Revision as of 04:08, 7 January 2010 editGoRight (talk | contribs)6,435 edits →Comments by others about the request concerning JettaMann← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:13, 7 January 2010 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 editsm →Request concerning GoRightNext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 580: | Line 580: | ||
Closed, unactionable per JzG and Sandstein's observations. Please don't use this page as a mere extension of content disputes. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC) | Closed, unactionable per JzG and Sandstein's observations. Please don't use this page as a mere extension of content disputes. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
{{hab}} | {{hab}} | ||
==GoRight== | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning GoRight=== | |||
; User requesting enforcement : ] 16:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|GoRight}} | |||
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : <p> | |||
# Disingenuous wrangling over the meaning of a common acronym (trolling). | |||
# Participates in an edit war on ] | |||
# Accuses ChrisO of stalking and harrassment. | |||
; Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : <p> | |||
# Warning by {{user|ChrisO}} | |||
# Warning by {{admin|Jake Wartenberg}} (transcribed to user talk page by {{user|Tony Sidaway}}): "that further edits of a battleground-like nature will result in sanctions." | |||
# Warned by {{admin|Lar}} "warned not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests, or else they may be blocked without further warnings" | |||
# Warned by {{user|Tony Sidaway}}: "Please as a matter of urgency act to dampen down the hostility and alarm that has been caused by your behavior over the past hour or so. If you do not, I will have to submit a request for enforcement on the Climate change probation page." Response is . Edit summary: "Why? I've met the terms of my agreement and the expectations made of wikipedia editors." | |||
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Anytthing that might stop GoRight rampaging like this. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ''The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a ] of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.'' | |||
===Discussion concerning GoRight=== | |||
====Statement by GoRight==== | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning GoRight ==== | |||
===Result concerning GoRight=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
Revision as of 16:13, 7 January 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.
Request concerning User:GoRight
GoRight warned |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requested(1) I dispute the validity of these sanctions as noted at ANI. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (2) However, in the interest of playing along, the Climate change probation page states the following:
Following the link to disruptive edits we find the following:
It is widely known that ChrisO has been pushing a pro-AGW POV all over the climate change articles over an extended timeframe and he knows that there are multiple editors who disagree with his POV. His summary above clearly indicates that he was aware that others had been objecting to his edit yet he persisted anyway, see "GoRight previously reverted User:Tony Sidaway's edit of the same content: without any edit summary or any explanation or comment on the article talk page." By the above description this is tendentious editing and, assuming that these sanctions are determined to be valid, he should be blocked for 1 year for tendentious editing. In addition, the edit on which he is relying occurred prior to the enactment of these sanctions and so is wholly out of scope for any action against me. I cannot be sanctioned under this probation for behavior that clearly occurred before the probation was in place. HIS edit, however, clearly occurred AFTER the enactment of the sanctions to which he is appealing and so clearly DO fall within the scope of the sanctions. This should be taken into account whether or not the enactment of these sanctions is deemed valid. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by other users
(unindent) I haven't been involved in any of this climate change dispute, but I'm inclined to start quickly blocking any users who continue to start or stoke drama, hostility, or other types of disruptive editing around here. Enough is enough. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to make a note concerning an odd claim that NHT makes: "I am on the absolute opposite side of the climate debate as ". This is bizarre; or show that he is on the skeptic side, just like GR. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; but there is everything wrong with pleading for GR and asking for extra weight by pretending to be on the other "side". William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
GoRight: On tendentiousness... Many people now have opined that you ought to be given a warning and that ought to be that. The very first real request is not the place to throw the book. But I have to say that your digging in and insisting that even a warning isn't justified... isn't making you look good. After this performance, if you turn up here again, I bet some people will want to treat you much more harshly than if you'd said "Thanks, I'll keep everyone's advice in mind" and went off and done that. IMHO of course. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
ResultGoRight (talk · contribs) is warned that further edits of a battleground-like nature will result in sanctions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC) |
Request concerning User:ChrisO
Request Dismissed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The enforcement section is not an appropriate place to push POV. The dog article is under heavy and vibrant climate change discussion and is currently tagged for censorship protocols. Derailing a discussion is WP:DWIP. The fact that the derailer, and apparently only he, finds it to be "levity" is irrelevant. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I would now like to add to this complaint to note that User:ChrisO, a party to - and subject of - the complaint, is actively reorganizing the placement of the complainants (mine) text which has been intentionally ordered by me for maximum comprehensibility. This is irreconcilable with the fair and impartial adjudication of this complaint and clearly designed to evade and shirk responsibility through an initiative of confusion and muddying. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requestedDog is not a climate change-related article and is not under article probation. And I hardly think it's a hanging offence to be flippant in response to your assertion that this
Comments by other users
ResultDismissed Prodego 07:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Unrelated / Supplementary ActionsI've blocked Nothughthomas (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) for 15 minutes for disrupting this process and wasting time. This sort of frivolous wikilawyering will not be tolerated. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC) |
Request concerning Lar
This is not the place to request a block be reviewed, dismissed. |
---|
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. |
Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requestedNope, doesn't work that way. My view of AGW is my own business. I have no horse in this race, except as an admin here to help enforce the probation, and get things off to a good start. N seemed to be doing rather pointy things at Dog, and then was in my view actively disrupting this process by filing a frivolous request, mimicking other people's wording, making wild accusations about rearrangment of text and other disruptive activities. He was warned, responded with intransigence, and got a 15 minute block so he/she would know I wasn't kidding (I did that to SPUI once, long ago, it worked then too). He/she doesn't have to fear adding his views, if he isn't trying to derail matters. GoRight asking for everyone's head isn't going to work to derail this, unless we let it. As always I invite review of my actions, including the block. ++Lar: t/c 05:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by other users
ResultIf this is an issue with a particular administrative action of Lar's, this is not the avenue. The action he took appears justified and appropriate. I encourage anyone with issues to discuss it with him on his talk page, or AN/I. I also encourage those who file requests ensure that they are intended to solve problems not cause them. If not, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I'd propose dismissing this request. Prodego 07:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Tony Sidaway
reverting obvious socks endorsed, avoid terms like SPA, encourage discussion if possible, thanks to Tony for raising matter |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Tony Sidaway
Discussion concerning Tony SidawayStatement by Tony SidawayI believe this edit is in keeping with the intent of the probation because reverts a specific form of edit by a banned editor or an existing editor using a false flag account, that was intended solely to disrupt the achievement of consensus. --TS 05:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comment, Lar. I'm also in favor of discussion with good faith editors such as Pete and reaching compromise on presentation of the facts. In this instance I'm really only interested in the question of whether it is appropriate to revert SPAs on an article subject to the probation. The question of the content I revert to (as long as it's not to a vandalized revision and there are no BLP issues in the revision I revert to) shouldn't matter. But I'd like more opinions on this, because I think that kind of scenario is likely to recur and we should settle it early. --TS 06:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Tony SidawayI'm a bit confused by this request. (as in why you're asking for review) But I did some quick scans. A few observations: There appears to be robust discussion at the talk page of various issues related to the article. In a quick skim I did see this particular topic (under heading Talk:Hockey stick controversy#Richard Muller reaction )... where Tillman, who appears to be the editor who put the material in initially, or at least was working on it prior to the sock's appearance, expresses dismay about the removal. T&P appears to be blocked. (as a Scibaby sock, says the block summary, and Scibaby is known to be pretty determined in pushing particular climate related viewpoints, ), but Tillman seems to be an editor that's been around a while... climate is an area of interest but not the only thing this editor edits. I don't think Tony was wrong to revert the sock, but I'd rather see more discussion at the talk and some compromise reached if possible... leaving in the text for a while wouldn't hurt. But if I understand what Tony's driving at, the sock was, by revert warring this back in, interfering with the flow of conversation on the talk page, where the issue was already being worked. ++Lar: t/c 06:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I consider the use of the term SPA to be uncivil and baiting when used in this manner. It is unnecessarily provocative because it appears to imply wrongdoing by anyone that happens to be a single purpose editor, such as myself. You might as well have called them a troll or a POV pusher as far as I am concerned, and note that I was warned about using that particular phrase above. There is no prohibition on contributing to the project on a single issue and whether someone does, or does not, choose to do so has no bearing on their value to the project. If these sanctions are to be applied even handedly I would ask that Tony be warned that others may find his use of the term SPA offensive and he should avoid it in a similar context. I do not believe any further action would be required since Tony was obviously forthright enough to draw this to our attention himself. --GoRight (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It was a scibaby sock, and is now blocked. You were correct. GR is an SPA so doesn't like the way they are put to the hiss of the world; he'll just have to live with it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Tony Sidaway
I would like to suggest a resolution here, as follows.... that it's considered usually OK to revert obvious socks as Tony did here, (with a reminder to use good judgment about whether the ID is an obvious sock or not) but that perhaps "SPA" isn't necessarily always a good term to use in edit summaries, and that steering discussion to the talk page is to be encouraged whenever practical as an alternative to a bare revert, and that this request be closed with no other action taken (except perhaps thanks and acknowledgment to Tony for raising it on himself). Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Multiple Editors
GoRight warned not to file frivolous or vexatious requests |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Multiple Editors
Discussion concerning Multiple EditorsThis is a ridiculous request, rather pointy and certainly disruptive. How about trying to provide diffs for individual editors. ::rolleyes: Spartaz 09:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC) This request has meaning in regard to WP:Tagteam and the pending ArbCom cases. Admins must take this seriously or ArbCom cases could be required. I suggest the request be focused to a specific group of editors. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Statement by Multiple EditorsComments by others about the request concerning Multiple EditorsPlease make a specific request. General complaints about the state of editing on a given article should probably be addressed in other venues. --TS 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC) GoRight, you probably shouldn't use a template to complain that the template doesn't work right (your Additional comment #2). Your general complaint is not appropriate here. Further, your "Diffs of prior warnings" points to no warning, in fact it references a different warning placed by 2/0, which warning is not based on this probation. Your Additional comment #1 though, where you state a temptation to go in and do some reverting of your own - that's seems worthy of a formal warning for yourself right there. Franamax (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC) This seems a pretty frivolous request with an ridiculously wide scope - "Anyone that has reverted anything that had been previously reverted", seriously? I agree with Franamax above and suggest that discussions about the template should be directed to this page's talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Again 2 cents (i'm going to be bankrupt soon): Anyone who has edited on the climate change related articles should have been able to spot that Tender & Privat was a sock or at least not a serious editor. If you considered trying to enforce this users edits, by reverting them back, then i'd say that there is something wrong - but it is neither with the templates, nor with other users. If there is doubt in your mind regarding whether or not the user is a sock, then gently prod the user on his talk-page, and tell them to engage in discussion. Users coming out of nothing (ie. hardly no edits at all) and diving in by reverting a contested area, no matter what "side" they are on, are not serious editors (yet?). Now do not misunderstand that, they may well not be socks, but the behavior is not acceptable either way, so take them gently by the hand, if in doubt, and help them to take a constructive part of the project. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Frivolous request which, because of GoRight's other time-wasting and WP:POINTy recent edits , probably deserves some kind of block. GoRight is misusing wikipedia procedures and should know better. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Multiple Editors
I believe GoRight should get about 24 hours for WP:POINT violation. Does another administrator concur? Jehochman 14:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Psb777
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Psb777
- User requesting enforcement
- Viriditas (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Psb777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 06:57, 4 January 2010 Edit warring. Psb777 reverts User:Dave souza and restores previous version at 01:41, 4 January 2010 by User:A Quest For Knowledge
- 08:55, 4 January 2010 Edit warring. Psb777 reverts User:Wikispan and restores 01:41, 4 January version.
- 11:27, 4 January 2010 Edit warring. Psb777 reverts User:ChrisO and restores 01:41, 4 January version.
- Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- 09:05, 4 January 2010 General sanctions warning by ChrisO (talk · contribs)
- 06:08, 31 December 2009 Edit warring warning by Viriditas (talk · contribs)
- 02:42, 28 December 2009 Edit warring warning by jheiv (talk · contribs)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Topic ban due to incessant edit warring after multiple prior warnings and acknowledgement of general sanctions.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- In addition to edit warring, Psb777 is currently acting under the radar and placing comments on user talk pages "rallying the troops" and encouraging a battlefield mentality. Viriditas (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Psb777
Statement by Psb777
I think there was no urgency required in determining a sanction here. I did not exceed the 3RR rule. I am not in the habit of edit warring. I have backed off leaving the other editor's version in place. I invited the other party to Talk, and I've been on the Talk page ready to talk where others would agree I have avoided being personal, despite some provocation.
If an impartial observer looked at who was doing the reversions and the edit warring I think s/he would not have indentified me as the culprit. Count the reverts. There has been a lot of gatekeeping going on. And not by me. Why am I singled out?
The upsetting thing about this is that within a very few minutes of the notification of this appearing on my talk page the sanction has been decided upon. Before I had a chance to write this. Or maybe not, maybe you have greater sanctions planned!
But a restriction to 1RR will not impact me. Within reasonable memory I have only reverted more than once on two occasions, I think. And, as I said, always I have left the "war" with the other persons version in place. So, in what way is what I do problematic or disruptive.
Or is this one of those occasions where you say, see, he cannot even see his own bad behaviour, that's what proves we really need to impose a sanction? :-)
No, I know what it is. I've got up a few peoples' noses by being successful in getting a consensus together to make some necessary changes to a seriously lacking NPOV article.
Anyway, let's see what happens next. Maybe by the time I press the save button there will be some description of what I am supposed to have done.
Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Re comment by Ryan: I don't follow, where have I been warned about particular behaviour yet I have continued to do so. No, that's not correct. Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Further comment to Ryan: I think you've been fooled here. ChrisO may have placed a 3RR notice on my page but I had not and did not exceed the 3RRs. In fact I may have only done 2. I'll check. And ChrisO placed an edit-war banner on my page twice but that really should not be taken as evidence of an edit war, look for yourself. You must be aware that a common technique is to allege bad behaviour by others? Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Re viriditus's "under the radar" comment. This truly is ridiculous. I am here under my own name, everything I do at WP is at WP. I don't take part in any off-WP chat sessions. I never ever send WP related e-mail to another WP user. There is no off WP coordination of 3RR avoidance etc etc. What Viriditus says is under the radar is most definitely ON THE RADAR with me. And what is on the radar? Me suggesting to two participants on the Talk page that they actually edit the article. Have a look! Or didn't V provide the links? Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is relevant. I was writing this while Ryan couldn't wait a few minutes before issuing a scanction. Thanks to Troed for his comment Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is where V says I was warned by him/her previously but you'll see, s/he backed off and agreed that perhaps she was wrong. V was fooled here too by ChrisO's placement of an edit warring tag on my page when I had reverted only twice and where I left the page at his preferred version, backing off first. In all fairness, if anyone needed a tag it was him, he having regularly reverted all suggested changes to the FAQ from any user. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the lesson to be learned here is always shoot first. Always be the person to make the allegation of bad behaviour first. Is that the lesson you are trying to teach here.?' Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think however that the lesson to be learnt really is always carefully check allegations of bad behaviour. Now, please lift the sanction so that you can see there is no need to levy one one on me. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This edit is listed incorrectly as a third revert whereas (1) it was to a different version and (2) the edit was discussed with and encouraged by Hipocrite on the Talk page - it certainly felt consensual and nobody complained of a third revert at the time or since, until now. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
can I ask Viriditas if s/he collated the "evidence" or was it provided by someone? Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I obviously can't add. I had thought it was 21 minutes from Viriditas's request to Ryan's imposition of the sanction. No. it was only 13 minutes. Paul Beardsell (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Psb777
- I don't know if this is yet ripe. It appears that normal editing of the article is resulting what appear to be fully agreed-apon improvements. Most of the credit goes to dave souza and Itsmejudith, though I'll take my share as well. While the earlier rote reverting back and forth was of little value, perhaps the example of forward progress by not reverting and instead evaluating consensus on the talk page and responding to the concerns of others demonstrated over the last few hours will work. At the most, warnings for all reverters would be appropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I hadn't realised this was already at this stage, repeating a comment I just left for Veriditas at Psb777's talk page: I'm one of the persons who Psb777 posted at the talk page to. I just want to note for the record that I in no way saw the post to mean anything but a friendly question as to why I was still only editing the talk page. To be frank, I hadn't even noticed the article was even open for editing again before Paul's notice. (And if anyone would ever believe I'd characterize myself as somebody's "troop" they would be sorely mistaken at that). I do however agree, fully, that there's a heated WP:BATTLE mentality over the article in question. It's not one-sided though, and Paul is one of somewhat few who actually participate at the talk page trying to move the article forward instead of just objecting to proposals. Troed (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- thanks for your kind words. You would not have realised, as it was all done with such unseemly haste, during a period where all was happening consensually at the page for the first time in a while, so no hurry, even if you accept the allegation. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Whoa. I just took the time to look at the reverts this is all about. This was a widely discussed paragraph which had arrived at consensus in changing of sourcing. The persons above who deleted it are the ones that should be sanctioned, not Paul who correctly reverted them. There was no support, according to consensus at the talk page, for removing this complete paragraph which was actively discussed with good results. If you care to look at the article in its current state, we've arrived at something that seems to stick. Paul has been one of the persons who've participated in making this happen (and yes, I'm one as well), while in the list of names I see for the editors who removed it is one I can't recall having participated in the discussions at all. This is clearly not how the sanctions were supposed to work, I hope. Viriditas, did you really look this through? Troed (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll additionally go out on a limb (and if I'm breaking some Wikirules I do not know of I'm sorry) and state that if I was an admin, I'd see the sudden appearance and edit of this article, and this specific paragraph, by User:Wikispan as really strange in the context of the article having just been re-opened for editing and no previous participation whatsoever either with the article or at the talk page. Troed (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- ChrisO
I feel must correct some misrepresentations in Paul's statement above. I did not give him a "3RR warning"; I notified him of the article probation, using the template at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Notification of probation, after he (re)added to the article some blog-sourced material concerning criticism of living people (which is of course disallowed by WP:BLP and WP:V). When he expressed an intention to continue reverting, I left a message requesting him to engage in discussion to find consensus and advising him against disruptive editing, as he was opening himself up to to possible enforcement action. I emphasised that I did not intend to submit an enforcement request. I'd hoped to encourage Paul to pursue discussion and avoid him ending up here, but evidently that hasn't worked. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I deny that I added any material in violation of WP:V or WP:BLP. There was no support for that assertion from anyone else. ChrisO has acted as gatekeeper at the article reverting every or practically every edit I (and others) have tried to do. I have always backed off and left his version and invited his participation at the Talk page. I am hacked off that ChrisO's repeated plastering of policy violation allegatios like alphabet soup which typically would go unsubstantiated, that he felt free to apply warnings of poor behaviour ad nauseum on my page without substantiating his allegations. In particular his repeated allegation of disruptive editing against my ongoing struggles to find consensus I found irksome. He continues, above, in misrepresenting the situation, as any person prepared to read the record would soon determine. Paul Beardsell (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- dave souza
- Mixed feelings on this, the enforcement of sanctions to make it clear that edit warring it not the way forward sends a sound message, but it's possible a strong warning or a general imposition of 1RR on the article would have been fairer at a time when Paul Beardsell had settled down to constructive discussion. My initial deletion of the paragraph in question was, in my view, justified as removing inadequately sourced material with clear BLP issues. That did not preclude the introduction of the better sourced version under discussion, but there was no consensus about the suitability of that version. There's a more general issue of a tendency for some editors to fail to assume good faith, but hopefully civility can be improved without sanctions. . dave souza, talk 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- nsaa
Interesting how this works. Here you have people totally disregarding a very well sourced statement as discussed now at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#About_.22trick_to_hide_the_decline.22_.E2.80.93_removing_well_sourced_comments.3F (again). As far as I've seen the at the WP:A/R has said the following about that kind of removals. Restoring "statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand." is just an action to restore a "disruptive" action, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive, so Paul Beardsell should not be sanctioned here. The people removing the stuff is doing the misconduct here as far as I see per the above cited WP:A/R paragraph. I see that they're attacking both the sources and used in this paragraph, since the content is so damaging to their (AGW-)Cause (my interpretion). Feel free to look into this also (Which resemble this case Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Pressmulti_-_removal_of_a_piece_with_millions_of_readers.3F_-_Climategate:_the_corruption_of_Wikipedia and you see the same pattern by the same group of users). Nsaa (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I missed this and I think it's about to close, but I have a serious comment so I'll make it here anyway.
This is the second enforcement request made on this page by ChrisO, and I must say I'm not impressed with either. I suggest that if ChrisO and others editors persistently use the enforcement page prematurely for borderline cases and for what appears to be settling scores or eliminating perceived "enemies" the whole probation is likely to fall into disrepute. I urge the uninvolved admins to be vigilant for such instances, and (as they did in the GoRight case, which was particularly egregious) be prepared to sanction editors who persistently bring half-baked and borderline cases without demonstrating an honest and civil attempt to resolve matters on talk pages. This enforcement page must not be allowd to become a part of the warfare. --TS 00:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- For heavens' sake Tony, please read this properly. This request was submitted by Viriditas. I had nothing to with it and I explicitly told Paul that I was not intending to submit a request about him. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please accept my abject apologies. I don't know where I got the idea that you filed the report from. My general comments still stand though. I think we're in danger of losing the plot if this page becomes part ofthe war. --TS 00:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Psb777
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- As Psb777 has already been notified of the sanctions and has continued to revert, I've placed him on a 1RR restriction on all climate change articles for a period of two weeks. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- That may have been a bit premature, I recommend letting discussion run a bit longer than an hour (Tony's, just above, has run for a day and a half and isn't closed yet) ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- An hour? 21 minutes. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Enforcement requests pages are to alert administrators to behaviour where enforcement may be needed. If any administrator sees problematic behaviour then they are free to act. I have seen behaviour from psb777 which I believe warrents a 1rr restriction and I don't feel the need to further discussion - others are free to discuss my implementation however, hence why I didn't archive.--Ryan Postlethwaite 17:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Concur with Ryan. Prodego 18:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I'm not (yet?) convinced this sanction is warranted. The previous requests we've had here (I know, I know, I'm sniping at the guy who proposed the scheme) had some back and forth and a rough consensus was reached on what to do before things were imposed. I think that's the appropriate approach. If we want folk to accept this regime, it has to be fair and it has to be perceived as fair. So now what? ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Concur with Ryan. Prodego 18:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- That may have been a bit premature, I recommend letting discussion run a bit longer than an hour (Tony's, just above, has run for a day and a half and isn't closed yet) ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to putting the entire article on 1RR instead. But what can't happen is everyone feeling entitled to 3 reverts - there are too many editors for that. Prodego 18:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- That seems a far better approach than where we are now. The more I look at the evidence given above, the more it seems (again, I may be misinterpreting it) that we've got the wrong person in the stocks on the charge of edit warring... sticking 1RR on the whole thing reduces the need to get into back and forth on who did what and why. (3rr is a bright line, not an entitlement, anyway) ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds fair to me - I'll remove the restriction on Psb shortly and put the article under 1RR. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorted? Closable? ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds fair to me - I'll remove the restriction on Psb shortly and put the article under 1RR. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am satisfied with the outcome but still just a little annoyed at the process. It cannot be right to decide an outcome before the accused can even be expected to have seen the notification. 13 minutes! The initial adjudication made it fairly plain the decision was final. I think it is in WP's interests more than even the accused editor. You want someone to feel they've been given a chance to argue their case. Or the chance to say sorry! If that is not understood then it calls the whole process and thereby WP into disrepute. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Maybe we need to take it to the talk page and thrash this out, because this moved too fast in my view. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am satisfied with the outcome but still just a little annoyed at the process. It cannot be right to decide an outcome before the accused can even be expected to have seen the notification. 13 minutes! The initial adjudication made it fairly plain the decision was final. I think it is in WP's interests more than even the accused editor. You want someone to feel they've been given a chance to argue their case. Or the chance to say sorry! If that is not understood then it calls the whole process and thereby WP into disrepute. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Users ought not be sanctioned via this page until they've had a chance to respond, except for egregious situations like threats, harassment or severe attacks. If an editor ignores the notification and continues any objectionable editing, then they could be sanctioned. I also dislike 1RR for articles. That's a major step that should not be taken unless there has been a good, thorough discussion, which has not yet happened here. Jehochman 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree with yourself and Lar on this one... this happened with far too much haste. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hang on, this is a 1RR restriction. People should not be routinely making multiple reverts in contentious areas in the first place. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's along the lines of how I was reasoning above. Prodego 22:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Have you considered that he might not have known? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's along the lines of how I was reasoning above. Prodego 22:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hang on, this is a 1RR restriction. People should not be routinely making multiple reverts in contentious areas in the first place. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
JettaMann
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning JettaMann
- User requesting enforcement
- Hipocrite (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- JettaMann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Blatent violation of WP:BLP - "a Misplaced Pages arbitration committee found him guilty of violating a number of Misplaced Pages rules" - not true. This went on at the beginning of an RFC on the talk page, which has hardly even begun.
- . Over-the-top BLP violation - "I don't think this individual has any notoriety of any kind, other than for being caught for various Misplaced Pages editing infractions. That's pretty much all this page should say about him is that he was a Global Warming activist who got caught gaming Misplaced Pages."
- Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- 10-day block by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with note "I would strongly recommmend when you come back from the block, even if you haven't been banned by then, you should tread very carefully in that area or preferably choose to avoid the field altogether, because if you continue behaving like you did you will most likely incur more sanctions."
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Perminant topic ban, along with ban from all biographies of living persons.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- This is exactly the kind of "user" that makes dealing with these articles impossible.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
Discussion concerning JettaMann
Statement by JettaMann
Comments by others about the request concerning JettaMann
I disagree that second diff violates BLP. This seems like something better handled via a disruption route rather than being specifically related to the Climate change probation. Prodego 18:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a slightly unusual case in that the target of JettaMann's comments is both a BLP subject and a Misplaced Pages contributor. As such, I think the no personal attacks and civility policies are clearly applicable here. The claim that WMC is a "Global Warming activist who got caught gaming Misplaced Pages" strikes me as both a personal attack and a highly incivil comment that displays a battleground mentality - none of which should be encouraged. I would suggest closing this with a firm warning that any further incivility will result in blocks. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
JettaMan was blocked for 10 days by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on December 10 for "disruptive tendentious editing and personal attacks on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident". After the block expired he made one edit, a less than civil comment aimed at User:William M. Connolley, on December 22, before making the edits in question. Guettarda (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with ChrisO; these are incivil and battleground-like edits, though not so problematic by themselves that they require immediate sanctions. A final warning should suffice in this case. (Disclaimer: I have participated in that same content dispute during the past few days, after learning about that article through my OTRS work, though I have made no other contributions to climate-related topics that I can recall.) Sandstein 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Jettamann seems to have a modest but blame-free record of editing on other matters, but severely problematic behavior on the subject of global warming. He was blocked for disruption last month and as soon as he comes back he's already engaging in some pretty serious attacks. I suggest a warning that he faces a topic ban if he acts disruptively again. We could use this otherwise productive editor on other parts of the encyclopedia where his feelings do not overrule his judgement. --TS 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I've sent the following note to Jettamann by Misplaced Pages email:
- I'm contacting you by mail because you haven't edited English Misplaced Pages since 17:34 GMT on January 4th and since then a Misplaced Pages editor has filed an enforcement request concerning your recent edits on the article William M. Connolley and its talk page. A notification was placed on your user talk page at 18:34 GMT on January 4th.
- A provisional remedy has been posted by an admin with a suggestion that you should be given up to 48 hours to respond before the case will be closed. Discussion is ongoing. You could be topic banned from articles related to William M. Connolley.
- Please see the discussion:
--TS 12:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Tony and with the proposal below but there is a small issue of a total non-interaction ban with William as they are more or less bound to cross paths at some point. Could we please clarify whether, if both users happen to turn up to an article, both are permitted to comment on the article content? Guy (Help!) 15:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- They can edit the same articles, but JettaMann should not comment on WMC. Comment on the content, not the editor. If JettaMann is wise, they will put a fence around this restriction and not go anywhere near WMC for a while. Testing boundaries usually ends badly. Jehochman 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Adding: I will take a dim view of any baiting or goading of JettaMann by WMC. When an editor is restricted, others have a moral obligation not to encourage violations. Jehochman 15:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Since I've had absolutely no interaction with this user for longer than I can remember (indeed I can't recall any; anyone care to trawl back far enough to find any such interaction?) I find this "warning" gratuitously offensive William M. Connolley (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am not in any way involved in Climate Change articles. If Jehochman is going to comment here or in other science-related matters (eg WikiProject Mathematics, where he has posted a link to his Masters degree in Computer Science), it might be an idea in future if he made sure that he had some familiarity with the matter on which he is commenting. At the moment his comments give the rather worrying impression that they have been made at random without forethought. This is extremely unhelpful. If he cannot stop this and in addition appears to have his own personal issues with William M. Connolley, then it probably is not appropriate for him to involve himself on this page. More administrators are needed to make these new procedures work smoothly, but not those who cannot stop themselves making comments that are at the same time clueless and offensive. Please redact your comments, Jehochman. Mathsci (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Since I've had absolutely no interaction with this user for longer than I can remember (indeed I can't recall any; anyone care to trawl back far enough to find any such interaction?) I find this "warning" gratuitously offensive William M. Connolley (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree (less angrily) with WMC. We don't ask BLP victims not to have contact with their abusers in other circumstances. If WMC were to start needling this (almost certain never to return) account, there would be no need to warn him at all - just block WMC till he stops. I don't see anything in my (not WMC, who has had zero involvement with this user to date) request asking for anything about WMC the editor, rather William Connolley the Living Person who was defamed by wikipedia in violation of WP:BLP on an article under general sanction. This is not about editor interaction, it's about editing an article disruptively. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, Hipocrite, we (FSVO we) do exactly that. For well over a year now I have been a victim of an intermittent campaign of harassment which has included nuisance phone calls, posting of private data on the internet, visiting my house and posting observations on the internet and so on. This has lost the abuser two ISP accounts, but the police response is to avoid the venues where he arrives to abuse me; in practice this means I am being asked to accede to his demand to stop using several sites and forums because he dislikes my opinions. I was there first, he arrived solely to harass me, but the advice from law enforcement is to walk away and emphatically not to respond to him. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly you live in a backwater country still ruled by a girl. You raise a good point. Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see how either of the quotes provided above are bannable BLP violations. The first - "a Misplaced Pages arbitration committee found him guilty of violating a number of Misplaced Pages rules" seems true. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley found that he used admin tools while involved (Findings of Fact #14) and that he edit warred (Findings of fact #14-1 and #14-3 and Remedy #7). It is a violation of WP:V in that it isn't sourced, but it's hard to argue that adding a true statement to an article once merits a ban. The second is questioning the notability of the subject on a talk page. This is commonplace and, while it is a bit harsh and could be viewed as a personal attack, I don't see how it merits a ban either. Is there conduct other than these two diffs? I am also concerned that disallowing a user to interact with WMC is in effect a topic ban because WMC edits such a wide range of global warming pages. I think the appropriate thing is either a warning or a topic ban of limited duration. Oren0 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The non-interaction provision is clearly not going to be practical if they are allowed to edit GW pages. No one can edit GW pages without crossing paths with WMC and this provision allows one-sided sniping, regardless of whether there is a history of such sniping or not, which is obviously unfair. The sanctions should be symetric in this regards. --GoRight (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning JettaMann
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Provisional result: JettaMann is indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to William Connolley, broadly construed, and interaction banned from User:William M. Connolley. I don't see evidence here sufficient to topic ban JettaMann from all Global Warming pages. The previous 10 day block was immediately followed by personal attacks and violations of WP:BLP, per the evidence cited above. Just because somebody edits Misplaced Pages their biography does not become a free fire zone. Please keep this thread open until JettaMann comments, or until a total of 48 hours have passed from the initial filing, and then log the sanction, notify the user, and close this thread. In this case indefinitely means until suitable explanations, retractions and assurances are provided to ensure that the objectionable conduct will not recur. Jehochman 03:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support all provisions of this proposed result. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also support all of proposal. --BozMo talk 22:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley
Closed as unactionable. Please do not use this page as a mere extension of content disputes. |
---|
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 William M. Connolley
William M Connolley seems to have a major problem with any hint of criticism being in any article which deals with climate change. His mentality is that of a gatekeeper and any dissent must be removed. It is precisely because of actions like his that climate related articles have become battle grounds and wikipedia a laughing stock. I have argued in talk only to have my arguments ignored and changes made against consensus. William M Connolley seems to think he wp:owns all climate related pages and refuses to allow even the most minor changes without his say so. Please excuse any mistakes i have made in this as i have not done it before. Thank you. --mark nutley (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Response to Kim: Kim says i am throwing accusations around, i do not believe i am. I have said WMC broke trust when he edited contested text which broke the agreement here ] He also says he gave up as there was no interest in the edit/content i would like to point out the folowing ] Discussion ends with no replys from you or wmc ] discussion ends with WMC linking to another article and not addressing the actual discussion. ]Discussion ends with me asking for it to actually be finished. Please do not say i have not been produtive i have acted in good faith and the reason the current friction is in talk is due to WMC make edits without consensus --mark nutley (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning William M. ConnolleyStatement by William M. ConnolleyHas anyone actually bothered to look at the diffs MN supplied? leads me to a page entitled "Gnucleus, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". I could perhaps guess which edit he means, but I think it would be better not to guess William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning William M. Connolley
Discussion at the talkpage is basically productive; the edit in question underwent some discussion prior to being enacted, and has since been upheld. The last few talkpage threads and an open RfC deal with issues around the section in question. I have been monitoring this article, and do not see a need for any enforcement action at this time, though all editors should be aware that the threshold for edit warring is extremely low. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The WMC editor's contributions and talk expressed on that page is typical ... many negative (no and not) comments with little offered for a productive NPOV path, then some attempt to change the rules. Marknutley appears to be content stymied by a group of editors owning a POV, and then seeks this request for help. The editor to be sanctioned has been cautioned about this aggressive behavior which essentially is:
Where will it end so Misplaced Pages may proceed to a NPOV without the disruptive editor? With the sanction, Misplaced Pages will see a NPOV once again. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not expect anyone to pile on WMC, that is not my intention. I believe WMC is being deliberately confrontational in his edits and is not seeking consensus as was agreed before page protection was lifted --mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are fixed, i do not know how that happened sorry. mark nutley (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Result concerning William M. Connolley
Closed, unactionable per JzG and Sandstein's observations. Please don't use this page as a mere extension of content disputes. Jehochman 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
GoRight
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning GoRight
- User requesting enforcement
- TS 16:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- GoRight (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
- Disingenuous wrangling over the meaning of a common acronym (trolling).
- Participates in an edit war on Rajendra K. Pachauri
- Accuses ChrisO of stalking and harrassment.
- Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Warning by ChrisO (talk · contribs)
- Warning by Jake Wartenberg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (transcribed to user talk page by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)): "that further edits of a battleground-like nature will result in sanctions."
- Warned by Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) "warned not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests, or else they may be blocked without further warnings"
- Warned by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs): "Please as a matter of urgency act to dampen down the hostility and alarm that has been caused by your behavior over the past hour or so. If you do not, I will have to submit a request for enforcement on the Climate change probation page." Response is here. Edit summary: "Why? I've met the terms of my agreement and the expectations made of wikipedia editors."
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Anytthing that might stop GoRight rampaging like this.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
Discussion concerning GoRight
Statement by GoRight
Comments by others about the request concerning GoRight
Result concerning GoRight
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.