Misplaced Pages

talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement - 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 talk:General sanctions | Climate change probation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2over0 (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 21 August 2010 (→List of active formal and informal sanctions: note addition; query whether sockpuppetry actions are desired as well). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:33, 21 August 2010 by 2over0 (talk | contribs) (→List of active formal and informal sanctions: note addition; query whether sockpuppetry actions are desired as well)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcut
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 7 days 

Please remove all of Lar's comment with regard to WMC

All of Lar's "uninvolved" comments with regard to WMC are completely untennable until an arbcom decision is made. Yes WMC will likely recieve a ban but for the sake of drama minimisation please remove all of them. Polargeo (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Beat on the messenger would you? WMC is the root cause to these issues. Temporarily ban WMC now and end the disruption. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes and ban you too whilst we are at it. That has no bearing on my comment and is the usual smokescreen put up by Lar's supporters. Polargeo (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be no reason not to ban WMC from articles and talk pages, except for the fact he has technical knowledge in the field. If it weren't for him, the articles might not be as good, but they would be more likely to meet Misplaced Pages guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
We're not banning anyone at the moment. Lar is not required to recuse. Sorry, Polargeo, but the answer is no. The Wordsmith 18:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

'Article tags' was closed with summary without consensus of uninvolved admins

On August 2nd, NuclearWarfare announced a new sanction against adding or removing any tags listed here. On August 6th, The Wordsmith changed NuclearWarfare's sanction to only prohibit the adding of tags but allowing the removal of tags. I immediately pointed out to The Wordsmith that they changed the meaning of NuclearWarfare's sanction which was backed up by admin Lar. Despite these objections and without attempting to reach consensus with the other uninvolved admins, The Wordsmith has closed this RfE without addressing their significant change in NuclearWarfare's sanction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Leave it be. If NuclearWarfare is unhappy with this result, they will discuss it with the Wordsmith (or shoot a missile at them). Jehochman 11:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I've notified the other admins who commented in the admin section of this sanction. This needs to be fixed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I may not agree with the outcome, I think the whole idea of making hard to add tags is flawed, but there was a consensus. TWS implemented it, even if he bobbled it a bit, it wasn't on purpose and it wasn't a big deal. But I really don't think that we need to get too worried... see below, it's being dealt with amicably. After all I DID ask that some admin come in and close these matters... ++Lar: t/c 20:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This Article Tag sanction is ripe for drama, cause folks may argue what "consensus" is, then overflow to the talk and a RFE here. What a nebulous sanction (on new content creation) this is, frankly it is offensive to WP:NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
ZuluPapa5: Please don't distract from the issue here. The Wordsmith misrepresented NuclearWarfare's sanction (whether intentionally or unintentionally, I cannot say) and proceeded to unilaterally close the section despite objections and without attempting to reach consensus about this significant change with the other admins. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Err, I missed that. Since there was not a consensus to change my original sanction, can we leave it as it was posted originally? I don't really like the way it is currently. NW (Talk) 14:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't like it either way, actually. As I've said all along it needs to be easier to add tags than to remove them. Removing them requires actually fixing the problem or a clear consensus there is not one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs)

If my close changed the meaning of NW's sanction, that was unintentional. I would be fine with NW changing it to be an endorsement of his sanction. The Wordsmith 18:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TW, and it's not a terribly big deal. I changed your statement accordingly. Best, NW (Talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ceasefire

Whilst the ceasefire is in place GregJackP has jumped in and out of it several times. He has just started up Global warming skepticism which has been a redirect for 3 years. I do not want to get into the issues but it appears he has done this in reaction to a dispute with ScienceApologist on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger). Whatever anyone thinks this is not a good time to be making such major individual changes. Polargeo (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That a redirect has existed has nought to do with whether an article can be produced. Thus the first cavil is invalid. The second cavil presupposes ESP on the reasons why an article has been created by any given editor. On the best of days, this is difficult. Lastly, this states that creation of an article is a "major individual change" which is not really shown. Time to step back on this one. Collect (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay Collect. Your sound reasoning of picking holes in my statement has convinced me that GregJackP should go ahead and reorganise the structure of wikipedia's coverage of climate change skepticism on his own at a time when we are waiting for an arbcom decision and many editors are holding back on editing CC articles. I will take your advice and step back then. Polargeo (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
No need for asides here - any articles are subject to WP policies (including AfD discussions if such occur). WP policy is that any editor in good standing has the ability to write an article, and ArbCom has shown no sign of removing that right from any class of editors. This means that if you wished to write an article on someone who does not currently have an article, that you similarly have that right. Practice has been that "under construction" is protective of having an editor actually construct the article, as far as I can tell. And a single article hardly qualifies as "reorganization" of much at all unless an editor then merges other articles and deletes them as separate articles. Collect (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
So by your reasoning I would have the right to write a potential WP:content fork then? On a highly controversial topic during an arbcom case on this exact matter. Okay then, maybe I will slap an under construction tag on it for a day or two as that obviously gives a force field around the article. Also GJP seems to have gone against a consensus that has lasted 3 years without any discussion. Polargeo (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
You are free to write what you will -- whether AfD keeps it or not is another matter., I would not, in any case, presuppose any outcome of a full discussion - nor would I posit that anyone should be barred from writing for WP. Nor, by the way, does a three year old redirect indicate consensus of anything more than the fact that a separate article did not exist during those three years. If your argument is that the proper venue would be at RfD - that would be odd, as almost all discussions there are for removal of the redirect and not for creation of an article. Collect (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
@Collect. It appears to be you alone who keeps bringing up AfD. Have you read WP:BEFORE? This page was a useful redirect therefore AfD is completely out of the question and a non-argument. Please don't try to erect a strawman AfD. Also RfD stands for Redirects for Discussion (not Deletion) so don't set up a strawman RfD for that matter either. Polargeo (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Kindly show me where I have referred to "redirects for deletion"? Moreover, I mentioned AfD as being the place where articles get discussed - I did not "keep bringing it up" anything - indeed I suggest that keeping picking at sores does not make them heal fast <g>. Collect (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
You brought up AfD here when nobody else had mentioned it. You then brought it up agin here in your next edit on this page when no one else had mentioned it. You also represented RfD as almost all discussions there are for removal of the redirect and not for creation of an article hence implying that RfD was for deletion rather than discussion and not worth bothering with based on your own view of technicalities. Please stop wikilawyering with me. Polargeo (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand how my statement about RfD discussions can be interpreted as being anything other than referring to discussions. Nor have you shown me repeatedly doing anything at all abuot referring to AfDs where that is the appropriate comment on my part. Nor do I regard my consistent position (whether on unreferenced BLPs, on the Wikiversity todo, on the Strategic Planning pages, on Meta ad nauseam) in favor of using established WP processes as being "technicalities" and "Wikilawyering." Lastly note that I wrote on your behalf on at least one page - making this sort of argumentation against me a teensy bit ill-conceived. When you wish to reward folks for taking your side on an issue, it is outre to berate them elsewhere <g>. Collect (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Jeeze Collect. I am just a straight talker and like straight debate. I am like this with everyone. Polargeo (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that starting a new article is against the spirit of the "ceasefire". However, any extensive arguing about it here would be also. I suggest letting it be for now. Whatever is done can be undone and whatever is broken can be fixed in just a little while. Thparkth (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that writing a new article is against the spirit of the ceasefire, but I also note that the ceasefire was voluntary, not binding, and GregJackP clearly announced withdrawal from the agreement, so it isn't as if he is pretending to be bound by it, while finding a clever loophole. I applaud the initiative goal, but it didn't work out as well as hoped. While the restriction would be better if Greg were fully part of it, I hope that we do not attribute shortcomings Greg alone—I see names on the list with qualifications, and other notable names missing from the list. (Why are we using bullets? Oh, a ceasefire - how appropriate)--SPhilbrickT 12:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Better use them for discussion than for shooting at people, I'd say... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Stephan, LOL, you owe me a new keyboard, or at least a cup of coffee to replace to one I just spewed all over the keyboard.... ;p GregJackP Boomer! 13:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, the coffee where I work would get me into trouble with the Chemical Weapons Convention. But if you ever come here, I can serve you some Darjeeling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Geez, people, try WP:AGF please. The article was not started in reaction to SA's misrepresentation of sources, although he did point out that GW skepticism / GW denialism were the same thing on WP. Skepticism is not denialism, and it needs an article - that is my sole motivation. As far as the redirect and consensus, the discussion lasted one day before the redirect was made, with only 3 or 4 editors involved at that point. WMC did the redirect, and I can't fault him - the article was crap, not very coherent, unreferenced, etc. There was also discussion about other editors rewriting the article, and no one seemed to have an issue with it, they just were not going to do it themselves. So, three years later I find out about it and decide to be WP:BOLD to write the article. My action can be reverted if y'all disagree, and then we can discuss it. Or I can write the article, and if it is for crap, it will get deleted - but I doubt it will be, because I'm very good at this writing thing, and with one exception, all of my work is good. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Everybody chill! Minor4th 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
@Greg I already pointed out to you that the article was not directed to denialism until an IP did that recently with nobody noticing, you could have easily undone this. Also the article will not get deleted per WP:BEFORE. Polargeo (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages?

I see that the editing restriction includes talk pages, per the clarification. However I notice that at least some people are editing talk, and AFD pages, and a number of people haven't even signed up to this (MN, GJP, M4th) and are actively editing. This restriction won't survive if that continues William M. Connolley (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO is the most blatant -- he has been running roughshod over the article space since the ban. I was tempted to withdraw from the voluntary restriction just to counter some of the stuff he is doing, but I thought better of it, confident that the committee is watching ChrisO's recent actions and will deal with him in the decision. ATren (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that is helpful or accurate William M. Connolley (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I'm confident that the committee is "watching ChrisO's recent actions", so I agree with you there, but what else did you have an issue with, accuracywise? ChrisO is indeed pretty blatantly running roughshod and taking advantage of the lull... But perhaps a request here would be handled expeditiously? ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
"ChrisO has been running roughshod over the article space since the ban" - apart from the fact that there is no ban, the first who signed on to the restriction (and then off, and on, and off, and so on...but let's not go there) did so on August 5th, at around 20:00 UTC. Since then, ChrisO has edited about 8 (I may have miscounted by one or two) climate change articles, for a grand total of 15 edits (I may have miscounted by one or two), mostly doing trivial stuff or sock reversion . That's about 1.25 edits per day. Can you give a definition of "running roughshod over the article space" that would cover that, but not, say, ordinary normal editing? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Stephan, you are misrepresenting. See here, for example, where ChrisO is proposing a major overhaul, and this -- 9 edits on that article on August 15th alone, including reverts of 4 other editors. I don't know what history you looked at Stephan, but your interpretations are incorrect. ATren (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
What do I misrepresent? You wrote "over article space", not talk space. I counted the 9 among the 15 (which tells you how necessary my caveats about exact numbers are), and Michael E. Mann is about the only article with significant activity. Your "4 editors" include two likely socks, and you forget to mention that there are plenty of other editors (including preciously unfactioned ones) arguing there. So how is lively activity on one sock-infested article "running roughshod over the article space"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I'd say "the most blatant" is inaccurate. After all, GJP and MN creating articles like this one are especially egregious (no, "global warming skepticism" is not scientists that use the scientific skepticism model to evaluate the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by human activity...that's the kind of nonsense that falls into the category of "not even wrong"). And MN has freely admitted that he expects to be banned from the topic area, and is doing as much as he can to before that happens. Guettarda (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
And, of course, as Stephan said, there's no ban. It's entirely voluntary. So not only is ATren's statement misleading on the facts, it's also based on an entirely false premise. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not misleading, see above -- proposed overhaul to one article and 6 reverts of 4 editors in one day on another. Check the facts before you make false accusations. And yes, there is a voluntary ban in place (see above). ChrisO didn't sign it, so he's certainly not obligated to abide by it, but I would hope the committee members would notice the aggressiveness in his editing of sensitive topics since that voluntary ban. While we are all trying to quell the flames, he is fanning them. ATren (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry ATren, yes it is misleading. There's no ban, there's a voluntary cessation of editing certain articles. Calling is a 'ban' is misleading, no matter how you choose to spin it. And calling his editing 'the most blatant' is also misleading. Again, "proposed overhaul to one article and 6 reverts of 4 editors in one day" does not make his editing "the most blatant". Not to mention that calling his editing "6 reverts of 4 editors" is also misleading, since he reverted a banned editor, and then reverted other editors who chose to reinstate the edit. So what he was doing was simply abiding by policy. Reinserting edits by a banned editor is a no-no. To focus on his edits without acknowledging the whole situation is misleading. They may just call it spin in politics, but we expect a higher standard here. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
More spin from the faction. I'm done here, let the arbs decide. ATren (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
You guys ec'ed each other! Fascinating. IIRC ChrisO was edit warring on Mann, for example. As for "sock reversion", I do find it interesting how IDs get tagged as socks after one or two edits. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep - you managed to make your edit summary sufficiently interesting to catch the eye of at least two people. As for ec'ing me - that's easy. It happens when you haven't been editing, just observing (in keeping with the spirit of the request above). Without a clear link in one's own edit history, it can take a while to find an article like global warming skepticism, when there are so many other options, like climate change skeptic and climate change skepticism and global warming sceptic to look through... Guettarda (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
As for labelling editors as socks - I don't presume to do things like that, but if you look around you'll see that it's not restricted to active editors in this topic area. Guettarda (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I made one edit outside my ban today for a special circumstance but have resumed it. I encourage Dave Souza and WMC to resume their voluntary topic bans. I'm disappointed that several other active editors did not sign up for the ban at its inception. Cla68 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not wait for Arbcom

It is becoming increasingly clear that an Arbcom decision is probably not imminent. We have no idea how many days (weeks? months?) before they do decide. Therefore, I propose that we stop waiting with baited breath and continue to use this page like the community enabled us to do. We need to see a little bit of BOLDness in order to handle our own problems, instead of waiting for a committee to fix them for us. The Wordsmith 17:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree. What do you propose or have in mind? Minor4th 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Its more the general attitude that needs to change. There are still problems on these articles, but editors aren't bringing them to this board, and when they do requests often go unacted upon. Arbcom isn't going to help us in a timely manner, so we need to help ourselves. We can't be afraid of them forever. The Wordsmith 18:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
They're unacted upon because the admins who've been responsible for maintaining this probation don't want to act on them. That will not change unless (1) the admins decide they do want to act on them or (2) you find some new admins. Simply saying "we need to help ourselves" will not, in fact, help unless the admins re-engage with this probation. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
That's what i'm trying to do here, embolden the admins to act on problems, which will embolden the users to bring problems here. The Wordsmith 18:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
How do you propose to embolden the admins? And which admins? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Most of them are busy waiting around for an arbcom decision. sooner or later, they'll realize that one isn't coming quickly. Then they'll eventually decide to start doing things for themselves again, arbcom be damned. By bringing this to their attention now, I hope to make that happen sooner rather than later. If we don't take matters into our own hands, the topic area will continue to suffer. As far as which admins? Any of the ones that read this page. The Wordsmith 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
If I was you, I'd seek some new admins... I get the feeling there is a good deal of frustration/burnout among the ones who've been adminning this probation up to now. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
That is a good idea. How should we go about doing so? The Wordsmith 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
What about posting a note at AN or ANI? Guettarda (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Not AN/I. I'd suggest posting to WP:AN, explaining the circumstances and asking for fresh input. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I hasve created a new section on the request page for volunteer uninvolved admins to list themselves. If we can get a few of those, it will show editors that we have the staffing required to handle complaints. I'll also post on AN and the Village Pump. The Wordsmith 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be great to get some new admins in here, but that's going to be difficult because who would voluntarily step into this mess and subject themselves ultimately to harassment and insults and constant negativity? As seen in Lar's case, if an admin forms an opinion about editors' bad behavior, all hell will break loose and the admin will be called involved and his applications for stewardship/beaurocrat/arbcom/etc will be undermined, there will be RfC/U's brought against them and they too will be in a position of being unable to enforce in this area too. Even LHVU has been subjected to accusations and requests for desysop, and now Wordsmith is being badmouthed by Connolley for enforcing Connolley's editing restriction. It's just not worth it, but if you can find some admins who are willing that would be great. Alternatively, like Wordsmith suggests, the admins who are already active can be empowered and start enforcing the area themselves, but perhaps there should be some additional parameters about retaliatory actions by factional/POV editors and/or a rule that an admin's actions can only be overturned by ArbCom unless the admin consents to having his actions reviewed by other admins. Minor4th 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think most people see through that sort of retaliation. Personally, I don't care what names anyone calls me. There are some other admins that feel the same as I do. Regarding your last suggestion for overturning an enforcement action, we can all see that arbcom moves at a glacial pace. Therefore, I would suggest thaqt a consensus of admins at this enforcement board should be required to overturn an admin action. One of my first imposed sanctions was overturned this way, and I accept that as a valid consensus. The Wordsmith 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Good point about the glacial pace and good suggestion about overturning admin actions only with consensus. I think that would work well. Minor4th 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
TWS I applaud your initiative in making this suggestion. Minor4th is right, though, one faction has been vicious (in a way that falls within the NPA envelope, mostly... funny that) in attacking admins they don't want enforcing things. I agree with the idea of only overturning actions with explicit consensus. ++Lar: t/c 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I've seen a certain amount of viciousness towards admins from both sides, actually. Don't make the mistake of thinking that this is a one-sided thing - it's not. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Which admins on your side have been attacked as vociferously as LHvU has been (much less myself)? That said, you are technically correct. It's technically not one sided but it's certainly nowhere near 50-50. The playing field isn't level. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
None, since I don't have a "side". -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Nice try. "I've seen a certain amount of viciousness towards admins from both sides, actually." ...OK, name an admin from each of the two sides you perceive then. But I think most here know which side you're on... ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Lar, would you please consider redacting the second sentence of your comment? I really don't think pointing fingers is going to help. The Wordsmith 19:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll consider it, sure. But I don't see my statement as mere finger pointing. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I should think that you need to advise any new admin that there is this ArbCom decision pending, that therefore efforts to re-establish editing norms through the Probation Enforcement request system may - at any time - be rendered obsolete when sanctions, restrictions and special provisions are enacted by the Arbitrators. It might also be mentioned that most if not all parties are practiced at immediately testing the resolve and aptitude of any administrator, and in wikilawyering conclusions. Some pressure, of which a larger or smaller portion may appear to be beyond what is normally permissible, will also be applied to any new sysop, and their actions will be minutely reviewed by all parties to an enforcement request, and summarisations of the individuals pov be made, and also by parties not directly involved. In some instances, third parties will suggest or request that you refrain from further involvement with parties owing to a percieved bias as demonstrated by a willingness to entertain the possibility of sanctions against them. Please ensure that the status of "uninvolved" lasts right up until an admin publishes an opinion. I would also suggest that you note that this is the initial reaction a new admin might expect, and that after this honeymoon period it usually gets a little more intense, but I suspect this might dissuade an uptake of new blood. I think being forthright about the initial phrase will suffice, any who stay beyond the first week or so will simply need support... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for list of formal and informal sanctions since the opening of the Arbcom case

First off, apologies for the repeated delays in finalizing a proposed decision for the Climate Change case. Each of the drafting arbitrators have in turn had to address real-world issues, in addition to reviewing a huge mass of evidence, not to mention the massive discussions on the workshop and dozens of other pages where this dispute has played out over many months. We appreciate the work of multiple administrators who have been reviewing requests for enforcement on this page, and recognize that they have continued to manage conflict in this area throughout the Arbcom case itself. In view of this, I am requesting at this time that administrators please assist us by creating a list of formal sanctions that have been applied within this topic area since 13 June 2010 (when the Arbcom case opened), as well as any informal agreements on behaviour on the part of any editor, whether still in force or expired during the life of the case. Please note that this isn't a request to discuss further these particular sanctions. Thanks for your assistance. Risker (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this redundant with the log? We are supposed to (except for the informal agreements) log all actions here and I think most if not all the data you request is there already... please advise. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, curiously, what I hear periodically from various administrators includes considerably more than appears on that log. Whether that log is incomplete or inaccurate, or administrators have been acting on matters that have not specifically been raised on this noticeboard, or alternately that some administrators believe sanctions are in place that actually aren't in place, I am not sure. Hence the request to get things out on the table. There's no obligation for every behavioural issue to be brought here; people can still be subject to the usual range of behavioural sanctions for policy-based reasons without the specific issue falling under general sanctions, even if the behavioural issue takes place on a CC-related page. Risker (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
To be clear when I said "all actions" I meant those that result from a request here. ++Lar: t/c 21:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Lar. That has also reminded me that we would like to know of page-specific sanctions as well, e.g., pages that required protection or had 1-RR or other restrictions placed on them. Those also might not be discussed here, but those who have been adminning and editing in the area are likely to be aware of them. I've added that below. Risker (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems that what you also might be looking for is whenever any CC article was hard protected from editing and who was editing it at that time. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Risker: I doubt that you will find very many sanctions for the time period specified. A couple months ago (or so) the Climate change probation grinded to a screeching halt as admins waited a ruling from ArbCom. As a result, most RfEs for the past two months ended being closed as stale or the editors worked out the issues among themselves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

List of active formal and informal sanctions

Please provide the following information:

  • Name of sanctioned editor
  • Description of sanction in less than 10 words (e.g., 1-RR limit, page ban from ], blocked for NPA, User agreed not to edit ]—informal sanction )
  • Date and duration of sanction, and whether still in effect
  • Link to the discussion of the sanction/behavioural agreement
  • Also may be included: Any page-specific sanctions, (page protection, 1-RR or other restrictions), with a link (where applicable) to any discussion.
Incidents here taken and reorganized below
Risker, I've had a look at the timeframe requested. The following is what has happened on the CC enforcement page, using the criterion of action taken (warnings, sanctions etc) concerning specific named individuals. I have excluded reports that were closed without action:
  • Marknutley placed on civility parole; still in effect.
  • Marknutley given sourcing parole warning, only avoided block due to staleness of report; still in effect.
  • William M. Connolley restricted from editing others editors' comments for a period of 2 months; still in effect.
There also was a general prohibition on adding or removing tags to articles in the CC topic area, issued a week ago today. No individual editors were sanctioned, however.
Hope that helps. I'm afraid I can't help with page protection or other restrictions since my visibility of the topic area is pretty limited. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any centralised record of what has happened on that score. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Chris, you don't remember that you were involved in at least three of them? I'll help you out by listing the article protections below and the editors who were involved. Cla68 (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, ChrisO, that is exactly what I was looking for. Cla68, thank you for starting the list of article protections below; however, your comment to ChrisO wasn't particularly helpful. I'm just after facts here, and I'd prefer not to have people casting aspersions about each other, even vaguely. Risker (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem, and thank you for reminding Cla68. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Point taken, Risker, and a couple more articles have been added to the list below, one by me. Cla68 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I added below the edit war leading to my protection of Hockey stick controversy in the second week of July. Perusing my administrative log, the only other actions from me that appear to be missing are a couple semi-protections and blocks related to Scibaby. Would you like those included as well? - 2/0 (cont.) 00:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Full article protections

Lawrence Solomon
Hockey stick controversy
The Hockey Stick Illusion (1)
Christopher Monckton
The Hockey Stick Illusion (2)
Michael E. Mann
Robert Watson (scientist)

Individual sanctions

Voluntary

The following users agreed to remove themselves from the climate change topic area between August 5 and August 10:

  1. Kim D. Petersen
  2. ATren (nonetheless commented on a couple of pages)
    Where? ATren (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    , , NW (Talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    The first is not a CC article. The second was clearly marked as a redaction to an obvious BLP vio, in which ChrisO added partisan smears to a talk page. The third I'll concede, though it was in error and if you'd talked to me first I would have reverted. I've just reverted it now. ATren (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  3. Sphilbrick
  4. Polargeo (commented on a few related AFDs after making this pledge)
  5. Cla68
  6. Tony Sidaway
  7. dave souza (On 17 August edited disambiguation page, one BLP, its talk page and related BLPN)
  8. Count Iblis
  9. ScottyBerg
  10. Scjessey
  • GregJackP signed up, but withdrew his signature two days later.
  • TheGoodLocust signed up, but was already under a topic ban that was to expire in November.
  • Zulu Papa 5 said he would not revert pages.
  • William M. Connolley said he would only edit talk pages after first agreeing to not edit any climate change pages, giving a reason that others had been editing talk pages as well.
  • LessHeard vanU said that he would refrain from acting as an administrator in the area
Involuntary
  • Marknutley placed on civility parole; still in effect.
  • Marknutley given sourcing parole warning, only avoided block due to staleness of report; still in effect.
  • William M. Connolley restricted from editing others editors' comments for a period of 2 months; still in effect.
    • WMC blocked for 48 hours for violation of above sanction.

Topic-wide sanctions

  • Article tags sanction added by NuclearWarfare: Addition and removal of neutrality (and related) tags forbidden on August 2 for a period of two weeks. Confirmed by admin consensus. Extended until closure of ArbCom case on August 17 by NuclearWarfare.

Unilateral modification of active sanction

See this. I'm not sure a unilateral modification of an existing sanction is a good idea. Perhaps if there was a consensus for a clarification? I didn't revert it although the thought crossed my mind. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion and consensus is at ANI. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#GSCC_Revision and the preceding sections. I would suggest the discussion continue there rather than here. Dragons flight (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
But their may be uninvolved people there! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the right place ... the question is whether ANI trumps this board. Maybe it does. Maybe specifically asking for consensus to modify this sanction here is the way to go. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)