Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:General sanctions | Climate change probation Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:07, 3 April 2010 editA Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,187 edits →Dave Souza: I have to admit that I'm a bit confused.← Previous edit Revision as of 15:22, 3 April 2010 edit undoNigelj (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,869 edits →Dave Souza: Hear hearNext edit →
Line 208: Line 208:
** Slight correction, NW has participated here before, although not for a few cycles. KC is entirely new, I believe. Nevertheless it's good to see them both. ++]: ]/] 13:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC) ** Slight correction, NW has participated here before, although not for a few cycles. KC is entirely new, I believe. Nevertheless it's good to see them both. ++]: ]/] 13:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to admit that I'm a bit confused. If you guys want to say that 2 reverts less 3 hours isn't actionable, that's fine. But I don't understand why this was closed down so quickly when the complaint against me only contains 1 revert in 24 hours is still open. ] (]) 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I have to admit that I'm a bit confused. If you guys want to say that 2 reverts less 3 hours isn't actionable, that's fine. But I don't understand why this was closed down so quickly when the complaint against me only contains 1 revert in 24 hours is still open. ] (]) 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
:Like, I suspect, many others looking on mostly 'from the sidelines' now, I too am happy with this decision. I welcome the arrival of more admins here and support the views expressed in the closure and above, which I see as representing a holistic and helpful position of oversight. This is a positive view to the long-term and to the overall good of WP. --] (]) 15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:22, 3 April 2010

Shortcut

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
12345678910
1112

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.

Suspected Scibaby sockpuppets

Following discussion at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Scibaby and enablers, this section is established to list active suspected Scibaby sockpuppets. This list is merely a courtesy to other editors active in this topic area, and does not replace Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. Please remove accounts that have been blocked or were listed in error. Accounts listed here are probably sockpuppets of a banned user, and may be reverted on sight. Any editor in good standing may "adopt" an edit that in his or her considered opinion improves an article, subject to common editing norms. The utmost care should be exercised to avoid listing accounts in error, and any mistakes should be promptly recognized and rectified.

A Quest For Knowledge

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

Request concerning A Quest For Knowledge

User requesting enforcement
William M. Connolley (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
A Quest For Knowledge (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 (1RR limit on this article)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

  1. (clear revert)
  2. (second revert in 24h (article is on 1RR parole. Not exact revert, but removes text recently added by ))
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

  1. User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge#1rr_violation - warnings by various
  2. User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge#1RR - attempt to resolve this. AQFK won't accept that #2 is a revert. nb: [[WP:REVERT says Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.. AQFK's edit very clears undoes the effect of one or more edits.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

std block; 1RR parole.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@AQFK: You say WP:REVERT says reverts are where the page is restored to a version that existed sometime previously. But no, it does not say that. It says what I have already quoted above: Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits. This is what you have done. It continues which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. But you cannot quote merely one part of a conditional. The use of "normally" very clearly says that in other circumstances, it may not be so. the part that is absolute is Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits and this is what you have clearly done. I presume you accept at least that: you do agree that you have undo the effects of one or more edits? - please confirm this William M. Connolley (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@MN: Am i reading this right? No. You aren't. The edits are not consecutive William M. Connolley (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning A Quest For Knowledge

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge

As far as I understand the rules, not all edits are considered reverts, and reverting means reversing an article to a previous state. The first edit is a revert. The second isn't unless someone else had made the same edit. To the best of my knowledge, this has never been in the article. I told WMC that if he could provide a diff which demonstrated the second edit was a revert, I'd self-revert but he failed to do so. The discussion can be found on my talk page here. But my offer still stands: If someone can show that the second edit is a revert is a reversal to a previous state of the article, I'll be happy to self-revert. But at the point, I don't see how the second edit is considered a revert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:REVERT says reverts are where the page is restored to a version that existed sometime previously. If someone can show me a diff that demonstrates that I've reverted to a previous state of the article, I'll self-revert. Until then, I don't see how this can be considered a 1RR violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning A Quest For Knowledge

Well according to what Dave posted above WP:3RR#Application of 3RR policy which states that "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." AQFK has not actually broken any rules at all as both his edits were consecutive. Am i reading this right? mark nutley (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the two edits weren't consecutive, but the second edit is not a revert since it did not reverse somebody else's edit nor did it restore a previous version of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm sympathetic to AQFK's position on this – the "ration" of one revert doesn't fit well when trying to deal constructively with separate sections and issues and not reverting to the same version. The main issue is dealing constructively with making improvements, and while I don't agree with all of AQFK's edits they are evidently good faith attempts to do that. No case to answer as far as I can see. . . dave souza, talk 15:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I'll be very interested to see what admins think of this frivolous nuisance complaint after the way I was batted around for a much more substantial complaint. The result there: All editors warned that the tolerance for WP:BATTLE and general gaming of enforcement requests is approaching zero. Now let's just see if the rules apply to William Connolley. On the face of it, this looks like WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on William Connolley's part. The second edit replaces a phrase. It's impossible to improve the article at more than a snail's pace if the uncontroversial replacement of insignificant phrasing is going to be brought here as a 1RR vio. This edit by Kenosis 13:55 April 1 similarly reverts the word "committee", amid other changes and comes less than 24 hours from this minor, uncontested, uncontroversial edit at 15:42 March 31. Is it productive of a good editing environment to consider these edits by AQFK or Kenosis sanctionable reverts or is it instead obstructing a good editing environment? I suppose it's possible to game these kinds of tweaks to the article to slip in something an editor knows is going to be controversial, but if the "reversions" are nothing more than adjusting phrasing and obvious, uncontroversial "housekeeping" changes, then what is the practical value of a complaint here? Compare AQFK's and Kenosis' constructive work via these edits with the time William Connolley has spent wasting the time of the rest of us with this complaint. Meanwhile, the first report on this whole business has been issued by a committee of the UK parliament and we've got very little description of it in the article. We've all got better things to be doing with our time. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
And here's a revert combined with the "reverting" of material as part of rewriting by another editor. both on March 25; and again on March 19; or by still another editor here at 21:12 March 12 and here at 12:22 March 13. Here's a similar set from January 6 , just days after the 1RR sanction was imposed. I'm sure there are many more, but these are the ones I could pick out relatively quickly. None of these edits should be thought of as a 1RR vio, or if they are, then a general statement explaining the exact boundary is needed. We don't need to single out specific editors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This is ironic: William Connolley has done worse at Heaven and Earth (book): (09:03 March 31) and (08:36 April 1), and these were both contested matters and clear reverts, not housekeeping. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The second listed revert here does not undo the effect of the supposedly reverted edit here. Mackan79 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To Franamax, I think that pattern happens all the time. Perhaps "a short review" is a biased phrasing, and perhaps "the first review" is biased as well. Those wondrous wiki moments come when someone is forced to bridge the gap. Mackan79 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh c'mon. "First" is quantitative, "short" is qualitative. Until there are 3rd-party sources to describe the quality, we go with what we know, what we can quantify. The same principle applies to publishing the response of a named institution, it's what we know has transpired. (yeah I know, NOTNEWS, but then again, it's the "Responses" section and all) I don't see where the "short" wording is supported by the sources. Franamax (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Or put another way, could I equally substitute "an inquiry by the most competent team available, which was able to easily arrive at a conclusion in the shortest possible time"? Franamax (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Franamax, the "short" wording is supported by the source here:
"Lawmakers stressed that their report - which was written after only a single day of oral testimony - did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending and which were instigated by the University of East Anglia.
"Willis said the lawmakers had been in a rush to publish something before Britain's next national election, which is widely expected in just over a month's time.
""Clearly we would have liked to spend more time of this," he said...""
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I've gotten lost a bit in the various sources, so I'm not sure which one starts The first of several... (underline by me) and which one mentions that there was actual written testimony the parliamentarians could have read before the "single day" of oral testimony. If the imperative was to complete the work before the anticipated election, why not say that so the reader can decide? This is getting quite content-y and not appropriate at this page, so have the final word here if you wish, or we can discuss elsewhere. Franamax (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning A Quest For Knowledge

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

I do not see the second edit as undoing the effects of one or more edits, but more of an amendment to a small part of fairly substantial previous edit. I feel the difference between "first review to become available," and "a short investigation" as not materially effecting a change to the meaning of the remainder of the original edit, or placing a significantly different emphasis upon the deliberation concerned. Under my understanding of WP:Revert, there was not a second revert within a 24 hour period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Both candidate edits are doubtful. Reverting addition of text based on a primary source in the exact spot where primary sourcing would be acceptable ("Responses") is pushing the definitions. The alternative would be to correct the spelling of "parliamentray" and balance with other statements from the press release. As other sources become available, the EAU response can be put into proper integrated context, but they have a proxy "right of reply" in the nonce. It's encyclopedic to note what they had to say. Changing "the first" to "a short" seems pretty POV to me (the second candidate edit), since we have no good definition for "short" as opposed to "first".

However, I see no technical violation here. It's worrisome that an editor could use the technique of reverting one edit in a dispute with one editor, then go on to make a POV change to related text the same editor might object to - one inference could be an intelligent reading of the "rules", forcing a choice of last-RR revert onto the opposing editor. I've also heard that stuffing beans up one's nose works well, up until you go to the doctor. Franamax (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Violation of 1RR restriction by William M. Connolley, per Marknutley Enforcement request

William M. Connolley blocked for 24 hours in respect of 1RR violations, and warned not to use derogatory words and phrases in respect of other editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since this matter has already been discussed in the Marknutley section above (at time of writing), but not forming part of the actions resulting from the closure of that request, I would re-open that aspect of that section here - in an abridged form. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Violation; As noted, WMC is under a 1RR restriction in respect of CC related articles - which was breached by these edits.

Statement by William C. Connolley

Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley

  • Here are two more: (09:03 March 31) reverts this edit and (08:36 April 1), which reverts the previous edit. Both contested matters and clear reverts, not any kind of technical violations. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It appears to me that a 24-hour block doesn't do much for an editor who's already on a 24-hour 1RR restriction. Either way, the editor can simply wait 24:00:01 to make their next revert. This kind of reminds me of the situation in baseball where a starting pitcher gets suspended for a day or two. It's a meaningless suspension because starting pitchers only play every 4th or 5th game. Further, this editor has show no effort to reform his behavior. I recommend a 48 hour block. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The preventative component of a block is the temporary removal of editing privileges, not the inability to make the same violation. Yes, WMC could take a 24 hour timeout and then make the same edit again and claim properly that it does not violate 1RR (since they were blocked when the clock ran down...) - but they would then be edit warring. Also, it would be assuming bad faith that an editor will edit war if allowed to continue editing and that a lengthy block is simply a means of preventing that from happening. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In order to correct the behavior in question if it happens again, since it appears to so far not be corrected, I suggest that the duration of the blocks escalate dramatically instead of incrementally each time they occur, videlicet, if this block is 48 hours, then the next one be four days, then one week, then two, then a month, then two, and so on. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • All applications of the probation should be universal - and, no, I would not care for such an adoption. The premise behind the probation is to encourage the editing of articles to good models of WP behavour, not to have very few contentious edits because everyone is blocked... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And I certainly don't want to see editors blocked for long periods of time. As you know, I've asked WMC and a few others to help me out in getting both the Watts Up With That and DeSmogBlog articles up to Good Article quality. DeSmogBlog is almost there and, I haven't checked lately, but I'm sure that Watts Up is close behind. Cla68 (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- I realize a "collegiality" directive may be too much to ask, but I would like to see a final warning for WMC to cease edits that mock or insult another editor. The two I refer to are stuff like "MN thinks a paper is something you wrap chips in" and snarky replies suggesting he doesn't know how to open a link in a browser (I cited diffs in the last report, archived above). I thought previous warnings would have covered such abrasive language, but there appears to have been wiggle room in previous warnings, so I agree with Lar below that there needs to be a comprehensive warning to refrain from any edits which address the editor (as opposed to the edit) in a demeaning way. ATren (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment ... What on earth?? I just looked over WMC's edits in the recent history of Heaven and Earth (book) ().
    ..... This diff presented at the outset of this request for enforcement seems misleading, IMO.
    Is the allegation that WMC submitted two reverts 22 hours and 27 minutes apart on two unrelated matters? As John W. Barber alleges? Or that it's w.r.t. the word "conservative" submitted 22 hours and 6 minutes apart? As 2.0 says in the administrator discussion below? Or w.r.t. the sourced word "glowing )?
    ..... What I see when looking through the diffs is two separate sets of edits on material that could be characterized as reasonably related are:
    09:10, 29 March adds the word "glowing", directly quoting the source, and
    09:03, 31 March reverts, re-adding "glowing endorsements" quoting from the same source.

    ..... The second pair of potentially relevant diffs I see is:
    18:15, 28 March WMC adding the word "conservative" in one place. And,
    16:21 29 March WMC reverts Marknutly replacing a whole paragraph and adding the word "conservative" in several places to the words "press", "broadsheet", and "magazine". In the interim, other editors have also participated in bringing this material to the place where Marknutly reverts the edits both of WMC and others.
    ..... Please do correct me if I've gotten any of these diffs wrong. Assuming I have not missed any potentially relevant diffs or gotten them wrong, I submit this proposal for sanction of WMC seems a heck of a stretch in interpretation of this "1RR" limit. WMC appears to me to have been diligently attempting to follow the established "rules of engagement" in this repeatedly contentious topic area. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

    Kenosis, did he or did he not violate this sanction ? I believe he recently violated it twice. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
    To clarify, it doesn't matter whether or not the reverts on material could be characterized as reasonably related. What matters is that he made reverts within 24 hours of each other on the same page after he was told not to do so. Those reverts were not any kind of uncontroversial edits: In each of the four reverts he was in a conflict with another editor. The problem with reverts is when they are a part of edit warring. He was edit warring. To repeat: He isn't allowed to do that. I just now understand what LHVU was doing with that single, neat diff of two different reverts at the top of this section: He was simply showing that each of the edits represented a revert. Hasn't WMC's latest behavioral probem now taken up enough of our time? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the partial clarification; I now see the following: "William M. Connolley is restricted until 2010-05-03 from making more than one revert to any article in the probation area in any 24 hour period. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)". Understood now. Seems to me in cases where there's a specific provision applied to one individual, it might be helpful to all to state the particular provision a user is alleged to have violated. Much simpler that way. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I got a one month topic ban on my first, and so far only, offense against this probation. WMC is on his, what, third now? I don't know how many he's had, but this certainly isn't his first. There were talks of a one year topic ban for me. Sorry, but we have people here debating about a one day block or a two day block, and that shows a certain favor to him. Either WMC gets a stiffer penalty -- like, for example, a multi-month topic ban -- or the administration tacitly admits that it's more acceptable for WMC to break the rules than it is for me to break the rules. Macai (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
    Looks like he's been sanctioned on five different occasions, according to the Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Log of sanctions and warned on another occasion, according to the "Log of warnings" further down on that page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Based on the response to my comment above, it now appears to me the alleged vio is that WMC submitted two reverts in one article 22 hours and 6 minutes apart, the second coming, well, ordinarily we'd be content to call it "a day later". Clearly this violates the letter of the "law" cited above. Yet, to be frank, unless we're missing some additional fact(s) it's starting to seem to me like a bit of blood lust against WMC that is going on here. (It's easy to see in the recent history of that article that multiple editors were involved in the contested edits.) Or did we miss something else here? ... Kenosis (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you've got it. The sanctions regime has turned into a game of "gotcha" where enforcing the letter of the sanctions to score one against your opponent is what counts. Adherence to the spirit of the sanctions is regarded as irrelevant (or foolish). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Repeatedly snarky edit summaries are in accord with the spirit of the civility policy? Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not say that they were. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
the letter of the sanctions to score one against your opponent is what counts Isn't that what William M. Connolley is asking admins to do in his frivolous complaint against A Quest For Knowledge, just above? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Could be. I might also suggest that repeatedly characterizing others' actions as "frivolous" (especially given that the closing admins gave no indication that they considered them frivolous) is not especially helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it's more than just could be. It's a classic frivolous complaint. It has no substance. William M. Connolley is accusing AQFK of doing something that loads of other people are doing on the same page and that results in no real problems because those edits don't seem to be contested. Connolly's accusing AQFK of doing something that Connolley himself recently did twice over on another page and in a case where it was contested. It is crystal clear who's trying to use the letter of the restrictions as a weapon and who's violating the spirit. It is especially helpful to point out that while William M. Connolley is doing that his complaint is empty, without substance, a nuisance and frivolous. It puts both that complaint and this one into perspective. He is disruptive. Repeatedly. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't just the "letter of the 'law'", Kenosis, but the spirit of the law. The 1RR restriction presumably was a way of getting him to quit fighting so much and start working more collegially with editors with whom he disagrees. By shortening the leash on editors with behavioral problems, the idea is that they either get the message or, if they continue to misbehave, other editors don't need to put up with the new misbehavior quite as long before the problem editor is sanctioned again. Of course, it doesn't work nearly as well if admins don't escalate the sanctions. William M. Connolley still can't wait 24 hours between reverts. Even after previous blocks on other WP:GSCC-related misbehavior. And he's filed a frivolous complaint against another editor, in the section just above, for an alleged 1RR violation, indicating he's alert to that kind of misbehavior -- even as he continues it with two violations of his 1RR sanction within just a few days. Admins seem to be looking at his record as a coincidence of unrelated, discrete problems. But he's becoming continually WP:DISRUPT-ive, so the block times should be escalating faster. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Diff(s) please? for the second instance to which you refer? (You just said two violations of his 1RR sanction .)... Kenosis (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Eh? The first 1RR violation was in the diff LHVU put at the top of this section. The second 1RR violation was in my first post in this section. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I now see better. You cite another pair of reverts, the first 09:03 March 31 and the second 08:36 April 1, a day later--OK, 23 hours and 27 minutes later. OK, fair enough I suppose-- that now appears to me to be two technical fouls by WMC. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
In the interim, when you said just above that WMC had filed a "frivolous" request for enforcement a bit farther above (apparently against Marknutley) I got curious, so I decided to research a bit further. AFAICT, that "case" was dismissed for lack of presentation of specific evidence by the person who filed it (WMC). Here are the diffs I found:
Marknutley removed one instance of "conservative".
18:15, 28 March WMC replaces the word "conservative", a revert
14:18, 29 March Marknutley reverts, removing the word "conservative, plus removes the entire paragraph]"
14:20 29 March Marknutley removes another instance of the word "conservative"
14:21, 29 March 2010 Marknutley removes yet another instance of the word "conservative"
14:22, 29 March Marknutley removes yet another instance of the word "conservative"
15:51, 29 March Marknutley reverts Ratel, removing all instances of the word conservative and additionally removes an entire paragraph, a revert
16:44, 29 March Marknutley again reverts exactly the same material, word for word, 49 minutes later.
...... Now, I'm not proposing to "go after" Marknutley here, but that's three reverts I counted within 2 hours and 26 minutes, on the same article, precisely the same content, which appears to me to be what WMC was referring to in his complaint above. So it directs me to wonder: Is this really a frivolous complaint by WMC? Or just another technicality? How did everybody miss this 3RR that I found just by looking through the diffs? Again, if I've gotten any of the diffs wrong, please correct me. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment stricken through. I now see I'm looking at another case where WMC's complaint resulted in a brief sanction. Calling it a night--will try to catch up on this minor hullabaloo later on-- take care everybody. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The frivolous one wasn't re Marknutley, but re A Quest For Knowledge, immediately above this request. WMC lists a second revert that clearly isn't a revert. I don't get it, personally. There are many editors who share WMC's views but are able to restrain themselves from constantly breaking the rules that the rest of us make the effort to follow, because they know that you can't have a functional environment on Misplaced Pages where the good guys just do whatever they want and boss everyone else around. By simply following the rules, the guy could do more than anyone to let others clean things up, but for whatever reason, he won't do it. And so short blocks won't work, but long blocks border on the absurd. Not that I have a solution.... Mackan79 (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe that consistently enforced, escalating blocks will eventually correct the behavior in question, either because the editor self-corrects and starts following the rules, or because the editor eventually gets banned for good. Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis above and Bozmo below, are calling these repeated violations of William M. Connolley's 1RR restrictions technical violations. They aren't "technical" in the least. A "technical" violation would be an edit where Connolley would have been trying to abide by the restriction but maybe came in a few minutes too soon because his clock may have been off or he was performing a "housekeeping"-like edit to modify phrasing without changing the meaning in any significant or contested way -- which is the kind of edit that A Quest For Knowledge made and which Connolley has used to accuse AQFK with as a 1RR violation. Connolley did none of that here. He disregarded the sanction personally tailored for him and did it twice. A 24-hour block is ridiculous. Connolley has been given at least three restrictions of various types and warned once. If he hasn't been listening after all that you need to get his attention with a two-by-four. A block of at least 48 hours. He shouldn't get a volume discount. Bozmo thinks an apology would do. But forced apologies have no meaning to either party. Getting him closer to a topic ban will. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, 2/0, Lar: Has this editor shown any efforts to reform their behavior? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Generally he has kept within the 1RR restriction, and does not refer to editors with opposing views on CC as "septics" or similar. He may do so only because of the consequences and so the efforts are not voluntary, but they are efforts never the less. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:38, 2 April 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.
  • Since I am reactivating a complaint made against WMC, and am only opening this "extension" since the earlier request was closed without a consideration upon this aspect, I consider myself uninvolved. However, I do agree to for my comments to be moved to the "others" section above if a fair argument is made that I am not. My rationale is to be found in the Marknutley section, but in summary is that I believed that WMC did break his 1RR restriction, that it appears to be a singular instance, and that a standard 24 hour block should be levied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I screwed the pooch on this one by misreading the month - check the history here. The relevant reverts are and . The talkpage just after the second revert is here and does not show a strong enough current consensus to justify IAR on not waiting two more hours. Ratel asserts a consensus in the archives when reverting Marknutley here before WMC's second revert. Support 24 hours unless I am missing something still. I might not be around this weekend (fingers crossed), so consider this my endorsement of whatever consensus indicates. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

At least 24, preferably 48 for the edit warring. Plus (taking up unfinished business from above) a comprehensive warning to stop being snarky and start being collegial, broadly construed. No more "warned about this but not that" get out of jail free cards will be accepted. ++Lar: t/c 22:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Simply extend the current warning on inappropriate terminology about editors, to include comments to editors. Expectations of collegiality, however, are unrealistic, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Just about support 24 block and move on, but concerned about the 22 hours plus being a technical infringement only for which I would prefer to extract an apology. In general with people of a particular type requesting an apology seems more constructive that imposing a block which they can carry on disagreeing with in their own mind. The best outcome (keeping all contributing editors but getting behaviour nicely) seems better furthered if we try to get people to say sorry more rather than inflame the situation with blocks (but I never like blocks). BTW for clarity is this a 24 hour topic ban or a 24 editing block? Again we need to be consistent. --BozMo talk 14:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm. First time, WMC added one word. Second time, he reinserted an entire para that Marknutley had removed. Is Marknutley also under a 1RR restriction, by the way? Guy (Help!) 16:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have enacted the 24 hour block, as this was the single definitive period that was agreed by all admins but one. I have also given a warning over the further use of demeaning or derogatory words or phrases with other editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck?

Did anybody here notice that there is no reply to this request in the WMC section? And that WMC has not edited Misplaced Pages since about 3 hours before this request has been created? Do we now block people without a hearing? If yes, I have a couple of blocks I'm sorely tempted to make. In short, I consider this a major fuck-up. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved to talk page. Franamax (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Specifically, moved here for those interested. 'Twas getting a little too philosophical for this venue, or perhaps too pragmatic. Franamax (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave Souza

no action needed
--BozMo talk 08:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Request concerning Dave souza

User requesting enforcement
Heyitspeter (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Dave souza (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

  1. String of edits, some reverts.
  2. Revert to restore these edits in violation of 1RR restriction, prior to discussion on talk.

Example of a specific series of three removals of the sentence "some newspapers, ," so that the presence of a violation is less ambiguous. Two within 24 hours, three within 2.5 days:

  1. Removal.
  2. Removal after reinsertion.
  3. Removal after reinsertion, violating 1RR.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

  1. Warning by Heyitspeter (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Sorry if this is bothersome (I imagine it is). All I would like to see is a self-revert and a discussion of the individual edits on the talkpage prior to their reinsertion pending some sort of consensus, and a future commitment to this process where the edits are contentious (as here). If administrators think something else is warranted I would support it.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Dave Souza made contentious edits to the article and edit warred to keep them in place rather than discussing them first. I believe that a collegial environment necessitates adherence to the latter course of action and am filing a request to enforce the choosing of that path over its tendentious alternative.

@NW, KillerChihuahua, and Bozmo (or whoever): While I agree that no block or enforced self-revert is needed (another editor has already made said revert), I do not see how a warning is not in order. Dave Souza has made an unambiguous and conscious 1RR violation. There's something to be said for legitimacy, and this is not the way to keep it. I suppose I've already stated as much in the talkpage earliermuch earlier (and cryptically), but I will not be filing requests in this forum again given such a hearing. This is not a threat, it's a statement and a suggestion. I imagine I'll see you later at AN/I.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Dave souza

  1. Dave's change: "Newspapers and bloggers variously alleged" to "Climate change sceptics gained wide publicity in blogs and newspapers for allegations" is not a revert to either version presented in Heyitspeter's diff
  2. Heyitspeter's blind revert re-inserted inaccurate information and grammatical errors. His "warning" was a request that Dave re-insert the same erroneous and ungrammatical material. Since you are responsible for your own edits, even if they are reverts, the only problematic behaviour I see here is HiP's insertion of inaccurate info and grammatical errors into the article. Guettarda (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Shorter version" changing the word "newspapers" to "politicians" is not the same as moving "newspapers" from the first to the ninth word in what is arguably a different sentence. The latter edit is not a repeat of the former. Guettarda (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Dave souza

As far as I can see, HiP's timing is in error – I made a series of edits introducing new material and correcting material unsupported by references, not reverting to older versions, and discussed the changes on the talk page both before and after the edits. HiP reverted without discussion, I noted this on the talk page, then having checked the timing, undid HiP's disruptive reversion to incorrect material. If I'm in error in my counting, do please undo any relevant changes, but I won't be available for quite a while to do it myself. . dave souza, talk 22:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Dave souza

Result concerning Dave souza

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Just want to state how extraordinarily frustrating this response is. Given this precedent (though note the existence of contradictory 'rulings') I do not see a reason to respect 1RR. All I have left is a naive, last-ditch faith in AN/I. I will not be filing further requests in this forum.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm...I normally don't comment on other people's requests for enforcement but it appears that Dave violated 1RR by restoring the phrases "gained wide publicity in blogs" and "dismissed the allegations" twice in less than 3 hours. Am I missing something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This isn't "put a nickle in, get a sanction". Just as one can be blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR, just because you think someone needs a whack doesn't mean admins will agree. Our focus must always be, What is best for Misplaced Pages? Heyitspeter's focus seems to be otherwise. Dave souza is a very longstanding editor of considerable repute; he has participated in this page, he is aware of concerns raised. There is no more need to warn him than there would be to remind Jimbo that he needs to sign his posts. Heyitspeter, who brought this to this page, blind reverted and did not even attempt to work with Dave souza (who did make talk page posts and show effort to work with Heyitspeter) - Heyitspeter made a demand, and then came here to make another demand. We don't work by getting our own way here, we work by working with others and following the policies and guidelines. I'm not too impressed that as Guettarda pointed out, Heyitspeter's edit had basic errors which he didn't even acknowledge, that he escalated immediately instead of first attempting to work with other editors to improve the article, and that even now he seems more interested in getting someone else "punished" than to move on and work on improving the encyclopedia. I'm far more likely to think sanctions are in order if I see actual evidence that someone is warring - and the only one I see warring here is Heyitspeter. I'm far less likely to think sanctions are in order if I see that someone is running to tattle on perceived infractions, or even manufactured infractions, so they can "win" a dispute. My advice to Heyitspeter: AGF, and attempt dispute resolution by the gradual, reluctantly escalated steps of first discussing with the other party(s); get further input via 3O or article Rfc or noticeboards; try informal or formal mediation via MedCab or MedCom; and only as a last resort, and for clear wrongdoing, should you request sanctions. You now state you will go directly to AN/I, and I can assure you that board is not for content disputes nor for tenuous cases of debatable rules infractions in order to enable you to get a leg up on a content dispute. Surely you must realize that even if we accepted your view that DS violated 1RR - which I am not stipulating - all he has to do is change the page back every 24 hours. This would be a slow edit war instead of a fast one - and DS has tried to discuss the content with you. You have been the one who was non-collaborative and refused to work with him, instead coming here to get him put in timeout so you could get your edit - for all of a few hours? and completely against our principles. Think this over, and if you have any questions feel free to ask on my talk page - but don't keep beating this particular horse. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 12:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I had intended to comment here while the request was live, but was involved with the WMC section earlier. I will make only one post closure comment; it is a distinct relief and pleasure that two previously uninvolved "uninvolved" admins reviewed and commented on this matter. Please consider that if two individuals with no background in either the disputed area or in adminning the probation can come to a conclusion that there is no case, then perhaps there really was no case. Also, let us try not to prejudge the disposition of freshly arrived sysops on the basis of their first efforts in this matter, and certainly not make them disinclined to return. If they are not overly familiar with the probation now, this will improve if they stay - if they without bias in respect of CC/AGW articles and their contributors then wish very hard that they maintain such an outlook. Admins make mistakes and while I do not think that they have, it beholds all contributors who wish to have this difficult subject properly administered that we give as much support as possible. We may disagree with the conclusions, but please not with the application to the process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Slight correction, NW has participated here before, although not for a few cycles. KC is entirely new, I believe. Nevertheless it's good to see them both. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm a bit confused. If you guys want to say that 2 reverts less 3 hours isn't actionable, that's fine. But I don't understand why this was closed down so quickly when the complaint against me only contains 1 revert in 24 hours is still open. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Like, I suspect, many others looking on mostly 'from the sidelines' now, I too am happy with this decision. I welcome the arrival of more admins here and support the views expressed in the closure and above, which I see as representing a holistic and helpful position of oversight. This is a positive view to the long-term and to the overall good of WP. --Nigelj (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)