as to the substance of any modification. I have merely stated that I don't care for the abrogation of process. ++]: ]/] 20:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
{{outdent}}You are absolutely right about that and I apologize for my temporary lapse of reason -- I was about to make concessions that don't need to be made as well, but I have stricken my support of the modification. I will comment further below BozMo's comment and also speak to the issue of uninvolved admin consensus versus community. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 22:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
*'<s>''Oppose revision as written but support a different version'''</s>-- <s>recall that this sanction was imposed on WMC for removing a comment by GregJackP in a request for probation enforcement against WMC Applying the wording of DF's proposed modification, the comment removed by WMC was not "about CC" and it will also be argued that the comment does not "appear on discussion pages related to climate change." From reading the ANI comments, I think what the community is trying to do is adjust the sanction so that it is clear that WMC can delete or archive comments on his own talk page. There was also a concern about whether this particular sanction can apply outside of the CC probation area -- a very legitimate question that needs to be addressed because WMC is not the only editor subject to sanctions that expand into other Wiki space.

:I don't think there is a bright line that can be drawn to define exactly which spaces fall within a probation sanction and if you start allowing some wiggle room, that is where the gaming and tendentious editing and disruptive removal and editing of comments will occur-- this has been proven in the past. This is not new behavior by WMC, he has been sanctioned for it in the past, it causes huge disruption and the restriction needs to be pretty tight or it will end in even more disruption and gamesmanship. So my preference is that the sanction be modified to clarify that WMC is prohibited from editing, removing, refactoring or interlineating other editors' comments in any Wiki space other than his own talk page. With respect to his talk page, he may archive entire threads, but he may not archive selective comments from threads and leave others in view. Let's keep in mind that there is already policy that prohbitis the removal of comments on talk pages unless it's a BLP violation and a couple of other narrow circumstances -- WMC should be restricted from editing others' comments even for those reasons because those reasons get gamed and twisted and manipulated to accomplish an entirely different purpose. If there is a BLP violation, someone else will pick it up. Same with vandalism. And for a two month period, he can refrain from bracketing within another editors' comments on his talk page also, not because the bracketing is necessarily wrong or bad, but because we need to have a reprieve from the drama, and WMC is asking that we make the sanction very clear -- that is not a big deal, and he can refrain from making a POINT with his brackets for two months, just as he did when he was restricted for 6 months immediately prior to the most recent sanction. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 19:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:: FWIW I think the sanctions as I understand them could be applied (if so worded) to both CC space and to edits ''related to CC'' in any space other than parts of the appeal process, Arbcom space and perhaps the users own talk page. I do not think we can, under these sanctions, limit the editing WMC can do to say Cold Fusion articles unless the edits were actually about a CC topic on the Cold Fusion article or talk page. That however is still gameable. --] ] 20:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)</s>
*'''Oppose modification''' -- having regained my ability to think, I have stricken my earlier answer and I oppose modification of the sanction. As BozMo says, he understands that the sanction extends beyond strictly CC pages. That is the common sense reading and the fact of the matter is everyone, including William, understood what it meant. As LHVU said, we are in probation with the express authority to impose creative sanctions that are not what's typically available for enforcement, and this is precisely '''because the usual policies, remedies, and enforcement mechanisms have failed'''. William's restriction is appropriate, and it is very easy to understand and just as easy to comply with -- '''Don't edit other editor's comments, anywhere for any reason for two months.''' It is a perfectly permissible sanction under the circumstances, and it was arrived at by consensus. The problem with the ANI is the community members who are not familiar with the CC probation and difficulties have conflated Wiki policy and guidelines with acceptable probation sanctions, and that is not the proper way to look at it. There is no rationale for referring to Wiki policy that applies to every editor and determining that a probation sanction must comply with regular Wiki policy and norms. That just makes no sense of course. Leave the sanction as it is -- let's wait for ArbCom do what they're going to do, and it will likely make the discussion moot. In the mean time, William can argue that the sanction means something other than what it says, but the meaning is clear and whichever admin is looking at enforcing it can make the determination about whether he has violated his sanction. It really wouldnt have mattered if the sanction were initially worded differently, William would have pushed whatever boundaries it imposed and we would be having the same discussion because William simply does not like to be told what to do and refuses to bring his behavior in line with what's expceted of every other editor. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 22:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I've requested a preliminary injunction against Lar playing the uninvolved admin in a request he himself initiated. See . --] (]) 21:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
* The consensus at ANI was that the sanction (as interpreted by TW and others) was inappropriate. Based on that conclusion, DF quite rightly altered the wording of the sanction to reflect consensus. Minor4th mistakenly undid that change, and NW corrected his mistake. Lar then chose to revert to his preferred wording. In so doing he not only chose to edit-warred (a persistent problem here when he feels his "authority" is not respected), he also chose to override ANI. Quite frankly, this whole section is unnecessary. ] (]) 22:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
** I think that consensus ''didn't actually exist'' except in wishful thinking by some folk. (go ahead and count noses if you like, start at the very beginning... although we don't count noses) And even if it did, it's not clear that it could overrule what is done here, which has more deliberative processes. Therefore DF's mod was unwarranted and was properly reverted in a single revert (M4 and NW cancel each other out and have no effect on the revert count since M4 is not an admin, and after NW's correction (not reversion) the score was still zero reverts) Quite frankly, this whole section is quite necessary, although I have no idea what the outcome will be. That is for consensus to determine. Your comment, as well as those of others in your faction, is not helpful and is an attempt to undermine the GS/CC process. You should stop, or you may find ArbCom will come down harder on you than they already are likely to. ++]: ]/] 00:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
*** An uninvolved Admin has considered all the arguments made there, and then made a decision based on that. Typically you don't get a consensus by merely "counting noses". It is not an accident that typical election results are close to 50-50, even if there are huge differences between the two candidates, . ] (]) 01:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
**** Consensus by close to 50-50 is not consensus, it's status quo ante. When we get consensus here, it's almost always blazingly obvious that we have it. Merely asserting that consensus existed there, without presenting analysis, doesn't make it so. Dragons Flight failed to do so. His reversion was out of order. Now, we are here to find out what the actual consensus is. It may be that the modification should stand as written. It may be that the status quo ante should stand. It may be that some modification of the status quo ante, but different than DF's version, is what should stand. Do not try to interfere with that process of determination, please. ++]: ]/] 01:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
*****Wait...I thought you said "we don't count noses"? And yet, here you are - while ignoring the fact that the discussion ''did'' come to consensus to undo the block. As for instructing others not to "interfere"...your edit warring and unilateral rejection of the decision made at ANI by people who are ''actually'' uninvolved could called "interference". It could also be called ], something you have a history of engaging in. Lar, your almost total lack of recent participation in article-space edits makes it clear that you are not here to build an encyclopaedia, which is the sole reason that Misplaced Pages exists. Please stop interfering with that process, and stop lecturing the people who actually contribute around here. ] (]) 02:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
*'''Process not valid''' - Lar, who brought this, is an ] administered who has just ] the sanction before bringing this RfC. In terms of the behavior that this is sought to enjoin, Lar's revert escalates a pointless show-down between editor WMC and (among others) certain involved administrators who seem to have it out for him in the tendentious climate change articles. That is poor dispute resolution: it does not help the smooth functioning of the project, and just continues what looks like a punitive and ]y attempt to put WMC in his place. There never appears to have been consensus to apply an editing restriction to WMC's talk page in the first place, and there certainly is not one now. In any event, it exceeds the scope of the climate change general sanctions to tell people what they may do on their own talk page, so consensus is not the point - you can't form a local consensus to exceed the authority here. Whether or not there is consensus here to do so, Lar's revert should not stand, nor should any GSCC sanction exceed the scope of GSCC. A case can be made that where the subject at hand or participants in a dispute spill over from CC to other articles, a CC sanction may continue to apply. This is not such a case. The nexus is too weak and the sanction too broad. - ] (]) 04:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
::There is definitely a case for WMC to be restricted from modifying comments ''even on his own talkpage'' where he can just delete them if he doesn't like them - but the venue for that kind of non-CC related sanction should be ANI, not here. And that's where the discussion took place. I too think this is just a pointy request - I would support sanction against Lar specifying that he be prevented from opening any RFEs on this page against WMC, or that he be prevented from commenting as an uninvolved admin for cases involving WMC, or that he be blocked should he try and do both at the same time again. While WMC may be (in my opinion, is) deserved of sanction, Lar has tainted that process to the point of invalidating, in many peoples eyes, any eventual decision. ] (]) 06:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
:::I opened this in order to get the matter resolved. I have not commented on the substance of any modification, and I don't intend to. So I guess I may as well recuse since I have already defacto done so. This request is not "against WMC", rather it is "for" doing the right thing. DF, an involved admin, abrogated process by falsely calling consensus and substituting his own judgment for the considered outcome of the process the community put in place to handle matters. ++]: ]/] 12:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
::::I agree with Weakopedia that this is a pointy request. You need to step away until the arbitration committee issues a decision on this issue, which I understand is fairly soon.] (]) 15:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::It appears that Arbcomm's proposed remedies preempt the general sanctions, and this sanction in particular - so I think the issue will soon be moot. I have commented there that the decision suffers the same ambiguity as the community sanction - does the prohibition on talk page modifications extend to every subject, or just climate change? But it will be up to Arbcom to fix that. Considering that WMC is likely to be topic banned for a while, if not banned outright, and we're only talking about edits to his own talk page, it doesn't seem to matter much one way or the other what he is allowed to do for now pending the finalizing of the decision. - ] (]) 14:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I am going to try keep my comments brief as I think my position has already been articulated elsewhere for the most part. Obviously I prefer my version of the sanction or something close to it. The core issue, I believe, is that GSCC exists to deal with the conflicts and behavioral problems ''within the realm of climate change''. Sanctions that extend beyond that scope are inappropriate for this forum. Broader behavioral issues should be addressed by applying global policies such as ], ], etc. Or failing that, they should be handled via a consensus of administrators (AN / ANI) or Arbcom. I agree that there are broader behavioral issues to consider with WMC, and hopefully Arbcom will address them shortly, but I don't believe that GSCC should be trying to regulate behavior unrelated to climate change work.
Now, about process. There was a long discussion at ANI. Admittedly that discussion covered a lot of ground. Some of it addressed whether the sanction was inappropriate or over broad. Several of the commenters explicitly addressed the question of GSCC scope, while others said the prohibition went too far without being explicit about GSCC scope. Based on the comments made at ANI and the general history of GSCC I believe that a consensus existed that the sanction needed to modified and that the modification I made was the most appropriate choice. Was that consensus as clear cut as a voting tally? No. Obviously the discussion was messy, but I made a decision based on that discussion in good faith. I understand and accept that people can in good faith disagree with me about whether a consensus existed in that discussion and whether my response was the most appropriate one. However, as a matter of principle, I feel that an administrative action taken based on discussion should be respected at least until the issue can be clarified by further discussion and consensus building. Hence I feel the reverts of my change are in error. I find the arguments made to the contrary to be largely uncompelling, as there would seem to be no urgency here, and in particular I see no reason for one administrator to substitute his judgment about consensus over that of another administrator prior to allowing further discussion to clarify the issue. As wiki problems go, this one would seem to be of little practical consequence, and hence not really a big deal; however, I do feel compelled to express my firm disagreement. ] (]) 11:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
]
:You're not an uninvolved admin. ++]: ]/] 12:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
::You're going to have to explain a bit more. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 12:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
:::OK. I've illustrated my point, see at right. That's a scary graph. It illustrates nicely why I personally am an "alarmist". But you need to click through to see who contributed it. If that's not convincing enough, review .. Dragons Flight is heavily involved in this topic area. Therefore, not uninvolved. ++]: ]/] 13:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
::::How does contributing ''images'' make anyone "involved"? That's surely stretching the definition of "involvement" to an absurd extent. -- ] (]) 14:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::I agree with ChrisO here. If the dispute were related to the editing of an article in which DF was heavily involved, then Lar would have a point. However, this dispute is quite far removed from any content dispute. I.m.o., what is important here is if the Admin can put any personal stakes he/she may have aside and make a ruling that is in the best interest of the affected areas and Misplaced Pages in general. So, given DF record here at Misplaced Pages, can we trust him to do what needs to be done? Without any relevant evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that this is the case. ] (]) 14:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::Just for the record, the ArbCom has usually defined that "for the purpose of imposing sanctions ... an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict." Editing an article or contributing an image does not constitute "involvement". -- ] (]) 06:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' -- This comment was originally in response to Wikidemon and was meant to be posted last night before there were intervening comments but anyway ... If being an "involved" admin is actually so worrisome to you, as it appears to be by your comment, it might interest you to know that the admin who unilaterally modified a probation sanction in WMC's favor is a climate researcher at UC Berkley. From his user page:
<blockquote>'''''Robert A. Rohde''' -- I am a newly-minted Physics PhD from the University of California, Berkeley. I joined the physics department, following undergraduatedegrees in physics and mathematics, but despite having taken all the traditional physics coursework (e.g. quantum mechanics, cosmology,general relativity, etc.), I ultimately discovered those topics are not what I want to devote my life to. Most of my research time has been focused on the earth sciences, climatology and related areas.''</blockquote>
:Please also take a look at his Art of Global Warming series on Commons. This is not someone who should have been unilaterally modifiying a sanction against WIlliam Connolley so that it is less restrictive than what 7 uninvolved admins agreed on after several days of discussion. Surely you agree?
:You're mistaken on most of your other points as well - there absolutely was a consensus and a very specific sanction imposed on WMC prohibiting him from editing other users comments on his own talk page, and it certainly does remain in place now. Your failure to appreciate the overall context of the sanction and focus on Lar is what is hindering the smooth functioning of the encyclopedia. Lar is not involved -- if that changes with the ArbCom decision, so be it but at the moment he is not involved according to the definition of the probation. It's also wrong to say that a sanction against WMC on his talk page is beyond the authority or scope of CC general sanctions. And in fact this is precisely the place to form consensus about the administration and enforcement of a probation sanction. It's not local -- it's just in a different locale that was established precisely for this type of discussion. Any editor is free to comment here.

:Now, let's clear this up. Here is the relevant sequence of events that some editors are missing:

:1. '''January 27, 2010''' as a result of habitually modifying, refactoring and deleting other editors' talk page comments, WMC was sanctioned and placed on an editing restriction for '''6 months''' as follows:
<blockquote>''User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation '''even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done.''' Exceptions are made for archiving discussions that have received no comments for at least one week, and for '''whole removal of comments from his own talkpage.''' - 2/0 (cont.) 3:38 pm, 27 January 2010''</blockquote>
:Please note that the sanction specifically references archiving whole comments from his own talk page. Everyone understood clearly that this sanction applied to WMC's talk page as part of the CC probation for WMC. That's a reasonable understanding since his talk page is where many of WMC's metadiscussions related to the topic area take place, The sanction clearly contemplated a prohibition on modifiying '''any''' other editors' posts on '''any''' talk page. It very clearly imposes a restriction beyond what is normally allowed on a user's own talk page. William understood this. Everyone understood exactly what it meant, and it worked .... for six months, we did not experience that particular brand of disruption from WMC.

:2. '''July 27, 2010''', WMC's editing restriction expired.
:3. '''August 3, 2010''' -- WMC deleted a portion of GregJackP's comment on this enforcement page and inserts his own commentary in square brackets.
:4. '''August 3, 2010''' -- Greg brought a request for probation enforcement against WMC for deleting a portion of Greg's post. Greg's recommended enforcement was a block of one week and to extend the editing/refactorikng restriction of WMC's
:5. August 3, 2010 -- WMC retaliated against Greg by bringing an enforcement request against him for "trolling." The request was summarily closed as being an improper request.
:6. '''August 3-4, 2010''' -- WMC is given an opportunity to agree to a self-imposed restriction, which he does not accept. Discussion continues among uninvolved admin.
:7. '''August 5, 2010''' -- in the midst of a developing consensus to restrict WMC's editing of other user's talk page comments, Jehochman swoops in and unilaterally topic bans WMC for the duration fo the Arb case. This was a unilateral action with zero corresponding discussion of this sanction. Having no support for the topic ban, and the topic ban being rejected outright by WMC, Jehockman had to revert himselfhaving been rejected outright by WMC and an excellent demonstration of why a rogue admin should not unilaterally take action contrary to the consensus that is in the process of being built.
:8. '''August 6, 2010''' -- Uninvolved admins LHVU, Franamax, BozMo, Lar, Jehockman, The Wordsmith, and Fut.Perf agree to a "complete prohibition against all manipulation of other editors' comments" - the discussion very clearly encompassed comments on WMC's own talk page Throughout the discussion, the proposed sanction is variously referred to as an "extension " of his prior editing restriction, which I've quoted above. Although there is generally agreement that a 6 month duration would be appropriate, a compromise of 2 months is settled upon because of the anticipated Arb Com decision.
:9. '''August 10, 2010''' -- The Wordsmith closed the discussion and logged the sanction in the probation log as follows:
<blockquote>'''William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors, for a duration of two months. The WordsmithCommunicate11:55 pm, 10 August 2010, Tuesday (12 days ago) (UTC−5)''</blockquote>
:Given the specific discussion about a restriction against editing other editors' comments on his own talk page, and given that WMC had just completed a six month editing restriction that clearly applied to his own talk page and modification or deletion of other editors' comments in that space -- there can be no reasonable argument that the August 10 sanction could have been intended to be less restrictive than his immediatly preceeding restriction. We impose escalating sanctions for repreat behavior, not diminishing and less severe sanctions. There can be no question, therefore, that the restriction encompasses comments to his own talk page. Indeed it is worded very broadly because that is what the decision was -- a vitrually complete ban on editing other editors' comments.

:10. '''August 17, 2010''' -- WMC edited TW's notice of the sanction on WMC's own talk page, including his own commentary nested within the text of TW's post.
:11. '''August 17, 2010''' -- TW blocks WMC for 48 hours for violating his prohibition against editing others' comments. ANI is started by Bishonen and all hell breaks loose.

:Ultimately, ,WMC served his 48 hours under TW's block. Just because the block expired or even if it had been overturned, that does not do away with the editing restriction against editing others' comments. Lar is not the one being tendentious -- in fact, aside from LHVU he appears to be the only one who actually understands what's going on here. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 16:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

::You can also choose to bold a few other words in that quote of the restriction, e.g. these ones: <blockquote>User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts '''in pages subject to this probation''' even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done. Exceptions are made for archiving discussions that have received no comments for at least one week, and for whole removal of comments from his own talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 3:38 pm, 27 January 2010</blockquote> ] (]) 16:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
:::In response, no, I would not be interested to know that an administrator is a scientist, or other insinuations impertinent to the matter at hand. I was looking at the specific conflict of interest in this RfC, and the broader way in which administrators who are actively involved in the climate change editing disputes, and whose impartiality in dealing with other editors is reasonably in question, weigh in and use their tools and prerogatives consistently in favor of one group or another. I would insert the word "only" between "Lar is not the" and "one being tendentious" in the comment above. People are too caught up in the fight to have a clear perspective. Reopening their skirmishes like this is a pointless effort that wastes time, inflames rather than calms, and has only the most remote connection if any to improving the content or editing environment of the encyclopedia. - ] (]) 17:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
::::I agree with you that right now Lar needs to step back and let this take its course, but there is nothing wrong with his request for clarification on the limits of the sanction against WMC that is already in place. As you can see from this page, there is disagreement about what the initial sanction means and how it can be enforced, and this discussion needs to either be hashed out or dropped, but it was not improper for him to return the sanction to its state before the fight began and ask for discussion and clarification. I do not see him arguing for any particular position -- only requesting that the issue be fully explored. Let's not lose sight of the fact that none of this would be a topic of discussion if WMC had not engaged in repeated behavior requiring sanction and then taunting and pushing a point in violation of the sanction likely for the very purpose of inflaming and causing all of this controversy. Focus on the problem rather than the attempts to solve it. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 19:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Re Minor's lengthy post: Several editors here (in particular Lar) claim that they support the scientific consensus on climate change, and that this arbitration is only about behavioural problems. If that is so, how can the fact that DF is a competent scientist in the field have any influence on on whether he should or should not act as an uninvolved administrator here? Has he been involved in any BLP conflicts lately? Has he edit-warred? --] (]) 19:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
::::I have not said that DF was involved or that being a scientist would make him involved. I don't think having a particular opinion about article content would make an admin involved, and I don't think having an opinion about an editor's behavior or a even having an opinion that there exist ] would make an admin involved either. Certain blocs, however, appear to be very concerned about categorizing admins as "involved" when they are ]. I thought one who holds such an expansive view of "involved" might be interested also in putting DF in that box. It's not a position I would subscribe to, however. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 07:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

* Just to note that the community rejected the way in which the restriction was enforced in the circumstances; the community did not reject the restriction itself - ''unless'' the admins actively intended to overstep beyond where they should be. The issue is common sense, admin judgement, what is permissible, and other issues (scope, etc). If the blocks occurred for refactoring of comments in climate change related discussions or pages, there would be no issue. Similarly, if the admins had not blocked for the legitimate interruptions that occurred on his user talk after TW imposed sanction, there would be no issue - one must not try to bend the terms of probation; they need to work within the confines of it that are appropriate to the circumstances. One must never forget that the community explicitly opposed general sanctions across all of the English Misplaced Pages on all users. Where some things are invalidly done at one point, it doesn't mean it will be OK later - some things just pass people's radars, and it happens all over Misplaced Pages. The admins therefore either forgot that the restriction is subject to the terms of this probation (this includes admin counselling sanctioned user), or did not fully appreciate what this means. That is part of the problem and that is what has brought about the need to change the wording of this restriction. The other part of the problem was that the person who was responsible for GSCC coming into force is responsible for providing guidance on how it works. I think the person in this case had copied the wording used in Obama probation (thinking it worked pretty well in that area), but didn't realise there was a lot of guidance by the drafter (incidentally, me) and other experienced users, both on and off wiki, in making the whole thing work in practice <small>(except on a handful of editors that were later dealt with via a case anyway)</small>. This probation on the other hand is obviously somewhat broken due to the way it's been going since the word go - there's little point trying to turn things around when people are familiar with this way of doing it, and any changes really should reflect a separate, different or new scheme. All that can be done to move this towards resolution is to fix the secondary issue that is the cause of concern at the moment. Dragon had the best of intentions in making the amendment/proposed amendment in trying to achieve this (and minimise the embarassment) but it still wasn't quite right (as it would still cause issues).
* The best thing that can be done is to add "'''Subject to these ,''' WMC is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors for a duration of two months." That diff incidentally provides the most succinct and most effective guidance, both for the sanctioned user, other users, and users who will enforce it in the future. It explicitly directs admins with the common sense and good judgement that is needed in enforcing this particular type of sanction (when imposed through this sort of scheme), and note that it fully falls within the confines of the probation. I appreciate that some people may think WMC should be fully restricted (to extend beyond the CC topic and to his user spaces where interruptions are for some reason not allowed), and there may be a case, but they really should make their case at a more appropriate venue than here. That's the way I'm seeing things, and as I said at the ANI, I'd say the same thing for any user who found themselves in the same circumstances (and whenever I find where I did in the past and the outcome of it, I'll diffs of that too). ] (]) 17:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
* I disagree. WIlliam should not be allowed to interject his own comments within other editors' comments even on his own talk page. That specific problem was noted in the discussions leading to the sanctions, and it was agreed that his pattern of interjecting comments within other editors' comments was disruptive. Discussions on his talk page related in any manner to CC probation items, including discussions of other editors and all the meta discussions that in any way touch any aspect of the CC probation should be included within the restriction. That would include TW's notice of sanction that he edited with is bracketed comment. It as a violation and it is withint the probation. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 19:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

===Result concerning William M. Connolley comment editing restriction modification===
:''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.''

*FWIW I don't have a problem with the wording proposed above except an explicit own talk page exemption per ANI looks sensible. The issue about exactly is editing a comment also might get some wording. --] ] 20:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
** The original wording, or the wording as modified? You don't make that clear (and your exemption may not be completely logically consistent in either case), I don't think. ++]: ]/] 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
*There appears to be precedent for this, and with regard to WMC, as when the restriction on using insulting or demeaning terms or phrases in respect of other parties was ; this would cover WMC's talkpage. The recent previous restriction on WMC's editing of other peoples comments also noted that it covered instances where it would normally be permissible, which again covers the normal exemption of ones own user talkpage(s). Therefore, this modification is not a further restriction upon WMC's ability to respond in his preferred manner but bringing in line with previous sanctions. It should be noted that in those previous cases the clarifications were placed after WMC had explored the boundaries of the previous wordings. On this basis, and the belief that WMC is unconcerned with furthering a less contentious working environment through self regulation, I support the proposed modification. ] (]) 20:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
** You support the less restrictive version that Dragons Flight unilaterally changed to? Or do you support the version that we had to start with? Or some modification of it that isn't DF's version? I'm not totally clear. Sorry for my confusion. You and BozMo both confused me! :) ++]: ]/] 20:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:::I supported the version which I thought you were asking for approval of above. Anyway to be clear I support "William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors about climate change or that appear on discussion pages related to climate change (broadly interpreted), for a duration of two months." with a possible rider (which I don't like but ANI may suggest) of "exempting his own talk page". Broadly this aligns with my comment above: our remit is limited to CC pages, CC talk pages and discussion about CC --] ] 21:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
::::Ah. Thanks. Well I've taken no position whatever on this matter, I merely brought it here to be resolved properly. I thought I had worded the initial request well enough to make that clear but if improvement is needed, please suggest mods... Thanks. ++]: ]/] 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::Ok, my bad reading then. As repeated oft, CC discussions (anywhere) and everything on CC pages are within reasonable terms of the probation. In my view discussions which are neither about CC nor on CC pages should not be included. A row which starts with an admin on a CC page and spills over elsewhere (like the WMC one I think) probably would be included. But I also think the community gives (although I do not agree with) wide latititude on own talk pages. You may recall I have tried blocking WMC for own talk page comments myself, but the precedent of Arbcom decisions ran against it...
::* The original one, which intended to restrict WMC from editing other contributors to CC/AGW related space comments. I understood that the uninvolved admins had agreed that WMC was to be restricted as per the previous restriction, but unfortunately the wording used did not include the phrase "even where such editing is usually permitted" as noted previously or refer to the previous restriction. The discussion at ANI did not even note that a previous restriction had very recently expired, and that that had covered WMC's talkpage. I have been trying not to involve myself in such discussions, others may well have forgotten, some parties were never going to bring up the matter, and those unfamiliar with the situation were obviously not inclined to look that far back into WMC's history.<br>I should note that I was minded to block WMC for violation of his restriction on using demeaning or insulting terms/phrases in regard to CC/AGW editors when he called ZP5's commentary "trash" and used the phrase "brown hatting" when collapsing some other editors - including CC subject related ones - but decided against it. Mostly because there would have been accusations of ''"finding another reason to block WMC"'' instead of noting the violations, and also I suspect that not everyone recognises "brown hatter" as a slur used by homophobes (nor that using such a slur as a method of demeaning another editor is of itself a discriminatory issue) and other ignoramus'. ] (]) 21:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
<!-- 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.-->

Latest revision as of 10:19, 10 October 2023

This page, which was formerly used to request enforcement of community-mandated general sanctions, is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. It has been superseded by a contentious topic designation and requests for enforcement may be requested at Arbitration Enforcement.Shortcut
Climate change probation archives
12345678910
1112

Categories: