Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:03, 27 January 2010

• 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>
}}

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.

Biosequestration dispute

Edit war at Talk:Global warming

I am at this point an uninvolved editor on the subject, but at Talk:Global warming there is a massive edit war brewing with several editors removing comments by others, simply because they do not agree with them. User:McSly and User:Kenosis have removed several comments several times. I did reaad the comments, but they have been deleted again. Several comments on differant threads have been hacked using WP:Talk and WP:Forum as their justification. I must point out that the users who are removing the comments seem, to me, to not agree with the other editors' viewpoints anyway. Several other editors are involved in this case and I did warn that I would report the problem here if the deletions did not stop. So here we are.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't vouch for every removal, but talk:global warming has a chronic history of inappropriate content. As the article is under probation perhaps this issue, if it is an issue, should be discussed at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. --TS 21:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but since we seem to be hitting several 3RR problems, it may be more sticky than all that.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, here is the comment I removed . It seemed to me to be pretty obviously against the talk pages discussion policies and that's why I removed it. Was I wrong ?--McSly (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is, as TS says, a long history of people using the GW talk page as a venue for discussing GW itself, not for discussing improving the article. And of old arguements being constantly repeated. There is a fun wrinkle in all this: most (though not all) of the ill-disciplined chatter is from skeptics, who would like to butcher the page in various ways (yes, I know, you don't agree, you don't have to, I'm just giving my opinion of course). But they can't, because none of the talk page discussions ever come to any conclusion, becasue they always wander off into the weeds. I even wrote a teensy essay about it: User:William M. Connolley/For me/Musing on the state of wiki.

Meanwhile, how about someone semi's the article talk page? That would help a bit.

@JJH: if someone has hit 3RR then there is a trivial solution: block them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've unwatched that page, due to the tone and tenor of some of the users that regularly edit there. I have noticed frequently that talkpage comments are removed, often -- at least seemingly -- as much because the remover doesn't agree with them as much as anything else. This needs a stop put to it. There's no need to squelch dissent. UnitAnode 21:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not listening. No-one is squelching dissent William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're one of the reasons I quit trying to improve GW articles. And I distinctly remember you and either Kim or Boris removing talkpage comments several times after I'd asked you not to do so. That's the kind of behavior that chases editors away from the articles. It's a problem, and it needs dealt with. UnitAnode 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dissent is being squelched as it has been for years. Either way, talk page comments are indeed being removed by editors who don't agree with them, outside of policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of it is akin to a little kid putting their fingers in their ears and going "La La La La" really loud so they don't have to listen to what is being said.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of these removals are reckless. At one point I was informed that there'd been a local agreement that newspapers would no longer be considered RS. I didn't protest this over-turning of policy but I did request to see the special procedures that were in place, My request was deleted. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. Guettarda (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What for? There's no question it's going on. I've even done it myself, though that was an IP and I moved it to their TalkPage to continue the discussion if they had a point to make and it seems they didn't. There is a slight drizzle of trolling and spam, but that's very easy to deal with.

I recently asked what was the point of the article and whether it was meant to be informative, it sure doesn't look as if it answers anyone's questions (I described the tests I've applied, the article failed them all). The section was archived 8 minutes after the last contribution. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, remember the WP:TRUTH needs no diffs because it is obviously true; actual evidence would be redundant William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is degenerating already. In a last (and, I know, doomed) attempt to drag us back to reality: people seem too have the idea that any removal of talk page comments is outside of policy. This is wrong. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles. Comments that do not do this may be legitimately removed. "Dissent is being squelched" type comments seem to confuse free-speech in the sense of newspapers with comments on wiki, which is unhelpful. My prediction: this discussion, like so many at the GW talk page, will wander off into the weeds uselessly. Hopefully I'm wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"This discussion is degenerating already" and "drag us back to reality" could be taken as personal attacks towards good faith editors. The dissent is being squelched comments are also in good faith following WP:NPOV and have nothing to do with notions of "free speech" as they relate to governments. Your take on talk page comments seems to me, to mean that anything not agreeing with your own PoV on the topic is not an improvement to the article and thus can be removed at the slightest hint of clumsiness. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Try collapsing nonsense comments instead of removing them. And people better be informing the editors on their talk page instead of WP:BITEing them and moving on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't nonsense. It was only clumsy and overlong. Ok to hat it, though. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant nonsense on the talk page. I collapsed in part for the personal attacks and informed the editor that they need to be discuss things calmly instead of just ranting and raving. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It was unencyclopedic and clumsy (likely unknowing) with the PAs but straightforwardly in good faith. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was nonsense either. This was a reader much like any other, someone who would not be protesting a sensible and worthy article even if they didn't agree with it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just chime in and say I have noticed in the past, not recently, but I haven't looked at the article in question in a while, that the pro-AGW crowd has a tendency to delete others edits, prematurely collapse or archive them, or even edit other people's comments. In fact, one of that group was recently warned by an admin for that sort of behavior (on AN, not GW articles). I suspect that this tactic is usually done against newer editors who are less likely to complain and more likely to get themselves 3rr banned by restoring their own edits. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As I've said many times, that's how it's done. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still chuckling over the irritation and consternation expressed by the regulars at the Reliable Sources noticeboard after some of the GW regulars insisted that newspapers can't be used for GW articles. Actually, I'm glad that that happened, because it can be used forever as an example illustrating some of the kinds of behaviors that occur in Misplaced Pages.

Anyway, back to this edit war. I believe that in the past Scibaby socks were prone to leaving trolling and unhelpful messages on the GW talk page and I can understand their removal. The problem is that sometimes the removals get too aggressive and end up being bitey to newbies who may not understand what is going on. If it isn't happening already, I suggest that everytime someone removes a comment, that they also politely explain why on the editor's talk page, even it appears to be a Scibaby sock. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Cla, I can't find the RSN discussion which you find so amusing. Could it be the brief comment at WP:RSN#Proposed rule, which seems to propose giving advocacy groups and newspaper op-eds priority over peer reviewed journals? Seems odd, I'd be grateful for a diff of the comments of which you speak. . . dave souza, talk 23:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Those socks are socks, but aren't always what they seem to be. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If comment removal is turning out to be too controversial, then, it might be better not to do it anymore. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's a particularly sharp elbowed tactic when used by long term editors who ought to know better. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also reviewed the complained of actions, and find that they do not comply with WP:TALK and indeed violate WP:TPOC; you do not remove other peoples comments unless they violate policies such as NPA, BLP and the like. I also find that arguing a mechanism by which good faith content related comment may not be removed for a certain time period is also a good faith attempt at improving the article - even if it has or is rejected by the community, that fact should be noted and the comment allowed to stand. Now, I have only been reviewing the edits since the above ip started complaining of the removal of their comments but I think that all parties including the ip have exceeded the 1RR restriction for content that is not vandalism. I shall be blocking McSly (talk · contribs), Kenosis (talk · contribs) and 83.203.210.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 12 hours per the CCP. I would suggest that had comment not been removed under inappropriate reasoning (and WP:TALK is a guideline it should be noted) and simply responded to - or not - then these actions need not have been considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that all parties including the ip have exceeded the 1RR restriction for content that is not vandalism - hold on. Which 1RR restriction would that be? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As far as I can tell, neither global warming not talk: global warming is under a 1RR restriction. The phrase is certainly not mentioned on the talk page, and there is no appropriate entry over at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Um.... that would be the one only I was apparently aware of; my mistake regarding my skimming of the probation page. I acknowledge I am wrong about the specifics, but generally the warning about edit warring - and how 3RR is not an allowance per WP:3RR - indicates that the tolerance for revert wars is lower than most places, and I think my sanctions are in keeping with the purpose of the sanctions. I will correct my rationales at the various editors talkpages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC) I shall not get involved in a discussion over adopting 1RR on GWP pages, since I hope to remain uninvolved for a little while longer.

Also, according to Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Notifications, neither Kenosis nor McSly were notified of the probation, let alone warned. Given that strict interpretation of WP:TPG has been the norm for a while (and overall quite helpful) on talk:global warming, I don't think these blocks are appropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole thread/section has a strange lack of specifics, and a lot of claims about generalities. How about focusing on one archiving/removal at a time, and then discuss whether or not (in the context of what has been on t:GW) it was archived/removed correctly. That way it would actually be a learning experience instead of mudslinging, which is getting us nowhere. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to call any of these comments, of whatever stripe, mudslinging. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is what the above comments best can be described with. Notice that mudslinging here isn't a perjorative, it describes a situation where people aren't listening to each other, and instead throw bald assertions at each other. The assertions may be correct, and one side or the other may be in the right, but it isn't moving forward in any way or form. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't call good faith comments on a talk page mudslinging. This is spot on the fuzzy, overbroad kind of thing that has brought forth these worries to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a lot of mudslinging on that talk page. Personal attacks are often intended quite sincerely and in the deepest of good faith. This doesn't make personal attacks acceptable. --TS 00:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I was actually referring on the above comments. Stating for instance that "dissent is squelched" but not providing any diff's is a bald assertion that cannot be answered by much other than equal assertions. Talking about archiving/removals without any context of a specific thread/case is equally unproductive. We aren't getting anywhere. I would again try to ask for targetted discussions and specific examples, instead of this (yes i'm going to say it again) mudslinging at each other (and there is no specific target applied here, it is quite generic). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to call good faith comments mudslinging either. What I'm seeing is a pattern of when someone makes a general observation, of asking for specifics, and when specifics are brought, each is dismissed as a special case, exception, or the work of an editor in disrepute. The issue here is that there's a general perception of one side trying to control the discussions (which in turn controls the content of the articles). Work on the perception if you want people not to allege grand cabals. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me. An anon ip just deleted another editors comments a few minutes ago. Another block please?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's just one of our resident trolls being a silly sausage. If you block the IP he'll just use another open proxy. --TS 00:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So semi t:GW. It has been often enough in the past William M. Connolley (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi'd it to stop anon antics. Vsmith (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony's protocol

As a result of this discussion with LessHeard vanU I suggest we develop a protocol for editors to follow when they encounter off-topic clutter on talk pages covered by the probation. The idea is that we'd make sure that newcomers who just happen to come to, say, talk:global warming and then post a thread about something they read on a blog would not be bitten, but would be politely informed of the reason why their discussion is inappropriate. People (including regulars) who persisted after warnings would be sanctionable here.

Traditionally such off-topic discussions have been archived in situ, but often they are unarchived for various reasons. Perhaps really egregious unarchiving might be seen as sanctionable. I suppose that could be handled on a case-by-case basis.

As LessHeard vanU says, the important thing is to get people behaving themselves because they want to continue contributing.

In any case, I think everybody should read the thread and then come back here and comment on his proposal. --TS 01:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful idea! As a technical aid, maybe something even simple as a "tag" around the off topic comment and when there are abundant tags among a few eds, then consider the collapse, remove option with consensus. The idea is the tag serves as a simple clean clear warning right in place. It could even link to a more elaborate guideline or policy reminder. (Yes, tag wars would be eminent, but then maybe even that discussion could be put to another place.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Found it ... a variation on these Template:Off-topic-inline, Template:Off-topic? for talk pages that would point to WP:TPG. The existing article tags maybe ok to start. Comments? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Note, I took this proposal for additional comment here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A tag is better than removal. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Template's done. I called it "Template:Inappropriate under talk page guideline", little long, but it's self-explanatory in the wikicode. If you want to adjust the message or update the documentation, feel free, if you don't know how, just post it here and I'll add it in. There are five actions:

1. "remove", comment won't display, but still will be searchable.
2. "collapse" collapsed, floated right, header is grayed out so it would be less intrusive.
3. "tag over", prints "Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines." followed by an optional reason on top of the comment. Background is 10% transparent so you can still see what's under it.
4. "tag", prints "" followed by an optional reason.
5. "no action", doesn't do anything, except in the wikicode.

Error messages will print if you forget "action" or "comment". "reason" is optional. Examples are in the documentation. ChyranandChloe (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Seems really powerful, I pray for it's appropriate wp:civil purpose and application. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

well, do as you like, but I will most certainly ignore any such warnings when and where I feel it is warranted. Most of the time I see arguments archived in this way (and when I archive them myself, which I have done) it's a way to end a conversation which is spiraling down the hole; this is a good thing. but too often I see conversations archived as a tendentious way of shutting up editors (I assume as a means of enforcing page ownership) and I never put up with that. just an FYI, because I'm suspicious of this move on this page; I'll be keeping my eye on the applications of this template to make sure that it isn't abused. --Ludwigs2 10:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Grateful though we all must be for making new tags available, I must question why this discussion is going on at "Requests for enforcement".

It is off-topic and should be removed forthwith. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What LessHeard VanU suggested--and it is well within the WP:TALK guideline too--is that off-topic material should be promptly moved to an archive page and the originator notified that this is not the purpose for which the talk page exists. Accordingly I have removed an off-topic item from talk:global warming , archived it , and notified the originator. I hope we can move towards more orderly use of the talk space. Needless to say, any edit warring over such archiving will probably end badly for all participants. Please raise issues arising from inappropriate archiving or unarchiving on this page. --TS 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the idea that off-topic material should be removed (archive if you must, who cares, it is all in the history and no-one bothers with the archives). But you should note that this is directly contradicted by LHVU's second rationale for his block of K, which was that *any* removal (other than, one presumes, orderly archiving) of not-clearly-vandalism was blockable. So since people are being randomly blocked for failing to follow non-disclosed rules, I think you need to make the rules very clear. If the rules are "only material deemed archivable by TS or LHVU maybe archived early", then clearly state that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor sanity

It is good to see that off-topic cruft is finally being removed . This is exactly what we've been asking for for ages, over the screams of "censorship" and "suppression of dissent" from the ignorant. Its also what poor K has got blocked for doing; apparently what is "egregious edit warring" one day becomes highly laudable behaviour the next William M. Connolley (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mind you, TS had better watch out. According to LHVU's personal rules, which he doesn't seem to worry about enforcing willy-nilly, TS's edit was against policy and presumably a blockable offence William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that, in common with WP:TPOC, LessHeard VanU draws a distinction between archiving, hiding, collapsing, userfying, etc, and outright removal. See my full description of the archiving in the section immediately above. --TS 13:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I will be much more impressed when the removed/archived/compressed material does not always involve posts that are contrary to TS and Connelley's agenda-pushing, and I take exception to Connelley's claim that people who are willing to listen to evidence against AGW, rather than accept it as holy writ, are "ignorant." 69.165.159.245 (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To repeat what I said at your talk page:

Your comment was archived because it wasn't about improving the article. The fact that most such disruptive material is added by people who imagine themselves to be climate sceptics does tend to make it look as if one view is being censored, but if you look at the page you will see that climate sceptics are vastly overrepresented in the comments there.

--TS 14:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC your comments are not helpful. Perhaps you're part of the problem rather than the solution? ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look in a mirror William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your frustration, I really don't see the need for you to be so acerbic all the time. I very much sympathize with your general position within this topic, but Lar's point is quite legitimate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You think the block of K was good? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My above comment was specifically addressing concerns I have about your recent civility, and was intended as a subtle warning from a sympathetic editor. I have not been involved in this discussion, or the events that preceded it; however, after a cursory review of what went on I would have to say that the block of Kenosis (if that is the one you are referring to) did not seem appropriate to me. I do not see any evidence of fair warning about the probation, although I suppose I could be mistaken (it was a very quick review, after all). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. And how does my civility stack up in the great scales of justice against the person who blocked K, and the person who defended that block on the grounds that K had indulged in "egregious edit warring"? Why are you commenting on my tone, when you ignore these very real offences elsewhere? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Because I noticed it, and I know that you are quite capable of rising above all that sort of thing. Two wrongs... -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, you are right William M. Connolley (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The damage to Misplaced Pages:

I think people should look at this Google thread to see how many people believe Misplaced Pages has been hijacked by realclimate.org: http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1ACAWCENCA362&q=wikipedia+climate+change+propaganda&btnG=Google+Search&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=

Oh yes, we're really going to pay attention to the opinions of www.taxpayer.com, Frank Luntz, climategate.com, climatechangefraud.com and a whole pile of other fools William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If any of the above are quoted in reliable, third party sources then "Yes". If not, "No". There is no suspension of proper Misplaced Pages practice regarding WP:RS, along with all the other relevant policies (including WP:NPA). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Our anon is not proposing any changes to any articles, so WP:RS is irrelevant. The anon is proposing that we modify our discussion based on what other people think of us. Since the sources that the anons link throws up are all obviously unusable, the anons point fails on its own terms, let alone any others William M. Connolley (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There's already a wiki that caters to the likes of those people. Perhaps they should be directed towards Conservapedia? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(resp to WMC) If that is what the anon is going on about, then fine - we answered them; we stay with the consensus now existing. We can say that without evidencing our opinions upon the validity of the sources provided by the anon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ChyranandChloe's protocol

WP:TPG encourages "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." Now, if WMC or MalcolmMcDonald posted a rant like this, we'd take him right up to ANI. Newcomers are naive. Tony said we should develop a protocol, a way of dealing with newcomers without biting them. I think this is just saving the remove until they're informed and warned. Because to remove a comment without, they're likely to conclude, however unjust, that this is censorship.

This is for individual comments:

1. Ask. tag over their comment, and ask them on their user talk to be more constructive.
2. Admonish. collapse their comment, warn them on their user talk.
3. Abolish. If they duplicate a post, it's vandalism, repeating characters, revert. If it's something new, but still trolling or a PA, collapse and ignore. If edit war, block.

This is for threads:

1. Ask. State that the thread is unconstructive and ask the proposer to discuss an edit to the article.
2. Admonish. Tag the thread as unconstructive and warn the proposer on user talk to discuss an edit to the article.
3. Abolish. Archive, collapse, or remove as we've done before. If it's disputed, take it to WP:AN or here, article talk is not for meta-discussion.

TPG encourages remove, but some of you guys don't like that, especially when we get a round in circles discussion. LessHeard said remove should only be used on "NPA, BLP, and the like." I think this can be agreed upon. Roung in circles? I think this is where the discussion would be. What do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, removing should be a later stage option (for disruption) and tagging an earlier one. We must consider this too Misplaced Pages:Refactoring talk pages ... what is important for civility is maintaining good faith and remember some infractions can be easily corrected and the Template can be removed. (Like when PA can be redacted or when the offender self-removes the distraction by being made aware.) In addition, what I notice about the tool, is that it seems simple to extend the initial tag to a whole thread by moving the close code, when things get really out of control. Appreciate your work. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I'd prefer if there was some option to partially refactor and refocus. My concern here (well-justified by what I've seen) is that some thread will have a potentially useful core idea that gets hijacked by a lot of cross-talk, and then the entire thread gets archived, leaving the person who started the thread feeling abused. ham-handed removals like that do more to promote conspiratorial talk than just about anything I can think of. --Ludwigs2 22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Zulupapa, you got to realize that most threads don't start with good faith, especially when it begins along the lines "IPCC fun and games" or a commentary about how the editors are jokes. Discussion is a covenant often broken before we begin, and there isn't much we can do. This is why the first step is ask, people don't like being told what to do, and it is inherently their decision. Ask them in order to remind good faith.

Ludwigs2, hijacked? Yes, I know what you mean. Too often. But refactoring isn't a silver bullet, use for "personal attacks, trolling and vandalism" under WP:TPG. Round in circles I don't think will be solved by tag your it, or a collapse-a-ton. I often want to blame the person's bad writing, or some people for raising PoV (all the time) and filling our heads with straw on some Amazon, rain-forest, or flames. I told the person that he was siding, that it was unwise tie up his comments like that, and most importantly to restart the thread with a clearer proposal. I think the person blew me off. When a thread gets off-topic and I care about it, I being my comment "My central point is... address this point." And if they fail to do so, I keep my comment short and say "You are not addressing my central point." When the person can put your central argument in their own words, that's when you know they're listening, and you're in an actual discussion. I don't know if I've answered your question on this one Ludwigs2, I'm sorry, feel free to blow it off and ask again. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Response from Kenosis

I'd like to request that this thread be kept open for a week. I've received several emails encouraging me to reconsider my response to the block by LVHU. LVHU's block might have been hasty--perhaps erroneous-- but so was my response to it. As it happens, I've gone four years and 20,000-plus edits--many in controversial topic areas--with a clean block log, something I happen to value a lot. Unfortunately I'm quite busy at present and will need to wait until I'm finished with the pile of RL work that's currently on my plate.
..... As soon as I have several hours to get back to this, I'd like an opportunity to present a perspective that might possibly be useful to the ongoing discussion about WP procedures for the more out-of-control pages including heavy-traffic talk pages on controversial topics such as GW. It would also be appreciated to allow me a brief opportunity to comment on my own actions prior to the "1RR" block, the speculative way they were characterized above (e.g. as having removed or userfied comments "simply because they do not agree with them"), and about a couple procedural issues relating to a block-without-prior-notice under terms that were not part of the terms of the climate-change article probation. I expect to have an opportunity to spend adequate time on this later this week... Kenosis (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri

• Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

The article in question is protected due to BLP concerns, but a feeding frenzy continues on talk. I would appreciate it if uninvolved admins would take a look at the talk page and ensure that the BLP is being complied with fully. --TS 16:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything terrible - some people are attempting to conflate the head of an organisation for the body, and that is being resisted. The claims that a mistake was made by the group are acknowledged, and so claims that the individual is responsible for the mistake is a simple case of misunderstanding. Of possible concern is that there what may be an attempt to have the acknowledged mistake noted in more articles than those properly relevant, but it isn't one that has been advanced on the talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I had approached one of the worst offenders and he agreed to remove some of the worst material, in which he advanced positions rather than discussing the content of sources. There isn't an intrinsic problem on that talk page, and discussion is reasonably orderly considering the inflammatory material being advanced by some newspapers. --TS 21:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley refactoring and interjecting his comments in those of others and engaging in antagonistic attacks on fellow editors

. Even after another editor objects to his interjecting his comments within those of another editor, continues to revert to his version. He also tells the other editor "How many times are you going to get this wrong?" and to "stop whinging" in user talk page discussion.

I also think the attack page he keeps in his talk space needs addressing.

Given his COI on climate change issues and his past involvements with RealClimate I think a topic ban would be a good solution at this point to stop the disruption he continues to cause. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Diffs of some of the uncivil edits by WMC to this project page: NimbusWeb an "over-enthusiastic noob"..."What are you on, old fruit?"..."If you don't want to be condescended to, I suggest you stop making quite so many mistakes."..."@MN:noob". (I've moved this comment from following section. You'll also find diffs from pages other than this one at that location.) --Heyitspeter (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

His edit comments also leave a great deal to be desired --mark nutley (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

We're you blocked for this kind of harassment just recently? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley, your comments and edit summaries both here and elsewhere leave something to be desired in terms of civility. Please refrain from disparaging, or even veiled remarks - it is not constructive in such controversial areas. Prodego 20:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Think it should be dismissed, not even formatted correctly, and only one diff? And depending on others to argue the case for you? Don't assume accusations are self-evident. This feels like it's here only to attract attention. If you're going to go through with this ChildofMidnight, could you please take it more seriously? ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What like this you mean C&C damn near deleted half my post there. mark nutley (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He didn't delete anything there. What are you talking about? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? He didn't delete anything in that diff, except for excess linebreaks. Are you giving a wrong diff? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Right diff, wrong interpretation. Apparently Marknutley can't read diffs. Sigh. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry chris :) and yes i do still have issues with diffs :) Actually what i meant was WMC`s edit comment weird also gratuitously refactor MN's errors And the fact that he messed up my post when he stuck his text in along with mine. I should have been clearer :) --mark nutley (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark, "messing up with text" here is removing excess linebreaks from your comment, it didn't change anything . And when "he stuck his text in along with mine" he was replying to your comment, with the correct indentation, so that it was clear what he was replying to. This is not unusual when replying to long comments, or comments with more than one argument. On the other hand, you did delete WMC's comment . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, I've noticed that certain arbitrator(s) seem to be unable to read diffs as well, so you're hardly alone... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

MN, you're still a noob in some ways. You've only just realised that bare url's don't take double brackets, because I finally got bored of your repeated errors and told you: User_talk:Marknutley#.5B.5B_and_.5B. Your edit to that talk page was broken: by failing to remove the line breaks you messed up the indentation of your quote. I fixed it for you. There is no need to thank me William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC, address your issues, this isn't about the complainer. Suggest you consider as a guide. Your edit summaries and comments could be less antagonistic. Not everyone is entertained by them. It's due for a block time if not a serious warning. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC could perhaps be less adversarial in his comments and edit summaries, but I suggest that you and others should also refrain from harassing him. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That is good advice for everyone, but I think as this process continues, people who haven't stepped up their game on the civility front are going to find that they are the tall poppies remaining after the more egregious issues are resolved. WMC really needs to take a hint here, there are few taller poppies remaining I think, if any... ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is to be a report, it needs to be refactored into standard form, no? Else perhaps moved to the talk page? ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't move it to the talk page. Just close this as resolved, requiring no action; it was a badly formatted request for a non-issue. The talk page has had enough use already as a forum for lobbing kitchen sinks at William Connolley; it's not a dumping ground for general complaining about one's (perceived) opponents and shouldn't be used as such. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking about civility, I want TS's description of Kenosis as an "egregious edit warrior" discussed. Does no-one else find that somewhat incivil? I've raised this with TS; it just bounced off.

Also, I've redacted a PA from CoM's initial statement - it may look like trivia to you but CoM is well aware of what he is doing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Connolly is obviously not taking this seriously. Instead of apologizing for his abusive behavior and incivility he continues to refactor comments. I do not appreciate having my notice to him about this discussion refactored to indicate I made a personal attack. His claims that I am harassing him are also totally specious. I am required to notify him when his abusive behavior is being discussed and if I hadn't done so he would be complaining about that. Misrepresenting other people's comments is WP:Civility violation. We can't allow incivility to continue, he's been causing disruption and pushing his POV for far too long. His COI with Lawrence Solomon who he posts about on his blog and is in a personal feud with and his past involvements with RealClimate also makes his involvement in editing climate articles improper. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that just sounds like a rant. Look, if you want to be taken seriously, reactor this thread correctly as prescribed by the template in the lead and provide the diffs to justify COI and POV. Anything less, and I think you've given him permission to blow you off. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to take seriously a complaint at least partly about incivility that itself contains deliberate incivility. Yor claim of "abusive behaviour" based on that one diff is indeed not credible. I've redacted yet another PA from you - please learn William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

CoM, your "COI" claim was discussed at length on the COI noticeboard and rejected. You don't get a second bite at this cherry. Please drop this and move on. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Or ... close this and restart with many diffs. COI can be brought up again when things change. 22:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I said above "refrain from harassing him". I think you will find that ignoring that advice would not be a good idea. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: there is some discussion of this matter on CoM's talk page. However what remains there as of this moment is partial, because CoM has been deleting my comments with a rather deceptive edit summary . Which is a bit ironic, given that CoM is complaining about refactoring William M. Connolley (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed your comments from my page after you removed mine from yours. Please try to be less hypocritical and disingenuous in making false accusations about behaviors you engage in enthusiastically. Also, if I am required to refer to your per your preferences then I ask you to obey my parallel request. Do not refer to me as anything other than ChildofMidnight. If you are unable to do so then I certainly don't feel it necessary to abide by your whims of the same nature. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Several diffs of his abusive behavior have already been provided. Among them: Diffs , and . I know he has friends and allies, but this report should not be disrupted with mirespresentations about what is a clear pattern of abusive behavior, incivility, refactoring, remocing of comments, and making false allegations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This problem has been goin on for a long time. I think the diffs showing abusive refactoring, referring to other editors as incompetents needing spoon feeding, misreperesnting the comments of others, the making of false allegations are enough to warrant action, but here are some more examples per repeated requests for more evidence of William's abusive behavior.

• Here's one of his abusive talk pages titled "whinging" Please note that if this is allowed I'm going to start a page on WMC with a diff noting that this kind of attack page was endorsed per this discussion. I don't want to be maligned in his talk space space and view this type of abuse as a clear example of his harassment and disruptive attempts to intimidate other editors.
• You are dense. Nevermind, I'm sure you'll get there in the end William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• "He is clearly to busy to review the actual terms of the article probation; he is clearly to proud to undo his errors; please DO NOT invite him back in again, we do not need his elephant-like blundering in this situation William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)" (Sorry about the grammatical errors, but I don't want to refactor someone else's quote.
• Irrelevant digression to call someone a noob. Per William's declaration that calling someone named William, Will is a personal attack, this must be taken as the worst sort of slander!
• Another attack page titled "curse of the gnome"
• And here's one of the many instances where he dishonestly refactors my comments to make it look like I made personal attack . If he's allowed to do that then I expect I will be allowed to do the same to him when he doesn't use another editors full name.
• Here's an example where he uses his blog to engage in a personal feud with Lawrence Solomon . Clearly this COI involvement in a dispute of this type should prevent him from editing related article subjects since his involvement is not neutral. The same issues are involved with his editing of climategate subjects because he was a named party in the RealClimate advocacy website where he had a biography page included (it might still be there, I haven't looked). Misplaced Pages should not be used as an extension of his personal and professional interests in advocating a certain point of view. I certainly hope this is obvious to the vast majority of editors here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• And another example where he discusses a climate scientist he disagrees with under the cateogry "general stupidity" You'll not that he does not use the individual's full name, let alone his title, once again demonstrating a level of hypocrisy that is fairly awesome. His edits to that article include edit warring to include a photo that he says on his blog "makes Lord M look like a bit of a wacko". ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that the off-wiki links are a complete waste of time? WP:CIV applies on Misplaced Pages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob

Since civility is a Big Thing, could someone have a quiet word with O2RR about this , please? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume that's supposed to be 'sceptic'. to you actually have a habit of calling people that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

This thread was improperly closed by Prodego who repeatedly asked me for more evidence of William Connolley's COI, incivility, and refactoring. After I spent time gathering diffs he has now collapsed the discussion hiding them. In response to Stephan Schulz's comment about off-wiki links, I'm sure he's aware that COI by definition applies to conflicts of interest that involve off-wiki interests. This discussion needs to be reopened so we can establish whether editors with clear conflicts of interest who have been involved with advocacy groups and run a blog disparaging article subjects are allowed to extend their efforts to POV pushing on Misplaced Pages. The incivility, refactoring, and misrepresentations also need to be addressed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this has been improperly closed. I see no admin consensus for either conclusion; furthermore, O2RR's incivility has become mixed into this and needs to be considered. I request that this be re-opened and properly closed William M. Connolley (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

With no-one commenting, I've undone the close William M. Connolley (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• You linked to only a bit of the section, here it is all...

name calling

As William M. Connolley repeatedly uses the derogatory expression of septic to refer to people with opposing views to his would it be OK to refer to him as a climate whiner ? (Off2riorob)

Neither would be ok. (Prodego)

Thats what I thought. (Off2riorob)

My question and comment to Prodego was not uncivil at all, it was a question that was meant to point out how repeated long term name calling by WMC of the people with opposing views is wrong and needs to be stopped, he repeatedly calls people septic this is not a nice way to repeatedly refer to other editors at all, especially editors you are in content disputes with, I was pointing out to Prodego how poor it was that WMC repeatedly does this is and that someone doing a similar name calling to him would not be ok and WMC accusing me of incivility for this is ridiculous in the extreme. My comment was made to Prodego in his capacity as Administrator on his talkpage at a time when he was dealing with WMC's incivility issues in his administrator capacity. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Around the same time as this, an editor asked WMC a question regarding the same issue...I don`t know if that`s an insult or praise :), might i ask you though WMC is it an error when you write septic`s instead of sceptic? Given one is oozing pus and the other is about questioning things? --mark nutley ....well.., clearly it isn't praise, is it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the only reason WMC is bringing this up is as a smoke screen in an attempt to distract from the real issue here, which is his long term general incivility in discussion and in edit summaries at multiple climate change articles. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "septic" is an intentional smear, see this ATren (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it clearly is a repeated intentional smear of good faith editors with a differing opinion to his. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

ZP5

Apparently there is a mutual history of name calling harassment and war exchanges, between the editor and I. Haven't kept a score with diffs. When looked at from the battleground game view, I concede ... the editor is winning. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, and the 2over0 proposed action to end this seems appropriate to me. The editor can have it. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of 2over0's proposed close

Administrators that are involved in issues do the wikipedia a service when they keep out of issues they are involved in, I dispute this closure, but it matters not, the wikipedia is not blind and it is clear that this report has merit and actually by closing it as if to protect WMC you do him a dis-service as the behavior has not been addressed and will for sure will be repeated. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, if anyone else had committed 10+ blatant BLP violations then they'd have been flat out banned, not just topic banned like I'd suggested. You should recuse your 2over2 - you never do, but you should. The sanction means nothing because it won't be enforced against Connolley - a repeated pattern with him, which, of course, only further encourages disruption from his camp since they know the rules don't apply to them. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the prohibition on refactoring others' talk page posts specifically directed at WMC, or is it part of a broader measure? These talk pages have a strong tendency to degenerate into collections of unfocused rambling screeds detailing individuals' personal views on the topic. As such they become nearly useless for discussing specific improvements to the articles. How can we reconcile this with WP:NOTSOAPBOX? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As proposed it is WMC-specific, as I think he has exceeded the spirit of the talk page guidelines through over-zealous refactoring. We might yet get something out of the more general discussion above, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And what do you propose to do about his near-constant BLP violations? They are already against the rules - there has to be a limit to how often a wikipedia editor can slander public figures. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I also dispute how you closed the following section and left this one open. There was a lot more evidence in that section and it followed the request for enforcement guidelines and formatting. It also showed that Connolley had no defense for his behavior - none. It was inexcusable and so are your actions in this. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrators that are involved in issues do the wikipedia a service when they keep out of issues they are involved in, I dispute this closure, but it matters not, the wikipedia is not blind and it is clear that this report has merit and actually by closing it as if to protect WMC you do him a dis-service as the behavior has not been addressed and will for sure will be repeated. Off2riorob (talk) 12:37 am, Today (UTC+0)

I support the close as a requirement. Calling people "septics" is soapboxing, and editors on the other side of this dispute are banned from articles and topics for doing it, if not from Misplaced Pages. As shown on one of these requests, he's also reverting edits as vandalism that aren't any kind of vandalism. A temporary topic ban is warranted, considering the soapboxing, personal attacks, disruptive talk page and article edits. The unfortunate part is that there is no good in any of it, unless the goal is to bait others into incivility. There is no victory in any of it for Misplaced Pages. I support the proposed close in any case as a final warning. Mackan79 (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I object to the proposed close, pending quite a lot of things. I've asked 2/0 to clarify William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've encountered ChildofMidnight before, but his commenting style does indeed seem to be overly personal and could stand some considerable improvement. --TS 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an unfortunate history of unproductive approaches to dispute resolution: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight#Summary. Overall, he is generally a very strong content editor, but his skills at resolving inter-editor conflicts leave much to be desired. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about that comment. There was nothing personal about it. I was agreeing with that editor's comment on abusive and misapplied blocks without discussion. It also has nothing to do with this situation regarding William's problem's with civility, COI, refactoring, attack pages in his userspace, and disruptive wikilawyering. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(moved from result section)

I object to the "personal involvement" nonsense. I don't have any "personal involvements" here and haven't been on a date with Jimbo since at least November of 2009. My only communications with William were related to informing him about this discussion and answering his posts on my talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Another diff from today

• WMC links to the fools essay again - to quote from that of-wiki essay WMC references: "once a certain minimal level of literal or metaphorical illumination has been shed on a subject, increasing the level of illumination or quantity of explanation will not allow the foolish to understand any more" (emphasis mine). This was his response to me asking why he accused me of having a vendetta. The implication here is that I am a fool for not recognizing my own intentions in requesting even-handed treatment of incivil, disruptive edits. To answer WMC's charge it's not about revenge, it's about building a collegial editing environment that doesn't include calling people you don't agree with fools. ATren (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As I predicted his incivility and poor behavior will continue. It is perfectly logical since he knows he will never face meaningful sanction and he always has the upside of goading other editors into responding in kind and thus getting them banned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This response by TGL is far less civil than my comment. Or is there some free pass for incivility on this page? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You may have actually convinced yourself that pointing out your incivility -- and the response to it from this RfE page -- is more uncivil that tacitly calling other editors "fools", but you're wrong. I've yet to see any meaningful sanctions leveled against you, so what Tgl pointed out is simply a fact, as it currently stands. Whether that changes or not, remains to be seen. UnitAnode 23:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we judging by the BLP and civility violations you've committed on this page? Or are we going by the standards that everyone else must follow? The way I see it GoRight was blocked for far less by 2/0 and is suggesting a 6 month topic ban, but your demonstrated BLP violations and blatant incivility warrant the most minimal of actions by him. In either case my previous comment is plainly not uncivil - esp. if going by your apparently sanctioned labelling, 97 times according to a wikipedia search, of people as "septics." TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the relevancy of this off-wiki essay that, by the way, looks entirely harmless? And how or why does BLP enter into this? I tend to agree with others - this is just an attempt of throwing all kinds of mud all over the place trying to make some of it stick. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The BLP violations are well-documented, but, unsurprisingly, have mostly been "collapsed" in the following section. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephan if you don't understand the relevancy of WMC linking to that essay, then there's no point in me trying to explain it to you. ATren (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's relevant, because WMC is using the link to it to call other editors "fools" or "the foolish" without using those exact words on-wiki. UnitAnode 02:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Symmetry

The concern that 2/0 expresses below regarding a "heckler's veto" is worth considering. Part of the remedy could be that comments that may be taken as attempts to goad or provoke WMC will also be in breach of this remedy and will be dealt with accordingly. If such a provision is not added then I can guarantee that WMC's detractors will call him "Willie" (knowing he doesn't care for such nicknames), make spurious accusations of dishonesty or misconduct, and in general do everything possible to provoke him into a violation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So to be clear, you consider the diffs that show his numerous BLP violations and reference to other editors as fools and septics to be "spurious?" TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I would suggest you participate in the next Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout. Or take 5 days anytime. If you manage 20 edits per day, you can double your main space contributions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I regularly take breaks from wikipedia and other websites. Thank you for clarifying that you consider WMC calling people "septics" and "fools" to be "spurious" allegations of misconduct. That should be enlightening for anyone who even needs it at this point. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz: I'm not seeing your comments in this subthread as particularly helpful to moving things forward. Far too much snarkiness on this page already, why add more? ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And I think singling out Stephan for a comment like this is nothing short of incredible given some of the bad faith comments being thrown around by everyone else. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was the only comment along these lines I'd made, I'd call it singling out. But it's not, I have given this feedback or similar to a lot of participants. EVERYONE needs to up their game here. So I guess you didn't help either. :) ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Everyone... except you, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break! WMC is a big boy. If he can't handle "Willie" without responding, then he's no better than those who've responded badly to his "septic", "waste of time" or "fool" insults. Once again, the "poor WMC is being harassed" meme resurfaces, when it's WMC that's hurling all the condescending insults. ATren (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In one of the earlier threads, I believe it was ChildofMidnight who said "Will *blah blah blah," and Connolley reverted the "Will" and put in "PA redacted" to make it look like ChildofMidnight was behaving poorly. That sort of behavior is not good. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

While CoM's use of "Willie" is impolite (and unwise), it's not even close a personal attack, and WMC's editing of the comment is way out of line, and far more concerning than the initial impoliteness. UnitAnode 02:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

He actually used the term "Will," and it all seemed very natural to me. Here is the diff though to make it easier to judge. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC should just comment that he prefers certain forms. Redacting other people's comments that way isn't on. ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've experienced some similar nonsense with WMC in the past. I believe I misspelled his commonly misspelled last name. He seems to be hyper-sensitive to any apparent slight against himself, while not being equally sensitive to his obvious slights against other users. UnitAnode 02:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a lot of that going around. MastCell  04:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • True. (signed) --Lars.  :) (no, that's not my name, but usually I just make a joke about how you really only want one of me around) ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Result

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

Proposed close: William M. Connolley is requested to refrain from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done; he is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, and to promptly refactor any unintentional typos. ChildofMidnight is admonished to disengage from personal involvement with other editors, and to concentrate instead solely on improving the articles. off2riorob is reminded to be especially careful to abide by the terms of the probation.

I am a little uncomfortable that the first result is setting up a heckler's veto, but WMC remains free to point out instances of incivility at articletalk and usertalk. Personal attacks are, of course, unacceptable and may lead to blocking or other restrictions, particularly in the probation topic area. If another uninvolved administrator agrees, can we please log the sanctions, close this thread, and move on with improving the encyclopedia? - 2/0 (cont.) 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is strong enough. WMC has been showing a pattern here and just requesting things doesn't quite cut it. Stronger measures seem called for. At the very least change all the "requested"s to "required"s ++Lar: t/c 05:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Further if we were going to close one of these two in a row as no action, maybe this is the one to close and the other one the one to act on, it has more meat. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 05:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with required. As Short Brigade Harvester Boris suggests above, by barring William M. Connolley from even legitimate refactoring we are losing something in terms of keeping those discussions focused on improving the article rather than degenerating into general discussion of the topic. Still, there are other avenues open to him and generally others are available to do what is necessary. Say, six months for that one? Prodego also recently left him a civility warning, but adding a logged warning to express personal opinions civilly or not at all would probably not be too harsh. A note that civil does not describe veiled insinuations would also not be amiss. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there are enough other people involved that the possible loss of focus negative effect from losing his contributions is far outweighed by the probable avoidance of disruption positive effect from losing his contributions. 6 months works for me. Note that I still think the other case shouldn't be closed, it seems to touch on other aspects of problematic behavior but starting here might help. More can be done later if necessary. With that sorted, I should add that I support the proposals for ChildOfMidnight and Off2riorob as written. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To address CoM's concern, (just moved above) how about a different wording? What's being gotten at here is "comment on content, not contributor" kind of thinking, I think. ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I concur with 2/0's wording, since holding WMC to a greater duty of diligence than heckling accounts almost invites efforts to have him removed temporarily by means of sanction from the editing environment. Regarding ChildofMidnight and Off2RioRob I defer to other editors opinions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I could go with the standard wording there - ChildofMidnight is warned to comment on the content, not the contributor, and leave it at that. I am not sure that it really expresses the heart of the issue, though - it is more like WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND but, from where I stand, it manifests as appearing to be spoiling for a fight over an editing disagreement rather than as the entrenching in a PoV that that policy usually is invoked to describe. I am sorry, but that is how it appears to someone following your edits after the fact and without the benefit of access to your actual reasoning processes. Maybe: ChildofMidnight is warned to be more civil in interacting with other editors, and is reminded that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.

In any case, there should be no need to replay the recent RfC/U in microcosm, so I will preemptively support any similar wording in the interests of winding down this thread. I will say that the relevant part of the section Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight#Outside view by Gladys J Cortez expresses some of my concerns pretty succinctly. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that Misplaced Pages is not the civility police for the internet - off-site comments are generally irrelevant unless they are being used as an extension of an on-site debate. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's go with "required" for WMC, ok? (I feel rather strongly about this) but otherwise leave the wording. As for CoM, I'm not wedded to my proposal, I was offering it to clarify what I thought was meant, and to try to move this forward but I agree with 2/0's characterization of the theme of what is needed here from CoM... more civility, less denigration, more content commentary and less personality commentary. As I have said to others, up your game, CoM. Any of these wordings is acceptable to me. ++Lar: t/c 13:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

Recent Locking of articles for edit warring

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Lawrence Solomon

Recently two climate change probation articles have been locked with the reason cited as edit warring, I spoke to the two administrators involved and noted to them that the articles were under probation and that I thought that considering the probation on the articles that if they were in need of locking, full protection for edit warring then they a report should be made as regards the editors involved as edit warring and article protection are two of the main issues that the probation was created to stop. Here on the 24th the article Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was locked for edit warring by admin User_talk:JForget . The admin User_talk:2over0 also locked Lawrence Solomon another climate change article on th 22nd January for edit warring here . I have asked both admins about the fact that locking articles under probation is worthy of a report here and I have requested this of both administrators here . Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the articles are now protected and editing differences are presumably being discussed on the talk pages (which is the purpose of protection), is there any remaining issue? --TS 01:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The differences are clear and well-documented - one side wants to go with original research and ignoring core-wikipedia policy and my side disagrees with that way of doing things. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you or Off2riorob or somebody else proposing the notification of protections please answer the question? I'd really like to avoid this section being turned into another bickerfest. --TS 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, imo the edit warring by editors that created these articles to be locked and protected for edit warring is exactly the reason that this probation page was created to stop. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Any Administrator that fully protects a climate probation article due to edit warring or such like should be required in future to make a report here as to what occurred to cause it and as to which editors were involved. This type of edit warring and article protection was what this probation page and conditions associated was created to deal with and such Administrator actions and the editors responsible for such actions should be reported here. Off2riorob (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the Requests for enforcement page - clear problems should be dealt with at the time of protection, especially if warning or removing a small number of editors could let the protection be lifted. I would think that there would be no problem with an admin seeking additional input and advice here (certainly I have considered filing, at least). If the same editors are engaged in problematic behaviours at several articles (hint: they are), that should be dealt with using individual reports; any such report would need to investigate thoroughly an editor's recent actions, so I am not sure what purpose would be served by adding to an already somewhat onerous enforcement burden. Did I miss the point? - 2/0 (cont.) 06:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is that if Administrators lock articles for edit warring then clearly if they do that this probation has been violated and a report should be made here, not considered but should be required to be reported here. This is my simple point. If you, as you did, fully protect an article with the reason as edit warring, then a report needs to be made, who has been edit warring? The editors involved could at least be recorded here and if another article is needed to be fully protected and the same editor is involved in that then a sanction could be applied. Anyway, I have brought my point here and that is enough for me, the next time it happens I will immediately go to the admin concerned and request him to make a report here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not - the last thing this topic area needs is to scare people off with intricate, idiosyncratic, and arcane requests. You remain free (encouraged, even) to establish the patterns you describe using your own resources. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the Probation

How far does the scope of this probation reach? In particular, are actions on user pages of editors involved in climate change that clearly come from participation on climate change articles covered? I found this gem, and consider it a serious personal attack, and possibly even halfway to a legal threat. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that KimDabelsteinPetersen is a single-purpose account and therefore qualifies under the umbrella of climate change probation? In his defense, I'd like to point out that there is one talk page and one article he edits frequently that is unrelated to climate change - the rest are all strongly related to climate change. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that Kim has more edits to his least-edited article in the top ten than you have to your most edited article, that's a bit rich... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a convenient way to tell how many of a person's edits consist solely of removing and reverting other editor's content? From my personal experience that seems to be his greatest contribution to wikipedia and, I imagine, a person can get quite a high edit could with such behavior which would make gaining adminship rather easy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I decided to look at his past 50 edits and, color me shocked, but of the actual article-space edits they were all reverts. I'm not certain why you always try and focus the conversation on me Stephan but it is rather disconcerting. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I kindly asked him not to attack other editors in climate change articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know whether you've noticed but the topic here is a particularly savage attack on one of your fellow editors. Now is a poor time to add on your own irrelevant personal attacks. --TS 10:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"He deserves capital punishment" seems like a death threat to me. -Atmoz (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That sort of behavior is grounds for a block regardless of probation. Regardless of how far behavioral standards have fallen, it's absolutely over the line. If it continues after the block expires, then let me know and I'll reinstate it. MastCell  04:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with MastCell regarding that edit.

In general, I think behaviour on threads related to or clearly inspired by climate change disputes should be covered. The standards for the several talkspaces differ somewhat, but harassment at a usertalk page or edit warring at a noticeboard are unacceptable regardless and may lead to sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already warned that editor (see log). He has repeatedly been posting frankly libellous material on the talk page of Talk:Michael E. Mann: see , , . He has also previously posted personal attacks against editors in general and this is not the first time he's gone after Kim: . I note that the personal attacks for which he was blocked were posted after I had warned him, and indeed the warning itself provoked a personal attack against me. This is clearly someone with a substantial history of making egregious personal attacks and disregarding warnings; I think a 31 hour block is insufficient in the circumstances. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim is an SPA, to be sure, but this sort of harassment of anyone, SPA or not, is totally unacceptable, endorse the block. It's an IP, you may want to ask a CU for a quick check for collateral damage, before extending the block too far into the future. (oh wait! I'm a CU... :) ) OK then... I am not seeing a high potential for collateral damage as there are no named editors on that IP or even on the whole range. So on the next occurance of this sort of thing, a much longer block is called for, in my view. Try a week next, then a month? ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard Tol

I'm rather uncomfortable with the involvement of User:Rtol (Richard Tol) on Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri. Apparently he is a co-author of a hack job on Pachauri in Der Spiegel and he seems to have been using the talk page to promote the same attack piece and a stronger version which is apparently to be published soon in the Wall Street Journal. Tol has publicly called for Pachauri's resignation so this puts Misplaced Pages in a difficult spot. There do seem to be potential Conflict of interest and Biographies of living persons issues associated with behavior like that. --TS 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a hack job tony, don`t be so dramatic. Richard has already excused himself from debating on this particular aspect of the pachauri article. So as he has removed himself from the debate what exactly is the problem? --mark nutley (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an article that is "not a hack job" but calls for Pachauri to resign. How does that work?

If Tol had "removed himself from the debate" that would be all well and good. However he made two edits to the resignation thread this morning. So there seems to be a marked distinction here between what some people are saying is happening and what is actually happening. --TS 11:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked richard to post any new links to the discussion. He replied to kims question about who Samson was. He has not put forward any arguments for inclusion of new text since he removed himself from the debate. This i believe is what you were worried about? --mark nutley (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I had spotted it too but I think that should be ok. If everyone knows who he is and he is only on talk I think we can live with it. On policy even heavily conflicted authors are allowed on talk in general, unless they are disruptive. However I think this thread should be moved from the probation page to WP:COI where it belongs. --BozMo talk 12:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)