| Revision as of 20:39, 25 April 2010 editNsaa (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,851 edits →Request concerning Hipocrite: Forgot adding the diff ← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:43, 25 April 2010 edit undoNsaa (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,851 edits →Hipocrite: Agree with Hipocrite that this is not part of the probation area. Sorry Strike it outNext edit → | ||
| Line 616: | Line 616: | ||
| # Personal attack ... calls another user Wife beater | # Personal attack ... calls another user Wife beater | ||
| # . Personal attack again. | # . Personal attack again. | ||
| # Extremely bad language. | # <s> Extremely bad language.</s> | ||
| # Battleground mentality | # Battleground mentality | ||
| # removes most of the background section from here, no actual reason given | # removes most of the background section from here, no actual reason given | ||
Revision as of 20:43, 25 April 2010
ShortcutThis board is for users to request enforcement under the terms of the climate change article probation. Requests should take the following format:
{{subst:Climate Sanction enforcement request
| User against whom enforcement is requested
= <Username>
| Sanction or remedy that this user violated
= ]
| Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so
<!-- When providing several diffs, please use a numbered list as in this example. -->
=<p>
# <Explanation>
# <Explanation>
# <Explanation>
# ...
| Diffs of prior warnings
=<p>
# Warning by {{user|<Username>}}
# Warning by {{admin|<Username>}}
# ...
| Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
= <Your text>
| Additional comments
= <Your text>
}}
| Climate change probation archives | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||||||||||
| 11 | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||
This will generate a structure for managing the request including a second level header. Please place requests underneath the following divider, with new requests at the bottom of the page. For instructions on generating diff links, see Help:Diff.
For Requests for refactoring of Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines violations only, comments by parties other than the requester, the other party involved, and the reviewing/actioning/archiving editor will be removed.
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.
Marknutley
| Open verdict, assuming good faith: Clarification is given to Mark Nutley that the scope of not raising complaints against WMC is site-wide excepting user talk pages, and the ban is extended until 12 May 2010. Mark should be more careful in the use of vandalism templates and formal processes in disputes, and make fresh efforts to assume good faith |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Marknutley
Note that MN, and now ATren, have tried to excuse the parole violation by nor is he in violation here, since he was requested diffs on the talk page. This is false. Lar asked for diffs Oh, and I also see that Nsaa is pushing and just adds "POV" without referencing any discussion on the talk page to the article - this is wrong; as you can see from the article talk page, where I discuss exactly this William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Note that NW has judged MN in violation of his civility parole and MN has accepted this William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC) My feeling is that the from your glee club comment by Lar isn't just a minor bit of snark or indication of sharp elbows; it really is how he thinks. Given that, I think it is a fairly clear indication that he cannot possibly be considered nuetral in these matters (or, in the terminology that I've been using for a while, he is biased) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you think you might turn your minds towards actually closing this one?
Discussion concerning MarknutleyStatement by MarknutleyWith regards to the vandalism charges, i point you to WP:VANDAL which says the insertion of nonsense into articles which is what WMC did, wp:vandal also says reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive which he also did With regards to the comments on my talk page i did not call any person stupid, i called the situation stupid. I also did not try to sneak an RFE in, lar asked for diffs over what this was about, so i posted the diffs. @At KC, what you are saying is, that when i ask advice from admins over WMC`s disruptive behaviour then i am trying to get and enforcement done against him? If i can`t bring a request then what else am i meant to do? I have no option but to ask admins for assistance when confronted with his behaviour. To suggest a vendetta by me is ridiculous, it is not me who is constantly being confrontational, it is not me who turns up at a newly created article and inserts junk. It stuns me that WMc carrys on with his crap and it is ignored, yet you suggest a topic ban for me for filing a COI report, laughable indeed. It is no wonder wp is going down the pan when a disruptive editor is given free reign yet when those who request he be stopped are the ones punished mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Marknutley
(Ironically, I forgot to uncheck the watch-this-page button from my minor spelling correction. FIXED!) Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by nsaaI'm amazed. How can this be
Comments by FellGleamingI think it's important to remember the essential purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create quality encyclopedic entries. From the diffs posted above, it is clear that WMC was, as another editor points out, "inserting shuck comments" in a disruptive manner. I am also shocked and dismayed that at least one administrator has openly admitted WMC receives special treatment in this regard. Returning to the issue of Knutley, since he did nothing but bring to attention acts which were clearly disruptive to Misplaced Pages, how can there be any discussion of action against him at all? User A disrupts WP; User B reports him...User B gets banned? To quote Shulze here, "what the fuck?" Nothing you could possibly do would have more a chilling effect on editors bringing to light such abusive actions. Had he brought a complaint without merit, that would be one thing, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. FellGleaming (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Stephan SchulzIf i can`t bring a request then what else am i meant to do? I have no option but to ask admins for assistance when confronted with his behaviour. (Mark) Mark, the very point of your sanction is that people found your enforcement requests/complaints/whines about WMC to be not helpful. It may be counter-intuitive, but Misplaced Pages has survived for a number of years without your input. It will likewise survive for a couple more years without your input in this particular area. So your obvious, and strongly recommended, option is to ignore WMC and his behavior. If it really is so egregious as you think, someone else will do something. If not, take it as a sign that you erred (once again, as in the cases that got you banned in the first place) in your evaluation of the situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by ATrenKC's proposal is completely unacceptable given the history of this conflict, which has been escalated by WMC's repeated mocking of MN. Either both should be topic-banned or neither. Also, MN is not in violation on COIN (he is not forbidden from filing there, it was understood at the time that he was sanctioned specifically from filing further enforcement requests. The wording, however, is vague so perhaps the intent was misunderstood.) nor is he in violation here, since he was requested diffs on the talk page. KC, you should review the history of this debate before judging. ATren (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
KC, I think you did miss this; the diffs are there for you to read. He asked Mark directly for diffs in a flurry of edits by you, Lar, and WMC. By the time MN responded, he was responded to Lar's second request for diffs, which came in the same thread and was indented under your comment. Here is the diff which shows Lar directly asking Mark for diffs: "Mark: It depends on the context. There are almost always better ways to phrase the matter. Do you have a diff?". In the next edit, three minutes later, Mark responded with diffs, but he put them at the end of the rapidly expanding thread. But the direct request from Lar was only 5 minutes old. Further, it was my understanding that the sanction against MN applied to complaints in this enforcement only, so if the intent was different, it's quite possible that MN had the same impression. Indeed, he has indicated above that he was unaware of any restriction on filing a COI/N. For reference, here is enforcement request that triggered the sanction from Geni. Note that ChrisO specifically requested "I suggest barring Marknutley from making any further enforcement requests", and that he uses "complaint" interchangeably with "enforcement request". ATren (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC) BozMo, why are you not concerned about the time wasted by the editor who is now in double-digits in enforcement requests, has a long list of token blocks and warnings he ignores, and makes blatantly bad POV edits with no sourcing? ATren (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by ZP5*MN must appeal directly to admins for WMC issues, since by his CC sanction, he may not bring them directly here. There is no "sneak" .... it's the way to have indirect oversight on MN, so that WMC does not abuse MN's disabling probation terms. I find WMCs complaint on MN disability to be really unfair, when MN takes reasonable an appropriate steps to involve third parties. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) The word "bringing" implies carrying to a venue of some sort. If it meant any page anywhere on WP, then it would prevent him from even responding to a WMC edit on an article's talk page, as that could certainly be construed as a complaint. Since this is being closed, the point here may be moot in the case of MN, but for future actions, I would suggest such bans be specified more clearly. FellGleaming (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Mackan79I don't see how this can possibly be called "sneaking in" an enforcement request. On the talk page, WMC was accusing MN of incivility with his comments; when Marknutley then points out WMC's edits that prompted his comments, WMC accuses him of "sneaking in" an enforcement request. Besides that, how is WMC still accusing anyone of incivility while continuing to call editors bozos and septics (on his talk page, right, because that doesn't bother him). Topic bans should not result from silly gags. Mackan79 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how this can possibly be called "sneaking in" an enforcement request. - those are Lar's words, not mine William M. Connolley (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Short Brigade Harvester BorisBefore closing this, I'd like for an admin to advise Marknutley that characterizing other editors' actions as "petty pov pushing" doesn't help keep the temperature down on these articles. (Bad pun, sorry.) Regardless of whether it violates the letter of his civility parole it's not especially helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Response by William M. Connolley to suggestion by LessHeard vanUThe interaction ban sounds unlikely to be trouble free, and to cause endless bickering about the details, which are alarmingly vague. The menaing of words like "recent" and "major" are inevitably ambiguous. Oh, and I also protest that this has morphed into restrictions on me. If you want to do that, you should make a complaint for it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You've conveniently forgotten the violation of his civility parole William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Marknutley
I propose closing as "Open verdict, assuming good faith: Clarification is given to Mark Nutley that the scope of not raising complaints against WMC is site-wide excepting user talk pages, and the ban is extended until xx/xx/xxxx. Mark should be more careful in the use of vandalism templates and formal processes in disputes, and make fresh efforts to assume good faith". --BozMo talk 09:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
|
FellGleaming
| FellGleaming is warned to exercise basic due diligence in reviewing the content of sources before making assertions about them. He is warned to be scrupulous in his representation of sources and his use of purported quotes from them. He is further required to respond directly to the substance of future concerns about his use of sources and quotations and avoid aggressive posturing. These are final warnings and further violations may result in sanctions. 03:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Request concerning FellGleaming
Look, I've unwatched all of the GW/CC articles except the scibaby SPAs. I go around and revert scibaby, and sometimes I forget to uncheck watch this page. Shockingly, this was one of the pages I scibabyverted - , and then didn't unwatch. Across my watchlist comes "original source says "leaked" emails," and I know - just know, that the edit will be problematic. Here's a link to the source . Here's the source with every word but "hacked" or "leaked" or derivatives replaced with "..." ...hacked... That's right - the article that "original source says "leaked" emails" according to the edit summary uses "leaked" not even once, but used "hacked" exactly once. The edit summary was not just false, it was 180 degrees removed from the truth. This kind of behavior is part of why the atmosphere at these articles is poisonous, and why I quit them entirely.
FG has again misrepresented sources. In this edit he removes the text "he later said the story was a publicity stunt." which is sourced to "Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt to boost puzzle sales." Here's what that article says about the incident - "A SCOTTISH aristocrat who claimed he was forced to sell his ancestral pile after losing a fortune on a $1 million puzzle has admitted that he invented the story to boost sales.... " was the story which the PR people dreamed up after we had three months of the best sales that any puzzle had ever had," he said... "I was selling the house anyway and they asked me if I would be willing to tell people I was selling the house because I was afraid somebody might solve the puzzle too fast. I said 'yes'. They said, 'Don't you mind being made to look an absolute prat', and I said, 'No - I'm quite used to that'. History is full of stories that aren't actually true." So, I guess I should revert him with the comment and continue to not report misrepresentation of sources? Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC) FG has again misrepresented facts in his responses here. He states that when he did this edit, the "source next to that claim" did not verify the claim, but rather, the second source following it did. This is false. Specifically, the source after the claim was (it's in the diff) "Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt to boost puzzle sales," which most certainly verifies the claim. When is this a pattern? Hipocrite (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Further, FG represents that this 15:02, 15 April 2010 diff is from "before I got involved." This is belied by the fact that this additional statement was filed at 14:44 15 April 2010, and that this 14:39, 15 April 2010 diff is from me. Pattern? Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Even further FG represents that "I placed my concern on the talk page BEFORE I made the edit in question." This is belied by the fact that FG's first post to the talk page in question in april is 15:02, 15 April 2010, but the edit in question is 14:29, 15 April 2010. Pattern? Hipocrite (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Still further FG now states "I immediately removed it as potentially libelous per BLP, posted a question on the talk page asking someone to explain the discrepancy..." FG removed the source at 14:29, 15 April 2010, then edited Sean Wilentz (14:32, 15 April 2010), then User talk:BozMo (14:55, 15 April 2010), then Talk:Rajendra K. Pachauri (14:56, 15 April 2010), and finally, more than half an hour later, posted said "question," (which lacked a question mark, and wasn't a question at all) which was posted only after the content was restored. There's got to be a level where this constant stream of factual inaccuracies has consequences. Hipocrite (talk) Yet further still, at , specifically , Polargeo states "The two quotes that FellGleaming put into the article both came from the unpublished draft paper. Neither are from the actual paper even though FellGleaming changed the reference to cite the actual Interfaces paper he obviously didn't check out the fact that those quotes had understandably been removed from the article." How many times? Hipocrite (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning FellGleamingStatement by FellGleamingThis is the version of the article before I edited: The source ref for the article line that describes the emails as "leaked", is below. Forgive me for modifying the original ref & cite tags, but I'm unsure how to escape the text properly: (ref name='AP 2009-11-21')((cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= |authorlink= | title=Hackers leak climate change e-mails from key research unit, stoke debate on global warming | date=2009-11-21 | publisher=Associated Press | url =http://www.startribune.com/science/70700047.html | work = | pages = | accessdate = 2009-11-24 | language = ))(/ref) Note the article title says "Hackers "leak" climate change emails". Again, this is the text before I made my edit. If the AP is willing to title the emails as leaked, why is that not good enough for WP?
I also want to point out that the reporting user is incorrect when he claims I have "been blocked for this before". I have never made edit to this article or a similar edit to any other article before, much less been banned for it. Further, I believe the assumption of bad faith, along with the general aggressive tone as seen above, and his instant and immediate reporting of me for a single edit, as potentially actionable in itself. There was no attempt made to engage me in discussion, nor respond with civility, AGF, or even, apparently, an accurate assessment of the situation. FellGleaming (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning FellGleaming
(undent) you are reading your blocklog wrong, . Hipocrite (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I started trying to plow through this to understand what's up, but I ran into trouble when I got to "(because "good-faith" actors like this one here make it perfectly clear why I'd make a better admin than 99% of the spinless admin corps.)"... could we all try to be a bit more dispassionate please? ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
OK I looked. Am I to understand that this entire request is over one word? I've read the analysis and I agree, the source cited supports "hacked" rather than "leaked" and the article should in that area use "hacked". Claiming otherwise wasn't helpful. Misrepresenting the source wasn't warranted. But that diff, taken by itself, suggests that discussion is needed and clarification of what the source actually said ought to be given, and that ought to sort it. H's reversion reversion (with a somewhat strident edit summary "This bad faith hacked -> leaked garbage should earn people bans." ) should have resulted in discussion. Did it? I don't see it directly discussed, although I see WMC mentioned it (with insufficent context) in passing at Talk:Michael_E._Mann#Pointless_fiddling ... Doesn't bringing it here as an enforcement request seem a bit extreme? What am I missing? ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
(undent) The definition of the term: " Leaked: to become publicly known through a breach of secrecy, e.g. The news has leaked." Describing leaked emails as leaked is not misleading, with or without a source. In this case, however, reliable sources already in the article described them using that exact word. Double verification. Further, even Mann's own op-ed describes emails that became "publicly known through a breach of security". Thus, though he specifically did not use the word, even this source verifies that the emails were leaked. Triple' verification. Had I attributed the word itself to Mann within a direct quote, that would be an error. But by standard rules of journalism, the statement "Mann said of the leaked emails, "xxxxx" " is attributing only the quote to Mann, not the preceeding adjectival phrase. There is no error here, no deception, much less any intent to deceive. The edit improved the article. FellGleaming (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
These are edits by Fell Gleaming which I believe are an attempt to prevent criticism of the article on Watts Up With That: and . Jack1956 (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by William M. Connolleyis pretty dodgy too. I've reverted it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by ThparkthThis is a trivial complaint not worthy of any response, not even the mildest of warnings. It should be clear to even the most casual reader that the language FellGleaming changed was not directly attributed to Michael Mann. It is obviously outside the quotation marks. It is a real stretch to claim that FellGleaming's edit put the word 'leaked' into Mann's mouth. It is also clearly consistent with the citation given just two sentences earlier which unambiguously refers to a "leak" of the emails (incidentally the linked source is no longer available but a quick Google shows the same story available from many other sources with the same title.). Does that mean it was a good edit? No, I don't think it was. In this context, when we are summarizing Mann, it would be better to be consistent with the language Mann used in the article being summarized rather than being consistent with the AP story. But that's a judgement call - reasonable editors may legitimately differ. What's certain is that there's no reason to assume the edit - the one, single edit - was made in bad faith. It is manifestly unreasonable that one edit, a very minor one, made in apparent good faith, with no edit warring or breach of talk-page consensus going on, should end up here - not just as a component of a complaint, but as the entire sum of the complaint. It stretches my ability to WP:AGF about the complainant. Here is the process that should have been followed: 1. Revert the edit FellGleaming made. 2. End of process. Thparkth (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Question by A Quest for KnowledgeWhere and how exactly did I bait WMC? Diff and explanation please. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Reopening by MastCellI had intended to ignore Hipocrite's continuing his stream of combative, personal attacks on me (the behavior for which he was admonished here two days ago), but since MastCell has chosen to reopen this, I would like to call attention to these diffs
Further, I question why MastCell chose a diff that specifically excludes the very heart of this disagreement. I saw a claim that a person "had admitted to a publicity stunt". I clicked on the source next to that claim, and it said specifically he "denied a publicity stunt". Apparently the source next to that one contradicted the first, but Hipocrite was unwilling to accept that, and continued his stream of personal attacks even after being requested to desist. I have asked MastCell why he chose to characterize a diff that had nothing to do with the situation as "my explanation"; so far I have not received a reply on this issue. Finally, I point out that, once again, Hipocrite has chosen to engage in nonproductive behaviour for no good reason. I placed my concern on the talk page BEFORE I made the edit in question. I did not revert his reversion, nor respond to his insults, nor do anything but ask sincerely why the article said one thing, but the source another. See this talk page diff here, made before Hipocrite got involved:
I've answered your questions, but I don't intend to be baited. Do you intend to answer any of my questions? Fell Gleaming 00:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
What's the point of this request? That we should sanction people for aggressively inserting baseless nonsense into Misplaced Pages? Yes please! Stamp firm and hard, never let the weeds of equivocation plant roots in the encyclopedia based on verifiability and the neutral point of view. There has always been a line in the sand: equivocate at your peril. --TS 23:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning FellGleaming
Here's my thinking. FG to be requested not to use quotes in ways that might mislead. Hipocrite admonished for bringing a rather picayune matter here straightaway rather than talking it out, and for the manner in which it was brought, which is unnecessarily combative. This matter is so small I can't see anything beyond that. Anyone else? ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Also would like to consider that Weakopedia and possibly AQFK are banned from interacting with WMC. It's not the subject of this enforcement action, but I believe that their edits in WMC's section above constitute baiting and battleground-ish behavior. NW (Talk) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
|
99.141.*
Someone please take a look at the recent edits of 99.141.241.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Talk:Hockey stick controversy and my talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- 2over0 has blocked the ip for a week regarding personal attacks and harassment - personally I would have emphasised the BLP concerns over pa's, but there was certainly harassment of any editor who was not behind their viewpoint. Anyhoo, unless there is a block overturn I think this can be marked as resolved and archived in due course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, fine with me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
FellGleaming (2)
| closed as wrong venue as stands without prejudice on some or all issues being raised elsewhere or here | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Request concerning FellGleaming
48 hour block to prevent further disruption
This and this should also be read. Clear what this user is doing, at least to me. --John (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning FellGleamingComments by others about the request concerning FellGleaming
Statements by Fell GleamingJohn has brought up two incidents. I will address the second one first, as it is most clear cut. I removed from a BLP a derogatory claim that was sourced to a blog, and in my edit, described it as "blogs as sources". Brigade Harvester immediately visited my talk, with the message "Please Stop Misrepresenting Sources" . I pointed out that there was not only one blog in the claim, but two. SBHB subsequently admitted they were indeed blogs (see here: ) but began quibbling over whether they were reliable enough to be used. I then visited SBHB's talk page, with a polite request for him to AGF and to self-revert his allegation. He responded aggressively, asking me which one of us should "take this to the enforcement board". (See: ) I am unsure what exactly he intended to ask for enforcement for, however, since he already admitted the sources were indeed blogs. How can I be sanctioned for calling a blog a blog? Incident Two. John, seeing SBHB's allegation on my page, made the same claim right below it, using extremely aggressive language such as "this won't be tolerated" (see here: ). His complaint was not over any edit I had made, but simply a statement I made on an article's talk page, in reference to a previous statement about the seriousness of Chernobyl. John's complaint seems unfounded on two separate grounds. First, regardless of whether or not he believes I summarized the source accurately, this is what a talk page is for. To lay out a controversial position before it becomes part of an article. If you state something in error, it doesn't hurt the entry. Nor (in this case) did I even have any intention of using anything from that article in the entry, and John knew that. This was part of a tangential discussion on whether or not the entry should be renamed. John's complaint thus seems to not be made in any spirit of improving the entry, but simply to "spite me" for our disagreement in opinion. Secondly, I don't believe my statement was in any way incorrect (though admittedly being on talk page, I used more dramatic language than I would have in editing an actual entry). My statement is above. The NYT article said: Indeed, the report concludes, "The largest public health problem unleashed by the accident" is "the mental health impact." Residents of the region, who view themselves as victims of a tragedy they poorly understand, are still beset by anxiety that has prevented them from restarting their lives. "People have developed a paralyzing fatalism because they think they are at much higher risk than they are ... "Early on there were all sorts of claims being made ..." The article states (a) the problem is "mental health impact", quantifying it as anxiety. It further states it was due to "fatalism" from "all sorts of claims being made". It further states (not quoted above), that victims should be provided "with realistic information about the minimal risks they face.". I summarized that as ""the largest problem from Chernobyl was simply mental strain and upset, caused by fearmongering in the press that left people with the idea they were at far higher risk than they actually were." I think that's a wholly accurate statement -- though again, had I been writing this in an entry, rather than a talk page, I would have used much more restrained language. Other editors might disagree with my synopsis, but I respectfully submit that is a difference of opinion, and cannot be construed a statement of fact. I pointed the above out to John and asked him to admit there was no misrepresentation. John again responded aggressively, threatening enforcement action (see here: ). Finally, I note that, since I began writing this entry, some other claims have been made that have nothing to do with the original sanction I am accused of violating. I will defend myself against those if an admin feels its necessary, but I believe that, for clarity if nothing else, those should be brought up in a separate issue. Fell Gleaming 06:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Comment By Mark NutleyThis article is not within the CC enforcement area, this request should be chucked out mark nutley (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
?ApplicabilityNot sure this is climate change. Anyway I have to recuse because I work for a charity which is too involved in Belarus post Chernnobyl , but a general issue with the topic certainly exists with a very strong political pressure to paint a particular picture (downplaying the radiation impact, at least from our perspective) so I can see the problem on getting reliable sources which do not have secondary distortion to them. --BozMo talk 06:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
To keep everybody happy, and to keep the probation from appearing to overstep its terms of reference, I suggest that this request be closed and if any relevant issues remain a new request within the sanction area can be opened. I would add that while I agree that the probation should focus exclusively on conduct within the probation's scope, cases that seem to evidence problematic behavior of much broader scope may influence the types of remedy that can reasonably be considered. It would be pointless to craft a remedy that simply resulted in the refocusing of problem editing on other articles. Tasty monster (=TS ) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Short Brigade Harvester BorisPlease don't close this quite yet. FG's interaction with me, briefly alluded to above, was on the Ian Plimer article which definitely falls within the probation area. He not only misrepresented a source (the U.S. Geological Survey web site is a blog?) but also spun my words to mean something that I did not say, which is a continuation of the "aggressive posturing" for which he has been warned. There are other examples of his misrepresenting sources following the closure of the last enforcement request involving him; see e.g., this exchange. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment by SPhilbrickI can't believe we are wasting our time with this nonsense. Let's close this and move on to some more serious.--SPhilbrickT 17:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning FellGleaming
|
Hipocrite
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Hipocrite
- User requesting enforcement
- Nsaa (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Hipocrite (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
- 2010-04-25T18:38:31 Hipocrite (→Reception: Rm some guys blog). This is an disputed area (I even give a strong hint on participate in the discussion in the previous edit 2010-04-25T18:35:02 Nsaa (Please discuss this removal on the discussion page and make a rationale for the removal Bret Swanson http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#rv_why)), discussed at . It may be the case that this is not something we should write about, but just reverting others contributions like this is not Cooperative. And with a second revert in 24h the user is not following the probation rules
- 2010-04-24T22:21:21 Hipocrite (→Reception: Some guy on his blog not notable (not RS)) First removal of the same paragraph (just to verify 24h break of rule.
- 2010-04-25T11:33:14 Hipocrite (→NPOV tag: Wifebeater!) Personal attack ... calls another user Wife beater
- 2010-04-25T12:44:11 Hipocrite (→Violation of WP:SYN: When you assume). Personal attack again.
2010-04-13T16:25:29 Hipocrite (→Talkback: Fuck talkback) Extremely bad language.- 2010-04-25T00:02:38 (→Climatic Research Unit emails: It's like you're all functionally unable to write for the enemy. Perhaps you should all go edit other articles until you learn how.) Battleground mentality
- 2010-04-22T20:51:16 Hipocrite (actually, rv to me - added text has nothing to do with this book) removes most of the background section from here, no actual reason given
- 2010-04-16T19:20:27 Hipocrite (→Request: dick) Personal attack – Calls another user Di*k
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- whatever the community decide
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
It may also be wise to take a look at this User_talk:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris#What_do_you_claim.3F.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
2010-04-25T19:45:24 Nsaa (→Requests_for_enforcement: new section)
Discussion concerning Hipocrite
Statement by Hipocrite
- I eagerly await my vindication. Some guys blog is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also, perhaps the fact that Nsaa is not fluent in English has led to his regretful lack of understanding about what "when you assume you make an ass (out of you and me!)" and "have you stopped beating your wife?" mean. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Further, what does this have to do with climate change?
- Further, how is telling everyone they are fundamentally poor editors - and I explicitly included my "side" in that a battleground action here?
- And finally, if telling someone they are being a dick when they are being a dick is a violation of these stupid rules, I'm guilty, lock me up. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Hipocrite
- Comment by Mark Nutley The "some guys blog" hipocrite refers to is in fact the blog of Seth Roberts, a Professor of Psychology at Tsinghua University in Beijing I think this guy is capable of reviewing a book :) mark nutley (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Hipocrite
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.