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

< Misplaced Pages:General sanctions | Climate change probation Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:28, 4 January 2010 editDarknessShines2 (talk \| contribs)11,264 edits →Request concerning William M. Connolley ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:29, 4 January 2010 edit undoTroed (talk \| contribs)203 editsm →Comments by others about the request concerning Psb777: clarification, specific paragraphNext edit →
Line 369:		Line 369:

	: Whoa. I just took the time to look at the reverts this is all about. This was a widely discussed paragraph which had arrived at consensus in changing of sourcing. The persons above who deleted it are the ones that should be sanctioned, '''not''' Paul who correctly reverted them. There was no support, according to consensus at the talk page, for removing this complete paragraph which was actively discussed with good results. If you care to look at the article in its current state, we've arrived at something that seems to stick. Paul has been one of the persons who've participated in making this happen (and yes, I'm one as well), while in the list of names I see for the editors who removed it is one I can't recall having participated in the discussions at all. This is clearly not how the sanctions were supposed to work, I hope. Viriditas, did you really look this through? ] (]) 18:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)		: Whoa. I just took the time to look at the reverts this is all about. This was a widely discussed paragraph which had arrived at consensus in changing of sourcing. The persons above who deleted it are the ones that should be sanctioned, '''not''' Paul who correctly reverted them. There was no support, according to consensus at the talk page, for removing this complete paragraph which was actively discussed with good results. If you care to look at the article in its current state, we've arrived at something that seems to stick. Paul has been one of the persons who've participated in making this happen (and yes, I'm one as well), while in the list of names I see for the editors who removed it is one I can't recall having participated in the discussions at all. This is clearly not how the sanctions were supposed to work, I hope. Viriditas, did you really look this through? ] (]) 18:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
	:: I'll additionally go out on a limb (and if I'm breaking some Wikirules I do not know of I'm sorry) and state that if I was an admin, I'd see the sudden appearance and edit of this article by ] as really strange in the context of the article having just been re-opened for editing and no previous participation whatsoever either with the article or at the talk page. ] (]) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)		:: I'll additionally go out on a limb (and if I'm breaking some Wikirules I do not know of I'm sorry) and state that if I was an admin, I'd see the sudden appearance and edit of this article, and this specific paragraph, by ] as really strange in the context of the article having just been re-opened for editing and no previous participation whatsoever either with the article or at the talk page. ] (]) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

	: I feel must correct some misrepresentations in Paul's statement above. I did not give him a "3RR warning"; I of the article probation, using the template at ], after he (re)added to the article some blog-sourced material concerning criticism of living people (which is of course disallowed by ] and ]). When he expressed an intention to continue reverting, I left requesting him to engage in discussion to find consensus and advising him against disruptive editing, as he was opening himself up to to possible enforcement action. that I did not intend to submit an enforcement request. I'd hoped to encourage Paul to and avoid him ending up here, but evidently that hasn't worked. -- ] (]) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)		: I feel must correct some misrepresentations in Paul's statement above. I did not give him a "3RR warning"; I of the article probation, using the template at ], after he (re)added to the article some blog-sourced material concerning criticism of living people (which is of course disallowed by ] and ]). When he expressed an intention to continue reverting, I left requesting him to engage in discussion to find consensus and advising him against disruptive editing, as he was opening himself up to to possible enforcement action. that I did not intend to submit an enforcement request. I'd hoped to encourage Paul to and avoid him ending up here, but evidently that hasn't worked. -- ] (]) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:29, 4 January 2010

Shortcut

WP:GS/CC/RE

This board is for users to request enforcement under the terms of the climate change article probation. Requests should take the following format:

{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request
| User against whom enforcement is requested          
  = <Username>
| Sanction or remedy that this user violated 
  = ]
| Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so 
  <!-- When providing several diffs, please use a numbered list as in this example. -->
=<p>
#  <Explanation>
#  <Explanation>
#  <Explanation>
# ...
| Diffs of prior warnings
=<p>
#  Warning by {{user|<Username>}}
#  Warning by {{admin|<Username>}}
# ...
| Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) 
  = <Your text>
| Additional comments 
  = <Your text>
}}

Climate change probation archives
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12

This will generate a structure for managing the request including a second level header. Please place requests underneath the following divider, with new requests at the bottom of the page. For instructions on generating diff links, see Help:Diff.

For Requests for refactoring of Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines violations only, comments by parties other than the requester, the other party involved, and the reviewing/actioning/archiving editor will be removed.

Request concerning User:GoRight

GoRight warned
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and edit warring on William M. Gray following the implementation of climate change article probation. Diff: (note edit summary: "rv: I dispute that this is WP:UNDUE. I assert that this is a tendentious edit because Chris is a well known AGW POV pusher who knows that there are other editors objecting to this change.") It should be noted that this followed my first and so far only edit to this article. GoRight previously reverted User:Tony Sidaway's edit of the same content: without any edit summary or any explanation or comment on the article talk page. This conduct represents all four of the behaviours prohibited by this probation: edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. ChrisO (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) In response to Tony: I would certainly be content for GoRight to be let off with a warning. The important point about this article probation is that editors should be encouraged to raise their game and end problematic behaviours. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC) In response to Thparkth: I added the probation template message to the article's talk page , noticed some content I thought was out of place, and took it out. That was my first and only edit to the article. I certainly wasn't expecting GoRight's response, especially not after the initiation of the probation regime. This isn't a case of "using probation as a weapon" - his action was a completely unprovoked personal attack out of the blue. I was under the impression that we were trying to deter that sort of thing. Absurdly, GoRight is now attacking me for adding the template to CC-related articles, which one would have thought was an uncontroversial chore for which I've been thanked. It just shows you can't please some people, I guess. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) In response to GoRight: The article probation notification was posted by myself to Talk:William M. Gray at 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) . Your first comment about the probation was at 05:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC). You made your edit to William M. Gray at 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC). Therefore, at the time you made that edit, you knew the probation had been enacted. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) In response to Lar: Good idea. The point is to modify unhelpful behaviour, not to punish people. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requested (1) I dispute the validity of these sanctions as noted at ANI. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (2) However, in the interest of playing along, the Climate change probation page states the following: "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith." Following the link to disruptive edits we find the following: A disruptive editor is an editor who: Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well." It is widely known that ChrisO has been pushing a pro-AGW POV all over the climate change articles over an extended timeframe and he knows that there are multiple editors who disagree with his POV. His summary above clearly indicates that he was aware that others had been objecting to his edit yet he persisted anyway, see "GoRight previously reverted User:Tony Sidaway's edit of the same content: without any edit summary or any explanation or comment on the article talk page." By the above description this is tendentious editing and, assuming that these sanctions are determined to be valid, he should be blocked for 1 year for tendentious editing. In addition, the edit on which he is relying occurred prior to the enactment of these sanctions and so is wholly out of scope for any action against me. I cannot be sanctioned under this probation for behavior that clearly occurred before the probation was in place. HIS edit, however, clearly occurred AFTER the enactment of the sanctions to which he is appealing and so clearly DO fall within the scope of the sanctions. This should be taken into account whether or not the enactment of these sanctions is deemed valid. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) @ChrisO: Clarification. When I said "the edit on which he is relying occurred prior to the enactment of these sanctions" I was responding to your statement that I quoted above, namely "GoRight previously reverted User:Tony Sidaway's edit of the same content: without any edit summary or any explanation or comment on the article talk page.". That edit occurred at 03:06, 29 December 2009 which was before the sanctions were enacted. I apologize for being imprecise. --GoRight (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by other users Does not appear to be a serious request to me. Suggest that User:ChrisO be cautioned against frivolous requests. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I think this request is rather premature. I'd rather let editors get a feel for how the system works before requesting sanctions. GoRight's use of edit summaries for accusations seem a little off and perhaps he should be warned about this (and having said that I think we could all raise our game) . --TS 05:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC) In my (completely unqualified) opinion, there is a danger that this probation protocol will itself become a weapon in the war between the two "sides" that it is meant to cool down. I think this request may be an example of that. Thparkth (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC) With the greatest respect for user:Thparkth opinion here, I do not believe this to be the case. In point of fact I note that User:GoRight and myself are on absolutely opposite sides of the climate "debate" and yet we both hold identical opinions to the enforcement request against both he and User:ChrisO. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Let me clarify for the benefit of both ChrisO and Nothughthomas that I don't think this is necessarily a bad-faith or even conscious action (using the sanctions as a weapon) but we are all human after all, and we all react fairly predictably when our feelings are hurt. Thparkth (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you for that clarification. As someone who was just blocked for filing a complaint against User:ChrisO I understand that some editors can take enforcement requests personally and in a heated way and all of us are in danger from retribution blocks/bans when we file enforcement actions against admins. That said, I think we should all calm down and take a deep breath and deal with these in a professional and judicial manner. I think it's heartening that both User:GoRight and myself have put aside our editing differences to come together in common ground on the User:ChrisO question (below) and it could serve as a model of team work for this enforcement question as well. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Some discussion has to be the first one. The one below is highly frivolous and doesn't count. Let us not let this protocol be used the way Thparkth fears, but instead do as Tony asks and raise our game... work through what was alleged here and whether it has merit and try to do the right thing. ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I concur. We should start from the recognition that GoRight is a known editor who has contributed to the discussions for a very long time. He should not be given special treatment; nor should he be abused. Those who push for harsh sanctions to be applied today will certainly, if successful, find the same standards used against their own conduct. We should first look to our own conduct and ensure that it is in keeping with the best Misplaced Pages practice. --TS 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks Tony. On the diffs given here's my thinking, the application of the article probation notice by ChrisO () seems reasonable enough, that article seems clearly within scope of the sanctions as a BLP of a climate (hurricane) research scientist. The edit by GoRight () may well have merit, I won't pass judgement on it, let the talk page participants decide that. But the edit summary GoRight used wasn't helpful, let's not cast aspersions needlessly. GoRight perhaps should be cautioned that we really need everyone on their best behaviour. I suggest we leave it at that for now. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC) GoRight's actual edit seems legitimate, at least in the sense that it was well-intentioned. Really the only question is whether he used intemperate language in his edit summary. Perhaps not just GoRight, but everyone involved, should be reminded of the expectation that they behave with the utmost civility and good faith to one another. Thparkth (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Is it intemperate to assert points that are clearly supported by policy as I have shown above? --GoRight (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC) It's intemperate if you do so using intemperate language! You could have - and in my opinion, should have - written that edit summary in a less confrontational manner. But I don't think it's a hanging offence... Thparkth (talk) What part of my statement used intemperate language? Seriously? Did I use any terms inappropriately given the policies as I have cited them above? Am I allowed to revert tendentious edits which are against wiki policies/guidelines and these very sanctions and to cite that policy or guideline as the reason? I not only cited the relevant behavioral problem that the description of these sanctions had directed me to, but provided a detailed analysis of why the offense was a violation thereof. In what way is this not a model example of an edit summary? For example, how would you have worded the edit summary while providing the same information? --GoRight (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC) T: Nod. G: What is being asked is that in future you raise your game. As an involved party, be on your best behavior, and cast no aspersions on others. Leave the judgements on behavior of others to the "mean old admins" who are trying to stay out of the edits themselves and who thus can try to make this regime work. We get that you oppose trying this. But we, the larger community, tire of these brushfires and are going to try this. With or without you. Unless you want to be watching from the penalty box, up your game. That applies to everyone. ++Lar: t/c 06:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC) This is an exceptionally provocative statement and rises to the level of wikithreat. Since this discussion has descended into a battle between (1) a cabal of admins on one side and (2) a vast and diverse coalition of free speech supporters on the other, I strongly suggest consensus for bringing in a fresh batch of admins to deal with this as tempers have clearly boiled over. Respectfully submitted - Nothughthomas (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (unindent) I haven't been involved in any of this climate change dispute, but I'm inclined to start quickly blocking any users who continue to start or stoke drama, hostility, or other types of disruptive editing around here. Enough is enough. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC) At risk of being blocked for having an opposite thought, my thought is that User:GoRight should not be subject to warning. I, more likely than anyone, would find his edits incendiary - as I am on the absolute opposite side of the climate debate as he and we have had more than one run-on - however I thought what he said was 110% perfectly reasonable and did not believe it violated any WP. I move to reject the warning proposal and counter-move to propose consensus for recognition of User:GoRight with a Barnstar for the contributions he has made to improving wikipedia. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC) You're welcome to have, and share, your views. VERY welcome. You are just not welcome to act disruptively by filing frivolous requests, engaging in mockery by using the exact wording of others, making claims about other people's rearrangement of sections, and the like. ++Lar: t/c 05:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I don't want to see these restrictions turned into the standard one-upmanship that everything on Misplaced Pages turns into, but "I assert that this is a tendentious edit because Chris is a well known AGW POV pusher who knows that there are other editors objecting to this change" is not acceptable behavior. Something is a tendentious edit because of the edit, not the editor. Hipocrite (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) See my statement above. And, BTW, you are completely incorrect in your assertion. Tendentious editing is a behavior of the editor, the "edit" itself is inanimate and incapable of exhibiting any form of behavior. --GoRight (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Agree with User:GoRight and I have just awarded him a Barnstar for the contributions he has made to peacefully resolving disputes. This enforcement page is a testament to good will when pro and anti-climate change sides can unite to support free speech. I wish those attempting to stamp it out could take a lesson from User:GoRight and my cooperation. Nothughthomas (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, in this case it appears these sanctions have become another uncivil weapon, with little purpose to achieving a productive and strong NPOV, which it wiki's first principle. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Agreed. User:GoRight should be exonerated and a public apology should be required of the original complainant under penalty of desysoping. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Note: Nothughthomas has been blocked by MZMcBride for disruptive editing. Sandstein 08:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with MZMcBride and Hipocrite that the edit summary is exactly the sort of battleground-like behavior that the community sanction was intended to prevent. But this is a hasty request with no prior warning as required by the sanction. For now, we should close this with a warning to GoRight that he is subject to sanctions if he continues to make combative edits of this sort. Sandstein 08:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I will repeat my question from above and direct it to you as well: "What part of my statement used intemperate language? Seriously? Did I use any terms inappropriately given the policies as I have cited them above? Am I allowed to revert tendentious edits which are against wiki policies/guidelines and these very sanctions and to cite that policy or guideline as the reason? I not only cited the relevant behavioral problem that the description of these sanctions had directed me to, but provided a detailed analysis of why the offense was a violation thereof. In what way is this not a model example of an edit summary? For example, how would you have worded the edit summary while providing the same information?" --GoRight (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Here are the words you put into the edit summary: "I dispute that this is WP:UNDUE. I assert that this is a tendentious edit because Chris is a well known AGW POV pusher who knows that there are other editors objecting to this change." I know how this kind of thing can happen when tempers are frayed, but still calling someone "a well known AGW POV pusher" is the sort of thing we all should be aiming to eradicate. Having said that I did think the filing was premature and I think Chris Owen should think carefully about the danger of appearing to use this probation as a weapon with which to settle scores, rather than as a safety valve to prevent the atmosphere steadily degrading. A word or two on your talk page might have been better, or he could have swallowed it during this early bedding-in period when we're all just getting used to working with the sanctions. --TS 09:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with Tony, also as regards ChrisO. GoRight, in reply to your question, calling a colleague "a well known AGW POV pusher" reflects a WP:BATTLE mentality and assumes bad faith. The edit summary is for voicing objections to the edit itself that you revert, but not for attacking the editor who made it. Sandstein 09:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC) What is the politically correct way of saying that his edit "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well", is therefore tendentious and considered disruptive, and therefore is a violation of these sanctions? I was obviously prepared to make that case (see my statement above) which is why I said what I said. I simply wanted to be prepared to bring a case here, should it come to that, which it obviously did. --GoRight (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) One thing that would help (IMHO) is don't do it in edit summaries. The same point, made on a talk page where one has extra wordage to fully give context and where it can be part of give an take, will often seem softer. Edit summaries should strive to be as neutral and judgment free as possible. Again IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I'd like to make a note concerning an odd claim that NHT makes: "I am on the absolute opposite side of the climate debate as ". This is bizarre; or show that he is on the skeptic side, just like GR. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; but there is everything wrong with pleading for GR and asking for extra weight by pretending to be on the other "side". William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Wow, thanks for sharing that, very significant. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC) GoRight: On tendentiousness... Many people now have opined that you ought to be given a warning and that ought to be that. The very first real request is not the place to throw the book. But I have to say that your digging in and insisting that even a warning isn't justified... isn't making you look good. After this performance, if you turn up here again, I bet some people will want to treat you much more harshly than if you'd said "Thanks, I'll keep everyone's advice in mind" and went off and done that. IMHO of course. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Exactly so. And as a summary of the outcome of this discussion you're probably as close as we're going to get: GoRight should consider himself warned, no further action on this, the first occurrence under the article restrictions. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Result GoRight (talk · contribs) is warned that further edits of a battleground-like nature will result in sanctions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight warned

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and edit warring on William M. Gray following the implementation of climate change article probation. Diff: (note edit summary: "rv: I dispute that this is WP:UNDUE. I assert that this is a tendentious edit because Chris is a well known AGW POV pusher who knows that there are other editors objecting to this change.") It should be noted that this followed my first and so far only edit to this article. GoRight previously reverted User:Tony Sidaway's edit of the same content: without any edit summary or any explanation or comment on the article talk page. This conduct represents all four of the behaviours prohibited by this probation: edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. ChrisO (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to Tony: I would certainly be content for GoRight to be let off with a warning. The important point about this article probation is that editors should be encouraged to raise their game and end problematic behaviours. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to Thparkth: I added the probation template message to the article's talk page , noticed some content I thought was out of place, and took it out. That was my first and only edit to the article. I certainly wasn't expecting GoRight's response, especially not after the initiation of the probation regime. This isn't a case of "using probation as a weapon" - his action was a completely unprovoked personal attack out of the blue. I was under the impression that we were trying to deter that sort of thing. Absurdly, GoRight is now attacking me for adding the template to CC-related articles, which one would have thought was an uncontroversial chore for which I've been thanked. It just shows you can't please some people, I guess. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to GoRight: The article probation notification was posted by myself to Talk:William M. Gray at 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) . Your first comment about the probation was at 05:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC). You made your edit to William M. Gray at 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC). Therefore, at the time you made that edit, you knew the probation had been enacted. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to Lar: Good idea. The point is to modify unhelpful behaviour, not to punish people. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requested

(1) I dispute the validity of these sanctions as noted at ANI. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(2) However, in the interest of playing along, the Climate change probation page states the following:

"Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith."

Following the link to disruptive edits we find the following:

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well."

It is widely known that ChrisO has been pushing a pro-AGW POV all over the climate change articles over an extended timeframe and he knows that there are multiple editors who disagree with his POV. His summary above clearly indicates that he was aware that others had been objecting to his edit yet he persisted anyway, see "GoRight previously reverted User:Tony Sidaway's edit of the same content: without any edit summary or any explanation or comment on the article talk page." By the above description this is tendentious editing and, assuming that these sanctions are determined to be valid, he should be blocked for 1 year for tendentious editing.

In addition, the edit on which he is relying occurred prior to the enactment of these sanctions and so is wholly out of scope for any action against me. I cannot be sanctioned under this probation for behavior that clearly occurred before the probation was in place. HIS edit, however, clearly occurred AFTER the enactment of the sanctions to which he is appealing and so clearly DO fall within the scope of the sanctions. This should be taken into account whether or not the enactment of these sanctions is deemed valid. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO: Clarification. When I said "the edit on which he is relying occurred prior to the enactment of these sanctions" I was responding to your statement that I quoted above, namely "GoRight previously reverted User:Tony Sidaway's edit of the same content: without any edit summary or any explanation or comment on the article talk page.". That edit occurred at 03:06, 29 December 2009 which was before the sanctions were enacted. I apologize for being imprecise. --GoRight (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Does not appear to be a serious request to me. Suggest that User:ChrisO be cautioned against frivolous requests. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this request is rather premature. I'd rather let editors get a feel for how the system works before requesting sanctions. GoRight's use of edit summaries for accusations seem a little off and perhaps he should be warned about this (and having said that I think we could all raise our game) . --TS 05:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
In my (completely unqualified) opinion, there is a danger that this probation protocol will itself become a weapon in the war between the two "sides" that it is meant to cool down. I think this request may be an example of that. Thparkth (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

With the greatest respect for user:Thparkth opinion here, I do not believe this to be the case. In point of fact I note that User:GoRight and myself are on absolutely opposite sides of the climate "debate" and yet we both hold identical opinions to the enforcement request against both he and User:ChrisO. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify for the benefit of both ChrisO and Nothughthomas that I don't think this is necessarily a bad-faith or even conscious action (using the sanctions as a weapon) but we are all human after all, and we all react fairly predictably when our feelings are hurt. Thparkth (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. As someone who was just blocked for filing a complaint against User:ChrisO I understand that some editors can take enforcement requests personally and in a heated way and all of us are in danger from retribution blocks/bans when we file enforcement actions against admins. That said, I think we should all calm down and take a deep breath and deal with these in a professional and judicial manner. I think it's heartening that both User:GoRight and myself have put aside our editing differences to come together in common ground on the User:ChrisO question (below) and it could serve as a model of team work for this enforcement question as well. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Some discussion has to be the first one. The one below is highly frivolous and doesn't count. Let us not let this protocol be used the way Thparkth fears, but instead do as Tony asks and raise our game... work through what was alleged here and whether it has merit and try to do the right thing. ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I concur. We should start from the recognition that GoRight is a known editor who has contributed to the discussions for a very long time. He should not be given special treatment; nor should he be abused. Those who push for harsh sanctions to be applied today will certainly, if successful, find the same standards used against their own conduct. We should first look to our own conduct and ensure that it is in keeping with the best Misplaced Pages practice. --TS 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Tony. On the diffs given here's my thinking, the application of the article probation notice by ChrisO () seems reasonable enough, that article seems clearly within scope of the sanctions as a BLP of a climate (hurricane) research scientist. The edit by GoRight () may well have merit, I won't pass judgement on it, let the talk page participants decide that. But the edit summary GoRight used wasn't helpful, let's not cast aspersions needlessly. GoRight perhaps should be cautioned that we really need everyone on their best behaviour. I suggest we leave it at that for now. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight's actual edit seems legitimate, at least in the sense that it was well-intentioned. Really the only question is whether he used intemperate language in his edit summary. Perhaps not just GoRight, but everyone involved, should be reminded of the expectation that they behave with the utmost civility and good faith to one another. Thparkth (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it intemperate to assert points that are clearly supported by policy as I have shown above? --GoRight (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's intemperate if you do so using intemperate language! You could have - and in my opinion, should have - written that edit summary in a less confrontational manner. But I don't think it's a hanging offence... Thparkth (talk)

What part of my statement used intemperate language? Seriously? Did I use any terms inappropriately given the policies as I have cited them above? Am I allowed to revert tendentious edits which are against wiki policies/guidelines and these very sanctions and to cite that policy or guideline as the reason? I not only cited the relevant behavioral problem that the description of these sanctions had directed me to, but provided a detailed analysis of why the offense was a violation thereof. In what way is this not a model example of an edit summary? For example, how would you have worded the edit summary while providing the same information? --GoRight (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

T: Nod. G: What is being asked is that in future you raise your game. As an involved party, be on your best behavior, and cast no aspersions on others. Leave the judgements on behavior of others to the "mean old admins" who are trying to stay out of the edits themselves and who thus can try to make this regime work. We get that you oppose trying this. But we, the larger community, tire of these brushfires and are going to try this. With or without you. Unless you want to be watching from the penalty box, up your game. That applies to everyone. ++Lar: t/c 06:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an exceptionally provocative statement and rises to the level of wikithreat. Since this discussion has descended into a battle between (1) a cabal of admins on one side and (2) a vast and diverse coalition of free speech supporters on the other, I strongly suggest consensus for bringing in a fresh batch of admins to deal with this as tempers have clearly boiled over. Respectfully submitted - Nothughthomas (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I haven't been involved in any of this climate change dispute, but I'm inclined to start quickly blocking any users who continue to start or stoke drama, hostility, or other types of disruptive editing around here. Enough is enough. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

At risk of being blocked for having an opposite thought, my thought is that User:GoRight should not be subject to warning. I, more likely than anyone, would find his edits incendiary - as I am on the absolute opposite side of the climate debate as he and we have had more than one run-on - however I thought what he said was 110% perfectly reasonable and did not believe it violated any WP. I move to reject the warning proposal and counter-move to propose consensus for recognition of User:GoRight with a Barnstar for the contributions he has made to improving wikipedia. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome to have, and share, your views. VERY welcome. You are just not welcome to act disruptively by filing frivolous requests, engaging in mockery by using the exact wording of others, making claims about other people's rearrangement of sections, and the like. ++Lar: t/c 05:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to see these restrictions turned into the standard one-upmanship that everything on Misplaced Pages turns into, but "I assert that this is a tendentious edit because Chris is a well known AGW POV pusher who knows that there are other editors objecting to this change" is not acceptable behavior. Something is a tendentious edit because of the edit, not the editor. Hipocrite (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
See my statement above. And, BTW, you are completely incorrect in your assertion. Tendentious editing is a behavior of the editor, the "edit" itself is inanimate and incapable of exhibiting any form of behavior. --GoRight (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with User:GoRight and I have just awarded him a Barnstar for the contributions he has made to peacefully resolving disputes. This enforcement page is a testament to good will when pro and anti-climate change sides can unite to support free speech. I wish those attempting to stamp it out could take a lesson from User:GoRight and my cooperation. Nothughthomas (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, in this case it appears these sanctions have become another uncivil weapon, with little purpose to achieving a productive and strong NPOV, which it wiki's first principle. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. User:GoRight should be exonerated and a public apology should be required of the original complainant under penalty of desysoping. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: Nothughthomas has been blocked by MZMcBride for disruptive editing. Sandstein 08:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with MZMcBride and Hipocrite that the edit summary is exactly the sort of battleground-like behavior that the community sanction was intended to prevent. But this is a hasty request with no prior warning as required by the sanction. For now, we should close this with a warning to GoRight that he is subject to sanctions if he continues to make combative edits of this sort. Sandstein 08:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I will repeat my question from above and direct it to you as well: "What part of my statement used intemperate language? Seriously? Did I use any terms inappropriately given the policies as I have cited them above? Am I allowed to revert tendentious edits which are against wiki policies/guidelines and these very sanctions and to cite that policy or guideline as the reason? I not only cited the relevant behavioral problem that the description of these sanctions had directed me to, but provided a detailed analysis of why the offense was a violation thereof. In what way is this not a model example of an edit summary? For example, how would you have worded the edit summary while providing the same information?" --GoRight (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Here are the words you put into the edit summary: "I dispute that this is WP:UNDUE. I assert that this is a tendentious edit because Chris is a well known AGW POV pusher who knows that there are other editors objecting to this change." I know how this kind of thing can happen when tempers are frayed, but still calling someone "a well known AGW POV pusher" is the sort of thing we all should be aiming to eradicate. Having said that I did think the filing was premature and I think Chris Owen should think carefully about the danger of appearing to use this probation as a weapon with which to settle scores, rather than as a safety valve to prevent the atmosphere steadily degrading. A word or two on your talk page might have been better, or he could have swallowed it during this early bedding-in period when we're all just getting used to working with the sanctions. --TS 09:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Tony, also as regards ChrisO. GoRight, in reply to your question, calling a colleague "a well known AGW POV pusher" reflects a WP:BATTLE mentality and assumes bad faith. The edit summary is for voicing objections to the edit itself that you revert, but not for attacking the editor who made it. Sandstein 09:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the politically correct way of saying that his edit "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well", is therefore tendentious and considered disruptive, and therefore is a violation of these sanctions? I was obviously prepared to make that case (see my statement above) which is why I said what I said. I simply wanted to be prepared to bring a case here, should it come to that, which it obviously did. --GoRight (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
One thing that would help (IMHO) is don't do it in edit summaries. The same point, made on a talk page where one has extra wordage to fully give context and where it can be part of give an take, will often seem softer. Edit summaries should strive to be as neutral and judgment free as possible. Again IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to make a note concerning an odd claim that NHT makes: "I am on the absolute opposite side of the climate debate as ". This is bizarre; or show that he is on the skeptic side, just like GR. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; but there is everything wrong with pleading for GR and asking for extra weight by pretending to be on the other "side". William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for sharing that, very significant. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight: On tendentiousness... Many people now have opined that you ought to be given a warning and that ought to be that. The very first real request is not the place to throw the book. But I have to say that your digging in and insisting that even a warning isn't justified... isn't making you look good. After this performance, if you turn up here again, I bet some people will want to treat you much more harshly than if you'd said "Thanks, I'll keep everyone's advice in mind" and went off and done that. IMHO of course. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly so. And as a summary of the outcome of this discussion you're probably as close as we're going to get: GoRight should consider himself warned, no further action on this, the first occurrence under the article restrictions. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Result

GoRight (talk · contribs) is warned that further edits of a battleground-like nature will result in sanctions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning User:ChrisO

Request Dismissed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ChrisO has reverted edits to dog concerning global warming without participating in the discussion in a meaningful way, even though that is an entry under climate change censorship protocols at present. He has also intentionally derailed a discussion in Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley though flippance (see most recent discussion on entries talk page). This entry is also under climate change censorship protocols, subjecting problem editors to exigent sanctions. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)</nowiki> The enforcement section is not an appropriate place to push POV. The dog article is under heavy and vibrant climate change discussion and is currently tagged for censorship protocols. Derailing a discussion is WP:DWIP. The fact that the derailer, and apparently only he, finds it to be "levity" is irrelevant. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I would now like to add to this complaint to note that User:ChrisO, a party to - and subject of - the complaint, is actively reorganizing the placement of the complainants (mine) text which has been intentionally ordered by me for maximum comprehensibility. This is irreconcilable with the fair and impartial adjudication of this complaint and clearly designed to evade and shirk responsibility through an initiative of confusion and muddying. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requested Dog is not a climate change-related article and is not under article probation. And I hardly think it's a hanging offence to be flippant in response to your assertion that this ~~article probation~~ (sorry, "censorship protocol" ) is reminiscent of Juan Peron's regime. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I believe this request is in retaliation for my adding the article probation template to Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, which the complainant objects to. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by other users Does not appear to be a serious request to me. Suggest that the user bringing it be cautioned against frivolous requests. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC) To clarify, there does appear to be some edit warring going on, and it's climate related, but I think it's quite a stretch to say that the dog article is intended to be within the scope of this sanction unless someone is deliberately trying to prove a WP:POINT. ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Agreed. ChrisO has been editing provactively and attempting to WP:BAIT other users while unilaterally deciding which articles fall under these sanctions, assuming that they actually are valid sanctions since I have presented objections to the enactment thereof at ANI. See , , , . --GoRight (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) what? ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I had started my edit prior to the entire page being reorganized. So to clarify, I agree with Nothughthomas, not Lar, in this instance. --GoRight (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Should probably be noted that the Dog article is only "currently tagged for censorship protocols" because Nothughthomas added the tag to it himself, and that only after he created the edit war himself. Thparkth (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Point of clarification: I initiated the "discussion." There is no "edit war" currently taking place in dog. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC) The edit history of Dog belies that assertion. Knock it off. We're trying to work through how to make this regime work and you are not helping matters with frivolous and tendentious wikilawyering. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC) If a user makes an accusation against me specifically and by name, I entertain absolute right to respond to that accusation. I suggest other contributors make the choice to stay on-topic. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Are new, nearly-single-purpose accounts really welcome to be taking these kind of actions? What can be done to stop random new accounts from showing up on climate related articles and making a bunch of reversions, gumming up the works with requests like this and engaging in what appears to be pointy editing by trying to get the dog article to talk about global warming. I don't see new editors doing whatever evils the scientifically-minded side is accused of and editing Apocalypse to state that global warming is the prophecied biblical end of the world, do I? Hipocrite (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Dog is climate change related? Sounds like wikilawyering to me. -- Pak aran 06:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Comment - ChrisO is now making accusations of bad faith editing against another editor over a CC related topic. See . --GoRight (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Result Dismissed Prodego 07:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Unrelated / Supplementary Actions I've blocked Nothughthomas (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) for 15 minutes for disrupting this process and wasting time. This sort of frivolous wikilawyering will not be tolerated. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Request Dismissed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
ChrisO has reverted edits to dog concerning global warming without participating in the discussion in a meaningful way, even though that is an entry under climate change censorship protocols at present. He has also intentionally derailed a discussion in Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley though flippance (see most recent discussion on entries talk page). This entry is also under climate change censorship protocols, subjecting problem editors to exigent sanctions. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)</nowiki>

The enforcement section is not an appropriate place to push POV. The dog article is under heavy and vibrant climate change discussion and is currently tagged for censorship protocols. Derailing a discussion is WP:DWIP. The fact that the derailer, and apparently only he, finds it to be "levity" is irrelevant. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would now like to add to this complaint to note that User:ChrisO, a party to - and subject of - the complaint, is actively reorganizing the placement of the complainants (mine) text which has been intentionally ordered by me for maximum comprehensibility. This is irreconcilable with the fair and impartial adjudication of this complaint and clearly designed to evade and shirk responsibility through an initiative of confusion and muddying. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requested

Dog is not a climate change-related article and is not under article probation. And I hardly think it's a hanging offence to be flippant in response to your assertion that this ~~article probation~~ (sorry, "censorship protocol" ) is reminiscent of Juan Peron's regime. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this request is in retaliation for my adding the article probation template to Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, which the complainant objects to. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Does not appear to be a serious request to me. Suggest that the user bringing it be cautioned against frivolous requests. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, there does appear to be some edit warring going on, and it's climate related, but I think it's quite a stretch to say that the dog article is intended to be within the scope of this sanction unless someone is deliberately trying to prove a WP:POINT. ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. ChrisO has been editing provactively and attempting to WP:BAIT other users while unilaterally deciding which articles fall under these sanctions, assuming that they actually are valid sanctions since I have presented objections to the enactment thereof at ANI. See , , , . --GoRight (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

what? ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I had started my edit prior to the entire page being reorganized. So to clarify, I agree with Nothughthomas, not Lar, in this instance. --GoRight (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Should probably be noted that the Dog article is only "currently tagged for censorship protocols" because Nothughthomas added the tag to it himself, and that only after he created the edit war himself. Thparkth (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Point of clarification: I initiated the "discussion." There is no "edit war" currently taking place in dog. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit history of Dog belies that assertion. Knock it off. We're trying to work through how to make this regime work and you are not helping matters with frivolous and tendentious wikilawyering. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If a user makes an accusation against me specifically and by name, I entertain absolute right to respond to that accusation. I suggest other contributors make the choice to stay on-topic. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Are new, nearly-single-purpose accounts really welcome to be taking these kind of actions? What can be done to stop random new accounts from showing up on climate related articles and making a bunch of reversions, gumming up the works with requests like this and engaging in what appears to be pointy editing by trying to get the dog article to talk about global warming. I don't see new editors doing whatever evils the scientifically-minded side is accused of and editing Apocalypse to state that global warming is the prophecied biblical end of the world, do I? Hipocrite (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Dog is climate change related? Sounds like wikilawyering to me. -- Pak aran 06:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment - ChrisO is now making accusations of bad faith editing against another editor over a CC related topic. See . --GoRight (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Result

Dismissed Prodego 07:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated / Supplementary Actions

I've blocked Nothughthomas (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) for 15 minutes for disrupting this process and wasting time. This sort of frivolous wikilawyering will not be tolerated. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Lar

This is not the place to request a block be reviewed, dismissed.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Lar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User Lar had expressed an opinion regarding Nothughthomas here in a dispute involving the same. This means that Lar is an involved editor with respect to Nothughthomas. He then proceeded to block that user, . This is clear abuse of his administrative tools and he should be desysoped immediately. It is clear that his judgment in the use of his tools is impaired. GoRight (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC) This may, or may not be true, however my case above is correct and appropriate under the community norms ... regardless of whether I truly believe that he should be desysoped for a 15 minute block. If we are going to have these types of discussions, then its all fair game is it not? We should not be selective in our enforcement of these sanctions should we? --GoRight (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Hey, it's nothing personal. Truly. But if we are going to have these discussions they should be applied equally to all involved. Agreed? --GoRight (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I object to the manipulation of my edits by ChrisO. See . Standard convention on these pages is that parties to the request are allowed to include comments in the "others" section. --GoRight (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC) As noted in the enforcement section for him, ChrisO has also been manipulating my edits. This appears to be a pattern.Nothughthomas (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC) @Lar - Please read my request again. Your involvement is with a personal dispute with Nothughthomas and is not related to your position on AGW. You accused him of editing to make a WP:POINT which establishes that you had a preconceived opinion of him prior to you making the block. Your involvement is inter-personal which is what makes the block an abuse of your tools. You should NOT be using your tools against someone you are involved in a dispute with. --GoRight (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requested Nope, doesn't work that way. My view of AGW is my own business. I have no horse in this race, except as an admin here to help enforce the probation, and get things off to a good start. N seemed to be doing rather pointy things at Dog, and then was in my view actively disrupting this process by filing a frivolous request, mimicking other people's wording, making wild accusations about rearrangment of text and other disruptive activities. He was warned, responded with intransigence, and got a 15 minute block so he/she would know I wasn't kidding (I did that to SPUI once, long ago, it worked then too). He/she doesn't have to fear adding his views, if he isn't trying to derail matters. GoRight asking for everyone's head isn't going to work to derail this, unless we let it. As always I invite review of my actions, including the block. ++Lar: t/c 05:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC) GoRight: Um. No. That's what we admins are going to be doing here. People who are in need of sanctioning are going to get sanctioned. I've never heard of this guy before tonite. I came to the page, see what's going on, went and looked at Dog and his contribs here, and on his talk page, and drew my conclusions. We are not going to do a 12 step process here. The guy was being disruptive. He was warned, he didn't stop, so I gave him 15 minutes to get him to stop. It's gotten better. End of story, except if he goes back to it, he'll get more. That doesn't make me "involved", we aren't going to play that game. You are involved. You're an editor in this area. I'm not involved and regardless of how many blocks I hand out, I won't be involved. Note your raising this does not give you immunity from being blocked by me, subject as always, with any block to reivew by my peers. ++Lar: t/c 06:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by other users This request is spectacularly unhelpful. Hipocrite (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC) With the best will in the world, I cannot see the basis for a complaint. Lar's comment in full, as cited by GoRight, is: "To clarify, there does appear to be some edit warring going on, and it's climate related, but I think it's quite a stretch to say that the dog article is intended to be within the scope of this sanction unless someone is deliberately trying to prove a WP:POINT." If this is an opinion of Nothughthomas, and constitutes "involvement" as such, the connection is rather obscure. --TS 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I felt aggrieved and agressed by my block from Lar, which followed various unspecified threats he made on my Talk page. The block was, ostensibly, for "wikilawyering" for filing an enforcement question against User:ChrisO. The enforcement question, at the time of my block, was supported by 1 editor, opposed by 1 editor (Lar) and a third editor expressed an ambiguous opinion (exclusive of the two interested parties, myself included). I feel it is highly likely I will be subject to a retribution block or ban once the current controversy has died down and attention has been diverted elsewhere. I am in a state of complete mental shock and feel terrorized and stalked. I support immediate desysoping of User:Lar. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Please note that, as I predicted, discussions have now matriculated between User:ChrisO and User:Lar about secretly "off'ing" me when no one is looking. To quote: 'I wonder if the discretionary sanctions permit an admin to just topic ban him from global warming for a month?' ... User talk:Lar#User:Nothughthomas ... clearly, as I stated, I am now subject to retribution blocks and bans and have no safety unless subject is desysoped. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Are we really going down this road so quickly? This request is trivial and vexatious. Lars has acted appropriately and neutrally in all of this so far, and he's earning my admiration. Thparkth (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC) wow. I'm stunned by the the two requests (this one and the one about ChrisO). I would support warnings to both users filing the reqests that this sort of gamesmanship, regarding sanctions that should have been implemented years ago, is outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior for this topic area. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) "wikilawyering" is a pejorative term of bad faith to WP:FIVE, with no basis for a sanction. Lars may have prejudice here. There must be a basis for appeal. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC) agreed Nothughthomas (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Result If this is an issue with a particular administrative action of Lar's, this is not the avenue. The action he took appears justified and appropriate. I encourage anyone with issues to discuss it with him on his talk page, or AN/I. I also encourage those who file requests ensure that they are intended to solve problems not cause them. If not, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I'd propose dismissing this request. Prodego 07:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Regrettably I don't have the considerable time to devote to filing complaints against two admins engaged in secretly flood-complaining against users until something sticks. I have just had to defend myself against a Sockpuppet Investigation (which I was exonerated on) that User:ChrisO filed against me but intentionally did not inform me about. At the same time, discussions between that editor and User:Lar are ongoing on this Talk page about "banning me for my own good" as a "discretionary measure" (read: with no stated reason). Clearly, average wikipedia contributors can't be expected to defend themselves against admins who shirk the rules about transparency and public notification to engage in cabal-like attacks on anyone who has the audacity to cross them. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to request a block be reviewed, dismissed.

The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Lar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
User Lar had expressed an opinion regarding Nothughthomas here in a dispute involving the same. This means that Lar is an involved editor with respect to Nothughthomas. He then proceeded to block that user, . This is clear abuse of his administrative tools and he should be desysoped immediately. It is clear that his judgment in the use of his tools is impaired. GoRight (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
This may, or may not be true, however my case above is correct and appropriate under the community norms ... regardless of whether I truly believe that he should be desysoped for a 15 minute block. If we are going to have these types of discussions, then its all fair game is it not? We should not be selective in our enforcement of these sanctions should we? --GoRight (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, it's nothing personal. Truly. But if we are going to have these discussions they should be applied equally to all involved. Agreed? --GoRight (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I object to the manipulation of my edits by ChrisO. See . Standard convention on these pages is that parties to the request are allowed to include comments in the "others" section. --GoRight (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
As noted in the enforcement section for him, ChrisO has also been manipulating my edits. This appears to be a pattern.Nothughthomas (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
@Lar - Please read my request again. Your involvement is with a personal dispute with Nothughthomas and is not related to your position on AGW. You accused him of editing to make a WP:POINT which establishes that you had a preconceived opinion of him prior to you making the block. Your involvement is inter-personal which is what makes the block an abuse of your tools. You should NOT be using your tools against someone you are involved in a dispute with. --GoRight (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requested

Nope, doesn't work that way.

My view of AGW is my own business. I have no horse in this race, except as an admin here to help enforce the probation, and get things off to a good start. N seemed to be doing rather pointy things at Dog, and then was in my view actively disrupting this process by filing a frivolous request, mimicking other people's wording, making wild accusations about rearrangment of text and other disruptive activities. He was warned, responded with intransigence, and got a 15 minute block so he/she would know I wasn't kidding (I did that to SPUI once, long ago, it worked then too). He/she doesn't have to fear adding his views, if he isn't trying to derail matters. GoRight asking for everyone's head isn't going to work to derail this, unless we let it.

As always I invite review of my actions, including the block. ++Lar: t/c 05:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight: Um. No.

That's what we admins are going to be doing here. People who are in need of sanctioning are going to get sanctioned. I've never heard of this guy before tonite. I came to the page, see what's going on, went and looked at Dog and his contribs here, and on his talk page, and drew my conclusions. We are not going to do a 12 step process here. The guy was being disruptive. He was warned, he didn't stop, so I gave him 15 minutes to get him to stop. It's gotten better. End of story, except if he goes back to it, he'll get more. That doesn't make me "involved", we aren't going to play that game. You are involved. You're an editor in this area. I'm not involved and regardless of how many blocks I hand out, I won't be involved. Note your raising this does not give you immunity from being blocked by me, subject as always, with any block to reivew by my peers. ++Lar: t/c 06:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

This request is spectacularly unhelpful. Hipocrite (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
With the best will in the world, I cannot see the basis for a complaint. Lar's comment in full, as cited by GoRight, is:
"To clarify, there does appear to be some edit warring going on, and it's climate related, but I think it's quite a stretch to say that the dog article is intended to be within the scope of this sanction unless someone is deliberately trying to prove a WP:POINT." If this is an opinion of Nothughthomas, and constitutes "involvement" as such, the connection is rather obscure. --TS 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I felt aggrieved and agressed by my block from Lar, which followed various unspecified threats he made on my Talk page. The block was, ostensibly, for "wikilawyering" for filing an enforcement question against User:ChrisO. The enforcement question, at the time of my block, was supported by 1 editor, opposed by 1 editor (Lar) and a third editor expressed an ambiguous opinion (exclusive of the two interested parties, myself included). I feel it is highly likely I will be subject to a retribution block or ban once the current controversy has died down and attention has been diverted elsewhere. I am in a state of complete mental shock and feel terrorized and stalked. I support immediate desysoping of User:Lar. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Please note that, as I predicted, discussions have now matriculated between User:ChrisO and User:Lar about secretly "off'ing" me when no one is looking. To quote: 'I wonder if the discretionary sanctions permit an admin to just topic ban him from global warming for a month?' ... User talk:Lar#User:Nothughthomas ... clearly, as I stated, I am now subject to retribution blocks and bans and have no safety unless subject is desysoped. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Are we really going down this road so quickly? This request is trivial and vexatious. Lars has acted appropriately and neutrally in all of this so far, and he's earning my admiration. Thparkth (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
wow. I'm stunned by the the two requests (this one and the one about ChrisO). I would support warnings to both users filing the reqests that this sort of gamesmanship, regarding sanctions that should have been implemented years ago, is outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior for this topic area. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
"wikilawyering" is a pejorative term of bad faith to WP:FIVE, with no basis for a sanction. Lars may have prejudice here. There must be a basis for appeal. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
agreed Nothughthomas (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Result

If this is an issue with a particular administrative action of Lar's, this is not the avenue. The action he took appears justified and appropriate. I encourage anyone with issues to discuss it with him on his talk page, or AN/I. I also encourage those who file requests ensure that they are intended to solve problems not cause them. If not, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I'd propose dismissing this request. Prodego 07:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably I don't have the considerable time to devote to filing complaints against two admins engaged in secretly flood-complaining against users until something sticks. I have just had to defend myself against a Sockpuppet Investigation (which I was exonerated on) that User:ChrisO filed against me but intentionally did not inform me about. At the same time, discussions between that editor and User:Lar are ongoing on this Talk page about "banning me for my own good" as a "discretionary measure" (read: with no stated reason). Clearly, average wikipedia contributors can't be expected to defend themselves against admins who shirk the rules about transparency and public notification to engage in cabal-like attacks on anyone who has the audacity to cross them. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Tony Sidaway

User requesting enforcement: TS 05:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

edit summary "Revert SPA", reverts content restored or added by User:Tender & Privat

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

I'm well aware of the global warming probation, and its intent.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I'd like a review of this edit to see if it violates the spirit of this remedy. I undertake not to perform similar edits until the end of the review, and if told that this is a violation of the global warming probation I will not perform such edits again.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: In a single edit, I reverted two edits performed by User:Tender & Privat, an account that had been created just minutes before the edits. This account seems to fit the modus operandi of scibaby and other SPAs that have plagued the global warming articles for some time. I then issued a warning about the probation on User talk:Tender & Privat. Since this action could be seen as edit warring I have brought the matter to this page. I hope the form is acceptable.

Discussion concerning Tony Sidaway

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I believe this edit is in keeping with the intent of the probation because reverts a specific form of edit by a banned editor or an existing editor using a false flag account, that was intended solely to disrupt the achievement of consensus. --TS 05:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Lar. I'm also in favor of discussion with good faith editors such as Pete and reaching compromise on presentation of the facts. In this instance I'm really only interested in the question of whether it is appropriate to revert SPAs on an article subject to the probation. The question of the content I revert to (as long as it's not to a vandalized revision and there are no BLP issues in the revision I revert to) shouldn't matter. But I'd like more opinions on this, because I think that kind of scenario is likely to recur and we should settle it early. --TS 06:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Tony Sidaway

I'm a bit confused by this request. (as in why you're asking for review) But I did some quick scans.

A few observations: There appears to be robust discussion at the talk page of various issues related to the article. In a quick skim I did see this particular topic (under heading Talk:Hockey stick controversy#Richard Muller reaction )... where Tillman, who appears to be the editor who put the material in initially, or at least was working on it prior to the sock's appearance, expresses dismay about the removal. T&P appears to be blocked. (as a Scibaby sock, says the block summary, and Scibaby is known to be pretty determined in pushing particular climate related viewpoints, ), but Tillman seems to be an editor that's been around a while... climate is an area of interest but not the only thing this editor edits.

I don't think Tony was wrong to revert the sock, but I'd rather see more discussion at the talk and some compromise reached if possible... leaving in the text for a while wouldn't hurt. But if I understand what Tony's driving at, the sock was, by revert warring this back in, interfering with the flow of conversation on the talk page, where the issue was already being worked. ++Lar: t/c 06:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum after Tony clarified a bit, above: OK, I see. I think reverting an edit warring sock with 3 edits, (none of which were to talk, all 3 were to the same article), is perfectly acceptable. There's probably a line here somewhere where it becomes not so good to do that, though... where's the SPA dividing line? Somewhere well north of 3 edits, I'd say!... but eventually you shade over into revert warring with established editors which clearly isn't what we want to have happen. At that point, wherever it is (and again, it's a long way away from 3), you'd be in the wrong, you should have been encouraging talk page discussion, and/or bringing the matter here. But not this sock.

Proof will be what happens next, if Tillman and everyone else engage nicely, that would be good, and will suggest you did the right thing derailing that war. Can we draw from the Obama experience (this regime is modeled after that one...) at all? Does this comment of mine help? ++Lar: t/c 07:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lar. I see no problem in reverting an apparent SPA whose only edits consist of reverting other editors in a contested area; that is usually a pretty good duck test for socks, and indeed Tender & Privat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now blocked as the sock of a banned editor. However, to avoid BITE issues, edits of new users that do not quack this loudly should probably not be so summarily reverted. Sandstein 07:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I consider the use of the term SPA to be uncivil and baiting when used in this manner. It is unnecessarily provocative because it appears to imply wrongdoing by anyone that happens to be a single purpose editor, such as myself. You might as well have called them a troll or a POV pusher as far as I am concerned, and note that I was warned about using that particular phrase above. There is no prohibition on contributing to the project on a single issue and whether someone does, or does not, choose to do so has no bearing on their value to the project. If these sanctions are to be applied even handedly I would ask that Tony be warned that others may find his use of the term SPA offensive and he should avoid it in a similar context. I do not believe any further action would be required since Tony was obviously forthright enough to draw this to our attention himself. --GoRight (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You're obviously a well established Misplaced Pages editor and not what I would call a single-purpose account (SPA). If you read Lar's comment, he makes a point about a new account that is devoted to edit warring or another disruptive behavior. That's what we mean by a SPA--to the best of my knowledge this is the common meaning of the term on Misplaced Pages. --TS 08:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, but to be honest it doesn't matter to me. I still consider the use to be demeaning based on the prevailing attitudes associated with the term. Why do I feel this way? Because of conversations like this. V is a well established editor as was I at that time and still he sought to debase an degrade me for being an SPA. You wanted feedback on how your edit summary would be received. There's your feedback. --GoRight (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts have a poor reputation because single-purpose editors are so often associated with disruptive conduct. That's just how it is. The obvious solution from your perspective would be to broaden your editing so that you could no longer be considered a single purpose editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What term would you like to use, GoRight? "Extremely low edit count editor who edits only one article and was a likely sock" is a bit of a mouthful, isn't it? Even "ELECEWEOOAAWALS" is hard to type. Maybe "Elecewe"? Hey, that's kinda catchy.. elec-a-wee. Ok seriously, sometimes you have to use the term that fits. SPA has a broad meaning and you're way at the upper end of it, to be sure, and I wouldn't advocate calling you that. You're more of a "single interest area account" than a "single purpose account"... that account was a throwaway, a kamikaze, used for one thing only and whoever used it expected to be blocked quickly. SPA fits. See WP:SPADE. As ChrisO says, if you don't want to be called something, don't be that thing. ++Lar: t/c

It was a scibaby sock, and is now blocked. You were correct. GR is an SPA so doesn't like the way they are put to the hiss of the world; he'll just have to live with it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I do deal with it just fine. I only commented because he was asking for feedback. --GoRight (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your feedback is welcome and now I know that I should avoid using the ambiguous term "SPA", which may have offensive or confusing connotations for some of those who edit predominantly on a single subject. --TS 05:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents. Tender & Privat has scibaby written all over it, so the reverts where entirely correct. I do not think it will influence the current discussion on talk, but a generally acceptable (and recognizable) edit-comment for reverting this kind of sock may be beneficial. As a sidenote: this sock should be added to the next scibaby CU check, both for confirmation purposes, as well as for the off-chance of a false positive. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Although you were right to think it was a Scibaby sock, perhaps it was best not to revert with that rationale. Perhaps reverting with a reason why the edits were wrong would have been a better way to go, just in case the account was not a sockpuppet and was merely a misguided editor (don't be so cynical, they still exist). Just my two cents though. NW (Talk) 18:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I in my edit summary I should have clarified that the edit appeared to be an attempt to encourage edit warring rather than discussion. The content of the edit was not, to my mind, important. The fact that it was an evident attempt to throw a spanner into the works was. It may seem counter-intuitive to argue that reverting any edit can be justified as a means of stopping edit wars, but the acid test is whether I would have reverted the same edit by a non-sock. Had I done so I wouldn't expect to go unsanctioned. Perhaps it might have been a good idea to let the edit be, and I will take that into account in future. The risk of a false positive, which would alienate a new editor who just happened to make a contentious edit to a global warming article, is very low but past history shows that this is a non-trivial matter. As GoRight has pointed out, moreover, terms like SPA have a broader meaning and their use in this narrow context can be misunderstood. --TS 18:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Tony Sidaway

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I would like to suggest a resolution here, as follows.... that it's considered usually OK to revert obvious socks as Tony did here, (with a reminder to use good judgment about whether the ID is an obvious sock or not) but that perhaps "SPA" isn't necessarily always a good term to use in edit summaries, and that steering discussion to the talk page is to be encouraged whenever practical as an alternative to a bare revert, and that this request be closed with no other action taken (except perhaps thanks and acknowledgment to Tony for raising it on himself). Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Editors

GoRight warned not to file frivolous or vexatious requests
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Multiple Editors User requesting enforcement GoRight (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Multiple Editors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it See any revert that was ever made after the probation was enacted which reverts material that had been previously reverted. The standard I am looking for is summarized in this warning from a different article. Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) - I added this AFTER filing this report. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Anyone that has reverted anything that had been previously reverted should get a 12 hour block to make the point about edit waring. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I am tempted to go in and do some reverting of my own, but that seems to go against the spirit of the sanctions so I am here to ask that you put a stop to it without regard to which side of the debate people are on. Also note that this template is insufficient since it assumes that the complaint will be about a single editor. Do these sanctions only apply to individual editors? How should I bring broader based complaints such as this? Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. Discussion concerning Multiple Editors This is a ridiculous request, rather pointy and certainly disruptive. How about trying to provide diffs for individual editors. ::rolleyes: Spartaz 09:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC) This request has meaning in regard to WP:Tagteam and the pending ArbCom cases. Admins must take this seriously or ArbCom cases could be required. I suggest the request be focused to a specific group of editors. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Multiple Editors Comments by others about the request concerning Multiple Editors Please make a specific request. General complaints about the state of editing on a given article should probably be addressed in other venues. --TS 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC) GoRight, you probably shouldn't use a template to complain that the template doesn't work right (your Additional comment #2). Your general complaint is not appropriate here. Further, your "Diffs of prior warnings" points to no warning, in fact it references a different warning placed by 2/0, which warning is not based on this probation. Your Additional comment #1 though, where you state a temptation to go in and do some reverting of your own - that's seems worthy of a formal warning for yourself right there. Franamax (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC) This seems a pretty frivolous request with an ridiculously wide scope - "Anyone that has reverted anything that had been previously reverted", seriously? I agree with Franamax above and suggest that discussions about the template should be directed to this page's talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Again 2 cents (i'm going to be bankrupt soon): Anyone who has edited on the climate change related articles should have been able to spot that Tender & Privat was a sock or at least not a serious editor. If you considered trying to enforce this users edits, by reverting them back, then i'd say that there is something wrong - but it is neither with the templates, nor with other users. If there is doubt in your mind regarding whether or not the user is a sock, then gently prod the user on his talk-page, and tell them to engage in discussion. Users coming out of nothing (ie. hardly no edits at all) and diving in by reverting a contested area, no matter what "side" they are on, are not serious editors (yet?). Now do not misunderstand that, they may well not be socks, but the behavior is not acceptable either way, so take them gently by the hand, if in doubt, and help them to take a constructive part of the project. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Frivolous request which, because of GoRight's other time-wasting and WP:POINTy recent edits , probably deserves some kind of block. GoRight is misusing wikipedia procedures and should know better. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Multiple Editors This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I believe GoRight should get about 24 hours for WP:POINT violation. Does another administrator concur? Jehochman 14:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I may be too close but this is not the first frivolity from GR, plus GR was warned already (in a different context, but still). We don't want to discourage people reporting things but we want this taken seriously, and this sort of report isn't helpful. Perhaps another strong warning with a requirement of an explicit acknowledgment of the issue, on pain of a block if acknowledgment is refused? At some point we need to shift from warning to doing. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I'm too close to be considered independent but I concur with the idea of a block. Spartaz 15:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Lame guys. The report above may be useless as far as things go, but it is far from block worthy. Not to mention the whole preventative vs punitive philosophy. Arkon (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC) For a first occurrence I would concur without hesitation. For the second or third (depending on how you count... see also the entire arbcom case request), I think a very strong warning and a requirement to state they understand, on pain of block, is reasonable. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Okay, the result here is that GoRight is warned not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests, or else they may be blocked without further warnings. Jehochman 16:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight warned not to file frivolous or vexatious requests

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Multiple Editors

User requesting enforcement: GoRight (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Multiple Editors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

See any revert that was ever made after the probation was enacted which reverts material that had been previously reverted. The standard I am looking for is summarized in this warning from a different article.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

- I added this AFTER filing this report.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Anyone that has reverted anything that had been previously reverted should get a 12 hour block to make the point about edit waring.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I am tempted to go in and do some reverting of my own, but that seems to go against the spirit of the sanctions so I am here to ask that you put a stop to it without regard to which side of the debate people are on.
Also note that this template is insufficient since it assumes that the complaint will be about a single editor. Do these sanctions only apply to individual editors? How should I bring broader based complaints such as this?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Multiple Editors

This is a ridiculous request, rather pointy and certainly disruptive. How about trying to provide diffs for individual editors. ::rolleyes: Spartaz 09:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This request has meaning in regard to WP:Tagteam and the pending ArbCom cases. Admins must take this seriously or ArbCom cases could be required. I suggest the request be focused to a specific group of editors. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Multiple Editors

Comments by others about the request concerning Multiple Editors

Please make a specific request. General complaints about the state of editing on a given article should probably be addressed in other venues. --TS 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, you probably shouldn't use a template to complain that the template doesn't work right (your Additional comment #2). Your general complaint is not appropriate here. Further, your "Diffs of prior warnings" points to no warning, in fact it references a different warning placed by 2/0, which warning is not based on this probation. Your Additional comment #1 though, where you state a temptation to go in and do some reverting of your own - that's seems worthy of a formal warning for yourself right there. Franamax (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems a pretty frivolous request with an ridiculously wide scope - "Anyone that has reverted anything that had been previously reverted", seriously? I agree with Franamax above and suggest that discussions about the template should be directed to this page's talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Again 2 cents (i'm going to be bankrupt soon): Anyone who has edited on the climate change related articles should have been able to spot that Tender & Privat was a sock or at least not a serious editor. If you considered trying to enforce this users edits, by reverting them back, then i'd say that there is something wrong - but it is neither with the templates, nor with other users. If there is doubt in your mind regarding whether or not the user is a sock, then gently prod the user on his talk-page, and tell them to engage in discussion. Users coming out of nothing (ie. hardly no edits at all) and diving in by reverting a contested area, no matter what "side" they are on, are not serious editors (yet?). Now do not misunderstand that, they may well not be socks, but the behavior is not acceptable either way, so take them gently by the hand, if in doubt, and help them to take a constructive part of the project. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Frivolous request which, because of GoRight's other time-wasting and WP:POINTy recent edits , probably deserves some kind of block. GoRight is misusing wikipedia procedures and should know better. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Multiple Editors

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe GoRight should get about 24 hours for WP:POINT violation. Does another administrator concur? Jehochman 14:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be too close but this is not the first frivolity from GR, plus GR was warned already (in a different context, but still). We don't want to discourage people reporting things but we want this taken seriously, and this sort of report isn't helpful. Perhaps another strong warning with a requirement of an explicit acknowledgment of the issue, on pain of a block if acknowledgment is refused? At some point we need to shift from warning to doing. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm too close to be considered independent but I concur with the idea of a block. Spartaz 15:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Lame guys. The report above may be useless as far as things go, but it is far from block worthy. Not to mention the whole preventative vs punitive philosophy. Arkon (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For a first occurrence I would concur without hesitation. For the second or third (depending on how you count... see also the entire arbcom case request), I think a very strong warning and a requirement to state they understand, on pain of block, is reasonable. ++Lar: t/c 16:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the result here is that GoRight is warned not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests, or else they may be blocked without further warnings. Jehochman 16:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Psb777

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Psb777

User requesting enforcement: Viriditas (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Psb777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

06:57, 4 January 2010 Edit warring. Psb777 reverts User:Dave souza and restores previous version at 01:41, 4 January 2010 by User:A Quest For Knowledge
08:55, 4 January 2010 Edit warring. Psb777 reverts User:Wikispan and restores 01:41, 4 January version.
11:27, 4 January 2010 Edit warring. Psb777 reverts User:ChrisO and restores 01:41, 4 January version.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

09:05, 4 January 2010 General sanctions warning by ChrisO (talk · contribs)
06:08, 31 December 2009 Edit warring warning by Viriditas (talk · contribs)
02:42, 28 December 2009 Edit warring warning by jheiv (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban due to incessant edit warring after multiple prior warnings and acknowledgement of general sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: In addition to edit warring, Psb777 is currently acting under the radar and placing comments on user talk pages "rallying the troops" and encouraging a battlefield mentality. Viriditas (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Psb777

Statement by Psb777

I think there was no urgency required in determining a sanction here. I did not exceed the 3RR rule. I am not in the habit of edit warring. I have backed off leaving the other editor's version in place. I invited the other party to Talk, and I've been on the Talk page ready to talk where others would agree I have avoided being personal, despite some provocation.

If an impartial observer looked at who was doing the reversions and the edit warring I think s/he would not have indentified me as the culprit. Count the reverts. There has been a lot of gatekeeping going on. And not by me. Why am I singled out?

The upsetting thing about this is that within a very few minutes of the notification of this appearing on my talk page the sanction has been decided upon. Before I had a chance to write this. Or maybe not, maybe you have greater sanctions planned!

But a restriction to 1RR will not impact me. Within reasonable memory I have only reverted more than once on two occasions, I think. And, as I said, always I have left the "war" with the other persons version in place. So, in what way is what I do problematic or disruptive.

Or is this one of those occasions where you say, see, he cannot even see his own bad behaviour, that's what proves we really need to impose a sanction? :-)

No, I know what it is. I've got up a few peoples' noses by being successful in getting a consensus together to make some necessary changes to a seriously lacking NPOV article.

Anyway, let's see what happens next. Maybe by the time I press the save button there will be some description of what I am supposed to have done.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re comment by Ryan: I don't follow, where have I been warned about particular behaviour yet I have continued to do so. No, that's not correct. Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Further comment to Ryan: I think you've been fooled here. ChrisO may have placed a 3RR notice on my page but I had not and did not exceed the 3RRs. In fact I may have only done 2. I'll check. And ChrisO placed an edit-war banner on my page twice but that really should not be taken as evidence of an edit war, look for yourself. You must be aware that a common technique is to allege bad behaviour by others? Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re viriditus's "under the radar" comment. This truly is ridiculous. I am here under my own name, everything I do at WP is at WP. I don't take part in any off-WP chat sessions. I never ever send WP related e-mail to another WP user. There is no off WP coordination of 3RR avoidance etc etc. What Viriditus says is under the radar is most definitely ON THE RADAR with me. And what is on the radar? Me suggesting to two participants on the Talk page that they actually edit the article. Have a look! Or didn't V provide the links? Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is relevant. I was writing this while Ryan couldn't wait a few minutes before issuing a scanction. Thanks to Troed for his comment Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is where V says I was warned by him/her previously but you'll see, s/he backed off and agreed that perhaps she was wrong. V was fooled here too by ChrisO's placement of an edit warring tag on my page when I had reverted only twice and where I left the page at his preferred version, backing off first. In all fairness, if anyone needed a tag it was him, he having regularly reverted all suggested changes to the FAQ from any user. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the lesson to be learned here is always shoot first. Always be the person to make the allegation of bad behaviour first. Is that the lesson you are trying to teach here.?' Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think however that the lesson to be learnt really is always carefully check allegations of bad behaviour. Now, please lift the sanction so that you can see there is no need to levy one one on me. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit is listed incorrectly as a third revert whereas (1) it was to a different version and (2) the edit was discussed with and encouraged by Hipocrite on the Talk page - it certainly felt consensual and nobody complained of a third revert at the time or since, until now. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

can I ask Viriditas if s/he collated the "evidence" or was it provided by someone? Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I obviously can't add. I had thought it was 21 minutes from Viriditas's request to Ryan's imposition of the sanction. No. it was only 13 minutes. Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Psb777

I don't know if this is yet ripe. It appears that normal editing of the article is resulting what appear to be fully agreed-apon improvements. Most of the credit goes to dave souza and Itsmejudith, though I'll take my share as well. While the earlier rote reverting back and forth was of little value, perhaps the example of forward progress by not reverting and instead evaluating consensus on the talk page and responding to the concerns of others demonstrated over the last few hours will work. At the most, warnings for all reverters would be appropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realised this was already at this stage, repeating a comment I just left for Veriditas at Psb777's talk page: I'm one of the persons who Psb777 posted at the talk page to. I just want to note for the record that I in no way saw the post to mean anything but a friendly question as to why I was still only editing the talk page. To be frank, I hadn't even noticed the article was even open for editing again before Paul's notice. (And if anyone would ever believe I'd characterize myself as somebody's "troop" they would be sorely mistaken at that). I do however agree, fully, that there's a heated WP:BATTLE mentality over the article in question. It's not one-sided though, and Paul is one of somewhat few who actually participate at the talk page trying to move the article forward instead of just objecting to proposals. Troed (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your kind words. You would not have realised, as it was all done with such unseemly haste, during a period where all was happening consensually at the page for the first time in a while, so no hurry, even if you accept the allegation. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. I just took the time to look at the reverts this is all about. This was a widely discussed paragraph which had arrived at consensus in changing of sourcing. The persons above who deleted it are the ones that should be sanctioned, not Paul who correctly reverted them. There was no support, according to consensus at the talk page, for removing this complete paragraph which was actively discussed with good results. If you care to look at the article in its current state, we've arrived at something that seems to stick. Paul has been one of the persons who've participated in making this happen (and yes, I'm one as well), while in the list of names I see for the editors who removed it is one I can't recall having participated in the discussions at all. This is clearly not how the sanctions were supposed to work, I hope. Viriditas, did you really look this through? Troed (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll additionally go out on a limb (and if I'm breaking some Wikirules I do not know of I'm sorry) and state that if I was an admin, I'd see the sudden appearance and edit of this article, and this specific paragraph, by User:Wikispan as really strange in the context of the article having just been re-opened for editing and no previous participation whatsoever either with the article or at the talk page. Troed (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel must correct some misrepresentations in Paul's statement above. I did not give him a "3RR warning"; I notified him of the article probation, using the template at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Notification of probation, after he (re)added to the article some blog-sourced material concerning criticism of living people (which is of course disallowed by WP:BLP and WP:V). When he expressed an intention to continue reverting, I left a message requesting him to engage in discussion to find consensus and advising him against disruptive editing, as he was opening himself up to to possible enforcement action. I emphasised that I did not intend to submit an enforcement request. I'd hoped to encourage Paul to engage in discussion and avoid him ending up here, but evidently that hasn't worked. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Psb777

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

As Psb777 has already been notified of the sanctions and has continued to revert, I've placed him on a 1RR restriction on all climate change articles for a period of two weeks. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That may have been a bit premature, I recommend letting discussion run a bit longer than an hour (Tony's, just above, has run for a day and a half and isn't closed yet) ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

An hour? 21 minutes. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement requests pages are to alert administrators to behaviour where enforcement may be needed. If any administrator sees problematic behaviour then they are free to act. I have seen behaviour from psb777 which I believe warrents a 1rr restriction and I don't feel the need to further discussion - others are free to discuss my implementation however, hence why I didn't archive.--Ryan Postlethwaite 17:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Ryan. Prodego 18:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'm not (yet?) convinced this sanction is warranted. The previous requests we've had here (I know, I know, I'm sniping at the guy who proposed the scheme) had some back and forth and a rough consensus was reached on what to do before things were imposed. I think that's the appropriate approach. If we want folk to accept this regime, it has to be fair and it has to be perceived as fair. So now what? ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to putting the entire article on 1RR instead. But what can't happen is everyone feeling entitled to 3 reverts - there are too many editors for that. Prodego 18:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems a far better approach than where we are now. The more I look at the evidence given above, the more it seems (again, I may be misinterpreting it) that we've got the wrong person in the stocks on the charge of edit warring... sticking 1RR on the whole thing reduces the need to get into back and forth on who did what and why. (3rr is a bright line, not an entitlement, anyway) ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

JettaMann

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning JettaMann

User requesting enforcement: Hipocrite (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: JettaMann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Blatent violation of WP:BLP - "a Misplaced Pages arbitration committee found him guilty of violating a number of Misplaced Pages rules" - not true. This went on at the beginning of an RFC on the talk page, which has hardly even begun.
. Over-the-top BLP violation - "I don't think this individual has any notoriety of any kind, other than for being caught for various Misplaced Pages editing infractions. That's pretty much all this page should say about him is that he was a Global Warming activist who got caught gaming Misplaced Pages."

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

10-day block by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with note "I would strongly recommmend when you come back from the block, even if you haven't been banned by then, you should tread very carefully in that area or preferably choose to avoid the field altogether, because if you continue behaving like you did you will most likely incur more sanctions."

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Perminant topic ban, along with ban from all biographies of living persons.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: This is exactly the kind of "user" that makes dealing with these articles impossible.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning JettaMann

Statement by JettaMann

Comments by others about the request concerning JettaMann

I disagree that second diff violates BLP. This seems like something better handled via a disruption route rather than being specifically related to the Climate change probation. Prodego 18:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning JettaMann

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

William M. Connolley

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning William M. Connolley

User requesting enforcement: Marknutley (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

This diff shows a revert on a good faith edit based on WMC`s own pov, in talk he says there was no support for the additional text but only he disagreed with it.
This diff shows changes made by WMC making widespread changes to contested text which was added before page protection. It was agreed as part of the removal of page protection that no contested text would be, added, altered or removed without a consensus as seen in talk/page protection

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warning by marknutley (talk · contribs) Please note, this diff is not a warning, when i tried to ask WMC why he had made his changes he did not reply but just deleted my question, as he would not give a reason for his changes i figured it was pointless warning him either.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I request a month block on the article in question ]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

William M Connolley seems to have a major problem with any hint of criticism being in any article which deals with climate change. His mentality is that of a gatekeeper and any dissent must be removed. It is precisely because of actions like his that climate related articles have become battle grounds and wikipedia a laughing stock. I have argued in talk only to have my arguments ignored and changes made against consensus. William M Connolley seems to think he wp:owns all climate related pages and refuses to allow even the most minor changes without his say so. Please excuse any mistakes i have made in this as i have not done it before. Thank you. --mark nutley (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=335853610&oldid=335853275

Discussion concerning William M. Connolley

Statement by William M. Connolley

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley

Fixed by me. Diffs were broken when I found them. Hipocrite (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't want to break protocols, would it be prudent or not to add something I would consider to be in the same spirit as that in the complaint, by Connolley, here? I'm purposely not linking since I, really, don't want to do something that's out of place. Troed (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that if you have information that you consider material, and relevant to the general thrust of this report, you should add it (here in the other editors section). These should not become omnibuses, but more viewpoints and more evidence are highly likely to be helpful IF the additions are germane. That's my view. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning William M. Connolley

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.